Monday, September 25, 2017

War is a Racket

The subject is North Korea.  An interesting conversation at the John Batchelor Show: Gordon Chang, in discussing a piece he wrote at the Daily Beast regarding North Korea and the seeming inevitability of war; I paraphrase the concluding remarks:

Thaddaeus McCotter: let me be sure I understand you: there are means at our disposal to pressure communist China to stop their client state from developing nuclear weapons and generally being a rogue state, but there seems to be a lack of political will [within the US] to do that so instead they are willing to risk American soldiers’ lives to stop him?

I will interject – the number of “American soldiers’ lives” at risk will be a rounding error in this one.  More numerous will be the lives of millions, if not tens of millions of Koreans, potentially Japanese, and depending on how far things go, all of us.

Gordon Chang: that is 100% accurate description of my feelings right now.  The threshold for war is lower than the threshold for taking effective non-kinetic actions in stopping North Korea.

He speaks of taking on the Bank of China, etc.  But American business interests are not supportive of such steps.

McCotter sums it up: from the Leninist / communist China point of view, they believe that greedy capitalists care more about money than the lives of their soldiers, and “God forbid we prove them right!”

The last part, a direct quote, with disdain in his voice.

But he is right. It has always been true. Ask General Smedley Butler.


  1. [More numerous will be the lives of millions, if not tens of millions of Koreans, potentially Japanese, and depending on how far things go, all of us.]

    "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make." - Lord Farquaad

  2. It should be noted that Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" is available from several online sources for free. One need not enrich Jeff Bezos.

  3. It can also be a diversion. And I hope I am wrong about this, but the blather of the Bad Hair Bands combined with Trump's foolish NFL protest comments gets the eyes of the US Media off of the arms buildup of the Kurds around Syria.

    1. That is a great observation. Magicians do that trick of directing your eyes to certain irrelevant actions as they have a slide of hand? The US has not had a segnificant anti-war movement since the 60s, and perhaps will never unless we reintroduce the draft, and reclaim our media.

  4. nice and true:

    "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make." - Lord Farquaad

    During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Americans continued the great tradition of trading with the enemy, and even more readily than before.

    During wartime, a national government lies to the public on a systematic basis in order to keep morale up. Are these lies legitimate? If the lies are legitimate for the sake of morale, and morale was required in order to win the war, and the war is legitimate, then the question of profiteering is one of morale, not one of economics. It is not a matter of who gets rich. It is a matter of who gets rich in such a way that the public's morale remains high, in order to keep fighting the war. This assumes that the war ought to be fought.
    At some point, one side or the other must decide that the war is not worth fighting. It surrenders. Then acts that were legitimate before the war become legitimate once again. People can make profits on peace. But, the fact of the matter is, people were making profits on war, but the profits were concealed. Black marketers went to prison. The big boys got rich.

    away from empire and interventionism and toward a limited-government republic and non-interventionism in the affairs of other nations. That’s the way to achieve a free, prosperous, harmonious, and friendly society.


  5. The American soldiers in Korea as well millions of Asian people in that region will be devastated by a nuclear confrontation between America and N. Korea. But, Trump, and his daughter, McCain, and the rest of war mongers don't care.

  6. Indeed!

    "...The power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the only place of significance where warfare is mentioned in the Constitution. Little wonder this power has been abused. Luther Martin [one of Maryland's delegates to the Constitutional Convention] protested:

    '…the congress have also a power given them to raise and support armies, without any limitation as to numbers, and without any restriction in time of peace. Thus, sir, this plan of government, instead of guarding against a standing army, that engine of arbitrary power, which has so often and so successfully been used for the subversion of freedom, has in its formation given it an express and constitutional sanction….'40

    John Quincy Adams ["prophetically"] predicted the consequences of America’s international military entanglements:

    'America … has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings…. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.… She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors, and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force; the frontlet on her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster, the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.'41

    "Because the framers provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule ever since. Following is a list of the countries bombed by the United States since World War II:....

    From 1945 to the present[2012], the United States has bombed nineteen different countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one of these countries has become a legitimate democracy – not that this would be anything to celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for political gain or financial profit can only be classified as ungodly acts of aggression...."

    For more, see online Chapter 4 "Article 1: Legislative Usurpation" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

  7. BM, have you read "The Bettet Angels of our Nature"? From a libertarian/an-cap perspective too much faith in Leviathan saving the day, but culturally author also points out people, especially Europeans, are turning away from war and violence. I am only about 1/3 through but so far worth reading.



  8. Most Americans are unaware of the POWs that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, alongside their captors.

  9. I no longer am a fan of General Butler:

    1. If your propaganda doesn't disprove what he wrote in the book, what is its relevance?