A Friendly Message to the Steemit Anarchist Community
Consider this a friendly, diplomatic missive to the Steemit Anarchist/Voluntarist Community to inform them that some among their community are engaging in a very antagonistic attitude towards military veterans at a time where actual threats exist... you know, of the existential variety.
For anyone who missed it, I had offered a pointed challenge to @jakemccauley over his post entitled "Is It Evil To Join The Military". Though he offered a video response in which he addressed the points I made in my response, he ignored my challenge to an actual debate and instead used it as an opportunity to talk to the audience instead of debate with me on the topic.
While I can certainly appreciate and understand arguments against military intervention around the globe, I see absolutely zero wisdom in antagonizing an entire demographic of people who can and should be natural allies to anarchists, voluntarists, and their ethos.
Anarchists and Veterans: Arguments for Natural Allies
the VAST majority of combat arms veterans are strong conservative and libertarian types who understand the concepts of individual liberties, self-reliance, and working as a team
combat arms veterans tend to STRONGLY DISLIKE progressive ideology, progressive politicians, and anyone who presumes to know how others should best live their lives
as a general rule, we hate war more than people who haven't experienced it, which should come as no surprise to anyone
we are typically fathers and husbands who abide by the law, yet we have developed the courage needed to stand up when necessary (note: this confidence was earned through the expenditure of time, blood, sweat, and tears)
the vast majority of us fucking despise the Clinton Crime Family as a general rule
Important Note: the term combat veteran applies to those who serve in direct combat roles (infantry, special operations, artillery) or roles that require the risk of direct engagement with a live enemy.
Although I am not a card-carrying member of the Anarchist/Voluntarist movement, from the gist of what I've picked up over the past few months on Steemit, I resonate personally with many of the core fundamentals of the ideology. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Venn Diagram overlap of conservatives, libertarians and anarchists seems to be 'statistically significant' putting it mildly.
Enemy of my Enemy
While this is not a new experience to me having argued with hundreds of progressives since joining the military, it is one of the first instances where I was arguing with someone who believes strongly in personal liberty and freedom AND considers veterans mere tools of the state at best or 'worshippers of the state' at worst.
The strangest part about this stance is that my role overseas was to assist the Iraqi Army fight against a two-fold force of organized crime and Islamists who were actively working to subjugate the population through fear... precisely the sort of thing veterans are accused of AND the exact thing anarchists and voluntarists advocate for.
So if both of us hate tyrants and despots, why are we at each other's throats?
Numerical Advantage
Here's a tip from basic military doctrine: it is considered unwise to engage an enemy unless you have 3-1 odds in your favor. Initiating an open conflict without this advantage creates a tremendous amount of risk, unless there are some tactical advantages in your favor.
As far as I can tell, aside from a legitimate superiority in ideology (of which I share), anarchists and voluntarists simply do not have the numbers to make their voices heard. If it weren't for Steemit, I wouldn't have heard of the phrase 'voluntarist', nor would I have had an understanding of the fundamental tenets of voluntarism or anarchism in its working state.
This may make it seem more cool and hipsterish, but the hopes of a world without nation states seems to rely solely on the strength of the ideas. That almost never works, with few exceptions. Regardless, hope is not a strategy.
There are far more military veterans and family members of military veterans who believe in the SAME PRINCIPLES and are vocally in favor of many of the things anarchists look for -- except for the validity and viability of the state. Anarchists and voluntarists would be wise to exploit this common thread and establish more common ground while advancing your messaging within relatively friendly audiences.
What's the Plan?
My last strategic point is that anarchists appear to have no plan to achieve the extremely lofty goal of the elimination of nation states. Given the literal meaning of an-archy (without rule), this probably shouldn't be surprising. However, based on my own leadership experience, the only way to build credibility when working towards a common goal is to have an actual, workable plan utilizing people who have a proven capacity for reaching these sorts of goals in the past.
I have see none of this from the anarchist/voluntarist movement.
Granted, this may be by design (again, pointing to the literal definition of anarchy), but working towards the elimination of nation states with no discernible plan or strategy is a surefire way to shatter confidence in people, projects, and movements who may actually agree 100% with the ideology.
Meanwhile, in the real world...
... a religion that literally means "Submit" is spreading across the globe through the use of fear, violence, and subjugation. Yet, we're over here playing the finger pointing game amongst in some vain attempt to lay some blame at the feet of veterans after the fact as if they're the root cause of the violence? Seems like an extravagant waste of energy when a threat is staring you in the face.
Conclusion
It's a blessing to have allies who share the same beliefs, views, and incentives as you. The only type of person who would drive a wedge in something like that is either a fool, crazy, malicious, or all of the above. With what appears to be coming on the horizon, from increasing unrest in the cities, global economies teetering towards who-knows-what, and documents proving the felonies of presidential candidates being released to a silent media, we're in for some more rough waters ahead.
Call me a Nazi, state-worshipping, war-monger if you'd like, but if I'm walking into a fight, I'd prefer to have allies with the sort of temperament, experience, and perspectives that I have personally found in the military among combat arms veterans.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Blake,
There are a lot of nuances to this discussion. It's tough to bring them all together.
Perhaps one of the more important ones is that many military personnel serve for the right reasons, even if misguided. The desire to defend freedom is clearly virtuous.
The problem, on the other hand, is manifold.
-All wars that the US has engaged in for the last seven decades, at least, have been built on lies that profit a select few at the expense of not just American lives, but those they're sent to attack.
-When you sign the dotted line to become military, it is a form of slavery. You go where told, do what you're told, take injections, fight against contrived enemies, etc. You receive the information they want you to believe so that you can feel like you're engaging the "enemy" for a just cause (except for the few who will follow orders regardless and the even fewer who see through the lies and refuse to engage).
-With the militarization of the various LEOs now, there is a very real fear that posse comitatus will be breached. Is there enough integrity left in the military brass to stand up to such tyranny on behalf of the people? It seems that in light of the willingness to attack contrived enemies right now, that the concern may be founded.
My family has a military background all the way back to at least Bloody Mary. They've fought in every US war from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. It stopped there. I considered the military when young, but decided against it after learning that the recruiters were "permitted" to lie in their recruitment and that any agreements were not binding.
There are so many clichés that are tossed around, but have no meaning. Of course, the biggest one is that soldiers defend our freedom - No, not really. My freedom has never been so threatened as it is today, by those who are sending soldiers to bomb people in far away lands. The tool of the military to build up the illusion of threats so they could attempt to justify their tyranny is doing nothing for my freedom. While many soldiers are willing to fight for my freedom, while it is severely threatened and has been incredibly undermined, it has yet to be threatened by foreign enemies.
I don't say this to disparage soldiers. If their hearts are in the right place then they're fighting for the right reasons, even though those reasons are lies. For that, they deserve respect. But it's hard for many to separate the deeds of the elite from the actions of their tools. And, though nobody wants to be called such, the US military is clearly a tool of the elite, and has been since at least WWII. Ike, and many before him, warned, but who listened?
You'll find that many who claim the anarchist title are well versed in the history of the Fed and their manipulation of US economy and foreign affairs. This, in and of itself, is a form of forced servitude = slavery. We're all treated like pawns in their master plan, but the military doubly so. And, now, we're watching as "law enforcement" agencies are continuously turned against the people to enforce the unconstitutional whims of their string pullers. Is this the freedom that our military has defended, spending many times what it would cost to feed every man, woman and child in the US?
Respectfully,
Joe
@anotherjoe Your statement about our wars going back 70 years being founded on lies is subjective. World War 2 wasn't declared on lies, and Vietnam was, but LBJ and JFK before him had actual reasons for fighting that war, they lied to accomplish what they saw as important ends, and afganistan was totally justified as far as I'm concerned. I think the major point you are refusing to admit is that a person is free to choose to join the army or not join the army. A person can know all the facts you know and join the army. They can believe that the American people are expressing their will through elected officials, rather than being enslaved by those officials, and that's a judgement call. If you and I worked from the same facts, you'd say the system was a lie, and I'd say it wasn't, to oversimplify.
You anarchists argue like communists..
Actually, documents declassified a few decades ago proved that Roosevelt knew exactly what he was doing when he forced Japan into a corner, prompting Pearl Harbor. He knew about the attack well before it happened. They were not the aggressor. He was. And he did it to force the US into the war. The American people refused to fully engage up to that point, and he knew they wouldn't unless provoked. It's documented, not a guess, supposition or subjective.
I agree with everyone's right to choose to join the military. I don't agree with everyone being forced to pay for it. And I certainly don't agree with the US' "right" to go around attacking people. Police state? It's all about profits. Perhaps this is something you should investigate further.
If you worked from the facts I view, you joining the army would be the same as asking to be a slave and have your life thrown away for the profit and mechanizations of the oligarchy. If you could do that, then your statement is accurate.
"You anarchists argue like communists.." Did you really say that? This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've seen said throughout this discussion. It's inflammatory and uncalled for. You look through all my responses and I've simply disagreed and tried to show why some anarchists have a poor view of soldiers, mostly because I'm sympathetic to what this article is saying.
"You anarchists argue like communists.." This is uncalled for and inflammatory...
I'm a vet and I approve of this sentiment, though I've never felt the need to validate my anarchy. One thing I'd point out is that Anarchy actually means without rulers, not rule or rules. There are some fantastic pieces on DAO/Insurance based economies that outline some viable alternatives to the nation state. voluntaryist.com has their entire archive of newsletters up until today, filled with information that addresses the lack of a plan you cited.
So there is a viable plan, but anarchists disdain the idea (as do I) of seizing 'power' and forcing anyone to do it, because it stands against every ideal of anarchy. You can't force a horse to drink, but I think with continued dissemination of ideas, we can help shape the paradigm shift that is required to remove the veil from our collective eyes.
I'd have your six bud.
Awesome! Glad to know this...
Your affinity for @prufarchy has increased +10! :)
Thank you for that website tip.. I'll dive into that. I agree and assumed what the situation was on 'plans' and agree that seizing power would necessarily be required for anything to occur in the short term, but that would be a hypocritical move for anarchists. Nature abhors a vacuum and if a revolution like that were to happen, I wouldn't want to be around for who picks up that check.
Brilliant. That could be a great post by itself!
Many thanks for the great response. If you're interested, we should do a podcast/hangout sometime with a discussion on this topic. Shoot me a memo sometime!
As a Veteran I am not offended at all. I say bring all the young men and women home. Simplistic? Yes, that is the point.
It doesn't matter if you don't care about wars elsewhere, they will eventually care about you.
Holing up in a proverbial bunker of isolationism is a sure-fire way to attract belligerence from antagonists or the greedy. It didn't work well for Britain during WW2, or the US.
There will ALWAYS be tyrants willing and capable of raising armies to subjugate and murder their way to expand power, influence and control. If you DO NOT HAVE risk mitigation measures baked into your operating strategy, YOU WILL DIE, ideologically or biologically.
There are soooo many peaceful ways to pursue this. US rampant aggression is not the answer. We could take a queue from Switzerland on this one. In some ways, we're halfway there. It's just that the US likes to be the playground bully.
I'd like to believe what you say about pursuing peace but, I have to agree with @blakemiles84 on this one. What we are seeing are the effects of globalization on, in the main, a tribal culture that is stuck in the 7th century. Many of the isolationist memes presented in this discussion mimic those from the lead up to WWI and WWII. In fact, you could change only a few present day colloquialisms and the arguments would be indistinguishable. Further, if, as you say, the "US rampant aggression", is the problem; Why isn't it called the United States of Planet Earth? I am being serious. If there had been some giant conspiracy designed so the US would run the whole planet it would already be done. We would probably still be arguing over who got what state number.
Narrowing this a bit, and returning to my earlier comment about globalization; One can understand that having your entire identity smashed to bits by a vision of the future that invalidated your belief structure - would cause a backlash against the perceived offender. Our methods for fighting this backlash, thus far, have proved effective on the battlefield - far less so in the ideological arena; Which, unless I am mistaken, is one of the points made in the original article.
Your parting shot; ",,,the US likes to be the playground bully."); can not hold true under an objective observation of the facts. The point here is - just so I am not misunderstood - if that were true we would own all the turf from Pakistan to Turkey.
Cheers.
Why win a wars and take over countries overtly when there's so much profit in waging them and taking over subversively?
I don't say this with any degree of disrespect, but it doesn't seem that either of you are really understanding the significance of the oligarchy, central banks and the whole uber-elite manipulation of international affairs.
Like I said before, just follow the money. There's no real "defence" in these wars. It's just the rich men having the henchmen do their dirty work while they continue banking nicely. All they have to do is recruit or draft more henchmen and they can keep on baking on it...
The worst kind of slavery is one that is defended by slaves who think they're free.
I'm a true believer in supporting people in the military, police, and any position of power. We need to ban together and figure this stuff out. If (or when, errr) bad orders come down the pipeline this is essential. We are all people, we were all tricked at some point. Thank you for your post.
There are detailed plans on how to achieve our freedom without rulers (but with rules), it is a task to put it all together and experiment with new ideas. Every post can't possible cover everything. Thanks for all your efforts I'm sure you'll find many great ideas and I would love to hear from you again.
The advantage of our struggle is that it does not hit the enemy where they are strongest (by force) but rather where they are weakest (by number and supporters). As you are seeing we have many great minds that wake people up to tyranny. One can have hope that it will reach the masses. All the guns in the world will do you no good if you're the only one there to fire them.
As a trained adviser in strategic matters of unconventional warfare, you guys suck at PSYOPS :)
The fact that a contingent in the anarchist/voluntarist movement views veterans (different than active duty military) as the enemies to THEIR freedoms is absurd and a major strategic flaw, IMO.
Thanks for the response!
As you are seeing we have many great minds that wake people up to tyranny. One can have hope that it will reach the masses.
Yea .. combat arms veterans know how to fire and how to train others to fire as well... and I LOVE teaching.
I meant the tyrants! The ones giving bad orders to use the guns should not get their way. I'm interested in not sucking at PSYOPS btw..
The missing point in everything is the fact that no matter the belief...... everyone is being played by all governments.... everywhere around the world. That's why the establishment in the US is putting up such a fight. All the belief systems are being played so that everyone fights against everyone..... Destabilize the world, implosion, excuse for a new system that's worse than the one now.
I don't think that implosion would be pretty. Odds are high that the enormous vacuums that are created would be quickly filled by the most violent, manipulative, sociopathic individuals that survive the meat-grind to the top of their food chain.
Sorry. I have children and a wife. I would prefer not to live in that world if I don't have to, and I would prefer people think through the logical progression of the strategies they espouse.
I'm in the same position as you with a wife and daughter, always thinking things through, what could possibly happen? I always end up looking at history and the human mass psychology. The cycle always repeats.... just rolling with the punches at the moment..... but good always prevails in the end and things will sort out, just going to be a pain in the ass until then.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
Of course religions are a source of tyranny and authority, but to say that we need to forcefully attack them with weapons is absurd.
Of course Islam means "submission", but Christianity, a popular religion among conservatives, also has little phrases attached that hint at submission and humbleness. They say be meek, but what they want is for you to be weak.
As long as you have any form of authority in your life, be it religion of some sort or a political ideology, you can be tamed.
What we need is a second atheist movement. One that pairs itself with anarchism. This means scientists, philosophical atheists, and anarchists must work together to stomp out all forms of authority and power structures.
Atheism and anarchism must work together, for when you beat down a political leadership, a religious one rises up, and when you beat down a religious leadership, a political one rises up.
What we need to do is play "Whack-a-Mole" with two hammers.
Smash both at once, and then break the entire machine. Not continue trying to hit one mole, while supporting a powerful statist military that I suspect has its own religious influence.
Who would do the "stomping out of all forms of authority and power structures?" To what set of individuals would you turn to accomplish this violence? At what point in time would you consider all the 'whacking' done? When no Koran, Bible, or Torah is left unburned? Do you understand that the evil you hope to prevent would be overshadowed by the horror you unleash?
While I am not unsympathetic to your frustrations, the only outcome I can foresee in the approach you have suggested is one more traumatic than the present state of affairs. If we understand governments as bodies whose primary goal is establishing human control measures, and, there is ample evidence to support this belief; Why did that come to pass? Did it happen slowly, with good intention by well-meaning thinkers? How did it become commonplace to add to the body of law to prevent, shape, and control, human behavior? As you hinted in your reply, a combination of the religious and the political was at work. But, at the core of both these things was and is an ideology that, in my opinion, needs to be expunged from human thought - altruism. You can only fight that with a better philosophy. Here's to hoping that the voluntaryist/anarchist community seeks education over violence.
Cheers.
Beautifully well-written response to that. Read mine below. We're on the same page for sure. Followed!
You're taking my words out of context -- only ONE religion worries me right now.
This is more of a theological discussion, and well outside the bounds of this discussion IMO (would love to discuss some other time). But I will say the reality of the "submission" in Islam is that you "submit" to the ENTIRE hierarchy from Allah to Mohammed on down to your older brother, at least as outlined in Sharia Law by their scholars. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, taught meekness before God and humility among your brothers and sisters. He also told those who would listen to stand strong in the face of anyone seeking to tempt you away from meekness before God and humility (think the Last Temptation).
Anyone can be relatively tamed with the proper amount of force, atheist or otherwise. Sometimes, being tame yields tactical advantage. Brash, aggressive or antagonistic behavior is rarely the wisest path. Actually, the only time aggression makes sense is in combat where your life chip is on the giant poker table of life squaring off against the life chips of your opponents. The hands, flops, turns, and rivers of combat are exciting, terrifying, and awe-inspiring (not always in a good way).
How does this fall into a voluntaryist model? This seems to force people into boxes and antagonize them into a fight. How do you expect to "beat down" religious leadership without incidentally beat down everyone who agrees with that leadership? What is the logical progression of this strategy other than open warfare? This seems wholly antithetical to what I understand of anarchic/voluntarist concepts.
Breaking the entire machine quickly will lead to lots of mass graves, blood in the street, and general insecurity. The worst hit would be those in the third world under the thumb of despots already. You're seriously advocating for that?
Also another topic for another time...
You said "Only ONE religion worries you", and then you mentioned how you see your own religion as valid and good?
Tsk tsk. What a troublesome world this is. Humans are so strange.
How can you go and tell me that your religion is good and just, because it teaches meekness and humility, but then another religion teaches the same concepts using different words, and you say it's wrong?
That's simply silly. Look in a mirror.
Next you'll tell me that the USA military is justified, but all others are not?
Or that you by default are the "good guys", and anyone who opposes you are the "bad guys"?
You humans are simply troublesome. The moment you realize where I'm coming from, you'll probably instantly purge your stomach, because woah, the things you say are just absurd.
I mean really, "Jesus taught good things", "Islam teaches bad things". Is that really what you think?
Religion is absolutely foul, and as long as you believe in authority, be it a made-up god, or a government, you are tamed.
Tamed, not coerced.
How many suicide bombings occur on a weekly basis tied to ISIS or Islamic adherents to Sharia? I haven't heard any in the news recently and I pay attention. I can pick a BUNCH of cities that have had innocent blood spilled by the Sharia Pushes.
This is just getting to be an antagonistic foray into some thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
You don't see me forcing my religious beliefs on your personally, but you have an entirely closed off mind to my ARGUMENTS due to your disgust of my religious beliefs.
Who do you propose I am "tamed" by? And what exactly am I tamed from? Would you prefer I throw some rocks and molotov cocktails at police officers to prove a point?
My counter-point to your philosophy: as long as you despise your subjective view of what is defined as 'authority', you will always tend towards being your own 'god', and I would not trust you to lead me into anything since you sound the opposite of self-less.
Just my opinion since the door of personal judgement was opened by you.
@blakemiles84
Those who haven't bled for a cause have no right to judge those who did.
I still can't talk about what I did, partly because my discharge still prevents it and partly because what I went through is not something I have words for.
Let's just say I spent a goodly amount of time as a brig rat for doing the right thing , for the right reasons at the wrong time. This gave me a lot of time to think about things.
I won't judge any man that had to look down the barrel of a gun and make a decision as to who gets to live that day.
War is hell, if you haven't been to hell, shut the hell up about it.
Veterans aren't tools, nor are we toys.
We're people who did what we felt we had to ensure our way of life continued.
Someone once said, the art of winning a war is convincing the other guy to die for his cause first.
Based on some of the comments in here, we're being judged plenty.
Nice to know I have another empathetic voice in here.
I think the reason that we currently have a country (here in the US) in which people can even discuss the possibilities of anarchy/getting rid of those currently in power is due in large part to the sacrifices of our military personnel, both past and present.
It's arguable that really only that first war that started this whole experiment was the one that protected freedoms. Since then it's been expansionist in nature. World War II was no threat to the mainland of the US and did not serve to protect our freedoms but instead discriminated against a minority of the population and jailed them.
So I'm definitely down with giving props for the Revolutionary War, but after that the whole narrative falls apart for me.
Well, you could throw the war of 1812 in there as well. The british were literally capturing citizens and forcing them to serve in the british navy.
While that was used as a justification, it wasn't a very widespread practice. The more general claim was harassment of ships by the British navy. Even with that, was war the answer, or could problems have been dealt with in more civilized ways? Much of the country was opposed to the war, especially in New England. It was often argued at the time that it was a war of imperialism and conquest, and that the true objective was to annex Canada (which was under British rule.)
Eh... on a long enough timeline, it would have most certainly been a threat to the mainland. I'm sure there are a lot of secret squirrel stories we don't know about the German American Bund members being rounded up and 'disappeared'. The German SS were NOT the German Army. They were specifically chosen and indoctrinated to possess racial ideology, which is markedly different from the ideology 'indoctrinated' into those who swear an oath to the Constitution. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and if there weren't numbers of ships from the Pacific Fleet outside of the docks, the naval war in the Pacific would have been MUCH different had they sunk every boat that would have been there. A threat to the Western Seaboard would have been more real than it was already.
The enemies of liberty and freedom within our government worry me more than enemies from abroad, and that held true during WW2 as well.
@blakemiles84
I have to wonder how you felt when you saw the video from the ISIS training camp in Jordan.
The clip that pissed off the Jordanian leaders... because it was IN Jordan, and clearly visible on the far right as the camera briefly panned to the right was an Israeli colonel standing there.
Oh! You didn't see it?
hmmm...
Source?
Wait .. you think I'm surprised about the Obama administration and the Clinton State Dept. essentially training and funding militant groups with 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation from IS?
Nope. Not surprised at all. But no, I didn't see that video.
But that said -- you know what would happen if IS killed off all the non-believers? They'd start killing each other over the Sunni vs Shia divide. That should tell you all you need to know about that ideology.
@blakemiles84 The enemies of freedom in the government haven't managed to topple it yet, unless your one of those people who think we're currently living in a distopia; TBH I'm worried about Trump because he falls outside the bounds of our standard presidencial candidates. . . But aside from that I trust the American people to make the right descisions enough of the time to create the society they want. Also, I wrote you a reply about my thoughts on anarchisms feelings about the military, but I included your rep number in the handle.
purge the partisan tunnelvision man, and wake the hell UP!
Notice how all the neo-cons are now for Shillery? Ahem, its not a very wide aisle apparently.
They have to keep the illusion of a 2 party system afloat, so people with the tunnel vision keep playing the mythical tug-o-war.
IT ISN'T REAL man, any more than the reasons they told you to go to IRAQ.
It was a Wall St war, and you were a pawn.
Trump has pulled back the curtain (more like a thin lacy veil) on the little wizard man.
The real sludge at the bottom gave him the lead, and the others didn't like to see and realize the bottom dwellers were driving their 'party' ... news for them, they always did.
As for the ISIS training camp with the Israeli colonel, do a search, if learning the bare truth doesn't frighten you. Read about the Jordanian response to the video. Its AN EYE OPENER.
And GOOD GOD MAN !!!
Its NOT the "OBAMA State Dept", its the same freakin State dept we've ALWAYS HAD. Kerry/Obama isn't doing anything they aren't told to do by their paymasters... like the folks in the PNAC, they are STILL in charge. YES. Purge the partisan mental conditioning, along with all that brain washing you suffered in the military.
Senator Kagan's wife Victoria (Fuck the E.U.) 'Nuland' (real name Noodleman) is giving Kerry his orders. If you PAY ATTENTION you'd see it. She monitors everything he does, stands over his shoulder, watching his every move for fuck sake.
Don't ask for sources man, do your own homework.
AND LEAVE THE RESERVES BEFORE THEY KILL YOU.
The things I'm saying aren't partisan. I simply believe there is a big difference between Trump and Clinton. I don't consider myself a Republican, but I despise progressivism because it always leads to more government intervention into daily life. How is that partisan? I have no love for the GOP as an organization and I see the DNC as a destructive force.
I'm not looking back wistfully at previous State Departments. I'm pointing out that the State Department with bureaucrats "appointed" by the Obama administration has done a superb job at accelerating the destabilization around the globe. How is that objectively false?
Being told you've been brainwashed is always an interesting conversation. What exactly am I brainwashed about ?
I do my own homework in my own time. If someone says that there is something out there I should look at, I may or may not. I'm not sure what you think it will change in my mind? I will ask for sources because you're the one who brought it up.
I haven't been in the military since 2011.
I know the Republicans and Democrats are basically playing a rigged shell game with no possibility to win. Power is centralized in DC and state capitals due to an ever-increasing reach of scope and authority from the federal and state governments.
What the hell do we disagree on again?
The revolutionary war was a counter-revolution which had nothing to do with securing the freedoms of the general public and everything to do with securing the economic and political freedoms of the American aristocracy.
@fingolfin No shit. Also, the fact that we set up a system where there is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc makes discussion of anarchism possible. The surprising thing I learned when talking to anarchists on steemit is they say all government is equally bad, If you say this in NorthKorea you get put into a concentration camp. they don't draw distinctions between states. This attitude is like flying in a plane for practicalities sake while saying how you think flying is the worst immoral act a person can commit.
I like your style :)
This is an important perspective. I think the issue people have with the military in general is that it gets used as a tool by globalists for goals involving power and material wealth more than freedom and democracy, although the latter sentiments are used in recruiting as well as selling the American people on the engagement. Personally, what I want to see is political leaders who truly love America and will deploy the military with that front and center. I'm not an anarchist, but like you resonate with some aspects of the philosophy. Also, the ISIS threat is very real, and needs to be dealt with decisively regardless of why we think it's there.
Thank you for your service to our country.
Your name rings true. Thank you for that post. Upvoted and followed!
I think politicians have lofty ideas when running for office but after elected reality sets in. In the end if things don't go well the military is the "rubber that meets the road"! God bless them!
that may be true for some, but something tells me Hillary will say anything to convey her lofty ideas with the SOLE intent to be elected. Her internal focus is to further degrade liberties and expand the nanny state while killing businesses (that she and her staff won't accept bribes from).
I could see Hillary starting all sorts of wars, particularly given how weak she undoubtedly appears to the rest of the world. I didn't even have to mention that her and her staff is covered head to toe in corruption (PROVABLE corruption no less!).
Thanks for the response!