I don’t want to seem redundant, but some important ideas need to be reiterated, especially when it’s hard to get through to some people who are conditioned all their lives with so much cognitive dissonance. So I wanted to get this out there. I’ll be doing a post on talk radio shortly, but these issues here take precedence.
As I wrote in a recent post, many Americans are collectivistic in their support of U.S. government atrocities such as Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq and so on. While one problem is their collectivism, another problem is their gullibility in believing the propagandistic crap that government bureaucrats spoon-feed them, as repeated word for word by the bureaucrats’ lapdog apparatchiks in the mainstream media.
In a related post, Michael Rozeff asserts that many Americans don’t like the idea of defeat. He writes, “Americans will not look history in the face because it means accepting American defeat. They will fight on and on in war after war or support their government’s fights because they want to turn defeats into victories.”
As I see it, the cognitive dissonance includes many Americans’ inability to understand the cause and effect of our government’s starting wars, invading other countries, murdering innocents, and the blowback against us that such terrible central planning policies cause.
But a lot of people are very authoritarian-minded, and they don’t like it when others question the authority and judgment of their rulers. We heard the reactions of talk radio people and others to Colin Kaepernick not standing for the National Anthem, and to Gary Johnson seeing a moral equivalence between the U.S. military bombing, murdering innocent civilians and the Syrian regime bombing and murdering innocent civilians (or ISIS murdering innocent civilians, quite frankly).
Of course there is moral equivalence between any individual or group who kills an innocent human being. If you believe otherwise, then you believe in moral relativism. Yes, it’s that simple. So, one ought not believe those who say that “we had to drop an atom bomb on a city of innocent civilians to save the lives of U.S. soldiers,” as such people are engaged in rationalization. They are rationalizing the murders of innocent human beings. They are relativists.
But some people are offended and personally insulted by the idea of anyone questioning their rulers’ judgments, including the judgments of the U.S. military. Unfortunately, there are sheeple who get on their knees for the military (and government police), because of being conditioned to unthinkingly and unquestioningly idolize and worship authority, especially the armed authority of the government rulers.
And there are plenty of regime apparatchiks in the government who have authority themselves but use it to give official approval of government criminality. Some of the worst of these regime apparatchiks are the judges. Such judges include the notorious contortionist U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who bent over backwards twice now to rubber-stamp ObamaCare, and plenty of judges who have rubber-stamped the FBI, local police and other “authorities” who have violated the rights and lives of innocent people.
Another example: When testifying before Congress FBI Director James Comey listed one item after another as to why Hillary Clinton should be indicted for her email server recklessness, but he concluded in Orwellian fashion by saying that he doesn’t recommend that she be indicted. In fact, FBI agents are now calling him a corrupt buffoon and saying that he obstructed the FBI’s investigation of Clinton. Comey, in fact, has a long relationship with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Crony Comey, you might say.
Another regime judge, FISA Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, rubber-stamped CIA secrecy in its drone-murder program. In a 2011 ruling, she wrote, according to Politico:
At first blush, there is force to Plaintiffs’ argument that a ‘targeted-killing program is not an intelligence program’ in the most strict and traditional sense … [But:] The Court has no reason to second-guess the CIA as to which programs that may or may not be of interest implicate the gathering of intelligence.
And then in 2014, Judge Collyer threw out a lawsuit against Obama’s drone-murder program, writing that such a lawsuit “would impermissibly draw the court into the heart of executive and military planning deliberation.”
In other words, just as we shouldn’t “second-guess the CIA,” we also shouldn’t second-guess the military. Isn’t the point of having three branches of government so that we can, or must, second-guess the government, including its military? But, as Jacob Hornberger pointed out yesterday, the U.S. military runs things, not the President. Therefore the judicial deference to the unquestionable judgment of the military or the CIA.
But God forbid we should second-guess the CIA, given how just about everyone in the CIA and FBI is “corrupt,” according to CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou. He was the one who exposed the CIA torture program. And for that the CIA and FBI persecuted and jailed him, and not the torturers themselves. (Hmm, did Hugh Hewitt ever interview John Kiriakou? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question.)
The truth is, the torture was initially to justify George W. Bush’s planned 2003 Iraq War, not to protect us from terrorism.
You see, many authoritarians believe what bureaucrats tell them about “national security” and that the detainees at Guantanamo are “terrorists,” even though no evidence has been shown against the detainees and they certainly haven’t been convicted of anything. The authoritarians who worship at the alter of government authority are scoffing and snickering at my noting that here. They know those detainees are “terrorists,” because the rulers said so.
And God forbid we should second-guess the U.S. military. Those bureaucrats are beyond reproach. Like during the Vietnam War, when the military bureaucrats of the Pentacon knew as early as 1967 that the war would be unwinnable, yet they proceeded to send U.S. troops to their deaths for no good reason anyway — for ego, for power, and for financial enrichment. Even after the Pentagon Papers were published and the American people knew how treasonously the Johnson and Nixon administrations were acting in their sending people off to their deaths for no good reason, the sheeple believed in their government anyway, and they still didn’t want to second-guess the military.
Even now there are Americans who still defend the U.S. government’s actions in Vietnam in the 1960s and ’70s, either because they are ignorant, indoctrinated with misinformation and propaganda, and/or they just obediently believe what bureaucrats tell them. They don’t like it when such a policy is criticized! Especially when you point out that young Americans were sent to their deaths for no good reason. We must sweep the truth under the rug. For some people, the thought of their own government acting treasonously and criminally in such an extensive and murderous way is unthinkable.
And then there was Iraq from 1990 and continuing. We shouldn’t have second-guessed George H.W. Bush’s judgment in starting a war against Iraq back then. We shouldn’t have second-guessed his son’s starting a new war on Iraq 12 years later. In Bush the Younger’s war, the U.S. military involved itself in chemical atrocities, and as they invaded and occupied Iraq (and not the other way around), besides shooting at and bombing and murdering innocents, their criminality also involved going house to house to search for and confiscate firearms from the Iraqi people.
Can you imagine a foreign regime invading here and doing that to the people of Texas or Pennsylvania? I’m sure the moral relativists say that it’s okay for our military to violate foreigners’ right to keep and bear arms, but we certainly can’t allow it the other way around.
The right to keep and bear arms is part of the general right of human beings to self-defense. Such a right is an inherent human right that preexists the formation of any government, and that right applies to all human beings, in America, Iraq, or wherever.
But, we shouldn’t question the judgment of our high and mighty military or whichever commander-in-chief happens to be in charge, according to the obedient authoritarians.
We certainly shouldn’t question the judgment of the military when its bureaucrats impose gun-free zones on U.S. bases, which have enabled lunatics like Nidal Hassoon to shoot up the people there who have been disarmed and can’t shoot back. Nope. Don’t second-guess those brilliant bureaucrats.
And we shouldn’t question the judgment of the Navy bureaucrats who will require all sailors to get transgender education. And the Pentacon will now cover transgender sex-reassignment surgery for all active duty troops. Yay! (Did Klinger on M*A*S*H ever think of this?) And these bureaucrats, whose judgment we should always trust and never question, have come out with their new sex change handbook.
As Laurence Vance writes, “You will be paying for all this nonsense. What red-blooded American man would want to join today’s military? What Christian would want to join?”
Well, I’m sure the authoritarians who love and worship the military will try very hard to look the other way regarding those things.