Birdman's Antiwar Page

With special thanks to Tsun for his efforts in constructing the flag poster

 

Opening Quotes:

* Unpatriotic is a smear term designed to make people obey the government.

* Before we get involved in another war -- or continue fighting any of the present ones -- we really ought to ask ourselves: Has there been a war since the War of 1812 that has had the least moral justification? The answer, I think, is a resounding no. The Mexican War was dubious; the Civil War should never have occurred; the Spanish-American War was just an act of stealing land; WW1 was fought to pull the Brits' balls out of the fire when they should never have been fighting; WW2 was fought to support the commies and Jews by an administration which was full of both; the Korean War and the Vietnam War were none of our business; and all the wars since then have been pretty much exactly the same.

* In a sense, the Nuremberg Trials provided an important weapon against government warmongering, because they established that the excuse of 'just following orders' is no excuse at all. This, of course, has the negative effect of thrusting soldiers into the dubious role of moral philosophers, but it has the positive effect of providing a way out of ethical dilemmas for thoughtful men who do not take kindly to military adventurism, the chauvinism of 'my country right or wrong', or -- in the words of Gen Smedley Butler -- "making the world safe for United Fruit".

America a peaceful nation? Wanna bet?

Kill bin Laden!

Kill bin Laden! Kill him good!
And make his minions know
That those who bother Uncle Sam
Will choke while eating crow!

Kill! Burn! Bomb! Strafe!
Spill their guts asunder!
Who's the foe? Gee, we don't know,
But let them hear our thunder!

The smell of blood is what I love
For punishment condign!
I love to hear the crunch of bones --
As long as they aren't mine!

Let's give our boys some lethal toys
And turn them loose to kill!
So what that innocents should die?
They'll be our heroes still!

Kill! Burn! Bomb! Strafe!
Pop their eyeballs out!
Bayonetted babies make
A fearful form of clout!

Twin Towers snuffed by Ay-rabs now?
Who really wants to know?
Let's wipe the greasy muthas out
And really make a show!

We'll use a nuke and make them puke
And burn them all to Hell!
Who needs to have the least regret
When killing feels so swell?

Kill! Burn! Bomb! Strafe!
Rip the scum in two!
What feels good can't be wrong if they
Can't do the same to you!

Now killing isn't really bad
When you're ten miles away --
You can't see piles of arms and legs
Or feel the bloody spray.

Technology is just so grand --
It's great to pull the trigger!
And what a boost it is to know
You've killed another nigger!

KIll! Burn! Bomb! Strafe!
Make them hate us more!
But do take care that they've no chance
To even up the score!

The True Patriot's Manifesto

* I do not believe that loyalty to my country is the same as loyalty to my government. History shows that the levers of power have been controlled by some of the most unpatriotic men in existence, and I am unwilling to call their acts anything else or to honor them in any way.

* I do not believe in attacking countries which have not attacked us, no matter how odious their governments may be. If their people can't organize themselves and fight for their own freedom, why should anyone expect us to do it for them?

* I do not believe that the purpose of the military -- to use Gen Smedley Butler's famous phrase -- is to make the world safe for United Fruit. If companies want to invest outside our borders, let them arrange their own protection rather than expect the US military to bail them out.

* I do not believe that we should engage in military operations without a declaration of war from Congress, and that any such declaration should require a 2/3 supermajority. While I recognize that the President needs to have some flexibility in emergencies, I do not believe that Americans can be properly ordered to fight in any extended conflict without such a declaration.

* I do not believe that Americans should be required to fight under a United Nations flag. American servicemen are pledged to uphold the Constitution, not to obey the whims of a bunch of foreigners, most of whom are either socialists, totalitarians, or have just recently emerged from the primordial Turd-world slime.

* I do not believe that America should be the world's policeman. We can't solve our own problems, so why should we have the right to meddle in the problems of others?

* I believe that if a politician favors war, that he should be in the first assault wave, and that if he votes for war, he should remain in the front lines until the war is over.

* While I do not believe in the draft because I do not believe in involuntary servitude, I believe that any adult citizen who publicly advocates war should be immediately subject to the draft, no matter what his age.

* I believe that all corporations which make significant money off war should have their entire management subject to the draft, and that a substantial percentage of their upper management -- this percentage being proportional to war profits or expected war profits of the company -- should be required to be soldiers in combat.

* I believe that all the monuments we have raised to men who have been responsible for starting wars should be razed, and public toilets built on the remains. These, of course, would include Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes (Hey -- where better to go to the bathroom than in the Bushes?), plus a good many other presidents and congressmen.

* I believe that the first and only responsibility of our military is to protect our country from foreign incursions, whether military or civilian. For this reason, I believe it is a gross violation of both the Constitution and common sense that our southwest border is wide open with Turd-world immigrants flowing in like diarrhea, while our soldiers are off in a hundred different countries protecting opium growers, sheltering Israel, and making the world safe for Afghan oil pipelines.

 

The Problem With Patriotism

First published in The Nationalist Times - Republished in Should Liberals Be Lynched?

To call someone unpatriotic is an insult, and to call them a traitor is to order a knuckle sandwich with knock-worst; and yet I would have trouble in describing myself with the word that denies both these terms, namely, patriot. To explain why, let it first be observed that each person has a hierarchy of human loyalties: First to loved ones, then to the extended family, then to one's community of friends, and then to other larger groups such as one's religious group, city, region, nation or race. It should be noted, however, that not all the elements of this hierarchy are always recognized as objects fit for human loyalty: For example, while the ancient Greeks were loyal to their cities (which actually functioned more like tribes or nations), the thought of being loyal to one's city in the present day -- except, perhaps, in the context of sports teams, whose players, ironically, rarely come from the city -- seems a bit screwball. Similarly, an American's loyalty to his state seems a bit peculiar, tho in at least one case, loyalty to one's region -- the South -- is still widespread even 100 years after the Civil War, when such loyalty was considered patriotism. And of course loyalty to one's race, ethnic or sexual group has a distinctly mixed reception in the present multicultural age, where sometimes race, ethnicity or sexuality is embraced -- usually in the case of minorities -- while at other times it is said to be unimportant or even immoral -- usually in the case of whites, males and sexual normals. The reason for this may not, however, be entirely due to the liberal boosting of the multi-cult; for the very smallness of groups makes their members more valuable to each other in terms of cultural and emotional support, and thus tends to make them stick together in order not to be lost in a sea of others who are unlike themselves.

The reason for the hierarchy of loyalty described above -- and, in particular, for the greater loyalty to those who are personally closer to us -- is that those who are closer command greater personal obligation. For example, the fact that our parents raised and supported us creates an obligation which is far stronger than the obligations which we feel toward casual friends; while the obligation to casual friends -- tho perhaps not strong -- is usually stronger than the obligation we feel toward groups such as our city, nation or race whose members we are mostly unacquainted with. It would be wrong, however, to say that we had no obligation toward such groups; for in fact we are the recipients of many benefits from these groups -- everything from roads and libraries to language and culture -- tho these benefits have been made available to us in an impersonal way which imposes no direct obligation, and we have received them purely as a result of being members of the groups in question. Accordingly, it is clear that we do have some sort of obligation to the larger and impersonal groups to which we belong as a result of the benefits we receive from membership; but this obligation is far more indefinite in extent than the obligations we have to those of personal acquaintance. In fact, this obligation is so indefinite that we rarely hear it even mentioned, except perhaps in the context of war where men are sometimes said to have an "obligation" to "serve their country".

We noted above that some loyalties in the above-described hierarchy are considered odd if not downright wrong. This, it may be noted, is a product of liberal equalitarian thinking, which holds that since all men (and groups) are "equal", the only obligation which one has to any group is the obligation to mankind as a whole. The result of such thinking has led to a movement for regional and world government, and has resulted in such constructions as the European Economic Community, NATO and the United Nations. It should be obvious, however, that the equalitarian thinking which has led to such developments is not only fallacious, but socially destructive, since "small group" obligations do not disappear by the simple act of declaring that "all men are equal" and resolving to "love everybody". What is more, the vaunted equalitarian belief in loyalty to "mankind" is actually the same as no loyalty at all, in much the same sense that a "sexually-liberated" man who says he is "loyal" to his wife and a multitude of mistresses is in fact the exact opposite of loyal.

The problem with the liberal desideratum of "loyalty to mankind" can perhaps best be understood as a sort of mirror-image of what Garrett Hardin called the Tragedy of the Commons in his famous article in Science (13 Dec 1968: 1243) by the same name. Hardin's basic thesis was that, when the land known as the Commons in England was under private control, it was well taken care of, because each owner had a motive (ie, the profit motive) to see that his piece of property yielded the maximum, which it could do only if well-husbanded; but when there was no longer private ownership, and the land was held "in common", it soon became overgrazed and unproductive because the profit motive under "public" ownership provided only the incentive to take what resources one could get without caring for anything. Essentially the same situation occurs in the case where there is a transfer of loyalty from the hierarchy of loyalty of family, friends, nation and the like to "mankind", since it is possible for one to discharge one's obligations to the former by such acts as caring for one's family and defending one's country, but it is impossible in any significant sense to discharge one's obligation to "mankind", with the result that one ceases to discharge any obligation or care for anything at all. It is worth pointing out that the tragedy of the commons explains precisely why socialism does not work: When property is possessed by "everyone" it is effectively possessed -- and thus taken care of -- by no one, while it is abused by everyone.

While it is easy to understand the danger of the liberal siren song for loyalty to "mankind", it is also possible to understand how we may one day eagerly embrace it, eg, if we are attacked by Klingons from Alpha Centauri. But whether or not we experience such an unpleasant fate, we are still faced with the problem of how to divide our loyalties -- or, more precisely, energy -- among the different persons and groups to whom we have obligations. This problem is most acute in time of war, when family obligations may directly conflict with those of one's nation or region, but it remains a problem that can usually be settled only by individual conscience. One particular problem which has seen much discussion in certain quarters for the last half-century is the "dual loyalty" problem of American Jews who also feel a commitment to Israel: While it is well- documented that such loyalty conflicts have been costly to America (the case of Jonathan Jay Pollard is only the most egregious example), we can also see that the conflict-of-loyalty problem is by no means unique to Jews.

The fact that members of impersonal groups such as cities, nations and races have obligations to such groups is (partially) expressed by the concept of patriotism, tho the term is generally restricted to the obligation to one's nation. The reason why the term has come to be used while terms for other sorts of obligations remain to be developed is that patriotism is a concept useful to politicians who wish to encourage young men to fight for territory and booty which will increase the politicians' power, a circumstance which politicians invariably describe in terms of pursuing "national greatness", acquiring "lebensraum", crushing "enemies", or other seemingly-unselfish motives. Politicians, then, attempt to appeal to individuals' sense of national obligation in order to pursue what are often purely selfish motives.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that men go to war only to satisfy a patriotic yearning; for in fact they are probably much more motivated by the prospect of personal gain -- rank, adventure, and "honor", ie, a chest- full of medals which prove their manhood and can be used to impress parents, potential employers, friends, rivals and -- above all -- girls. And of course there are more than a few men who just want to have the experience of blowing somebody's head off.

But if men have an obligation to their nation, does this mean they have an obligation to go to war when the politicians tell them? I think the question answers itself -- after all, politicians may "represent" the nation in some sense, but doing what the pols want is hardly equivalent to doing what the nation wants. Or to put it another way, it is entirely possible to love your country and hate your government. And that's exactly the attitude of a lot of people who call themselves patriots.

And here is precisely the rub: Those who act patriotically in the sense of attempting to fulfill their obligation to their nation or other impersonal group are often those whom the government calls unpatriotic; while those who carry out the politicians' schemes by killing and otherwise following commands without hesitation are those whom the government lauds as patriots.

And that's why I'm uncomfortable being called patriotic.

 

Fighting Johnny Red

From Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides

 

A little more war,

A little more gore,

And what in the hell are we doing it for?

For national pride?

'Cause John Birch died?

Or the Third World hordes that we can't abide?

Or the moneyed men

Who imbibe their gin,

And get rich whether we lose or win?

Or the men with power

Who love to glower,

And scheme to make the whole world cower?

Just give me an answer before you go

To skewer little babies and burn buffalo,

'Cause when you return we don't want to hear

That you're hurtin' inside 'cause we just can't cheer.

*****************

Excellent Antiwar Writings of Others

 

Fred on war and soldiering - Thanks Mlf and Henry

Chickenhawks (current link) - Thanks Joel

Chickenhawks (durable link)

Military dictatorship in the USA? (current link) - Thanks Henry

Military dictatorship in the USA? (durable link)

The speech that put Eugene V Debs in prison during WW1 is still relevant today (current link) - Thanks Andy

The speech that put Eugene V Debs in prison during WW1 is still relevant today (durable link)

A modest proposal for regime change -- in the US (current link) - Thanks Henry

A modest proposal for regime change -- in the US (durable link)

Quotes on War, Intervention and Manipulation

U.S. War Crimes against Iraq

A stunning explanation of the NWO and Iraq (current link) - Thanks Janet

A stunning explanation of the NWO and Iraq (durable link)

Antiwar signs from a recent demonstration

John Kaminski on ghostly enemies and perpetual war

Carl Sandburg's powerful antiwar poem "Grass" (current link)

Carl Sandburg's powerful antiwar poem "Grass"(durable link)

 

Quotes by Other Authors

 

QUOTE: Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy guide to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government:
>
TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family
>
TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God is on his side, and that any means are justified.
US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes God is on his side, and that any means are justified.
>
TERRORISTS: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
US GOVERNMENT: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
>
TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election
US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election
>
TERRORISTS: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings
US GOVERNMENT: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings
>
TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
>
TERRORISTS: Supposed leader has extensive financial ties to Supposed leader of US GOVERNMENT
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader has extensive financial ties to Supposed leader of TERRORIST
>
TERRORISTS: Supposed leader invested heavily in US bio-chemical companies
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader invested heavily in US bio-chemical companies
>
TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

QUOTE: "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." -- Leading Nazi leader, Hermann Goering, at the Nuremberg Trials before he was sentenced to death

QUOTE: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

QUOTE: I regard this man [George W Bush] as a danger, a threat to world peace. He reminds me of one of those characters in Shakespeare's historical plays whose only ambition perhaps is to stand before his father, the old and departed king, and say, 'Look, I have completed your task.' He is determined to bring the first Gulf War to its culmination by launching yet another. Bush Jr is inspired by private, family reasons; he is prompted by hereditary compulsions. The economic interests of the Bush family are also playing a role. The family is deeply involved in the oil business. Political interests and business aspirations, therefore, are finely enmeshed in his war cry against Iraq. The third reason is, of course, the usa's status as the only Almighty Superpower in the world. The superpower wants to control and direct the rest of the world but it knows so little about the rest of this world. It knows almost nothing. This dangerous combination of familial, economic and political interests in this single leader has turned him into a real danger. --Nobel Laureate Gunter Grass, Germany's and perhaps Europe's greatest living writer

QUOTE: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It emboldens the blood, as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war reach a fever pitch, the blood boils with hate, and the mind has closed, the leader will have no difficulty seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all their rights to the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? This is what I have done. AND I AM CAESAR." --Julius Caesar (Caution: Some experts say this quote is bogus; but if so, it is still on the mark.)

QUOTE: Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, winner of an incredible TWO Congressional Medals of Honor:
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something
that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside
group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very
few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation
comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over
here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the
flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
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.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind
to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to
destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
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. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
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, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in
1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). 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.


 

"You have not begun to appreciate the real depth of our guilt. We are
intruders. We are disturbers. We are subverters. We have taken your natural
world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them.
We have been at
the bottom of not merely the last Great War but of all nearly all your wars,

not only of the Russian but of nearly every other major revolution in your
history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your
personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we
shall go on doing it. "--Marcus Ely Ravage, "Jewish Influences", Century Magazine, 1928

Baghdad gets the New World Order -- with fries.

 



 


NUDES NOT NUKES!

*** THE OFFICIAL 'MAKE LOVE NOT WAR' PAGE ***

"Fuck your brains out -- don't blow someone else's out!" --JBR Yant

 

Even Bin Laden Agrees With Us!

Hey, just gettin' a little ass!

*******

Now here's the poop from Germany on Bush's ties to the Bin Laden family. Bushie and Ozzie kiss ass and make out, uh, up.

Get thee behind me, Satan! Aaahhhh!!!

 

* * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * *