PAUL FUSSELL

Paul Fussell

Paul Fussell (1924 - 2012) was an American historian and professor.

He came to hate the lies of the government and the military.

Paul Fussell was involved in World War II.

At the start of the war, he was a 19-year-old boy, aching to prove his manhood.

"His unit ran into an artillery barrage in which pieces of shell ploughed into his leg and back.

"As he lay there, bellowing with anger, he felt fine red spray falling on him; his buddy Edward Hudson had been so riddled with bullets that the contents of his torso were forced out of the holes in the back of his field jacket."

Paul Fussell | The Economist



The government and the generals described war as good, and necessary, "but for those on the ground (a quarter of whom admitted to vomiting or soiling themselves, out of panic, before they went into battle) the war had no meaning, beyond the fact that the quicker they got it over the sooner they could go home."

Paul Fussell | The Economist

Paul Fussell noted that the Ten Commandments told him not to kill.



After the war, he was happy to criticise Americans "for their class divisions and status symbols."

He criticised the sort of mass-tourism that "made all places comfortably alike."

He attacked everything that he saw as phony, from processed cheese to stretch limos.



But, was Paul Fussell just another naive American?

In 1979 he wrote an essay in praise of the Boy Scout Handbook. 

He believed that a boy who tries to obey Scout Laws, "will not grow up like Richard Nixon."

D.A.N. Jones reviews 'The Boy Scout Handbook and Other ...

D A N Jones has written that in Britain, "Scoutcraft entails wiliness", and "such a boy might well grow up like Harold Wilson" 

Wilson was a devious UK prime minister.

Perhaps Paul Fussell was devious?

He appeared to be an old fashioned Republican.

His former wife, Betty, once found him rolling around on a couch, ''buck naked'' and drunk, with a male student. 

Skewered - New York Times

Files released by MI5, in March 2010, show that Baden Powell, founder of the Scouts, was invited to meet Hitler after having tea with senior Nazis. (Lord Baden Powell invited to meet Hitler, MI5 files show)

In 1937, Baden Powell met the German Ambassador to the UK, Joachim von Ribbentrop.

In 1939, Baden Powell wrote in his diary: "Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf.

"A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organisation etc."

Baden Powell told the Scouts’ International Commissioner, Hubert Martin, that the Germans were "most anxious that the Scouts should come into closer touch with the youth movement in Germany."

Baden Powell talked of his problems with the "socialist press when our boys had appeared in uniform at a Fascist Demonstration in Germany."

MI5 reported on the visit of Hartman Lauterbacher, Chief of Staff Hitler Youth, to Britain.

Lauterbacher met Baden Powell, and visited the top private school Eton and the Army Gymnastic School at Aldershot.


Website for this image

Two modern biographers of Baden-Powell consider him to have been a repressed homosexual, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal. (Baden-Powell and boy scouts)

Jeal mentions an episode in 1919.

While on a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, he stayed with an old friend, A. H. Tod, a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils as part of a photographic record of public school life.

Baden-Powell's diary entry about his stay reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent."

In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions his impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours."

SACRIFICE THE PRETTY GIRL?

Photo by Evren Sahin

In an article on psychology The Economist refers to the runaway-trolley problem:

A runaway rail trolley will kill a group of people unless someone chooses to push one of the group in front of it to slow it down (“The roar of the crowd”, May 26th).

Doing nothing means all will be killed, so who should be pushed?

The Military elite like to use 'the runaway trolley problem', or similar examples, when justifying such things as sending young soldiers to die in Vietnam, or bombing people in Afghanistan.

Anthony Sweeney, of Darien, Connecticut, writes:

SIR – I see the dilemma, but not the one described.

If someone feels strongly enough about saving peoples' lives then he should make the ultimate sacrifice and throw himself in front of the trolley.

Throwing a bystander (which could be me) in front of the trolley to satisfy the subject's idea of morality is murder, pure and simple.

http://www.economist.com/node/21556541

Of course, the 'runaway-trolley' is most likely someone's fault.


Website for this image

Let us look inside the minds of the CIA and all its supporters in the USA and beyond.

INSIDE THE MINDS OF THE CIA

The CIA is largely run by people who believe in creating the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

These people are called 'utilitarians'.

A utilitarian might approve of torture - for the greater happiness of 'the majority'.

A utilitarian might approve of a false-flag terror attack, if it is thought that this will bring greater wealth and happiness to 'one's people'.

New research suggests that 'utilitarians' have higher scores on measures of:

Psychopathy, 

machiavellianism, 

and life meaninglessness.

(Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas)
Utilitarians forget about goodness and justice.

Are you a utilitarian?

You are standing next to a large man on a bridge over rail tracks.

You notice a run-a-way trolley coming down the tracks.

It is about to run over 5 workmen further up the tracks.

If you push the large man off the bridge, he will fall onto the tracks and die.

His body will stop the trolley from killing the 5 workmen.

Should you push him?

Roughly 90% of people oppose the utilitarian act of killing one individual to save five.

Roughly 10% are utilitarians and would kill one individual to save five.

Utilitarians will sacrifice 'other people'.

Here's an easier test:

You are standing next to a very pretty white girl on a bridge over rail tracks.


You notice a run-a-way trolley coming down the tracks.

It is about to run over 5 ugly looking immigrant workmen further up the tracks.

If you push the girl off the bridge, she will fall onto the tracks and die.

Her body will stop the trolley from killing the 5 workmen.

Should you push her?

Another example:

You are standing next to a Palestinian child throwing stones at an Israeli vehicle which is about to smash up the child's home.

Do you shoot the child and make thousands of Israelis happy?

The bad guys are utilitarians.

Utilitarianism is the invention of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill

(Goodness has nothing to do with it The Economist)

Bentham thought up the idea that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."

Research into utilitarians has now been carried out by Daniel Bartels at Columbia University and David Pizarro at Cornell.

Their research has been published in Cognition.

They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas (push the large man off the bridge) and people who are psychopathic, Machiavellian or tend to view life as meaningless.Was it right to bomb Dresden and Hiroshima?

Or, were the bombers forgetting about justice?

Was it wrong to kill innocent children?

What if it was your child that was killed by British and American bombs?

What if it was your child killed by certain people on the London tube train?

What if the people behind the recent terror think that they are doing the right thing?


The 'utilitarians' believe that governments should try to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

But, are the utilitarians forgetting about justice?

Bentham and Mill, the philosophers who advocated 'utilitarianism', no doubt had good intentions.

They were thinking about the happiness of all the world's citizens.

But, what about the planners in the Pentagon?

Are they thinking only about the greatest happiness of the greatest number of rich and powerful Americans?

Was Hitler only thinking about healthy, fair-haired Germans?

Did Truman have no concern for the women of Hiroshima?

Sociologist Alan Wolfe asks: "Why do capitalism and liberal democracy, both of which justify themselves on the grounds that they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number, leave so much dissatisfaction in their wake?"

Could it be that western governments forget about justice?

Former London police chief Sir Ian Blair urged the public not to let the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes overshadow the deaths of 52 victims of the London bombers.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner told BBC Radio 4: "We can't let that one tragic death outweigh all others."

Utilitarianism - the end justifies the means.

Below are some thoughts from Roger Kimball:

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/03/whats_wrong_wit.html

Let's pretend, he said, that some mad scientist has figured out a way to bring peace, prosperity, and general happiness to the whole world.

There was just one catch: this brave new world required the yearly sacrifice of one innocent person, chosen at random.


Supposing this scheme were perfected: would it be moral to close with the offer and subscribe universal happiness at the cost of one innocent life per annum?

Well, why not?

Think of all the billions of people there are in the world.

Scads of innocent people die all the time.

Why not spread happiness and reduce the death toll at the same time?

Hard cheese on the appointed victim, of course.

But he (or she) would at least have the consolation of dying for the good of society.

This is the sort of argument you might get from Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the father of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism defines the good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism, especially in its undoctrinaire forms, has a lot of appeal.

Most of us are at least intermittent utilitarians.

At least, we expect those running society to act on broadly utilitarian principles, to "maximize" goods and services (read "happiness") for as many people as possible.

It is interesting, then, that everyone to whom I have presented my friend's thought-experiment has recoiled.


Some people say, "That's just silly," and change the subject.

Some say, "What a horrible idea," and change the subject.

Hardly anyone says "That would be wrong because . . ." and then supplies a reason.

I think that the uneasiness that most people feel about this utilitarian fantasy is a good thing.

I also think that the reluctance on the part of most people to provide a reason for their uneasiness is troubling...

What's wrong with the utilitarian philosophy?

...One important human ideal is freedom.

A central reason that the utilitarian fantasy with which we began is morally repugnant is because it requires the violation of freedom.

It therefore builds a fatal weakness into its very foundation.

The utilitarian promise works to the extent that we understand ourselves as creatures who behave in order to achieve certain ends.

To the extent that we see our selves as moral creatures - creatures, that is to say, whose lives are bounded by an ideal of freedom - utilitarianism presents itself as a version of nihilism...

Anonymous left this comment:

The Trolley Problem is crucially important in human moral calculus.

Pentagon hopes to sniff out who has fallen prey to dangerous ideas.

Of course, the primary dangerous idea they fear is the truth.

The technical point of contact for the DARPA FBO is William Casebeer, seen here giving a presentation on similar matters.

In his presentation his asks the audience about the Trolley Problem in its two forms. Of course, no-one in the audience suggests to sacrifice himself to save others.

---

"Derramasteis vuestra sangre antes que la de un innocente. Esa era la ultima prueba."

---

These types want to disassemble us like binaries. And then control us like so many clockwork automata. To do so, they will need to exterminate the best in human nature, to destroy even the stories of such, even this, and to create a soulless society.

This is the arrogant mindset of many technocrats and the elite. They are subject. We are object. The twain shall not meet.

Until now.

The pieces on the grand chessboard are jumping off the board and attacking the players.

The cryptoplutocracy in Manhattan are starting to get just an inkling of what it's like to have done unto them.

But this is just the beginning of the beginning.

---

"You wanted to know what it was about us that made us human. Well you're not going to find it in here. You went looking in the wrong place."