[A-List] I Learned About Flying From That...

[Omahkohkiaayo_ipoyi <omahkohkiaayo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Learned About Flying From That... 

Flying magazine, which has been around a long time, has a feature called "I
Learned About Flying From That". Each article deals with a flight situation
(hanger stories) from which lessons were learned and what those lessons
were. In my own case, as a pilot over 40 years, I am here and able to write
this partly because of what I learned in some of those articles I read;
lessons that helped to get me out of some tight and potentially fatal
situations. 

Well the same applies in struggle, There are lessons to be learned that may
help reduce costs, avoid mistakes and even losses of lives. That is what
Stan Goff is trying to do at his Insurgent American. Practical tips and
lessons, principles,  sources, data, heads-ups, pithy quotes, legal
principles and tactics--weapons for effective struggle--that increase
scope, depth and effectiveness of outreach and debate and thus overall
resistance to that which literally threatens the survival of this planet
and all lifeforms. 

In my classes I have many veterans as well as active-duty military. The
first moments of all my classes they all get "the treatment" so that they
are all fully informed as to what to expect in terms of diversity of
thought allowed and encouraged so they can make an informed choice to stay
or leave. 

I do this by posing a question: "If someone hands you say a textbook, with 
no title or author on it, how would you go about figuring out the
ideological biases and rhetorical (persuasion) intentions of the author
without reading any of the  MAIN content of the book? ". Most answer going
to the preface and others argue that is still part of the main content of
the book. 

Then I get to the index. What is the purpose of an index? It is to give a
quick  reference to pages where different concepts, names, terms etc are to
be found? Yes. But an index is even more revealing in other ways. An index
also reveals what is NOT in the main content of the book and that is quite
revealing of the paradigm and likely rhetorical intent of the author and
publishers. 

So I ask: "Please give me page references for the following concepts"  and
I have a long list: Commodification, Imperialism, Racism, Sexism,
Homophobia, Colonialism, Karl Marx, Monopoly Capitalism,Unconscionability,
Primitive Accumulation of Capital, Feudalism, Slavery, Communalism, Social
Structures of Accumulation, Social Darwinism, Eugenics Movement, Skull and
Bones, Power, Enron, Council on Foreign Relations, Genocide, Fascism,
Indigenous Peoples... 

I ask: "Does anyone disagree with the proposition that all of these things
mentioned, or at least the ones that you already know something about, have
something to do with economics and economics has something to do with them?
No one disagrees--not publicly at least. 

Then I lay it out that some may well have for them, as they define it, a
better experience somewhere else. If anyone does not like hearing, or
hearing about, ideas, opinions, paradigms, data etc that are different
from, and perhaps even challenge, their own sacreds, then my class may not
be for them. All ideas are welcome but  all "thought experiments" will be,
like any experiments, tested by attempts to refute (nullify) them with
counter evidence, counter reasoning, counter sources and counter anecdotes
etc. I tell them if you hear something you disagree with, then don't just
sit there in the passive-aggressive-pissed-off position simmering, because
you just heard something you didn't like or agree with but perhaps you lack
the courage and/or prepration and/or dedication to your own particular
sacreds to take it on. If you are worried about your grade suffering
because of your expressed opinions, now you are making an assumption about
my character and integrity, and then this is definitely not the place for
you. This is all also spelled out in my syllabus so that no one can claim
they were not fully warned that my class is not Capitalist Triumphalism 101
or America Uber Alles 101 or Homo Oeconomicus 101 as is commonly the case
in "mainstream economics". 

Now imagine after all that one of my students was an active duty (working
with a Reserve unit) Sergeant Major in the U.S. Marine Corps whose medals
showed heavy duty combat and sacrifice. A very quiet man, very studious,
made few comments but took diligent notes. Now what, in some people's mind,
what would the common stereotype be: A Jarhead? A Redneck? Southern "White
Trash" grateful for the "home" the USMC gave him?, Not much "formal
education"?  All wrong except for his being from the South and White. 

Well this Sergeant Major approached me after the class had been going for
about 8 weeks. It was an Intro to Economics 101 at night. For me I love
teaching the basic courses where people are getting their first taste of
economics. He said to me: "Could I ask you a big favor?" So I said "Well if
I can, and it does not violate my principles." He laughed. He said "I work
with a Marine Reserve Unit across the river and we have to put on, as a
requirement, some kind of cross-cultural sensitivity training for a certain
amount of hours per year. Could you do two hours on Native American ways of
thinking and customs and perhaps something about famous Native Americans in
the USMC?" 

I said "Well there is no such thing as "Native American" whatever; we are
different Nations with different languages, etc But yet there are some
common denominators." I also noted, with a smile: "If your purpose is for
me to give you information on how best to get potential recruits from
Indigenous peoples, then... " He laughed and said no. "We just want you to
to expand our knowledge and horizons." I then said to him: "You have been
in this class eight  weeks, are you sure you want me speaking to your unit
with your Commanding Officer present? This might do for your career what
JAWS I,II,III did for ocean bathing." I told him I would have to discuss
the proposition that genocide was committed and is being committed against
Indigenous Peoples and he said whatever you want to say..

Well of I went to give my talk to this Marine Corps unit with a bunch of
officers, and a full-bird Colonel present. The first hour I talked about
"holistic thinking" versus linear thinking and how what may appear to be a
strong point in linear thinking terms, turns out to be a major weak point
when viewed "holistically" and strategically. I talked about famous
Indigenous Marines like Ira Hamilton Hayes  who was one of those who raised
the flag at Iwo Jima and wound  up after the war back on the Rez were he
died in a ditch from alcoholism and hypothermia. I noted that like so many
Vets, he had been used up and thrown away and that the death certificate
should have read as cause of death, " Genocide". 

Now in the Marine Corps, there is one icon no one will dare try to trash:
Maj General Smedley Darlington Butler, twice a winner of the Medal of
Honor. Every Marine learns in bootcamp about the "Marine's Marine" Genral
Butler. Actually they learn only some aspects of the life of General
Butler. Actually General Butler won the Medal of Honor three times, but
once, in 1905, it had to be rescinded because then officers could not earn
it until 1914. The Marines did not know this. Then  I gotinto the "Warrior
Code", which is like "Semper Fidelis" (Always Faithful") and asked: "But
that begs the question: "Faithful to what?" And they all answered first
"Traditions of the Corps" and then,"The Consitution". I asked "How about
the Commander in Chief?" They answered "only if he gives 'lawful orders';
our allegiance is  to The Consitution and the Laws, the chain of command
and all LAWFUL orders of our superiors but not to any person as a person." 
I knew I just hit a goldmine.

I also did ask "Since unlawful orders can be given, and should not be
obeyed, in an essentially lawful (according to international law) war, can
'lawful orders' be given, and should they be followed in an unlawful
(according to international law) war?" That one went by the wayside with
the notion that they are not in a position to determine if a war is lawful
or unlawful. 

I then went into the 1934 plot to overthrow FDR. This involved  a
conspiracy to  overthrow FDR and the Government of the U.S. and replace him
with General Butler as a sort of figurehead to mobilize veterans as shock
tropps and to set up and run a fascist regime over America.  They wanted
General Butler because he was charismatic and beloved by rank-and-file
troops whereas the alternative, Douglas MacArthur, was hated because of his
arrogance and slaughter (against orders of Herbert Hoover the Commander in
Chief)of "Bonus March" WWI veterans in 1932. I showed how General Butler
pretended to join the conspiracy and sucked the plotters in only  to blow
the whistle on them publicly and stop the facist plot from being completed.
I also passed along the History Channel's program on it Called "The Plot to
Overthrow FDR to show that this is covered even in the "mainstream".

Of course none of them had ever heard about this. I noted that you can see
General Butler was a greater hero than most people know because when it
came time for "Semper Fi" he stood up against a plot to overthrow the
government and set up full-blown fascism in America. I also pointed out
that among the plotters, many tied-in with the "America First"
isolationists and the German-American [Nazi] Bund, all were let go and not
prosecuted because if this were known, it would have ripped the nation wide
open. Among the plotters were: General Douglas MacArthur, the Duponts, JP
Morgan Co, Commitee for a Sound Dollar, American Liberty League (with
Bushes in it), Skull and Bones, John Davis, Al Smith, etc. 

Here are some of the points and sources I raised: 

1934 Attempted Overthrow of FDR Government and Replacement with a Fascist
Dictatorship (Foiled By Maj. General Smedley Butler). Note, in addition to
the Duponts and various other industrialists in the American Liberty
League, George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush and other Skull and Bones
members were intimately involved in the plot. 

[At about the same time the Du Ponts were serving the Nazi cause in
Germany, they were involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the United
States government. ] 

"Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors," in early 1934,
writes Higham, "certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d'etat that would
overthrow the President with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of
terrorists . " The object was to force Roosevelt "to take orders from
businessmen as part of a fascist government or face the alternative of
imprisonment and execution. . ." 

Higham reports that "Du Pont men allegedly held an urgent series of
meetings with the Morgans," to choose who would lead this "bizarre
conspiracy." "They finally settled on one of the most popular soldiers in
America, General Smedly Butler of Pennsylvania." Butler was approached by
"fascist attorney" Gerald MacGuire (an official of the American Legion),
who attempted to recruit Butler into the role of an American Hitler.--R.
William Davis, "The Elkhorn Manifesto,"July 4, 1996] [Butler exposed the
plot in a famous press conference to the public.]

[If one were to look closely at the past 58 years, one would be hard
pressed to  find a single U.S. military or C.I.A. intervention that has
brought us one iota  of safety, or, for that matter, that has actually been
done for national defense purposes.] As Butler illustrated in 1933, and it
is even truer now than then, the U.S. engages in interventions meant to
protect the interests of the powerful and wealthy of our nation and our
allies, and rarely, if ever, in order to actually protect its
citizens.--Chris White, "Is War Still a Racket?" CounterPunch, January 9,
2003] Charlie Liteky, "An Open Letter to the U.S. Military: Congressional
Medal of Honor recipient addresses U.S. forces in Iraq," Veterans Against
the Iraq War, May 7, 2003 John S.D. Eisenhower, "War Turned Eisenhower Into
a Pacifist," International Herald Tribune, June 6, 2004 

Then I closed with this excerpt of speech from General Butler in 1933: 

War is just a racket. I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect
some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should
fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of
Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. It may seem odd for
me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to.
I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a
member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I
served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General.
And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class
muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. I
suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.
Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service.

My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the
orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military
service. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I
helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light  to the
Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped
to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.During those years,
I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back
on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he
could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three
continents. 

I had a great time with these Marines and they had a lot of guts just to
sit and listen to what was presented to them. They all got the message I
believe, that when push comes to shove, The Constitution to which they
swore allegiance, does not sanction fascism or anyone trying to use them to
bring it about. I noted that  The U.S. Constitution can be nefariously
used, under various pretexts, as was the case with the Weimar Constitution
in Germany, to bring about Fascism and its own negation; that, General
Butler understood well, was part of what "Semper Fi" is all about. 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL