Tuesday, September 6, 2011
One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter
What would drive someone to risk his life, maybe even intentionally give up his life, in order to blow something up and kill a bunch of people? It's an intellectual cop-out to just declare that "evil" is to blame, and to pretend that we don't need to understand any more than that.
As a mental exercise, consider the question of what it would take to make you resort to violence. Presumably, you wouldn't just kill people for fun, or because you're in a bad mood. There would have to be something happening that was so drastically wrong and unjust (from your point of view), and that nothing else would stop it, that you would decide that violence was your only option. Such angry desperation is, in most cases, caused by "government" action. This doesn't take much theorizing, since many terrorists openly advertise the fact that their actions are in response to some "government" military action or other "policy" that the terrorist sees as a horrible injustice. In other words, terrorism is almost always a byproduct of "government." When the proverbial "little guy" is being continually victimized by a huge, powerful, organized gang of thugs (e.g., "government"), that's when he begins to think that the only power he has left is the power to do harm.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't recognize that their own nationalistic, militaristic pack mentality is identical to the perspective of the "terrorists" that Americans love to hate. Consider "9/11," which the U.S. tyrants will be reminding you about quite loudly for the next week or so. Many Americans perceived the events of 9/11 as an abomination so horrible that the only acceptable response was bloody violence. The suffering and deaths of all those innocents was so heinous that the perpetrators (or those imagined to be the perpetrators) had to be destroyed by any means necessary! So far, that's understandable. But then comes the usual follow-up: "...and any country harboring those responsible would deserve the vengeance and wrath of our righteous war machine!"
Trouble is, that sums up the mentality of every terrorist in the world. Ironically, what drives people to that mentality is almost always someone else who has the same mentality. The classic terrorist wants to use violence and intimidation to coerce a foreign power into changing its evil ways. That's also exactly what the United States military does. Am I calling the U.S. military a bunch of terrorists?
Damn right I am!
The state mercenaries of this regime have the same short-sighted, irresponsible perspective as the state mercenaries of every other: "We are the good guys, our enemy is evil, our fight is righteous, and any collateral damage we cause is unfortunate, but necessary, and is ultimately acceptable because of our noble goal!" Sound familiar? That is the mentality of every "government" military, and every other terrorist organization in the world.
Not only does "government" cause terrorism; "government" is terrorism. In fact, in defining the term "terrorism," the only way the U.S. parasite class could make the definition not apply to itself was to put the term "subnational" in the definition. In other words, the United States tyrants define "terrorism" to mean a group that is not a "government," but that nonetheless has the gall to do what every "government" in the world does on a daily basis: using threats and violence to serve a political end.
The only way to break the cycle of violence is for people to grow up, and adopt a coherent, principled moral code that does not give exceptions based on statist mythology. For example, stealing is bad. If it's called "taxation," it's still bad. Murder is bad. If it's called "national defense," it's still bad. And so on. If people would give up the most dangerous superstition--the notion that a magical thing called "authority" can make bad things into good things--most of the world's problems. and almost all of the world's terrorists, would vanish.
Whenever someone claims to be doing something for "the nation," or for "the common good," or for "society," it usually means they want an exemption from morality; they want to be allowed to do bad things, in the name of some greater good. That's what every cop, every soldier, and every other terrorist does, under the guise of "national defense" and "law enforcement": using immoral violence "in the name of" something else, in the hopes that as a result, he won't be held personally responsible for his own actions.
On an individual basis, most people understand and accept that threatening people and using violence is justified only when used defensively. It's not okay to use force to steal someone's stuff. It is okay to use force to stop someone from stealing your stuff. It's not okay to violently assault someone. It is okay to use violence to stop someone from assaulting you. Yes, there can be occasional gray areas, but the general idea of the non-aggression principle is pretty simple.
So no, killing innocent people, because the regime they live under does bad things, is not okay. It's not okay if you're a middle eastern terrorist, or if you're a U.S. soldier. On the other hand, using violence to try to stop aggressors is justified, whether the aggressors are private or "government." (In most cases, trying to forcibly resist thugs who imagine themselves to be representing "authority" tends to be very hazardous and counter-productive, but that doesn't mean it isn't morally justified.)
The United States government, as it gets ever more oppressive and vicious, is going to force more and more people into positions where they see violent retribution as their only recourse. Any injustice can be made "legal," and those who resist "legal" injustice are always branded as "criminals." If they resist forcefully, they are also dubbed "terrorists." As long as the unthinking order-obeyors do as they're told, and violently impose the will of their masters upon the rest of us, there will be no chance of a peaceful resolution to the growing police state. I know of only two things that can make an agent of "authority" not obey an immoral order: 1) a conscience; 2) a bullet. And, with some notable exceptions (such as IVAW and Oathkeepers), I haven't seen much evidence of cops or soldiers having consciences.
(I still urge anyone who knows someone in the military or in "law enforcement," or who knows someone thinking of joining, to give him a copy of my book, "The Most Dangerous Superstition." You might just be saving his life.)
Given the current state of things, I view some sort of violent conflict between the parasitic ruling class and their human livestock as inevitable. That being the case, as the megalomaniacs in power make a dash toward totalitarianism, I hope the victims of state aggression retain the moral integrity to target only the actual aggressors, and don't adopt the viewpoint of terrorists and "governments" the world over: that it's okay to target innocents, in order to serve some supposedly righteous larger goal. Achieving a society without aggression is the larger goal; the largest goal of all, in fact. So when the time comes, aim carefully.