“We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.” That overlooked sentence from Smedley Butler’s exposé – “War Is a Racket” – hints at the racket’s components, for every successful racket must have beneficiaries who are far outnumbered by the victims. The retired general’s “them” is the 2.8 million American men who were drafted and the two million who volunteered to fight in World War I, and they were “used” by “we” – those who sent “them” there. “We” is the politicians and ‘defense’ contractors who profited from the war, and “them” didn’t, to put it mildly. “We” is an especially odd word to speak when it doesn’t include the speaker, but at least it’s revealing; if someone says “we” while somehow excluding himself, he’s either a beneficiary or would like to be one. But that wasn’t Butler’s style: “I helped make Mexico…safe for American oil interests in 1914.”
Because there’s no draft today, the swindle must be more sophisticated, and the propaganda, more persuasive. But the president of the United States just rendered meaningless even the most aggressive agitprop by telling the truth: “We’re in the oil business.” The U.S. did not invade Venezuela because some say that democracy is good or because others say that drugs are bad; Mr. No More Regime-Change Wars kidnapped a foreign dictator to help make Venezuela safe for American oil interests, and he used Delta Force to do it. Everyone in the military swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” but as the elite operators just proved, those in the military are just mercenaries who, far from serving their country, serve only our corrupt government. They were duped, as is everyone else who, under the guise of serving their country, signs up to instead serve the world’s foremost criminal enterprise.
But what’s worse, being used or being persecuted? Have you heard of Operation Vigilant Eagle? This operation, headed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, tracked veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and characterized them as extremists and potential domestic terrorists. Yes, after the government used the most patriotic Americans who wanted only to serve their country, the government then deemed those Americans to be a threat to their country. Those in power have a tendency to despise any obstacle to accumulating power, so it’s no secret that most American politicians despise the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which explicitly tells the parasites what they are not allowed to do. The theory of serving one’s country has been thoroughly debunked by what occurs in practice: serving means performing as a political plaything for a corrupt regime or being branded a terrorist by the very same regime for following its corrupt orders.
America is in a precarious predicament, as it’s the country with the strongest military and the country with the strongest gun rights. Its politicians hate the founding documents that have helped make the country what it is, and those who join the military are implicitly telling the parasites, “we’re here to ensure you abide by the Constitution”; therefore, the regime must maintain a global empire, which kills two birds with one stone: the regime keeps its greatest enemies abroad, and the regime uses its greatest enemies – American servicemen – to enrich their own interests, not those of the country at large. If all of America’s foreign bases were closed and all of their American inhabitants brought home, there’d be a revolutionary war, as these patriots would be far less likely to tolerate our corrupt government. So, for the regime, it’s better that the patriots die ‘serving’ their country – in a foreign country – than be at home doing what they swore to do.
The military should do what everyone in it swore to do: defend the Constitution against all enemies – foreign and domestic. If that were to happen, there’d be no justification for anyone to be stationed abroad and, therefore, no justification for standing armies. As that will likely never happen, what can we do? So that those in the military are no longer used and abused, glamorizing military service must end immediately. Your author is not suggesting that those in the military should be disparaged, as they joined it believing that they were doing good; I’m suggesting that parents tell their children that joining the military is a lousy idea. Have your children read “War Is a Racket.” And what if the call to serve one’s country proves irresistible? Consider the Coast Guard and Border Patrol, which seem to be the only justifiable “standing army,” as their job is to defend our borders, not invade others’ borders. Our government sickens me, and if you’ve made it this far, you probably feel the same way. Why would you choose to serve a government when those in it quite literally hate you?
Casey Carlisle writes in the Pacific Northwest. He posts on X at @UncleNAP.
