Grey Matters

Why are we, The U.S.A., taking sides in a civil war? When I heard that the “international community” wanted Moammar Khaddafy out of Libya, I wondered: Is Khaddafy or Libya signatory to some treaty or compact that surrenders to the “international community” rights of self-determination of the Libyan people? No matter how bad Khaddafy may be, by what right does the “international community” intervene in a civil war? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Khaddafy suddenly “lost the legitimacy to rule” when he used “mass violence” against his people. By that standard, half the countries on Earth are ripe for interference by the “international community.”

Make no mistake, the “international community” (by which I mean the bureaucrats at the United Nations) wants to establish a precedent that allows them to stick their noses into other countries’ business. Permitting them to do so is a bad idea. Taking part, even worse.

Oil or not, I see no “upside” here for the U.S. Here we are attacking yet another Arab country which is, big surprise, gonna piss off some Arabs somewhere, you can be sure. Barely a day into the action, even the Arab League said the U.S. had gone too far and was exceeding its mandate.

I guess it’s about supporting U.S. allies in the middle east. Bahrain, though oppressive, will not be attacked by the U.S. Egypt, Lebanon? Look the other way.

This interference in Libya will come back to bight the U.S.A. in its collective backside.

On Feb. 26, President Obama, in reference to Moammar Khaddafy: “When a leader’s only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule…”

At first I laughed out load. Seriously, I LOL’d, and I do not easily LOL. The very idea that, up until recently, Khaddafy had legitimacy is laughable. Hugely, insanely laughable. Silly me, I thought legitimacy came from the consent of the governed.

But this is the official Obama position, as stated by Hillary Clinton as well. Think about it.

As long as a leader can stay in power by intimidation, and by means of less than “mass violence” against his people, he’s “legitimate” in the eyes of an Obama.

That’s scary and it proves what learned others have said:

“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue until they are resisted with words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those they oppress.” — Frederick Douglass, August 4, 1857

“The strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it….” — Thomas Paine

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” — Albert Einstein

Or, as I’ve written in my Laws of Government site: Law # 1, Fifth corollary: “Government will violate all of your rights, if you permit it.”

It is the nature of government to impose just as much oppression as we are willing to permit.

I find it interesting too that Obama is, apparently, OK with “ruling” as opposed to leading. To “rule” is to exercise ultimate power and is very different from “leading” a country. Dictators rule while presidents lead. Our president has no problem with dictators, in principle, and sees ruling as a legitimate form of government — until the ruler resorts to mass violence. Interesting.

On a chat list to which I subscribe, someone claimed that Obama is not a socialist and anyone who claims he is is a racist or doesn’t know what socialism is. So, not being a racist, I figured I’d best brush up on socialism. I thought that I’d first put down what I know about socialism and socialists and then maybe, from that, I could work up a picture of what socialism is. Here’s what I know:

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

The definition provided by the dictionary function of my computer’s operating system says:
“a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole” — a somewhat broader definition.

These seem to fit within my own definition of socialism, but there’s much more. My own observations are that:

Socialists worship the god Need. Need is to be served unreservedly. Whether an individual deserves something is not as important as the individual’s need. Thus we encourage neediness at the expense of worthiness. When favors are handed out based on need, people learn how to be needy, indeed, may make themselves needy, the better to qualify for favors.

My daughter had her eyes opened when she (a gas station/convenience store clerk) tried to rent an apartment for low-income people. That she had a job and paid taxes disqualified her. She had to take a place at a much older, dilapidated apartment complex that had not been set aside for the needy. Meanwhile, idle layabouts of her acquaintance who had no jobs and produced nothing of benefit to society received subsidies to live in the newer, much nicer low-income apartment building. That she paid taxes in support of such people did not escape her notice. Thus is Need’s will done.

Socialists believe that the collective’s needs are more important than the needs of any individual making up the collective. They claim to be doing what’s best for “society” even as they violate the rights of the persons making up that society. Most curious.

Socialism — the needs of the collective — is what caused some societies to throw a virgin into the volcano or cut the beating heart out of a young man’s chest with a stone knife. “Some must be sacrificed for the good of the whole,” they say. I submit that unless the virgin and the young man go to their deaths voluntarily, it is murder. These days Socialists don’t murder our young people outright to procure their sacrifice to Need, they instead take their sacrifice by pieces and over a much longer time, but take it they do.

Socialists, while claiming the moral high ground, found their system on theft. Virtue, they believe, lies in taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not.

Socialists believe that no matter how much you give, it’s not enough unless you suffer privation; only then are you moral. If you do not suffer, you are not giving enough. You must suffer privation. Those who come by their privation naturally (the ‘poor’) are more moral than the rest of us.

Socialists believe in spreading the misery around to everyone. It is “unjust,” they say, that some have it worse than others. Socialists would rather that we all suffer the same to the same degree. That’s “fair,” they say. Socialists would prefer that everyone be moderately unhappy rather than that some be happy and some not.

Socialists believe that it’s okay to do Bad Things as long as it’s for a Good Cause. The end justifies the means. Thus is theft their method, though they refer to it as “taxation” and paying one’s “fair share.” I submit that being forced to pay someone else’s share is not fair; it is theft.

Not content to merely steal our money, our income, they steal virtue itself Charity at the point of a gun is not charity, it is theft. To the degree that they take money from us by force, they deprive us of the ability to help those in need of our own volition. Thus we are less able to practice altruism. The virtue that is altruism is replaced by theft and called virtue.

Socialists invariably put into place a class of overseers who are “more equal” than the rest of us.

Socialists believe that life is a zero-sum activity. Thus Socialists believe that poor people are caused by rich people; some people are poor because other people are hogging all the money. “Share the wealth” is their motto — not so much a suggestion as a commandment — “Share the wealth OR ELSE!” Socialists do not understand how wealth is created, only how to appropriate it.

If capitalism is based on greed, then socialism is based on envy. Of these, envy is the worse condition. While greed can be satisfied by simply working harder to earn more for oneself, without harming anyone, envy can be satisfied by depriving others of what is theirs.

Socialists make a claim upon my energies, upon the product of my industry. Thus they claim my life itself. I work and produce, I labor and my labors are claimed by someone else — everyone else. The fruits of my labors are not my own. I am left whatever the Socialists choose to let me keep. The collective comes first. Need must be served.

The dictionary definitions of socialism talk of collective ownership and control of the “means of production.” What are we citizens if not a means of production? A factory is just a building with machinery without people to run it. We are the means of production. And I do not, according to Socialists, have a right to the fruits of my own labor. The collective does.

That’s certainly how it is here in the U.S.A. You don’t get to choose how to dispose of those fruits, the collective does, and has first claim. My needs and decisions are subordinate to the collective. Should I decide to put money aside for my child’s college education or for my retirement, the collective will not forego my taxes to permit me to do so. The collective has first claim on my income. If, after serving the collective, there’s enough left for the purposes I intended, I am fortunate.

But the choice is not mine to make. I do not own myself, the collective does.

I have concluded then that Socialism is slavery. Slavery with a medical plan, perhaps, but slavery nonetheless.

We’ve been led to believe that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military is about homosexual rights. It’s not. As usual though, the self-styled progressives want to subordinate an organization’s (in this case, the armed forces) raison d’être to promoting their social agenda.

Now, I have no problem with homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces but, like women, they should not be assigned to combat positions. This is not based on sexism or homophobia, so save your breath.

It is the theme of countless movies and books — there are no lengths to which one will not go for someone he loves. We care about our loved ones and would gladly die for them, if necessary. Problem is, we might also sacrifice countless others (that too is a common theme in story-telling, common because it is a universal truism).

When loved ones are in danger, we will do even foolish things to try and save them. People caring to deny it are only fooling themselves.

Combat units are not well served by doing foolish things, taking foolish risks.

People who work together tend to develop romantic attachments when sexual attraction exists. Indeed, most people meet their spouses on the job. Sometimes there are even romantic liaisons on the job. These distract from doing their jobs.

In combat, we cannot afford to have people distracted from doing their jobs.

When women started serving aboard U.S. Navy ships alongside men, a substantial percentage became pregnant. That condition alone detracts from military readiness, never mind that many of them may have been impregnated while on duty when they (and their sex partners) should have been busy doing their jobs.

I’m all for homosexuals coming out of their closets. Homosexuals who are “out” cannot be threatened with exposure to coerce them into betraying trusts.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” may not be ideal but it is better than homosexuals serving openly in combat positions.

But the issue is not about homosexual rights, it’s about combat readiness. Homosexuals and women in combat is just bad soldiering. But stack homosexual rights and “equality” for women against combat readiness and the latter will lose every time. It looks as though the lame duck Congress is about to push through a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the U.S. military.

As usual though, progressives have subordinated an organization’s primary mission to their social agenda. We should know what we’re getting into.

I’ll say it one last time: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is bad for military readiness.

In case you missed it, National Public Radio fired Juan Williams for this — in response to a question from Bill O’Reilly on Fox News:

“When I get on a plane and see people in Muslim garb, and I think they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get nervous…”

So, Juan was fired from NPR for simply speaking the truth — on a subject of great import in the post 9/11 era.

This is political correctness run amok. But it’s a logical consequence of the idea that some things are just not said. It’s a logical consequence of tolerating the intolerant. NPR and its fellow travelers are so worried about offending Muslims that they are willing to offend all others, censor their spokespeople and fire them outright for speaking the truth.

While ostensibly being all in favor of pluralism or multiculturalism, “diversity” or whatever you want to call it, progressives tend to be intolerant in the one area that matters most — ideas. They do not suffer those who disagree with them. Were it possible, the good folks at NPR would have sent Juan Williams to a re-education camp until he saw the light.

The post-racial society, if we are ever to achieve it, will not come without discussion of how people feel about those who are different and why they feel that way. Don’t expect to hear such discussions on NPR.

Note that he wasn’t fired for being worried and nervous. He was fired for making “a bigoted statement” — for admitting to being worried and nervous. He’d shown himself to be no longer worthy of carrying the NPR banner.

The good, progressive folk at NPR are supposed to be true and pure. Like the New Soviet Man, they’ve overcome human nature. No one makes them nervous or worried, not Latino gang members, not ganstas, not skinheads (I take that back, I’m pretty sure they’ve sounded the alarm on skinheads — and militias. It’s OK to fret over militias) and certainly not Muslims. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

Juan Williams admitted the un-admittable. He lost face. He admitted to being human. We can’t have that!

Being frightened is like being in love — you have no control over it, it just happens. At best you can fake it, act like you’re not frightened. You can lie about it. But you cannot will it away. You can’t force yourself to be not frightened. All you can do it hide it (or take drugs).

One hopes that the NPR bigwigs would rather die at the hands of gangstas than cross the street to avoid them. And that the God of Irony is paying attention and sees an opening…