The Wealth, Power, Government, People, Prestige, Politics, and Society, of the Noble Kings and Court of the Ancient Regime

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Paganism and Noblesse Oblige

http://www.cauldronfarm.com/asphodel/articles/paganism_and_noblesse_oblige.html

Or What's with This "Lady" Thing Anyway

Every year, I see more and more people in the pagan community with titles like "Lady Chickenspider" or "LordWolfiepoo", or whatever. According to a British pagan friend of mine, this is strictly an American thing. Over there in the islands, where there are real, actual people with a legal right to the Lord and Lady and Earl and Duchess sort of titles, they don’t have the same kind of fascination that they do over here. On this side of the Atlantic, America’s insistence on equality for all - in the sense that we are a nation of peasants with no nobles - makes nobility seem like tantalizingly forbidden fruit.

I can understand the impulse, just as I can understand the other impulse, however foolish, that keeps us pulling things like our "traditional" robes and clothing and aesthetics out of the European Middle Ages, a time famed for its persecution of anyone not of monotheistic origin. (Let’s get it straight, folks, once and for all; nearly all medieval people were loudly, devoutly, Christian, and highly xenophobic.) Yet even with this in mind, the images still haunt our collective unconscious, where they have taken on a dreamy glow, nothing like the grittiness of their actual era. And it’s not just because far too many of us came out of the SCA, either.

Still, I am made nervous by the idea that anyone can slap on a title of nobility at will like donning a hat. It’s not that I am against using such titles to show honor to someone, but let’s face it: titles that have legal usage today don’t just get slapped on by anyone who feels like it. You can’t call yourself a captain or a lieutenant or a president without being either involved in the military or political system, or being part of an organization that has adopted such ranks and voted you into them. Well, you can, but it’s kind of like calling yourself Napoleon for all the good it does.

And sure, you can get together three or four gullible sycophants and suggest to them that they call you Lady or Emperor or Grand Poobah or whatever, and the pagan community is full of these sorts, but you will not get any respect from anyone outside of that group, especially if it doesn’t look like you actually did anything to get that title besides conning a bunch of gullible friends. I belong to a pagan group of about thirty people, and I hold a leadership position in that group that I was chosen for by those people, and it gives me a title. However, I do not sign my name with that title on any correspondence outside of our own small group; nor do I expect anyone outside of my group to honor me with that title.
At any rate, I hold my title as more than just something I’ve earned. I hold it as something that I’m earning every day, and should I ever cease my efforts, I will become unworthy of it. How does one earn such a title? Well, since what we’re talking about is "reclaiming the spirit" of medieval nobility, while leaving the gritty reality behind, then we must also reclaim the spirit of the concept of noblesse oblige, which is something I think most Americans have a lot of trouble with.

I’m all for reclaiming the spirit of traditions, as long as we are careful to know thoroughly what we are reclaiming, and what we aren’t. Nobility in medieval Europe was, first and foremost, a matter of breeding and bloodlines. In other words, you were a noble through accident of birth, not any personal worth on your part. Sure, some people were given titles for their service to various higher nobles, but those titles were then passed on to their children, who might or might not be the people that you’d want to be in charge of your welfare for even a minute. In many ways, they were no better than peasants, starting border wars with each other, slaughtering serfs, etc. By the time the feudal system was well entrenched, bloodlines had become the mark of nobility, and the people who were in charge weren’t there through competence or ethics. And they were really, really hard to fire. Generally this was done only over a dead body - yours or theirs.

So medieval Europe, in an attempt to "shape up" their accidental leaders, came up with the concept of "noblesse oblige", and tried to guilt-trip European nobility into following it. The concept was sung about by troubadours, written into poetry, and paraded in pageants. (We all know the pressure that media can put on people.) Some nobles strove to uphold it, and some ignored it; since it was hard to fire them, there wasn’t much penalty for dismissing it except for peer pressure.

The concept of noblesse oblige basically goes like this: If you really believe that you are superior to most other people, then you have a responsibility to be a full-time 24/7 role model for them to follow. Your behavior must be as good as you can make it, all times, because you are being Watched. You are not allowed the luxury of acting like a jerk, at all, ever. You can get angry, but you must channel that anger into considered actions that do not have fallout onto the innocent. You must be gracious, even when people are being rude or obnoxious to you, because to stoop to their behavior - even for a moment, even if you think they deserve it - would be unworthy of you, and make you no better than them. Of course, treating the peasants in such a way that makes it clear that you think them inferior - being snooty or haughty - is also classed as bad behavior and is unworthy.

Already, I can hear some people bridling, and I’m not even done describing it yet. Some of you are probably really offended at the idea that one could strongly feel that one is superior to the great mass of people out there. I can see how it’s offensive; I thought that it was offensive for years, and I was ashamed that I felt that way, and no matter what I did I couldn't shake it. It was my secret vice. Embracing noblesse oblige, however, changed everything. It put that vice squarely in the service of humanity, along the same lines that an obsessive-compulsive person learns to channel their urges into helping to better the world. When I embraced this concept, I suddenly had so much more patience with people that had heretofore irritated me. If I could think of rude, obnoxious, weak, or stupid people as "just peasants", and myself as a quiet role model rather than a criticizer (which is bad behavior), then suddenly I could deal with them in a friendly way, with my discipline of graciousness in place. They became noticeably more relaxed around me as well, and my circle of friends grew rather than shrank.
I say "discipline of graciousness" because that’s what it feels like - something that you constantly, consciously work towards on a daily basis, perfecting it until you rot in the ground. It’s not that I can’t gripe or bitch, but I save that for my "peers" - people who are also nobility by my definition, meaning that they also follow the concept of noblesse oblige. (My wife is one, and she is my equal, so we always have someone to bitch to.) Because we are none of us perfect, we can only strive for the goal, and sometimes we fall short, and then we make amends. If the idea of 24/7 public graciousness makes you flinch, then maybe you’re not cut out for the tin hat and you should just stay a peasant, with all the freedom in the world to be rude and nasty, because no one’s stopping you.
Built into the concept of noblesse oblige is the concept of "largesse". If you have "more" of something than most people - be it land, resources, money, patience, sanity, clarity, knowledge, extra food, skills, or whatever, then you are required to share it. The more you have, the more you should be giving. You are judged by your generosity. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you need to empty your house for every homeless person that comes by. When and who and how much to give was already worked out centuries ago.
Your first duty is to the people who owe you fealty. These are the folk who have given you an agreement, either verbal-and-in-the-presence-of-witnesses, or written, to render you certain services, which you can negotiate however you like. For pagan leaders, this would be your immediate group members, who have probably agreed to do *something*, even if it’s only to show up and bring the incense, or whatever. Part of the agreement between a lord and a vassal - meaning someone who "has" and someone who "has not", whatever that might be - is that the lord will give as much of whatever he "has" that he can give without bankrupting himself, and in return the vassal will render other agreed-upon services. (Yes, this does require good rules and negotiating up front, but boundaries are another thing that we as a culture need to work on anyway.) If one party or the other breaks their part of the agreement - i.e. if someone decides they aren’t getting their efforts’ worth in return - then the contract is defaulted on, and must be renegotiated or tossed.
Beyond that, you as a noble are required to give generously to people from whom you get nothing, as charity, again not so much that you bankrupt yourself. (This goes the same whether the commodity is money or time or patience.) Erring on the side of bankruptcy makes you incapable of doing your job. Erring on the side of greed makes you unworthy of your title. You have to decide how much you can give and still have enough for yourself. Remember, you are setting an example - of fair boundaries as well as generosity.
Often, you can tell the real modern nobility by their generosity and graciousness without even trying. Everyone knows someone like this - they’re the ones with a "court" of people, some of them strays that they’ve taken in and succored, some of them folk who are just drawn to their homespace and warmth, be it a grungy apartment in an inner city. Some "nobles" are dead broke and pay their largesse in comfort and advice and hot soup and brake fixing.
The third part of noblesse oblige, beyond graciousness and loyalty, is honor. This is, very simply, walking your talk. Giving one’s word, and then keeping it, gives you personal power. A noble’s word should mean something strong. Don’t give it if you know you can’t keep it. Don’t refrain from giving it just because it’ll be a challenge. If you are forced to break it due to circumstances, do something to make the situation right, immediately. Apologize when you’ve done wrong, the second you see it. That’s hard for everyone, so try apologizing like this: "That was unworthy of me. I am sorry that I slipped, and I will endeavor not to let it happen again." I’ve often judged someone’s nobility by how they apologized.
In the actual medieval era, like today, people did not give themselves legal titles. They were given by either a central authority (king or government) or by the acclaim of the people. Since we pagans have no central authority, the acclaim of the people is our only claim to them. If you want to be honored as a "Lord" or a "Lady" or whatever outside of your own small group - and if you sign your letters or introduce yourself that way, then you’re strongly implying you want acclaim from the rest of us as well - you’d better start following the rules of noblesse oblige, or you won’t be taken seriously.
As for the rest of you, all the folks without titles (or the need for titles), you now know how to judge us properly. Is this person gracious? Are they loyal to their own? Do they give generously, of whatever they have? Do they keep their word, walk their talk? Do they model the behavior that they’d like to see from others, without chiding others on falling short? When you talk to them, do you feel as if you’ve been bathed in a warm spotlight - the King’s or Queen’s aura - or chilled by cold haughtiness? If you wronged them, could you be pretty sure that their response would not be a matter of petty vengeance, but public fairness?
Obviously, since we are not keeping the bloodline and inheritance part of the package, and since we can actually fire our nobility - if only by voting with our feet and walking away, leaving them with an empty title in exile - then everyone with a noble title needs to understand the seriousness of what they’re doing. As Gwydion says in Lloyd Alexander’s "Taran" series of children’s fantasy, "Say not so much ‘royal blood’ as ‘noble worth’."
A title is like an invisible crown. It carries responsibilities - tons of them. Heavy ones. Crowns are a burden, and that burden comes from centuries of archetypal ideals from the collective unconscious. Being "Lady something" forces you into the archetype of nobility whether you like it or not, because it’s a public title, and public titles always come with archetypal baggage and expectations. If you fail at the archetype, you will be perceived as the "other" noble archetype, the "tyrant", which is perilously close to the worst demon in the human mind. In other words, if you’re not up to the weight, don’t put on the trinket.

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Aristocracy by Paul Elmer More

The demagogue paints himself. In a word you may know him by this single trait: he is one who, in the pursuit of the so-called rights of humanity, has a supreme contempt for those

Unconcerning things, matters of fact;

Leaders there will be, as there always have been. Leaders there are now, of each class, and we know their names. We still call the baser sort a demagogue, and his definition is still what it was among those who invented the term: “a flatterer of the people.” Or, if that description seems too vague, you will recognize him as one who unites in himself enormous physical and mental activity, yet who employs these extraordinary talents in no serious way for the comfort and sustenance of the higher life of the imagination, but for running about restlessly and filling the public mind with stentorian alarms. He is one who proclaims ostentatiously that the first aim of government “must always be the possession by the average citizen of the right kind of character,” and then, in his own person, gives an example of identifying character with passion by betraying a friend and malignantly misinterpreting his words, as soon as that friend may be decried for balking the popular will–and balking the path of the decrier’s ambition. He is one who has been honoured as the leader of a great political party, and then, as soon as he is dethroned from its leadership, denounces that same party as the tool of privilege and the source of corruption. He is one who, in proclaiming the principles of this new party, has constantly on his lips the magical word “justice,” which he defines by the specious phrase “equality of opportunity,” yet in the end identifies justice with the removal of all checks from government, to the end that the desire of the majority may be immediately carried out, whether right or wrong. For “it is impossible to invent constitutional devices which will prevent the popular will from being effective for wrong without also preventing it from being effective for right. The only safe course to follow in this great American democracy is to provide for making the popular judgment really effective.”

To this end our exemplary demagogue would take away every obstacle between the opinion of the moment and the enactment of that opinion into law. Hence the initiative and referendum. Above the legislators is the Constitution, devised in order that legislation upon any particular question may be made to conform essentially with what has been laid down on deliberation as the wisest general course of government. It is a cheek upon hasty action, and implies a certain distrust of the popular judgment at any moment when passion or delusion may be at play. Therefore our demagogue will denounce reverence for the Constitution as a fetich. Blithely ignoring the fact that Constitution-making and remaking is one of the pastimes of some States, and that even the Federal Constitution can be amended with none too great difficulty when the opinion of the people is really formed (as in the recent ease of the election of senators), he will earnestly call upon the Constitutional Convention of Ohio “to provide in this Constitution means which will enable the people readily to amend it if at any point it works injustice”; and then, as if that provision were not sufficient to relax its mortmain, he will virtually abrogate its function of imposing any check whatsoever by adding “means which will permit the people themselves by popular vote, after due deliberation and discussion, but finally and without appeal, to settle what the proper construction of any constitutional point is”; and this construction is to be made, not legally, that is by an attempt to get at the actual meaning of the language used, but in accordance with the current notion of what is right.

But the full venom of his attack will be directed against the courts, because in them is impersonated the final sovereignty of unimpassioned judgment over the fluctuations of sentiment, and with it the last check upon the operations of the demagogue. The interpretation of the law in accordance with the conditions of life is to rest with the people. If necessary they are to have the power of recalling the judge who is recalcitrant to their views, and at the least they are to have opportunity to reverse any decision of the courts which seems to them wrong. In this way he thinks to ensure “an independent judiciary”! To enforce the need of the recall, he accuses the courts of “refusing to permit the people of the States to exercise their right as a free people.” Thereupon he cites what he calls a “typical” case in New York, in which the judges declared a workingmen’s compensation act unconstitutional.” In other words, they insisted that the Constitution had permanently cursed our people with impotence to right wrong and had perpetuated a cruel iniquity.” This tirade, followed by the most inflammatory appeals to the emotions, was uttered in 1912, at the very time when he was inveighing against the courts for perpetuating iniquity, the machinery was in train for amending the Constitution, and in less than two years that permanent curse was removed by the passage of a Constitutional law in full favor of the workingman. Such is the despotism of facts. And ever through these vituperative charges runs the high note of flattery: “If the American people are not fit for popular government, and if they should of right be the servants and not the masters of the men whom they themselves put in office.”

The demagogue paints himself. In a word you may know him by this single trait: he is one who, in the pursuit of the so-called rights of humanity, has a supreme contempt for those

Unconcerning things, matters of fact;

one who, by means of an hypnotic loquaciousness, is constantly persuading the people that they have only to follow their first impulsive emotions to be right and safe, and that as a consequence every institution should be swept away which in their wiser, calmer moments they have created as a bulwark against their own more variable nature. To complete the picture we need to contrast with it Burke’s portrait of the men of light and leading, with his sober statement of the law of liberty: “Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Or we may go further back and look upon Plato’s portrait of the guides who have earned the right to persuade others to temperance by the diligent exercise of that virtue in their own lives.

But the most notable example of demagoguery to-day, is not a man, though he be clothed with thunder, but an institution. There are newspapers and magazines, reaching millions of readers, which have reduced the art to a perfect system. Their method is as simple as it is effective: always appeal to the emotion of the hour, and present it in terms which will justify its excess. Thus, in times when there is no wave of international envy disturbing the popular mind, our journal will print edifying editorials on brotherly love and laud the people as the great source of peace among nations. But let some racial dispute arise, as in the months preceding our Spanish war or the Italian raid on Africa, and this same journal will day after day use its editorial columns to inflame national hatred–and increase its circulation. On days when no sensational event has occurred, it will indulge in the prettiest sentimental sermons on the home and on family felicities. Nothing so moral; it will even plead in lacrimose type against the evil of allowing babies to lie in perambulators with their eyes exposed to the sun. But let the popular mind be excited by some crime of lust, and the same journal will forget the sweet obligations of home and wife,–

That silly old morality,
That, as these links were knit, our love should be–

and will deck out the loathsome debauchery of a murderer and his trull as the spiritual history of two young souls finding themselves in the pure air of passion; or some sordid liaison will be virtually lifted above marriage by the terms “affinity” or “heart-wife.” And always, meanwhile, the people are to be soothed out of a sense of responsibility for errors and corruption by the skilfully maintained suggestion of a little group of men, entirely removed from the feelings and motives of ordinary humanity, sitting somewhere in secret conclave, plotting, plotting, to pervert the government. Our public crimes are never our own, but are the result of conspiracy.

___________________

Paul Elmer More (December 12, 1864 – March 9, 1937) was an American journalist, critic, essayist and Christian apologist.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Military / General - Elite Series Bibliography

Please find information about the elite leadership of the West in the following posts.

The following series of posts comes from Public Information Research: namebase.org-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burrows, William E. Deep Black: Space Espionage and National Security. New York: Berkley Books, 1988. 406 pages.

William Burrows, who has written about space and aviation for more than two decades, is a professor of journalism and director of the Science and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University. The subject matter of this book, particularly where it concerns the capabilities of modern spy satellites, is classified as Sensitive Compartmented Information -- which is higher than Top Secret. But by using open literature, scholarly papers, and interviewing scientists working on similar technology in the private sector, Burrows has put together an informative and readable history of aerial and space reconnaissance.

Modern espionage uses TECHINT (technical intelligence) along with HUMINT (human intelligence). The latter depends on human penetration agents and, with much luck and assuming no counter-penetration, is able to discern the status and intentions of the enemy. TECHINT consists of SIGINT (signals and communications interception) and PHOTINT (imaging intelligence). It is more reliable than HUMINT but can also be expensive. Lyndon Johnson claimed in 1967 that the entire space program could be justified ten times over simply for its contribution to space photography: "Because tonight we know how many missiles the enemy has and, it turned out, our guesses were way off. We were building things we didn't need to build."

Fitzgerald, A. Ernest. The Pentagonists: An Insider's View of Waste, Mismanagement, and Fraud in Defense Spending. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. 344 pages.

Ernest Fitzgerald is perhaps the most famous whistle-blower in Washington. While employed by the Pentagon as an engineer and cost expert, he testified to Congress in 1968 and 1969 about the concealed cost overruns and the technical problems of the Lockheed C-5A transport plane. He was fired by Nixon for telling the truth, and wrote about it in "The High Priests of Waste" (1972). After a 14-year legal battle against duplicitous Pentagon brass and self-serving executive-branch careerists, a federal judge ruled that the Air Force had to restore Fitzgerald to his former position.

That happened just as the new Reagan administration handed the Pentagon a blank check for bigger and better procurement scandals. Some years later, congressional committees were clucking over $748 pliers and $500 cotter pins, and then they'd walk away from the issue (they knew that congressmen come and go, but Pentagon generals live forever). Fitzgerald's politics are centrist, yet he considers America "the world's largest banana republic." (page 3) "In other banana republics the military comes to power with a sudden coup and the installation of a junta. Here it is different.... America runs on money. And the military has quietly come to vast economic power by taking vast amounts of the federal income for itself." (page 70)

Klare, Michael T. War Without End: American Planning for the Next Vietnams. New York: Vintage Books, 1972. 464 pages.

Klare, Michael T. Supplying Repression: U.S. Support for Authoritarian Regimes Abroad. Washington: Institute for Policy Studies, 1977. 72 pages.

Michael Klare is perhaps the only anti-Vietnam War activist who made a career out of researching the U.S. defense establishment. He began with the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) in the late sixties; we still recommend their 69-page Research Methodology Guide (1970). Ten years later Klare was doing most of his work as a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Even some among the ruling class like his work: he has been on the staff of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and in 1985 received a three-year Ford Foundation grant to direct the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies based at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. He also writes for Nation magazine.

"War Without End" is a detailed look at the current state of military planning, from counterinsurgency and social science engineering, to rapid deployment, the electronic battlefield, mercenaries, and foreign police assistance. This book was written three years before the collapse of Saigon, when critics expected that U.S. warmongers would be able to sustain their efforts indefinitely. Twenty years and one Ronald Reagan later, it's clear that we have neither the moral conviction nor the economic resources to pull it off -- at least not until the New World Order gets its act together. Nevertheless, the book remains valuable as a slice of imperial history.

Almost half of "Supplying Repression" contains tables of U.S. aid and corporate sales to foreign countries in the areas of military and police training, narcotics control, and arms transfers, while the remainder of this little book offers further historical details and commentary. "The evidence suggests that our corporations and governmental agencies are deeply involved in the supply of repressive technology and techniques to many of the world's most authoritarian regimes..., [and] the measures adopted by Congress in 1974 to restrict arms and training assistance to foreign police forces have not been successful in cutting off the flow."

McClintock, Michael. Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counterterrorism, 1940-1990. New York: Pantheon Books, 1992. 604 pages.

Michael McClintock spent 16 years as a human rights monitor, traveling extensively in Latin America, Thailand, and the Philippines. With 122 pages of end notes, this is something of an academic tome, and it functions as a counterweight to the fascination that some academics have demonstrated for elitist military doctrine. McClintock is always aware that "counterterrorism" is too often another name for torture and assassination, and despite such fancy terms as "psychological warfare," "counterinsurgency," "unconventional warfare," and "low intensity conflict," when you take away the rhetoric there seems to be a problem. For one thing, U.S. special warfare has always been cast in an anti-Communist mode, regardless of whether the "Communist" insurgents had the support of the local population. The techniques have emphasized "fighting fire with fire," with much more emphasis on winning respect out of fear than soliciting popular support out of enlightened self-interest.

McClintock's numerous quotes from military manuals and experts begin to drag after a few hundred pages, but his material on Edward Lansdale, and on President Kennedy's love affair with Special Forces, are almost worth the effort it takes to wade through them.

Mollenhoff, Clark R. The Pentagon. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1967. 450 pages.

Clark Mollenhoff was a Pulitzer-winning reporter who had been with the Washington bureau of Cowles Publications for seventeen years before writing this book. But a comprehensive study of the Pentagon requires more access than either the General Accounting Office or a slew of Congressional subcommittees has ever been able to muster, and is certainly beyond the means of a mere reporter. Instead Mollenhoff presents 35 short chapters, each of which amounts to a brief but suggestive case study of a different tip of the Pentagon iceberg.

After several short chapters that cover War Department corruption and mismanagement from the Civil War through World War II, he then gets into more current issues with chapter titles that include names such as Howard Hughes, Benny Meyers, Harold Talbott, Robert McNamara, Roswell Gilpatric, and Fred Korth. Other chapters concern various weapon systems procurement scandals, the Pentagon's "black" budget, kickbacks for generals disguised as consulting or travel-expense fees, nonprofits such as Aerospace Corporation that contract with the military and suck in huge amounts for questionable expenditures, and the "profit pyramid," where layers of subcontractors each add on their profit margins and pass the bill up to the next level until it finally reaches the Pentagon and the taxpayer.

Perry, Mark. Four Stars. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989. 412 pages.

This is a history of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, established in 1947 and consisting of the four-star leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, and a chairman and vice chairman. These six men meet three times a week in the Pentagon "tank" where they coordinate the nation's military forces. Each of the four services is in also cross-organized into seven "unified" operational commands that have regional responsibilities and are controlled by a CINC, or commander in chief. And each service also has a civilian secretary, who is responsible for the maintenance of readiness and for waging budget battles in Congress.

The President's formal command authority bypasses the JCS, but in practice his decisions, or those of the Secretary of Defense acting on his behalf, are routed through them on their way to the CINC unified commands.

Inter-service rivalry is one recurring problem within the JCS, but the most serious incident was a conflict between the JCS and civilian leaders. It occurred in August 1967, when the Joint Chiefs threatened to resign over civilian handling of the war in Vietnam. Sixteen years later, with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, it was clear that the JCS still hadn't achieved their goal of holding civilians accountable for the use of troops abroad.

Pyadyshev, B. The Military-Industrial Complex of the USA. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977. 187 pages.

"Who are these civilians who have been appointed to 'control' the generals? They turn out to be arms industry magnates working under Pentagon contracts and making fortunes on the arms drive. Consider the top civilian leaders in the Pentagon under the Eisenhower administration. Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson had been president of General Motors, which is not only the world's leading automobile maker, but also one of the Pentagon's major contractors. Roger M. Kyes, a vice-president of General Motors, was Deputy Secretary. Robert T. Stevens, President of Stevens and Company, a leading supplier of military uniforms, was appointed Secretary of the Army. Harold E. Talbott, a member of the board of three corporations working for the Defense Department, became Secretary of the Air Force. Robert B. Anderson, financier and oil tycoon, became Secretary of the Navy, and later Deputy Secretary of Defense.

"The U.S. war machine is run by career military men or men from the arms business. On all major political issues, every U.S. Secretary of Defense has acted hand-in-glove with the chiefs of staff. They have never had -- and could never have had -- any differences on measures to extend military preparations, secure larger appropriations for the needs of war, and condition the population in a militaristic spirit." (pages 22-23)

Rasor, Dina. The Pentagon Underground. New York: Times Books, 1985. 310 pages.

In 1979 Dina Rasor, 23, started a job with the National Taxpayers Union, where she researched cost overrun issues with the Lockheed C-5 transport plane. In early 1981 she struck out on her own with modest funding, and started the Project on Military Procurement. The problems with the M-1 tank were her first project, but coffee brewers for the C-5 that cost $7622 got more attention. She interviewed Pentagon whistle-blowers, received guidance from A. Ernest Fitzgerald, developed numerous contacts in the press, and within a couple of years became one of the most visible people in the country on the topic of waste and fraud in the Pentagon.

The Project on Military Procurement was two people, Rasor and an assistant, working out of a tiny office. It was strictly nonpartisan and nonideological, interested only in better value for the taxpayer and better weapons for the military. The funding came from both libertarian and progressive sources. It helped that Rasor was squeaky clean. All of her research was backed up with unclassified documents -- she wouldn't touch anything that was classified, nor chat with the occasional friendly "diplomat" from the Soviet embassy. Rasor's visibility and professionalism provided an option for frustrated Pentagon workers, by allowing the whistle-blower "underground" to expose waste and fraud without retaliation.

Schnabel, Jim. Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies. New York: Dell Publishing, 1997. 452 pages.

This is a straightforward history of government interest in remote viewing, a paranormal experiment that the CIA began at the Standard Research Institute in 1972. Military intelligence started their own team at Fort Meade in 1977. Each program involved only a handful of people. When the CIA lost interest, a couple of generals (Edmund R. Thompson and Albert N. Stubblebine), congressmen (Claiborne Pell and Charlie Rose), and a powerful Senate staffer (Richard D'Amato) kept it alive under the Pentagon budget. It ran out of steam due to its own eccentricities, its enemies within the budgetary process, and the Republican victory in 1994.

Remote viewing is neither fraudulent nor silly, but on rare occasions it can lean toward either. More often it is just plain wrong, or distorted by subjective interference. The brass kept worrying about the "giggle factor" should the secret programs be discovered by the press. Stubblebine earned the nickname "General Spoonbender," and his power at the Pentagon soon declined. The remote viewers themselves had unconventional ideas: several were Scientologists, others were into UFO lore, and most took themselves too seriously. The burnout rate was high. It's just as well. When all is said and done, everyone benefits if our ethically-challenged spooks have really given up on this creepy, unpredictable phenomenon.

Simpson, Charles M. III. Inside the Green Berets: The First Thirty Years -- A History of the U.S. Army Special Forces. Foreward by Lt.Gen. William P. Yarborough. Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1983. 231 pages.

From the dust jacket: "Guerrilla warfare, insurgency, counterinsurgency, all come within the circle of their operations. President Kennedy gave a powerful impetus to the growth of Special Forces, but they really came into prominence during the Vietnam War. Their Civic Action programs and "Psy Ops" became well known. Among the less publicized missions of SF have been: an airborne demonstration in Saudi Arabia; a rescue operation of a party of refugees in the Congo during the Leopoldville disturbances in 1960; a basic training program for Ethiopian recruits in 1965; training and assistance missions in nineteen Latin American countries from 1963 to 1970. Colonel Simpson knows the Army. Of his 30 years of service he spent nine with SF."

To the extent that CIA and Special Forces operations in southeast Asia can be considered separately, Simpson sides with the military and is gently critical of the CIA. For outsiders the distinction is less meaningful -- the CIA frequently used Special Forces to solve their manpower shortages, and the lines of command between the CIA, the U.S. ambassador, and the Pentagon are at best confusing. A certain amount of scapegoating was probably well- received in this gung-ho, insider account of the Green Berets, half of which deals with the Vietnam experience.

Vistica, Gregory L. Fall From Glory: The Men Who Sank the U.S. Navy. New York: Simon & Schuster (Touchstone Edition), 1997. 478 pages.

Author Gregory Vistica, a reporter for Newsweek, tells us how the Navy brass really operates in the Pentagon. This book centers on John Lehman, Reagan's secretary of the Navy. Lehman was an egomaniacal infighter who destroyed anything that stood in the way of bigger battleships and bloated budgets. Tough-sounding flyboys such as Lehman were darlings to the fanged neocons who littered the Reagan years. A more sober analysis of the Soviet threat (which was already starting to rust in port), and of new threats from missile technology, might have saved billions. The subtitle for this book should have been, "Boys and Their Toys."

Then there were the scandals and morale problems. Vistica takes us behind the scenes of the Tailhook scandal, the Admiral Boorda suicide, the "Ill Wind" procurement scandal, the John Walker spy case (Walker gave the Soviets access to the Navy's secret communications for more than 17 years), the Iowa battleship explosion and cover-up, and the cruiser Vincennes, which shot down of an Iranian airliner and received combat action ribbons for killing all 290 civilians aboard. You won't find many heros in these pages; this is Reality Check time. It's unfortunate that it takes about two dozen investigative books from excellent journalists to balance out just one fake Tom Clancy thriller. Blame it on Hollywood culture and Pentagon corruption.

Weiner, Tim. Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget. New York: Warner Books, 1991. 273 pages.

This book is based on Tim Weiner's Pulitzer Prize-winning series in the Philadelphia Inquirer. By following the money, Weiner finds appropriations of public dollars for highly-compartmentalized, secret research projects with no accountability to either Congress or the Secretary of Defense. The secret budget has never been published, a violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Reagan doubled the Pentagon budget between 1981 and 1985, and by 1991 Bush had increased the "black" portion to 25 percent. Born from the Manhattan Project, described by Weiner as a "mutant chromosome in the American body politic," this secret operation is now a full-blown parallel government.

Weiner shows the secret government at work in diverting funds illegally, creating military units outside the chain of command, conducting covert wars, and transforming Star Wars into a system for the control of space. This book is a solidly-documented description of how the U.S. responded to atomic weapons and the Cold War by giving birth to, nurturing, and ultimately succumbing to a national security state.

-- Lanny Sinkin

Here are the names most frequently mentioned in the above books:

ABRAMS CREIGHTON W (GEN) ACHESON DEAN G ACKLEY AUTMER JR ADLER ALLAN ROBERT AEROSPACE CORPORATION AFGHANISTAN CIA IN ALDRIDGE EDWARD C JR (PETE) ALEXANDER JOHN B (COL) ALLEN RICHARD VINCENT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AMLIE THOMAS S ANDERSON GEORGE W JR (ADM) ARMITAGE RICHARD L ASPIN LES (D-WI) ATWATER FREDERICK HOLMS (SKIP) BAKER BRENT (RADM) BALDWIN HANSON W BANK AARON BECKWITH CHARLES A BELL KEN (LT COL) BISSELL RICHARD MERVIN JR BJELAJAC SLAVKO N BODNER JOHN JR BOEING COMPANY BOHANNAN CHARLES T.R. BOORDA JEREMY MICHAEL (ADM) BOXER BARBARA (D-CA) BRADLEY OMAR N (GEN) BROOKS JACK (D-TX) BROUSSEAU RONALD SR BROWN GEORGE S (GEN) BROWN HAROLD (DEFENSE SEC) BUCHANAN LEONARD (LYN) BUCHANAN PATRICK J BUNDY MCGEORGE BURKE ARLEIGH A (ADM) BUSBY BRIAN (LT COL) BUTTERFIELD ALEXANDER P CAPPUCCI JOSEPH J (GEN) CARLUCCI FRANK CHARLES CARNEY ROBERT B (ADM) CARTER JIMMY E (PRES) CARVER RICHARD E CENTER RESEARCH SOCIAL SYSTEMS (CRESS) CENTER STRATEGIC INTERNATIONAL STUDIES CHARYK JOSEPH V CHAUHAN OMPAL CHENEY RICHARD BRUCE CHRISTIANSEN JACK (ADM) CLIFFORD CLARK MCADAMS COCKELL WILLIAM A COLBY WILLIAM EGAN COLLINS JOHN M (COL) COLLINS JOSEPH LAWTON (GEN) COMMITTEE PRESENT DANGER COOPER ROBERT S COUGHLIN PAULA (LT) COWART ROB (CAPT) COX BONNAR (BART) CRANE EDWARD HARRISON III CROW DUWARD L (PETE) CROWE WILLIAM J JR (ADM) CUNNINGHAM RANDY DUKE (R-CA) DAHLGREN ROBIN DALTON JOHN H DAMATO RICHARD DAMES EDWARD A DAVIDSON JAMES DALE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY DELAUER RICHARD D DELLAFIORA ANGELA DENFELD LOUIS E (ADM) DICKINSON BILL L (R-AL) DINGELL JOHN D (D-MI) DREYER GWEN DRIESSNACK HANS H (WHITEY) DUNCAN DALE C DUNLEAVY RICHARD (VADM) EISENHOWER DWIGHT DAVID ELGIN DUANE ENNEKING TIMOTHY FERTIG WENDELL FITZGERALD A ERNEST FORRESTAL JAMES VINCENT FUND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT GARFINKEL STEVEN GARRETT H LAWRENCE III GAUVIN FERNAND GAVIN JAMES M (GEN) GELLER URI GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION GETTING IVAN A GILPATRIC ROSWELL L GODEL WILLIAM HERMANN GOLDWATER BARRY MORRIS GORDON TED (RADM) GORMAN PAUL F (GEN) GOTTLIEB SIDNEY GRAFF DALE E GRASSLEY CHARLES E (R-IA) GRAY DAVID W (GEN) GREECE CIA IN GREEN CHRISTOPHER C (KIT) GREENSTREET BOB (CAPT) GRITZ JAMES G (BO) GROVES LESLIE RICHARD (GEN) HAIG ALEXANDER M JR HALPERIN MORTON H HAMMID HELLA HANCOCK ROBERT (OKLAHOMA) HARARY KEITH (BLUE) HAVER RICHARD L HAYS RONALD J (ADM) HAYWARD THOMAS B (ADM) HEALY MICHAEL D.F. (GEN) HEBERT EDWARD (D-LA) HELMS RICHARD MCGARRAH HERBERT JULE HERRICK ROBERT (CMDR) HILSMAN ROGER HOLCOMB M STASER HOLIFIELD CHET HOLLOWAY JAMES L III (ADM) HOVEN PAUL HOWARD DAN (NAVY SEC AIDE) HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY HULTGREEN KARA HUNT JAMES V IKLE FRED CHARLES INGERSOLL BRUCE INMAN BOBBY RAY INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT ACTIVITY INTERNATIONAL POLICE ACADEMY JASON DIVISION JOHNSON HAROLD K (GEN) JOHNSON KELLY (CLARENCE L.) JOHNSON LOUIS ARTHUR JONES DAVID C (GEN) JONES THOMAS VICTOR JONSSON THOMAS (SGT) JULIE LOEBE KAUFMAN RICHARD F KEATING DAVID KEEGAN GEORGE J (GEN) KELLEY PAUL XAVIER KELLY ROBERT (ADM) KELSO FRANK B (VADM) KENNAN GEORGE FROST KENNEDY JOHN FITZGERALD KINCAID GENE KINNARD HARRY KISTIAKOWSKY GEORGE B KLEEMAN HENRY M KOCH NOEL C KOGAN I M KOHN EDWIN (VADM) KOLESNIK KRIS KORB LAWRENCE J KORTH FRED KRESS KEN KUPPERMAN ROBERT H LAIRD MELVIN R LANGFORD GARY LANSDALE EDWARD GEARY LAOS CIA IN LARSON CHARLES ROBERT (ADM) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY LEHMAN JOHN FRANCIS JR LEMAY CURTIS E (GEN) LEMNITZER LYMAN L (GEN) LEWIS DAVID SLOAN JR LINEBARGER PAUL M.S. LOCKHEED CORPORATION LOFTIS JAMES ROBERT LONGHOFER JAMES E LOVETT ROBERT ABERCROMBIE LUDWIG FREDERICK (CAPT) LUSTIG SCOTT LUTTWAK EDWARD N LYONS JAMES A (ADM) MACARTHUR DOUGLAS (GEN) MAGSAYSAY RAMON MAHAN ALFRED THAYER MANTHORPE WILLIAM H.J. JR MARAGON JOHN MARSH JOHN O JR MARSHALL GEORGE C (GEN) MARTIN DONNA (BARBARA BOXER AIDE) MATHEWS FRANCIS P MAY EDWIN C MCCARTHY JOSEPH R MCCLURE ROBERT A (GEN) MCCONE JOHN ALEX MCCONNELL JOHN P (GEN) MCMAHON JOHN NORMAN MCMONEAGLE JOSEPH MCNAMARA ROBERT STRANGE MENGES CONSTANTINE C MEYER EDWARD C (SHY) MEYERS BENNETT E MILLER PAUL DAVID MINTZ MORTON MOLLENHOFF CLARK MONROE BOB (MONROE INSTITUTE) MONROE INSTITUTE MOORE ROYAL (MAJ GEN) MOORER THOMAS H (ADM) MOORHEAD WILLIAM S MOREHOUSE DAVID MORGAN CHARLES JR MOTT STEWART RAWLINGS MOYERS BILL D NADER RALPH NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION NIMITZ CHESTER W (ADM) NITZE PAUL HENRY NORIEGA MANUEL ANTONIO NORTH OLIVER L NORTHROP CORPORATION NUNN SAM (D-GA) OBRIEN WILLIAM V OCONNOR WILLIAM ODOM WILLIAM E OFFICE PUBLIC SAFETY OKEEFE SEAN C OPERATION ILL WIND OPERATION MONGOOSE OPERATION PHOENIX ORR VERNE PACKARD DAVID PADDOCK ALFRED H JR PAISLEY MELVYN R PARFITT COLIN PARIS PAUL PATTON JIM (CAPT) PEREZ LEBRON HECTOR PERRY WILLIAM J POINDEXTER JOHN M POPE BARBARA PRATT WHITNEY COMPANY PRICE PATRICK PROJECT CAMELOT PROJECT MILITARY PROCUREMENT PROXMIRE WILLIAM (D-WI) PRUEHER JOSEPH W (ADM) PUTHOFF HAROLD E (HAL) RADFORD ARTHUR W (ADM) RAND CORPORATION RASOR DINA RAY BILL (CAPT) RECHTIN EBERHARDT RICHARDSON ELLIOT LEE RICKOVER HYMAN G (ADM) RIDGWAY MATTHEW B (GEN) RIGGS ROBERT (CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATOR) RILEY MEL ROCKEFELLER NELSON ALDRICH ROGERS BERNARD W (GEN) ROGERS WILL III (CAPT) ROTH WILLIAM V JR (R-DE) SALYER JIM SAWYER GEORGE A SCHLESINGER JAMES RODNEY SCHOOL AMERICAS SCHROEDER PATRICIA (D-CO) SEAMANS ROBERT C JR SHACKLETON RON SHACKLEY THEODORE GEORGE SHAPIRO SUMNER (RADM) SHULTZ GEORGE PRATT SIKORSKI GERRY SIMPSON CHARLES M III SKANTZE LARRY (GEN) SMITH DENNY (R-OR) SMITH PAUL (CAPT) SNYDER JACK (RADM) SPAATZ CARL (GEN) SPANTON GEORGE SPREY PIERRE M STAIMAN HERMAN STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE STARRETT CHARLES STEVENS ROBERT T STEWART JAKE (LT CDR) STIMSON HENRY LEWIS STIMSON RICHARD STOCKTON PETER D.H. STUBBLEBINE ALBERT N (GEN) SUESSMAN MICHAEL E SULLIVAN LEONARD JR SWANN INGO DOUGLAS SYMINGTON STUART W (D-MO) TAFT WILLIAM HOWARD IV TALBOTT HAROLD E TARG RUSSELL TARUC LUIS TAYLOR MAXWELL D (GEN) TEMPLE RALPH THAILAND CIA IN THAYER PAUL THOMPSON EDMUND R (MAJ GEN) THOMPSON ROBERT G.K. TOWER JOHN GOODWIN (R-TX) TRAIN HARRY D II (ADM) TRENT HARTLEIGH TRINQUIER ROGER TROST CARLISLE A.H. (ADM) TRUMAN HARRY S TSHOMBE MOISE TURNER STANSFIELD TWINING NATHAN F (GEN) VALERIANO NAPOLEON D VANDENBERG HOYT SANFORD (GEN) VANDER SCHAAF DEREK J VANG PAO VESSEY JOHN W JR (GEN) VIETNAM CIA IN VINSON CARL VOLCKMANN RUSSELL W VORONA JACK WALKER JOHN ANTHONY JR WATKINS JAMES D (ADM) WATT MURRAY B (SCOTTY) WEBB JAMES H JR WEINBERGER CASPAR W WELCH LARRY D (GEN) WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) WEYAND FREDERICK C (GEN) WHEELER EARLE G (BUZZ) WHITE STEVE (ADM) WHITE THOMAS DRESSER (GEN) WICKHAM JOHN A JR (GEN) WILLIAMS MAC WILSON CHARLES ERWIN (GM & DEFENSE SEC) WYLIE JOHN ARCHIBALD YARBOROUGH WILLIAM P (GEN) YELLOW FRUIT ZABITOSKY FRED ZAWODNY J K ZILL ANNE B ZUMWALT ELMO R JR (ADM)