Hacker News Reader

Comment by loewenskind | Hacker News Reader

>It is also increasingly clear that the U.S. taxpayer is funding a vast array of clandestine activities of which they are only dimly aware

Increasingly clear? This book was published in the early thirties [1]. This has been totally clear for decades for anyone who cared to look. The quest is; what (if anything) can be done to make people care what the government is inflicting on other peoples in their name and with their money?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

View on HN

You've already made the point that I'm about to make. That book is from the 30's, it hasn't made the best seller lists in decades; nor am I aware if it's required reading for most classes.

People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks.

People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks

Is there really a lack of suspicion of intelligence agaencies going about? Roughly one out of every three movies currently being made is something about the US Government being secretly involved in dodgy clandestine activities. How many movies have the "twist" that the real bad guys turn out to be some corrupt US Government official?

Want to make a short list? Count up the number of movies where the CIA is portrayed in a positive light. Even the latest James Bond, a series which has been refreshingly positive in its depiction of the Western intelligence agencies, had the CIA as the bad guys.

Ask people what they think of the CIA and you'll find that they have an image much more Jason Bourne than real life.

No, thats just in the movies. That stuff doesn't happen in real life. Jeez. Get a grip. Its the movies! You gotta learn to tell the difference between reality and fantasy buddy. What are you, a leftie conspiracy nutjob?

At least, thats the response I get around here from people.

Thanks for pointing out this book. Its a very interesting read. Direct link to the online version of the book : http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

I was going to question that idea too. That book you just brought to my attention is amazing. A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow.

> A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow.

Why are you surprised at such stuff from the 30s? (There's similar stuff from the 1910s, the 1890s, 1860s and even that wasn't novel.)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was of the mind that the 30's were a poor time for a person to speak out against their government, with reprimands handed out in full. Maybe, because that is my impression of today's reality and I am projecting that onto my vision of the 30's.

Remember, there was a huge strain of aggressive pacifism in the US in the 1930s, which is how the US stayed out of World War 2 until 1941. Come to think of it, there was a pretty huge strain of aggressive pacifism in England as well, which is how Hitler got as far as he did.

The 1930s was pretty much peak hour for pacifism. We'd just had World War 1 to remind us that war was a terrible thing, and hadn't yet had World War 2 to remind us that war wasn't the worst possible thing.

One could argue that the more popular pacifism gets the more likely war becomes, but it would be overly trite and based on an insufficient sample. It's a good line though.

I'm not so sure about the Aggressive Pacifism. From the Wikipedia article about the book --> The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese. "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

Well, I didn't say that everyone in the 1930s was a pacifist. Obviously plenty of people weren't.

Wikipedia on 1930s pacifism: The British Labour Party had a strong pacifist wing in the early 1930s and between 1931 and 1935 was led by George Lansbury, a Christian pacifist who later chaired the No More War Movement and was president of the PPU. The 1933 annual conference resolved unanimously to "pledge itself to take no part in war". "Labour's official position, however, although based on the aspiration towards a world socialist commonwealth and the outlawing of war, did not imply a renunciation of force under all circumstances, but rather support for the ill-defined concept of 'collective security' under the League of Nations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com