Al Otro Lado En Todas Partes
I am so thankful that I was able to volunteer at Al Otro Lado today [January 7th, 2019] when a military base I was on more than 12 years ago was bombed in Iraq [meaning it was good to be volunteering while I learned the base I was on 12 years to the day had been bombed because it presented a thought provoking experience that had me teary all that day]. It was good to be around other volunteers who were working to help people rather than hurt people. I did a lot of paperwork labelling and filing today, which felt eerily similar to all the paperwork filing I did with ammunition movement documents while I was in the Marine Corps, but this paperwork will hopefully help people, rather than help murder people I never met. I felt content and productive rather than disoriented and destructive when I was putting together paperwork for ammunition that was meant for other well equipped militaries and not guerilla fighters trying to get an imperial military force out of their country which had already been in Iraq for more than 5 years when I was at that military base.
I thought about what this planet might feel like for humans if instead of all the resources, lives, and energy humans put into killing ourselves, instead went to doing the work we were doing today, helping people get out of harm's way, instead of putting more and more people into harm's way. I was embarrassed by my decision to have joined the military while working alongside all these heroes who weren’t even getting paid to do a job that many in the US might be hostile to, people who wouldn't even think to help immigrants because of the media’s depiction of “the other” as a potential terrorist, even when asylum seekers are leaving because they’re probably being terrorized in the country they called home. And how many of these immigrants’ countries were affected by US espionage and paramilitary meddling? Quite a few.
I started the day receiving a Christmas card from one of the kindest men I have ever met, who happens to be in prison, which was forwarded from another volunteer colleague, whom I have gotten to work with in prison, by email. My friend will be getting out of prison in a few months and was excited to hopefully be able to do some nonviolence workshops with me on the outside and this filled me with such joy and hope. I hear so many say that war won’t end and this bullshit will continue forever but this man and so many others I’ve had the privilege to meet and learn from show me otherwise. I wish I could write him back but I can’t due to our volunteers organizations policy which I would never want to put in jeopardy, so I will have to wait to hear from him when he gets totally out of the system to continue our work bringing nonviolent alternatives to more and more communities, neighborhoods, and people.
I’m also grateful to know so many veterans who have seen the light of alternative ways to find common ground, similarities, and overcome differences rather than resorting to killing, maiming, and hurting ourselves. It takes a lot of courage to speak up and point out that what we did and what the militaries and governments are still doing is misguided, unstrategic, and most importantly unethical and immoral. These veterans risk losing friends and even family connections and I am thankful when I see them share their experiences and thoughts about what went on and what’s going on now with that in mind. It is so much more courageous to say that you want to help people and see them live rather than hurt and want to see death to others. Wanting to see your own species perish is cowardly and counterproductive to the continuation of all life and I hope people stop being so scared of the small differences they see in others that put them in such a place. Peace and love y’all, it’s so much easier, fulfilling and rewarding for all.
I am so thankful that I was able to volunteer at Al Otro Lado today [January 7th, 2019] when a military base I was on more than 12 years ago was bombed in Iraq [meaning it was good to be volunteering while I learned the base I was on 12 years to the day had been bombed because it presented a thought provoking experience that had me teary all that day]. It was good to be around other volunteers who were working to help people rather than hurt people. I did a lot of paperwork labelling and filing today, which felt eerily similar to all the paperwork filing I did with ammunition movement documents while I was in the Marine Corps, but this paperwork will hopefully help people, rather than help murder people I never met. I felt content and productive rather than disoriented and destructive when I was putting together paperwork for ammunition that was meant for other well equipped militaries and not guerilla fighters trying to get an imperial military force out of their country which had already been in Iraq for more than 5 years when I was at that military base.
I thought about what this planet might feel like for humans if instead of all the resources, lives, and energy humans put into killing ourselves, instead went to doing the work we were doing today, helping people get out of harm's way, instead of putting more and more people into harm's way. I was embarrassed by my decision to have joined the military while working alongside all these heroes who weren’t even getting paid to do a job that many in the US might be hostile to, people who wouldn't even think to help immigrants because of the media’s depiction of “the other” as a potential terrorist, even when asylum seekers are leaving because they’re probably being terrorized in the country they called home. And how many of these immigrants’ countries were affected by US espionage and paramilitary meddling? Quite a few.
I started the day receiving a Christmas card from one of the kindest men I have ever met, who happens to be in prison, which was forwarded from another volunteer colleague, whom I have gotten to work with in prison, by email. My friend will be getting out of prison in a few months and was excited to hopefully be able to do some nonviolence workshops with me on the outside and this filled me with such joy and hope. I hear so many say that war won’t end and this bullshit will continue forever but this man and so many others I’ve had the privilege to meet and learn from show me otherwise. I wish I could write him back but I can’t due to our volunteers organizations policy which I would never want to put in jeopardy, so I will have to wait to hear from him when he gets totally out of the system to continue our work bringing nonviolent alternatives to more and more communities, neighborhoods, and people.
I’m also grateful to know so many veterans who have seen the light of alternative ways to find common ground, similarities, and overcome differences rather than resorting to killing, maiming, and hurting ourselves. It takes a lot of courage to speak up and point out that what we did and what the militaries and governments are still doing is misguided, unstrategic, and most importantly unethical and immoral. These veterans risk losing friends and even family connections and I am thankful when I see them share their experiences and thoughts about what went on and what’s going on now with that in mind. It is so much more courageous to say that you want to help people and see them live rather than hurt and want to see death to others. Wanting to see your own species perish is cowardly and counterproductive to the continuation of all life and I hope people stop being so scared of the small differences they see in others that put them in such a place. Peace and love y’all, it’s so much easier, fulfilling and rewarding for all.
My First School Memory
The first school I remember attending was W.E.E. (Weekday Early Education) School located in Papillion, Nebraska’s Grace Baptist Church. It was the preschool that I attended before going to Cardinal Spellman Catholic Elementary School in Bellevue, Nebraska where I attended Kindergarten. I don’t remember any teacher’s or caregiver’s but I do remember one class we took on food.
I was sitting at a round type of table with 3 or 4 other kids in my class. The teacher brought around a dish with 2 creamy scoops in it. I thought I knew what I was looking at and dug a spoonful of the liquidy solid, salivating for that sweet release of cold milky sugar on my tongue. Whoops.
It was room temperature, oily, and not sweet at all! I scowled feeling tricked and spit drooled the butter outta my mouth. School taught me something that day, look before you leap, or nibble before you heap.I don’t remember getting in trouble but that was the first memory I have from school and maybe a reason I’m not a big butter fan!
The first school I remember attending was W.E.E. (Weekday Early Education) School located in Papillion, Nebraska’s Grace Baptist Church. It was the preschool that I attended before going to Cardinal Spellman Catholic Elementary School in Bellevue, Nebraska where I attended Kindergarten. I don’t remember any teacher’s or caregiver’s but I do remember one class we took on food.
I was sitting at a round type of table with 3 or 4 other kids in my class. The teacher brought around a dish with 2 creamy scoops in it. I thought I knew what I was looking at and dug a spoonful of the liquidy solid, salivating for that sweet release of cold milky sugar on my tongue. Whoops.
It was room temperature, oily, and not sweet at all! I scowled feeling tricked and spit drooled the butter outta my mouth. School taught me something that day, look before you leap, or nibble before you heap.I don’t remember getting in trouble but that was the first memory I have from school and maybe a reason I’m not a big butter fan!
My Defensive Life: How a self defense mentality can prevent the need for problematic collective defense
Honors Thesis, Fall 2013
California State University, in Chico
Introduction
The most dangerous and destructive threat to the world and the life that lives on it are standing militaries created by humans. While most life biologically creates self defense mechanisms through evolution over millions of years, humans have formed organizations and created equipment and tools to extend these defensive systems through inventions over only a few thousand years. Humans only use these invented defenses to fight ourselves and not other species, as we have asserted our place at the top as the world’s most dominant species. Our defense is no longer to keep us safe from predators from other species but instead to keep us safe from human predators. Even further, whole populations of human beings grow up and spend the majority of their lives in support and as a part of these defense systems. Any species that diverts from a lasting and sustainable evolutionary track by trying to destroy part of itself, could be considered to have a cancer unto its own species. Humans can no longer leave their defensive decisions solely up to others and must reexamine and reform themselves and the organizations currently providing defense in order to stop the perpetual violence we currently see across the planet.
Military Brat Life
I grew up as what is colloquially called an Air Force brat, courtesy of my father's place in the United States Air Force. From an early age I was taught that the military was keeping us safe. Being born on a military base and then moving to different US military bases about every three years during my childhood provided me with a unique perspective regarding what the military actually does. The first few jobs my dad was in charge of carrying out were flying missions to ensure that the Russians were not planning on heating up the Cold War. He also found himself in the European theater where he was more an employee of NATO. His last stints whilst still in the military brought him to Washington, D.C., where he helped the Air Force obtain and share maps with other government agencies and, at his last post, prepared college students at Notre Dame for the Air Force through the ROTC program.
While I was a child, I was mostly oblivious to what my dad did and whether it was making my life safer. I knew that my dad working kept me fed and sheltered and, since the society I grew up in seemed to think that what he did was ethical enough to let him continue to do it, I figured it was an OK thing to be employed doing. Unfortunately, the society I was a part of was wrong and my dad was simply working as a cog in the war machine of the military industrial complex. Nothing my father did directly defended anyone from imminent danger, and the jobs he did hold were mostly administrative, if not bureaucratic. This made for a rather luxurious lifestyle for me and my family compared to most of the Americans, and definitely most of the world, as we were given housing, medical care, education, and enough money for my father to provide good food, clothes, and toys. With such a comfortable life laid out for me, I had little reason to question why I was able to live such a life or the reasons my dad was employed. When I did have an ethical question about the military or its practices, someone would be there to tell me the socially accepted answer and I would never think to question their logic. After I joined the military myself though, I realized militaries serve no productive defensive purpose whatsoever in their current form.
The most dangerous and destructive threat to the world and the life that lives on it are standing militaries created by humans. While most life biologically creates self defense mechanisms through evolution over millions of years, humans have formed organizations and created equipment and tools to extend these defensive systems through inventions over only a few thousand years. Humans only use these invented defenses to fight ourselves and not other species, as we have asserted our place at the top as the world’s most dominant species. Our defense is no longer to keep us safe from predators from other species but instead to keep us safe from human predators. Even further, whole populations of human beings grow up and spend the majority of their lives in support and as a part of these defense systems. Any species that diverts from a lasting and sustainable evolutionary track by trying to destroy part of itself, could be considered to have a cancer unto its own species. Humans can no longer leave their defensive decisions solely up to others and must reexamine and reform themselves and the organizations currently providing defense in order to stop the perpetual violence we currently see across the planet.
Military Brat Life
I grew up as what is colloquially called an Air Force brat, courtesy of my father's place in the United States Air Force. From an early age I was taught that the military was keeping us safe. Being born on a military base and then moving to different US military bases about every three years during my childhood provided me with a unique perspective regarding what the military actually does. The first few jobs my dad was in charge of carrying out were flying missions to ensure that the Russians were not planning on heating up the Cold War. He also found himself in the European theater where he was more an employee of NATO. His last stints whilst still in the military brought him to Washington, D.C., where he helped the Air Force obtain and share maps with other government agencies and, at his last post, prepared college students at Notre Dame for the Air Force through the ROTC program.
While I was a child, I was mostly oblivious to what my dad did and whether it was making my life safer. I knew that my dad working kept me fed and sheltered and, since the society I grew up in seemed to think that what he did was ethical enough to let him continue to do it, I figured it was an OK thing to be employed doing. Unfortunately, the society I was a part of was wrong and my dad was simply working as a cog in the war machine of the military industrial complex. Nothing my father did directly defended anyone from imminent danger, and the jobs he did hold were mostly administrative, if not bureaucratic. This made for a rather luxurious lifestyle for me and my family compared to most of the Americans, and definitely most of the world, as we were given housing, medical care, education, and enough money for my father to provide good food, clothes, and toys. With such a comfortable life laid out for me, I had little reason to question why I was able to live such a life or the reasons my dad was employed. When I did have an ethical question about the military or its practices, someone would be there to tell me the socially accepted answer and I would never think to question their logic. After I joined the military myself though, I realized militaries serve no productive defensive purpose whatsoever in their current form.
Blind Patriotism
My father was stationed in the Washington D.C. area during my time in high school, which happened to be when the events of September, 11, 2001 took place. My father was even scheduled to be present at a meeting in the Pentagon that very day, a fact which left me personally affected by the attacks that happened then. I had no real direction in life at that time; during my exploration of various colleges and universities, I found myself wishing that I could do something other than schooling right after high school graduation, as I found myself to be burnt out over academia. Pressure to go defend my country from terrorists was fresh and ever present in my mind after the constant media blitz showing the 9/11 attacks and the terroristic DC sniper incident; as a result, I started leaning more towards joining the military than continuing education. I started talking with a Navy recruiter whom, after I scored rather high on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery or ASVAB which is a test given to see how competent a recruit is for any military job, had me signing up to work on the Navy’s nuclear engines. Me and the recruiter were set to head to MEPS, or a Military Entrance Processing Station, where all new recruits go to before they get shipped off to bootcamp, but was unable to because Ronald Reagan died and was lying in state causing a huge traffic jam in DC. The recruiter said he would reschedule for a later date but he was relinquished of recruiting duty, apparently because he was unable to recruit enough people for the Navy. No other Navy recruiter got back in contact with me after a few weeks and the Navy office was about ten times further away than the Army and Marine Corps recruiters, so I decided to try them instead.
My senior year of high school, two of my friends from high school had already signed up for the Army and were telling me I should join with them. I had thought about it, but the Marine Corps recruiters seemed a bit more down to earth and intelligent. I thought that, of the two military branches, the Marine Corps was much more respected and tougher to get through, so I was set with going the Marine route.
I had done little research into what I could do in the military and, after a hasty search through the list of MOS’s, or Military Occupational Specialties, I decided that the Logistics option was the best fit for me. Under the logistics overarching job code was both the logistics specific four digit code of 0400, but there was also the ammunition technician specific code which was 2300. I had asked both my recruiter and the folks at MEPS what that code meant and if I could get that taken off of my contract. Both gave me an answer to the effect of “I don’t know what that job code is or does but, don’t worry, you’ll probably get the logistics option.” Little did I know the key word of that paraphrase would be “probably,” as I ended up becoming an ammunition technician when I finally got out of boot camp and MCT, or Marine Combat Training.
Once I had gotten through my ammunition technician job training school, I was finally able to see and understand firsthand what regular military life was like. Days were filled with constant training and organization building exercises, yet this all felt very vague and unfocused on any sort of end goal. Roadside bomb deterrence training was finally given in 2007 after myself and hundreds of thousands of people had already made their way to and from the Iraqi war zone where roadside bombs accounted for the majority of our casualties (Rogers, 2011). The roadside bomb deterrence training I went through in 2007 after my first tour to Iraq would have been much more helpful than the Vietnam jungle warfare style training provided to us prior to our deployment to Iraq in 2005. The sheer size of even Ammunition Company with only a couple hundred people, and all the higher echelon units that our unit was apart of, made it hard for there to be any real sense of unit cohesion or even camaraderie. Dunbar’s number, a limit of relationships that a human can cognitively maintain somewhere in the range from 150 to 300 (Dunbar, 1992), suggests that these sized organizations are doomed to failure in terms of cohesion, as no one could possibly be on the same page as everyone else in their immediate unit, much less the larger units their immediate unit was a part of. Even if one could feel like a part of such a large organization like a military unit, surely one could not meaningfully be a part of such large groups like countries, which is whom the military works for and should feel connected to in some way to justify its existence. This connected feeling was not present while I was in the military, but was even more apparently missing once I got out of the military and immersed myself back into a civilian lifestyle.
My father was stationed in the Washington D.C. area during my time in high school, which happened to be when the events of September, 11, 2001 took place. My father was even scheduled to be present at a meeting in the Pentagon that very day, a fact which left me personally affected by the attacks that happened then. I had no real direction in life at that time; during my exploration of various colleges and universities, I found myself wishing that I could do something other than schooling right after high school graduation, as I found myself to be burnt out over academia. Pressure to go defend my country from terrorists was fresh and ever present in my mind after the constant media blitz showing the 9/11 attacks and the terroristic DC sniper incident; as a result, I started leaning more towards joining the military than continuing education. I started talking with a Navy recruiter whom, after I scored rather high on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery or ASVAB which is a test given to see how competent a recruit is for any military job, had me signing up to work on the Navy’s nuclear engines. Me and the recruiter were set to head to MEPS, or a Military Entrance Processing Station, where all new recruits go to before they get shipped off to bootcamp, but was unable to because Ronald Reagan died and was lying in state causing a huge traffic jam in DC. The recruiter said he would reschedule for a later date but he was relinquished of recruiting duty, apparently because he was unable to recruit enough people for the Navy. No other Navy recruiter got back in contact with me after a few weeks and the Navy office was about ten times further away than the Army and Marine Corps recruiters, so I decided to try them instead.
My senior year of high school, two of my friends from high school had already signed up for the Army and were telling me I should join with them. I had thought about it, but the Marine Corps recruiters seemed a bit more down to earth and intelligent. I thought that, of the two military branches, the Marine Corps was much more respected and tougher to get through, so I was set with going the Marine route.
I had done little research into what I could do in the military and, after a hasty search through the list of MOS’s, or Military Occupational Specialties, I decided that the Logistics option was the best fit for me. Under the logistics overarching job code was both the logistics specific four digit code of 0400, but there was also the ammunition technician specific code which was 2300. I had asked both my recruiter and the folks at MEPS what that code meant and if I could get that taken off of my contract. Both gave me an answer to the effect of “I don’t know what that job code is or does but, don’t worry, you’ll probably get the logistics option.” Little did I know the key word of that paraphrase would be “probably,” as I ended up becoming an ammunition technician when I finally got out of boot camp and MCT, or Marine Combat Training.
Once I had gotten through my ammunition technician job training school, I was finally able to see and understand firsthand what regular military life was like. Days were filled with constant training and organization building exercises, yet this all felt very vague and unfocused on any sort of end goal. Roadside bomb deterrence training was finally given in 2007 after myself and hundreds of thousands of people had already made their way to and from the Iraqi war zone where roadside bombs accounted for the majority of our casualties (Rogers, 2011). The roadside bomb deterrence training I went through in 2007 after my first tour to Iraq would have been much more helpful than the Vietnam jungle warfare style training provided to us prior to our deployment to Iraq in 2005. The sheer size of even Ammunition Company with only a couple hundred people, and all the higher echelon units that our unit was apart of, made it hard for there to be any real sense of unit cohesion or even camaraderie. Dunbar’s number, a limit of relationships that a human can cognitively maintain somewhere in the range from 150 to 300 (Dunbar, 1992), suggests that these sized organizations are doomed to failure in terms of cohesion, as no one could possibly be on the same page as everyone else in their immediate unit, much less the larger units their immediate unit was a part of. Even if one could feel like a part of such a large organization like a military unit, surely one could not meaningfully be a part of such large groups like countries, which is whom the military works for and should feel connected to in some way to justify its existence. This connected feeling was not present while I was in the military, but was even more apparently missing once I got out of the military and immersed myself back into a civilian lifestyle.
Revealing Iraq
This disconnect from other “Americans” grew even stronger when I arrived in Iraq in early 2006. I found myself part of yet another smaller unit called the Quick Reaction Force, or QRF, which happened to be a cousin to my home unit, Ammunition Company, under the First Supply Battalion. This was a leftover unit from the previous few rotations of deployments that came before our year stint in-country. We were the fourth rotation of Marines to occupy Al Taqaddum Air Base and after that three plus years of similar experiences on the base, life became very regimented and routine. As a part of Supply Battalion, our main goal was to keep the Marines in Al Anbar province constantly supplied with equipment, food, water, and, my specialty, ammunition. What the goal of the whole of the Marines in country was of no consequence to myself, my peer group, and even my immediate bosses, and was colloquially referred to as “above our pay grade” and speaking of such topics could land you a Non-Judicial Punishment, or NJP. Questioning the reasonings as to why we were in Iraq was questioning one’s superiors, politicians and higher ranking officers such as generals, and could amount to insubordination if in the presence of certain people who held certain beliefs. This type of mental and social silencing seemed and still seems to have a chilling effect on voicing dissent to what we were doing, creating a cognitive dissonance on the part of most military veterans and still active members. An even bigger effect has been driven home with the treatment of both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden after their revelations as to what our military and government has and still is doing to this day.
During the many slow days on base in Iraq, I would find myself doing extensive research on current events and, really, anything that sparked my interest to pass the time. But, especially with current events, I always was very careful and hesitant as to what kinds of topics I would research for fear that I could be reprimanded or, at the least, warned to lay off the research. We were blocked from using most social networks and other more “fun” popular websites in an effort to prevent us from getting sidetracked from our daily job tasks, like ammunition accounting and emailing in my case. However, reference and news sites were never blocked; now that I look back on it, this could definitely be viewed as more harmful to military bearing and discipline. In particular, I was extra cautious and worried about when I read some articles on Donald Rumsfeld, who was our Secretary of Defense during my first deployment, and found out what a questionable life he has led.
Another resource that was available to me and other military members on base was what was called the “share drive”, a folder found on the base wide computer server where anyone could upload and download any content they found entertaining to pass the time. As revealed by the leaks released by Chelsea Manning and shared with the world, our share drive also had war porn, or images and videos of military activities in war, uploaded to it along with all the bootlegged music, movies, and games one could ever want. This was what I found most of my fellow troops spending their recreational time entertaining themselves with; but, as I was a big supporter of property rights at the time and thought that the war porn was of questionable legal status and morality, I mostly stayed away from the drive and stuck to creative commons and paid-for sources of entertainment, like the base store stocked with CD’s and DVD’s.
Other than the drive, our unit would go to the gym, get our weekly haircut from Third Country Nationals (TCN’s), shop at the many on base vendors, or just hang out at the MWR, where Morale, Welfare, and Recreation was issued. Along with all the regular activities offered to us on base during our time in Iraq, the MWR often hosted special guests and visitors, such as professional football cheerleaders, actors, politicians, music groups, and other famous people that they thought military members would enjoy seeing. These creature comforts became increasingly plentiful as our time in Iraq continued to pass with name brand restaurants like Burger King and Subway finding their ways onto military installations in country. War felt rather cushy and more about keeping military members happy than ultimately helping anyone in Iraq or the USA.
A warfare event I experienced included the time when a convoy I was on was called up to provide back up for an Iraqi Army unit that was receiving small arms fire from a house. We arrived to park our Humvees on a berm to bring a show of presence and then patrolled the area by Humvee with periodic foot patrols. Another common warfare event that took place involved the base receiving about one incoming mortar attack per week during the first few months I was in Iraq, and that number dwindled to around once every two months by the time I left my second tour in the middle of 2008. These attacks would not have occurred if the US had not invaded the country; after further reflection, I can almost sympathize with the insurgents who were just trying to rid their country of a legally-immune foreign military that was literally dumping trash across their desert. As part of the Quick Reaction Force, one of our duties was to escort the trash collectors, who were Eastern European men who had their trucks shipped into the country, off base to dump and burn the trash about two miles off base. During one such escort mission, my Sergeant discovered about ten Iraqi children and teenagers scrounging through the trash and he decided it was our duty to line them up and question them, without a translator, about why they were there and what kind of US military trash they were “stealing.” During this episode, I found myself in the humvee furthest away from the verbal engagement and downwind from the trash smoke, and was livid that the guy would waste his, our Unit’s, and everyone’s time harassing these kids as we were covered in flies and breathing in burning trash and gas. This was the last straw in a string of events that lead me to the realization that we, collectively as a nation and citizens of the US, had made a mistake. I was no longer able to keep up with the cognitive dissonance, I knew I could never re-enlist nor view the military with the same admiration and respect I had when I was a child looking up to my father. There is no defensive use for such an offensive organization.
This disconnect from other “Americans” grew even stronger when I arrived in Iraq in early 2006. I found myself part of yet another smaller unit called the Quick Reaction Force, or QRF, which happened to be a cousin to my home unit, Ammunition Company, under the First Supply Battalion. This was a leftover unit from the previous few rotations of deployments that came before our year stint in-country. We were the fourth rotation of Marines to occupy Al Taqaddum Air Base and after that three plus years of similar experiences on the base, life became very regimented and routine. As a part of Supply Battalion, our main goal was to keep the Marines in Al Anbar province constantly supplied with equipment, food, water, and, my specialty, ammunition. What the goal of the whole of the Marines in country was of no consequence to myself, my peer group, and even my immediate bosses, and was colloquially referred to as “above our pay grade” and speaking of such topics could land you a Non-Judicial Punishment, or NJP. Questioning the reasonings as to why we were in Iraq was questioning one’s superiors, politicians and higher ranking officers such as generals, and could amount to insubordination if in the presence of certain people who held certain beliefs. This type of mental and social silencing seemed and still seems to have a chilling effect on voicing dissent to what we were doing, creating a cognitive dissonance on the part of most military veterans and still active members. An even bigger effect has been driven home with the treatment of both Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden after their revelations as to what our military and government has and still is doing to this day.
During the many slow days on base in Iraq, I would find myself doing extensive research on current events and, really, anything that sparked my interest to pass the time. But, especially with current events, I always was very careful and hesitant as to what kinds of topics I would research for fear that I could be reprimanded or, at the least, warned to lay off the research. We were blocked from using most social networks and other more “fun” popular websites in an effort to prevent us from getting sidetracked from our daily job tasks, like ammunition accounting and emailing in my case. However, reference and news sites were never blocked; now that I look back on it, this could definitely be viewed as more harmful to military bearing and discipline. In particular, I was extra cautious and worried about when I read some articles on Donald Rumsfeld, who was our Secretary of Defense during my first deployment, and found out what a questionable life he has led.
Another resource that was available to me and other military members on base was what was called the “share drive”, a folder found on the base wide computer server where anyone could upload and download any content they found entertaining to pass the time. As revealed by the leaks released by Chelsea Manning and shared with the world, our share drive also had war porn, or images and videos of military activities in war, uploaded to it along with all the bootlegged music, movies, and games one could ever want. This was what I found most of my fellow troops spending their recreational time entertaining themselves with; but, as I was a big supporter of property rights at the time and thought that the war porn was of questionable legal status and morality, I mostly stayed away from the drive and stuck to creative commons and paid-for sources of entertainment, like the base store stocked with CD’s and DVD’s.
Other than the drive, our unit would go to the gym, get our weekly haircut from Third Country Nationals (TCN’s), shop at the many on base vendors, or just hang out at the MWR, where Morale, Welfare, and Recreation was issued. Along with all the regular activities offered to us on base during our time in Iraq, the MWR often hosted special guests and visitors, such as professional football cheerleaders, actors, politicians, music groups, and other famous people that they thought military members would enjoy seeing. These creature comforts became increasingly plentiful as our time in Iraq continued to pass with name brand restaurants like Burger King and Subway finding their ways onto military installations in country. War felt rather cushy and more about keeping military members happy than ultimately helping anyone in Iraq or the USA.
A warfare event I experienced included the time when a convoy I was on was called up to provide back up for an Iraqi Army unit that was receiving small arms fire from a house. We arrived to park our Humvees on a berm to bring a show of presence and then patrolled the area by Humvee with periodic foot patrols. Another common warfare event that took place involved the base receiving about one incoming mortar attack per week during the first few months I was in Iraq, and that number dwindled to around once every two months by the time I left my second tour in the middle of 2008. These attacks would not have occurred if the US had not invaded the country; after further reflection, I can almost sympathize with the insurgents who were just trying to rid their country of a legally-immune foreign military that was literally dumping trash across their desert. As part of the Quick Reaction Force, one of our duties was to escort the trash collectors, who were Eastern European men who had their trucks shipped into the country, off base to dump and burn the trash about two miles off base. During one such escort mission, my Sergeant discovered about ten Iraqi children and teenagers scrounging through the trash and he decided it was our duty to line them up and question them, without a translator, about why they were there and what kind of US military trash they were “stealing.” During this episode, I found myself in the humvee furthest away from the verbal engagement and downwind from the trash smoke, and was livid that the guy would waste his, our Unit’s, and everyone’s time harassing these kids as we were covered in flies and breathing in burning trash and gas. This was the last straw in a string of events that lead me to the realization that we, collectively as a nation and citizens of the US, had made a mistake. I was no longer able to keep up with the cognitive dissonance, I knew I could never re-enlist nor view the military with the same admiration and respect I had when I was a child looking up to my father. There is no defensive use for such an offensive organization.
Demilitarized Decompression
After I had returned to the United States and after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, I took a break from everything and travelled to Australia, South East Asia, and Hawaii for about half of a year before my first semester of college. This time between the military and higher education gave me a time to decompress what I had just been through and reassess my life and it’s trajectory. Being immersed in other cultures that were not the military superpower of the world gave me a new perspective on militaries and how they actually function in the world and might be viewed by others. Talking with people about the military and my time in it was more eye opening when the people I was talking to did not feel obliged to say “Thank you,” to me for some how and supposedly defending their way of life because we both happened to be of the same nationality. This left me more able to view the world without the US citizen lens.
I also had time to read a few more books from the local Australian library with one being “About Face” by Colonel David Hackworth that detailed his account of his employment in the US military, especially his time in Vietnam (1989). His story resonated with me in that he was able to see both the good and the bad that the military does and has done, and not just focus on the good because of a social taboo to not speak any ill of the military that can do no wrong. Hackworth was known for speaking the blunt truth and, while still on active duty, went on television and denounced the Vietnam War as unwinnable saying that we need to pull out. He thought this more because he believed that the troops were being treated unfairly at the time and was not questioning the legitimacy of the organization, just of the legitimacy of the goals in the Vietnam War. He later went on to expose bigger picture issues of the whole military but the fallacies surrounding the reasonings to stay in Vietnam for so long was what sparked his activism in military reform. Hackworth was the first person I had ever really encountered whom was a military member speaking out against what the military was doing and I felt it came off as much more genuine and credible to hear it from a veteran who actually saw the damage and didn’t just read about it in a report or study.
Defending Occupy
After a rejuvenating break from the pressure of US society, I got back to California and started my schooling at the California State University in Chico. My first year was rather low key for me and the only extra curricular activity I was involved with was the Student Veterans Organization where the main focus of the group seemed to be learning about the many benefits available to us and exchanging stories about military and veteran issues we had encountered. I ran for Secretary and then Vice President of the organization and even travelled to Georgetown University in Washington D.C. to attend the national meeting of the Student Veterans of America which our organization was a member of, but I never quite felt like my goals for veterans and both the national and local organizations goals would match up. I felt that most veteran organizations goals amounted to trying to receive more monetary assistance but less of a focus on implementing help programs and performing outreach to veterans who may never know about or ask for assistance. The national organization was even dealing with in fighting between leadership and did not have the cohesion necessary to help veterans get the benefits they earned. During my tenure as Vice President though, the Occupy protests began and I shifted focus from disadvantaged US veterans to disadvantaged people everywhere.
When the New York Occupy protests gained national media attention, I was skeptical of their tactics, message, and motives. I was unaware that they even had any concrete tactics, messages, or motives and thought it was just a few hippie-type people trespassing in a park but then I saw former Marines like Shamar Thomas standing up for these protesters when the New York Police Department (NYPD) was using excessive force. Shamar Thomas explained the reasoning behind his defensive stance against the NYPD when he stated on his video blog channel:
“I took an Oath that I live by. am NOT anti-NYPD. I am anti-Police Brutality. I am no longer under contract with the USMC so I do NOT have to follow military uniform regulations. I DON'T affiliate myself with ANY GROUPS or POLITICAL ORG. I affiliate myself with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that's it. I REFUSE to affiliate with anything that SEPARATES. There is an obvious problem in the country and PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be allowed to PROTEST without Brutality. I was involved in a RIOT in Rutbah, Iraq 2004 and we did NOT treat the Iraqi citizens like they are treating the unarmed civilians in our OWN Country.”(sic) (2011)
After seeing Shamar out in the street defending the people’s right to assemble and protest, I thought that Occupy was a worthy cause to get behind. Then, a little more than a week later, I saw what the Oakland Police Department (OPD) did to former Marine Scott Thomas Olsen when they fractured his skull after shooting a gas canister into a crowd of people in Oakland (McKinley & Wollan, 2011). After witnessing these unjust events between former Marines and the police, I thought getting involved with the Occupy protests was something I should do. I got in contact with a friend of mine from Chico State whose friend was a victim of the Occupy Davis pepper spray attacks and we started an Occupy group on campus. I finally found myself in a position where I might actually defend people within my community. The Occupy group on campus fizzled with the nationwide movement after only a few months; but while we were active, the police on campus and from the city gave the impression that they were there to keep us safe from people who might be hostile to our message and cause, which was refreshing to hear after seeing so many reports on police brutality in relation to other Occupy protests.
These life experiences have shaped my view of defense and what it should encompass. Like most people, I grew up seeing the military as a benevolent force for good, but, after experiencing military employment myself, I was able to reformulate my perception to the way the military actually acts in the world. Revealing these stories in this paper is meant to help point out how I came to my conclusions and show how these defensive organizations actually work. I realized that self defense and preservation still influences the actions of members of defensive organizations, like the police and military. A thorough review of these organizations and the concept of defense itself is in order, starting with defining the different type of defense that exist in human society.
After I had returned to the United States and after being honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, I took a break from everything and travelled to Australia, South East Asia, and Hawaii for about half of a year before my first semester of college. This time between the military and higher education gave me a time to decompress what I had just been through and reassess my life and it’s trajectory. Being immersed in other cultures that were not the military superpower of the world gave me a new perspective on militaries and how they actually function in the world and might be viewed by others. Talking with people about the military and my time in it was more eye opening when the people I was talking to did not feel obliged to say “Thank you,” to me for some how and supposedly defending their way of life because we both happened to be of the same nationality. This left me more able to view the world without the US citizen lens.
I also had time to read a few more books from the local Australian library with one being “About Face” by Colonel David Hackworth that detailed his account of his employment in the US military, especially his time in Vietnam (1989). His story resonated with me in that he was able to see both the good and the bad that the military does and has done, and not just focus on the good because of a social taboo to not speak any ill of the military that can do no wrong. Hackworth was known for speaking the blunt truth and, while still on active duty, went on television and denounced the Vietnam War as unwinnable saying that we need to pull out. He thought this more because he believed that the troops were being treated unfairly at the time and was not questioning the legitimacy of the organization, just of the legitimacy of the goals in the Vietnam War. He later went on to expose bigger picture issues of the whole military but the fallacies surrounding the reasonings to stay in Vietnam for so long was what sparked his activism in military reform. Hackworth was the first person I had ever really encountered whom was a military member speaking out against what the military was doing and I felt it came off as much more genuine and credible to hear it from a veteran who actually saw the damage and didn’t just read about it in a report or study.
Defending Occupy
After a rejuvenating break from the pressure of US society, I got back to California and started my schooling at the California State University in Chico. My first year was rather low key for me and the only extra curricular activity I was involved with was the Student Veterans Organization where the main focus of the group seemed to be learning about the many benefits available to us and exchanging stories about military and veteran issues we had encountered. I ran for Secretary and then Vice President of the organization and even travelled to Georgetown University in Washington D.C. to attend the national meeting of the Student Veterans of America which our organization was a member of, but I never quite felt like my goals for veterans and both the national and local organizations goals would match up. I felt that most veteran organizations goals amounted to trying to receive more monetary assistance but less of a focus on implementing help programs and performing outreach to veterans who may never know about or ask for assistance. The national organization was even dealing with in fighting between leadership and did not have the cohesion necessary to help veterans get the benefits they earned. During my tenure as Vice President though, the Occupy protests began and I shifted focus from disadvantaged US veterans to disadvantaged people everywhere.
When the New York Occupy protests gained national media attention, I was skeptical of their tactics, message, and motives. I was unaware that they even had any concrete tactics, messages, or motives and thought it was just a few hippie-type people trespassing in a park but then I saw former Marines like Shamar Thomas standing up for these protesters when the New York Police Department (NYPD) was using excessive force. Shamar Thomas explained the reasoning behind his defensive stance against the NYPD when he stated on his video blog channel:
“I took an Oath that I live by. am NOT anti-NYPD. I am anti-Police Brutality. I am no longer under contract with the USMC so I do NOT have to follow military uniform regulations. I DON'T affiliate myself with ANY GROUPS or POLITICAL ORG. I affiliate myself with the AMERICAN PEOPLE that's it. I REFUSE to affiliate with anything that SEPARATES. There is an obvious problem in the country and PEACEFUL PEOPLE should be allowed to PROTEST without Brutality. I was involved in a RIOT in Rutbah, Iraq 2004 and we did NOT treat the Iraqi citizens like they are treating the unarmed civilians in our OWN Country.”(sic) (2011)
After seeing Shamar out in the street defending the people’s right to assemble and protest, I thought that Occupy was a worthy cause to get behind. Then, a little more than a week later, I saw what the Oakland Police Department (OPD) did to former Marine Scott Thomas Olsen when they fractured his skull after shooting a gas canister into a crowd of people in Oakland (McKinley & Wollan, 2011). After witnessing these unjust events between former Marines and the police, I thought getting involved with the Occupy protests was something I should do. I got in contact with a friend of mine from Chico State whose friend was a victim of the Occupy Davis pepper spray attacks and we started an Occupy group on campus. I finally found myself in a position where I might actually defend people within my community. The Occupy group on campus fizzled with the nationwide movement after only a few months; but while we were active, the police on campus and from the city gave the impression that they were there to keep us safe from people who might be hostile to our message and cause, which was refreshing to hear after seeing so many reports on police brutality in relation to other Occupy protests.
These life experiences have shaped my view of defense and what it should encompass. Like most people, I grew up seeing the military as a benevolent force for good, but, after experiencing military employment myself, I was able to reformulate my perception to the way the military actually acts in the world. Revealing these stories in this paper is meant to help point out how I came to my conclusions and show how these defensive organizations actually work. I realized that self defense and preservation still influences the actions of members of defensive organizations, like the police and military. A thorough review of these organizations and the concept of defense itself is in order, starting with defining the different type of defense that exist in human society.
Types of Defense
I will be talking about three types, or levels, of defense: self, community, and national; but to get to a basic and somewhat universal, or global at least, definition of defense, one must first look at the definition of an organism and the biological imperatives, or what life needs to continue to exist. All life on earth must: be composed of varying organization(s) of cell(s), use energy, respond to their environment, grow, reproduce, and adapt. (Lathrop, n.d.) The characteristics relevant to defense include: an organism’s use of energy, how an organism responds to it’s environment, ability of an organism to reproduce, and ability of an organism to adapt through evolution. An organism may have to defend itself: from becoming the energy another organism uses, by responding in a productive manner towards its environment, and from other potential suitors of the same mate, all while adapting new defenses through evolution and learned behavior in order to continue it’s lineage. When determining if an action is defensive or offensive at a basic biological level, these characteristics must be taken into account if one wishes to stand on logical scientific ideological standings.
Keeping the biological imperatives in mind, one can say that defense is necessary in order for an organism to continue thriving and evolving as a species. Looking at the scientific biological definitions also reveals that this defense can be demonstrated at both the self and community levels as both individual animals and proximital, not psychological, groupings of animals need to defend themselves because of physically, not psychologically, occurring threats. On a national level of defense though, we see the human mind creates the threats, not the rest of nature in the physical world. Nations are only a human idea that serves no physical purpose but to separate areas of land with imagined lines determining who has physical control of the area. These lines are only recognized by one species, humans, as barriers with around 8.7 million other species (Mora, Tittensor, Adl, Simpson, Worm, 2011) taking no heed to such lines. This mentally construed idea of nations and their defense does not help keep the species safer and only divides the species into self imposed types that do not naturally exist, as nations consist of groups of people larger than the human brain can manage to conceptualize according to Dunbar’s number concept.
Looking at defense with a human perspective complicates the biological idea as so many human concepts have expanded the scope and necessity of defense. The anthropological use and view of defense has evolved and, as seen in other pack animals, created unique situational defense that only pertains and is perceived by the species in question. While humans are not the only species to have created unnecessary mental ideas that require extra defensive measures, we are the only species with the capability to destroy all life on earth as a result of the extreme build up of our weapons and militaries, yet we also have the mental capacity to recognize this and change it. Our defensive capability has evolved at a faster rate than any other animal known of in existence, going from simple melee weaponry that limited effective engagement to one attacker to having nuclear weapons capable of slaughtering all biological life with lasting radiation still today. Clearly our weapons have gone from defensive in nature to overtly offensive. To hunt big game, our biggest natural prey you probably need a projectile weapon, like a spear, bow and arrow, or gun, to be able to gather meat from those animals; but, weapons we have made now could only be viewed as overboard because there should never be a reason to need a weapon that can obliterate millions of non-combatants, of many species. This makes self defense the most important level for any organism to be most concerned with, as the other two levels are both secondary and tertiary in their application by the individual defender for community and national defensive organizations consist of individuals and are in the service of those individuals.
I will be talking about three types, or levels, of defense: self, community, and national; but to get to a basic and somewhat universal, or global at least, definition of defense, one must first look at the definition of an organism and the biological imperatives, or what life needs to continue to exist. All life on earth must: be composed of varying organization(s) of cell(s), use energy, respond to their environment, grow, reproduce, and adapt. (Lathrop, n.d.) The characteristics relevant to defense include: an organism’s use of energy, how an organism responds to it’s environment, ability of an organism to reproduce, and ability of an organism to adapt through evolution. An organism may have to defend itself: from becoming the energy another organism uses, by responding in a productive manner towards its environment, and from other potential suitors of the same mate, all while adapting new defenses through evolution and learned behavior in order to continue it’s lineage. When determining if an action is defensive or offensive at a basic biological level, these characteristics must be taken into account if one wishes to stand on logical scientific ideological standings.
Keeping the biological imperatives in mind, one can say that defense is necessary in order for an organism to continue thriving and evolving as a species. Looking at the scientific biological definitions also reveals that this defense can be demonstrated at both the self and community levels as both individual animals and proximital, not psychological, groupings of animals need to defend themselves because of physically, not psychologically, occurring threats. On a national level of defense though, we see the human mind creates the threats, not the rest of nature in the physical world. Nations are only a human idea that serves no physical purpose but to separate areas of land with imagined lines determining who has physical control of the area. These lines are only recognized by one species, humans, as barriers with around 8.7 million other species (Mora, Tittensor, Adl, Simpson, Worm, 2011) taking no heed to such lines. This mentally construed idea of nations and their defense does not help keep the species safer and only divides the species into self imposed types that do not naturally exist, as nations consist of groups of people larger than the human brain can manage to conceptualize according to Dunbar’s number concept.
Looking at defense with a human perspective complicates the biological idea as so many human concepts have expanded the scope and necessity of defense. The anthropological use and view of defense has evolved and, as seen in other pack animals, created unique situational defense that only pertains and is perceived by the species in question. While humans are not the only species to have created unnecessary mental ideas that require extra defensive measures, we are the only species with the capability to destroy all life on earth as a result of the extreme build up of our weapons and militaries, yet we also have the mental capacity to recognize this and change it. Our defensive capability has evolved at a faster rate than any other animal known of in existence, going from simple melee weaponry that limited effective engagement to one attacker to having nuclear weapons capable of slaughtering all biological life with lasting radiation still today. Clearly our weapons have gone from defensive in nature to overtly offensive. To hunt big game, our biggest natural prey you probably need a projectile weapon, like a spear, bow and arrow, or gun, to be able to gather meat from those animals; but, weapons we have made now could only be viewed as overboard because there should never be a reason to need a weapon that can obliterate millions of non-combatants, of many species. This makes self defense the most important level for any organism to be most concerned with, as the other two levels are both secondary and tertiary in their application by the individual defender for community and national defensive organizations consist of individuals and are in the service of those individuals.
Self Defense
Self defense is the one defense every human uses and can easily relate to. From fending off the flu, to swatting flies and mosquitoes, defense can be an everyday activity for most people. Although the vast majority of actual attacks on the individual come from other species, both community and national defense organizations focus on a human threat, so that is what I will focus on in this review of self defense. Not all humans are capable of providing themselves adequate self defense against others for physical, psychological, developmental or age, and philosophical reasons.
Self defenses have been taught and developed formally in the form of martial arts and other physical defense trainings. The use of martial arts can be found in recorded history as far back as the 20th century B.C.E. depicted in Egyptian tombs (Czerwińska-Pawluk, Zukow, 2011, p. 21) and martial arts were the first time defensive ideologies were separated from an individuals minds and codified as their own identity, or being made into what Richard Dawkins coined a meme (1976, p. 192). The codification of physical defensive systems in martial arts gave rise to the following of these practices and not the following of one's own self oriented defensive practice creating the first disconnect in the human mental history of the idea of defense. These different styles of martial arts also gives societies another item to further divide humanity up into separate groups creating unneeded tension over ideology, and ideologies do not exist in the physical realm and are an unproductive item to bear tension over.
“The best self defense technique is to be aware of and avoid potentially dangerous situations. Failing that, travel in numbers. Failing that, run.” (Murray, 2010, p.10) That was a quote from a martial arts instructors manual on Modern Self Defense Training which I found to strike at the root of defense. An organism consciously living their life with the goal of staying out of potentially dangerous and violent situations is the best defensive strategy one can pursue. The extreme practice of this has been called pacifism which does not bode well with the biological impulse to continue a species and can be looked at as destructive in some cases. When one realizes that the ideology of pacifism does not allow an organism to adapt to its surrounding in order to survive the notion can be logically discounted as unproductive to an organism, at least in relation to other species.
Does this include pacifism in relationships amongst humans? As seen from the direct actions taken by Gandhi and his followers of non-violent protest, one can use pacifism effectively as a tactics to counter physical attacks as a form of defense. When the British were seen attacking unarmed Indian pacifist protesters with brute force, humanity and the direct society condemned the attacks as unnecessary and unethical because they realized using force in any way besides defense is unethical and should be avoided at all costs. This tactic was successfully utilized again by Martin Luther King Junior when he, too, used exposing violent police tactics against peaceful protesters to show that his cause was the just and correct ideology to follow. Their tactics were not directed at those whom they were in conflict with, but were directed at the society as a whole with successful attempts at changing the way people think with non-violent direct action, not brute military force.
Self defense starts with the individuals ideology and belief system in what, if any, type(s) of violence and force is necessary in order to continue to thrive as an organism. These beliefs and ideas can come from many sources like religious organizations, educational institutions, and parental rearing. These are all rather subjective sources but there have been some in the scientific and philosophical realm that have taken a more scientific and logical approach to solving the age old problem of ethics. Sam Harris’s book called “The Moral Landscape” reviews the history and application of morals in this book and, with his background in neuroscience, posits that there is a way to determine what is right and wrong through the application of science (2010). While he admits that we do not yet have the technical capability to actually carry out the experiments necessary to determine the morality of situation yet, he believes that with the continued exponential growth of technological advancements, he does not think it is too far and that to start laying a framework for such a scientific field would be beneficial.
Another author who has attempted to tackle the problem of determining morality through a secular means is Stefan Molyneux with his book called “Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” (2007). Stefan reveals that the ethical system enforced by those in power, whether it be one’s parents, church, or government, is really a system used to control the populace. He then lays forth a process that might be used to determine on an individual case by case basis whether certain acts can be considered as ethical or not. In his work, Stefan also reveals that one’s childhood and upbringing is a large determining factor on whether or not a person will believe that force can be necessarily used in an ethical way. Both authors show that through individual determination and consciousness, organisms can and should reject the use of any sort of violence as a form defense by avoidance. Both these authors, Gandhi, and King, all show that the common phrase of “Fighting fire with fire” or broken down and put into context “defending from violence with violence” does not help humanity rid itself of the idea that force and sometimes be necessary. “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” (King, M, 1958)
Self defense is the one defense every human uses and can easily relate to. From fending off the flu, to swatting flies and mosquitoes, defense can be an everyday activity for most people. Although the vast majority of actual attacks on the individual come from other species, both community and national defense organizations focus on a human threat, so that is what I will focus on in this review of self defense. Not all humans are capable of providing themselves adequate self defense against others for physical, psychological, developmental or age, and philosophical reasons.
Self defenses have been taught and developed formally in the form of martial arts and other physical defense trainings. The use of martial arts can be found in recorded history as far back as the 20th century B.C.E. depicted in Egyptian tombs (Czerwińska-Pawluk, Zukow, 2011, p. 21) and martial arts were the first time defensive ideologies were separated from an individuals minds and codified as their own identity, or being made into what Richard Dawkins coined a meme (1976, p. 192). The codification of physical defensive systems in martial arts gave rise to the following of these practices and not the following of one's own self oriented defensive practice creating the first disconnect in the human mental history of the idea of defense. These different styles of martial arts also gives societies another item to further divide humanity up into separate groups creating unneeded tension over ideology, and ideologies do not exist in the physical realm and are an unproductive item to bear tension over.
“The best self defense technique is to be aware of and avoid potentially dangerous situations. Failing that, travel in numbers. Failing that, run.” (Murray, 2010, p.10) That was a quote from a martial arts instructors manual on Modern Self Defense Training which I found to strike at the root of defense. An organism consciously living their life with the goal of staying out of potentially dangerous and violent situations is the best defensive strategy one can pursue. The extreme practice of this has been called pacifism which does not bode well with the biological impulse to continue a species and can be looked at as destructive in some cases. When one realizes that the ideology of pacifism does not allow an organism to adapt to its surrounding in order to survive the notion can be logically discounted as unproductive to an organism, at least in relation to other species.
Does this include pacifism in relationships amongst humans? As seen from the direct actions taken by Gandhi and his followers of non-violent protest, one can use pacifism effectively as a tactics to counter physical attacks as a form of defense. When the British were seen attacking unarmed Indian pacifist protesters with brute force, humanity and the direct society condemned the attacks as unnecessary and unethical because they realized using force in any way besides defense is unethical and should be avoided at all costs. This tactic was successfully utilized again by Martin Luther King Junior when he, too, used exposing violent police tactics against peaceful protesters to show that his cause was the just and correct ideology to follow. Their tactics were not directed at those whom they were in conflict with, but were directed at the society as a whole with successful attempts at changing the way people think with non-violent direct action, not brute military force.
Self defense starts with the individuals ideology and belief system in what, if any, type(s) of violence and force is necessary in order to continue to thrive as an organism. These beliefs and ideas can come from many sources like religious organizations, educational institutions, and parental rearing. These are all rather subjective sources but there have been some in the scientific and philosophical realm that have taken a more scientific and logical approach to solving the age old problem of ethics. Sam Harris’s book called “The Moral Landscape” reviews the history and application of morals in this book and, with his background in neuroscience, posits that there is a way to determine what is right and wrong through the application of science (2010). While he admits that we do not yet have the technical capability to actually carry out the experiments necessary to determine the morality of situation yet, he believes that with the continued exponential growth of technological advancements, he does not think it is too far and that to start laying a framework for such a scientific field would be beneficial.
Another author who has attempted to tackle the problem of determining morality through a secular means is Stefan Molyneux with his book called “Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics” (2007). Stefan reveals that the ethical system enforced by those in power, whether it be one’s parents, church, or government, is really a system used to control the populace. He then lays forth a process that might be used to determine on an individual case by case basis whether certain acts can be considered as ethical or not. In his work, Stefan also reveals that one’s childhood and upbringing is a large determining factor on whether or not a person will believe that force can be necessarily used in an ethical way. Both authors show that through individual determination and consciousness, organisms can and should reject the use of any sort of violence as a form defense by avoidance. Both these authors, Gandhi, and King, all show that the common phrase of “Fighting fire with fire” or broken down and put into context “defending from violence with violence” does not help humanity rid itself of the idea that force and sometimes be necessary. “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars... Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” (King, M, 1958)
Community Defense
When an organism is unable to protect itself, it either must turn to others for help or perish. There are no other options and community defense is another biological survival technique employed by many species. This goes for humans as well in both defense from other species and other humans. Relying on community provided defense starts as soon as a body starts being formed in the womb, when a potential protective mother may start to take extra care and control of her fetus, both physically and nutritionally. But this protective pact does not usually end with birth, as some other species practice, because human babies are unable to live for long without the constant attentiveness of another capable being. Self defense in humans is not fully realized until a child is comfortable with their own physical barriers and has shown adequate competence in the deliberation, use, and responsibility of defending. This realization has been codified by most governing organizations found around the globe and is tied to an organization's recognition of the age of majority as this relinquishes the legal responsibility of a parent to the child’s affairs and business. The child-parent defensive relationship is the most natural and basic form of a defensive relationship, as it has been developed by years of evolutionary adaptation of memes, and it is a good relationship to emulate when providing others protection, as the mother-child bond is strong and usually a positive reinforcement.
We are born needing community defense; but do our police forces actually count as defensive organizations which is what most associate with a community defense? The Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales case is all one needs to look at to understand that the powers that hold the ability to legal defend others cannot be held responsible for protecting the public, rendering them unaccountable to those they are to protect. “In a 7–2 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that due process principles did not create a constitutional right to police protection” (Teitelbaum, Coogan, and Rosenbaum, 2006), this ruling alone destroys any argument that the police are in existence to defend the public, and are more about law enforcement than community protection. The focus of this paper is not to determine whether or not these organizations are just and ethical, but to determine if they are defensive in nature and this is not the case.
If the police in the United States are not to be held accountable by being expected to keep the public safe, then that means people and organizations must fill in the gaps when police defense has let it’s guard down. Organizations like the Detroit Threat Management Center are an example of a community defense organization that people can actually feel safer and depend on for defensive help when they are unable to adequately defend themselves. Compare the mission statement of the Detroit Threat Management Center:
“The objective of our organization is to make the world safer by denying the opportunity for violence to take place. By using tactical psychology, tactical law, and tactical skills, we create conditions which, by design, are not conducive for violence. V.I.P.E.R.S. (Violence Intervention Protective Emergency Response System) Threat Management emphasizes the use of deterrence, detection, and defense to achieve non-violent outcomes.” (Detroit Threat Management Center, 2013),
with that of the Detroit Police Department’s mission statement:
“Setting New Standards of Excellence in Policing through Integrity, Innovation, and Training.” (Detroit Police Department, 2013)
They show that the Center is aimed at denying violence whereas the police are trying to set policing standards. Since no one but oneself is legally accountable for one's defense, if a person was looking to call one of the above two organizations to come aid them defensively based on their mission statement alone, the Threat Management Center would definitely be the preferred choice.
When an organism is unable to protect itself, it either must turn to others for help or perish. There are no other options and community defense is another biological survival technique employed by many species. This goes for humans as well in both defense from other species and other humans. Relying on community provided defense starts as soon as a body starts being formed in the womb, when a potential protective mother may start to take extra care and control of her fetus, both physically and nutritionally. But this protective pact does not usually end with birth, as some other species practice, because human babies are unable to live for long without the constant attentiveness of another capable being. Self defense in humans is not fully realized until a child is comfortable with their own physical barriers and has shown adequate competence in the deliberation, use, and responsibility of defending. This realization has been codified by most governing organizations found around the globe and is tied to an organization's recognition of the age of majority as this relinquishes the legal responsibility of a parent to the child’s affairs and business. The child-parent defensive relationship is the most natural and basic form of a defensive relationship, as it has been developed by years of evolutionary adaptation of memes, and it is a good relationship to emulate when providing others protection, as the mother-child bond is strong and usually a positive reinforcement.
We are born needing community defense; but do our police forces actually count as defensive organizations which is what most associate with a community defense? The Castle Rock, CO v. Gonzales case is all one needs to look at to understand that the powers that hold the ability to legal defend others cannot be held responsible for protecting the public, rendering them unaccountable to those they are to protect. “In a 7–2 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that due process principles did not create a constitutional right to police protection” (Teitelbaum, Coogan, and Rosenbaum, 2006), this ruling alone destroys any argument that the police are in existence to defend the public, and are more about law enforcement than community protection. The focus of this paper is not to determine whether or not these organizations are just and ethical, but to determine if they are defensive in nature and this is not the case.
If the police in the United States are not to be held accountable by being expected to keep the public safe, then that means people and organizations must fill in the gaps when police defense has let it’s guard down. Organizations like the Detroit Threat Management Center are an example of a community defense organization that people can actually feel safer and depend on for defensive help when they are unable to adequately defend themselves. Compare the mission statement of the Detroit Threat Management Center:
“The objective of our organization is to make the world safer by denying the opportunity for violence to take place. By using tactical psychology, tactical law, and tactical skills, we create conditions which, by design, are not conducive for violence. V.I.P.E.R.S. (Violence Intervention Protective Emergency Response System) Threat Management emphasizes the use of deterrence, detection, and defense to achieve non-violent outcomes.” (Detroit Threat Management Center, 2013),
with that of the Detroit Police Department’s mission statement:
“Setting New Standards of Excellence in Policing through Integrity, Innovation, and Training.” (Detroit Police Department, 2013)
They show that the Center is aimed at denying violence whereas the police are trying to set policing standards. Since no one but oneself is legally accountable for one's defense, if a person was looking to call one of the above two organizations to come aid them defensively based on their mission statement alone, the Threat Management Center would definitely be the preferred choice.
National Defense
While the police have a semblance of a real natural purpose, the purpose of national defense is completely human-made. To defend a nation, one must believe in the idea of a nation; as nations do not exist in physical form and are but human decided borders and some buildings designated as the property of this fictitious organization purportedly run by all people inside of these borders. These borders are the very lines that a national defense is in existence to protect making today’s United States Customs and Border Protections agency the organization with the greatest semblance as a national defense organization. The mission statement of the Customs and Border Protections reads:
“We are the guardians of our Nation's borders. We are America's frontline. We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders. We protect the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror. We steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation's economic security through lawful international trade and travel. We serve the American public with vigilance, integrity and professionalism.” (2009)
Most of the statement self affirms and expands on certain aspects of their primary mission relating to defense which would be to safeguard the American homeland at our borders. The sentence regarding terrorists should include something about the terrorists being on the outside of the borders they defend or that would fall under a community defense organization as national defense is about the self imposed borders the majority of people continue to recognize. The rest of the statement is not defense related so I will move on to the United States Department of Defense.
“The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2013) This mission provided and found on the Department’s website does not even include the word ‘defend’ that their name suggests they would include but enforces the idea that we must have a military force to deter war; but, having a force implies the force is needed to fight in a war, not deter it. It is interesting as well how they chose to word “protect the security of our country,” instead of just protect the country. Protecting the security sounds like they mean maintaining the current military power and increasing it if needed; but this is an opinion based on a very vague and all encompassing mission statement that is hard to really understand what the author or group of authors was exactly trying to convey.
The mission says nothing about what the military does only what it is supposed to do. The real people in charge of what the military does are U.S. politicians. There is much debate and discussion on if either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch really have the power ultimate say as to whether a military action will take place but this seems like the wrong item to discuss. The people of the U.S. do have the power to vote for these politicians who determine what the military does but voting does not mean that their candidate will win and even if their candidate wins, it doesn’t mean their candidate will make the best decisions for their defensive needs. This disconnect severely restricts the accountability and responsibility that the national defense organization and it customers can expect.
“They were called “scientific methods of strike-breaking,” and worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the Persian Gulf War, “Support our troops.” Who can be against that? Anything that’s totally vacuous.
In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you support the people of Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don’t support them? It’s not even a question. It doesn’t mean anything. That’s the point. The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people of Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.” (Chomsky, 2002, p. 25-26) Chomsky does a very good job in the above quote revealing exactly where the disconnect is between the national defense providers and the people they are supposed to be defending. While he was talking about how the government was able to shift public focus from worker’s rights to support of the troops with one action, the quote illuminates how connected, or perhaps more disconnected, the people are with the troops purportedly serving them defensively. It shows that the question we should be asking is not whether we should support the troops but whether we should support what policies the troops are carrying out in our defense.
The goals and missions of the people in California are no more connected to the goals and missions of the people in Iowa, as they are connected to the goals and missions of people employed by the US Department of Defense. The size and disbursement of the country's population and the degree that the population has a say in how our national defense force operates are factors that heavily dictate the accountable and responsive stance the US military has towards the citizenry. Conscientiousness of what a military is doing would be much more helpful than just supporting what they do alone.
The disconnect between the stakeholders of a national defense organization is not the only weak link in the effectiveness of such an organization. The take over and abuse of the military industries has been a well known problem as well.
“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” (Eisenhower, 1961)
Eisenhower’s speech given right before leaving office was telling of what has happened with the military industry we have today. At the beginning of his quote, he talks of how big our military had grown compared to what it had been prior to the second World War. He talks of how big the armorment industry has become and how big it is in relation to the rest of the American industry as a whole. He seems well aware that the size of our military, even back in the 1960’s, had vastly outgrown itself and needed to be carefully watched and controlled as the risk of the industry running the whole country was a threat. He even alluded to the fact that “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” was the only way that liberty and security could both prosper concurrently. As a President, and one of only nine people to attain a Five Star ranking in the US military, Eisenhower is about as knowledgeable and credible source one can use to determine whether the US Department of Defense has been living up to its defensive mission but he was not the only highly decorated officer to warn the country about the dangers of such a large military build up.
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.” (Butler, 1935)
Major General Smedley Darlington Butler was one of 19 people to ever be twice awarded the highest US military honor, the Medal of Honor, and was the highest decorated military member in history at the time of his death. With such a long list of accomplishments while serving as a part of the US national defense force, Butler’s words should be taken with the utmost degree of consideration. Even before Eisenhower’s military industrial complex warning, Butler sounded the alarm stating that the real goal of the US military had become the goals of the corporate interests really in charge of the nation. Butler had even been contacted by business leaders to stage a military coup against President Roosevelt that he refused to partake in and had even been questioned about by a Congressional committee which deemed the allegations as credible. (Marshall, 2008, p. 76) Butler was said to believe that “the only way to break the cycle was to put the powerful executives of the arms manufacturers and steel companies on the front lines, and give them a soldier’s wage so that they understood the true cost of their selfish wars,” continuing, “the only men who should have the right to vote whether or not the nation should go to war would be the men who would actually serve in that war.” (Marshall, 2008, p. 26-27) Surely Smedley Butler knew how best to ensure the real necessity of fighting for your nation in defense.
While the police have a semblance of a real natural purpose, the purpose of national defense is completely human-made. To defend a nation, one must believe in the idea of a nation; as nations do not exist in physical form and are but human decided borders and some buildings designated as the property of this fictitious organization purportedly run by all people inside of these borders. These borders are the very lines that a national defense is in existence to protect making today’s United States Customs and Border Protections agency the organization with the greatest semblance as a national defense organization. The mission statement of the Customs and Border Protections reads:
“We are the guardians of our Nation's borders. We are America's frontline. We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders. We protect the American public against terrorists and the instruments of terror. We steadfastly enforce the laws of the United States while fostering our Nation's economic security through lawful international trade and travel. We serve the American public with vigilance, integrity and professionalism.” (2009)
Most of the statement self affirms and expands on certain aspects of their primary mission relating to defense which would be to safeguard the American homeland at our borders. The sentence regarding terrorists should include something about the terrorists being on the outside of the borders they defend or that would fall under a community defense organization as national defense is about the self imposed borders the majority of people continue to recognize. The rest of the statement is not defense related so I will move on to the United States Department of Defense.
“The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.” (U.S. Department of Defense, 2013) This mission provided and found on the Department’s website does not even include the word ‘defend’ that their name suggests they would include but enforces the idea that we must have a military force to deter war; but, having a force implies the force is needed to fight in a war, not deter it. It is interesting as well how they chose to word “protect the security of our country,” instead of just protect the country. Protecting the security sounds like they mean maintaining the current military power and increasing it if needed; but this is an opinion based on a very vague and all encompassing mission statement that is hard to really understand what the author or group of authors was exactly trying to convey.
The mission says nothing about what the military does only what it is supposed to do. The real people in charge of what the military does are U.S. politicians. There is much debate and discussion on if either the Executive branch or the Legislative branch really have the power ultimate say as to whether a military action will take place but this seems like the wrong item to discuss. The people of the U.S. do have the power to vote for these politicians who determine what the military does but voting does not mean that their candidate will win and even if their candidate wins, it doesn’t mean their candidate will make the best decisions for their defensive needs. This disconnect severely restricts the accountability and responsibility that the national defense organization and it customers can expect.
“They were called “scientific methods of strike-breaking,” and worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the Persian Gulf War, “Support our troops.” Who can be against that? Anything that’s totally vacuous.
In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you support the people of Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don’t support them? It’s not even a question. It doesn’t mean anything. That’s the point. The point of public relations slogans like "Support our troops" is that they don't mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people of Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody's going to be against, and everybody's going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That's the one you're not allowed to talk about.” (Chomsky, 2002, p. 25-26) Chomsky does a very good job in the above quote revealing exactly where the disconnect is between the national defense providers and the people they are supposed to be defending. While he was talking about how the government was able to shift public focus from worker’s rights to support of the troops with one action, the quote illuminates how connected, or perhaps more disconnected, the people are with the troops purportedly serving them defensively. It shows that the question we should be asking is not whether we should support the troops but whether we should support what policies the troops are carrying out in our defense.
The goals and missions of the people in California are no more connected to the goals and missions of the people in Iowa, as they are connected to the goals and missions of people employed by the US Department of Defense. The size and disbursement of the country's population and the degree that the population has a say in how our national defense force operates are factors that heavily dictate the accountable and responsive stance the US military has towards the citizenry. Conscientiousness of what a military is doing would be much more helpful than just supporting what they do alone.
The disconnect between the stakeholders of a national defense organization is not the only weak link in the effectiveness of such an organization. The take over and abuse of the military industries has been a well known problem as well.
“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” (Eisenhower, 1961)
Eisenhower’s speech given right before leaving office was telling of what has happened with the military industry we have today. At the beginning of his quote, he talks of how big our military had grown compared to what it had been prior to the second World War. He talks of how big the armorment industry has become and how big it is in relation to the rest of the American industry as a whole. He seems well aware that the size of our military, even back in the 1960’s, had vastly outgrown itself and needed to be carefully watched and controlled as the risk of the industry running the whole country was a threat. He even alluded to the fact that “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” was the only way that liberty and security could both prosper concurrently. As a President, and one of only nine people to attain a Five Star ranking in the US military, Eisenhower is about as knowledgeable and credible source one can use to determine whether the US Department of Defense has been living up to its defensive mission but he was not the only highly decorated officer to warn the country about the dangers of such a large military build up.
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.” (Butler, 1935)
Major General Smedley Darlington Butler was one of 19 people to ever be twice awarded the highest US military honor, the Medal of Honor, and was the highest decorated military member in history at the time of his death. With such a long list of accomplishments while serving as a part of the US national defense force, Butler’s words should be taken with the utmost degree of consideration. Even before Eisenhower’s military industrial complex warning, Butler sounded the alarm stating that the real goal of the US military had become the goals of the corporate interests really in charge of the nation. Butler had even been contacted by business leaders to stage a military coup against President Roosevelt that he refused to partake in and had even been questioned about by a Congressional committee which deemed the allegations as credible. (Marshall, 2008, p. 76) Butler was said to believe that “the only way to break the cycle was to put the powerful executives of the arms manufacturers and steel companies on the front lines, and give them a soldier’s wage so that they understood the true cost of their selfish wars,” continuing, “the only men who should have the right to vote whether or not the nation should go to war would be the men who would actually serve in that war.” (Marshall, 2008, p. 26-27) Surely Smedley Butler knew how best to ensure the real necessity of fighting for your nation in defense.
Conclusion
From self to national, each level of defense presents it’s own operational challenges, problems, and strengths. National defense has shown itself to be an extremely large version of community defense that has the potential to grow too big for it’s own productivity to humanity. Community defense has been proven to be essential to biological life but must be kept under the accountability of the individuals that use it’s service and not be shifted to becoming community policy enforcement. Self defense doe not need to become more powerful a level of defense but the one that people turn to first when looking for physical defense and where a preventative defensive stance to situations can be implemented.
Self defense involves more than just being able to physically defend oneself; it involves being aware of your surroundings and conducting one’s life in order to come in contact with the least physical resistance. In my case, not joining the military would have been the path of least resistance but this was my individual choice, albeit uninformed. The individual is the final decision maker and most important stakeholder in all matters pertaining to their own defense. This means that their choice in supporting the community and national levels of defense is on them, not the society as a whole. If the individual takes more responsibility for the life they live and the people and organizations they support, defensive organizations would not be able to become the burdensome organizations they have today. Individual review of actual physical threats in one’s own life and community will help most realize that the military and police are not conducive to resolving these dangers.
The advice the Detroit Threat Management Center gives emphasizes first the use of deterrence and detection in the face of violence, followed by defending oneself against an act of aggression. After first living one’s life avoiding places and people that might provide a need of defense, if violence is still detected, the individual then has the chance to call for community defense as back up in the event that the individual actually encounters the violence they first detect, but before actually needing to defend oneself alone. This allows for the defense organization to actually do what they are supposed to do by defending individuals physically unable to defend themselves; instead of arriving after the violence has taken place with nothing to do besides assessing what had happened. The individual is the only person able to ensure that their life is as defendable as possible.
While the threat of national aggression will not go away soon, contributing to these threats by supporting the current structure of the world’s militaries is not helping get rid of the aggression. This support comes in the form of apathetically accepting the current state of our militaries by paying taxes that pay for them, joining these organizations, and vocalizing support of these organizations via patriotism and nationalism. Making such changes in one’s own life can be hard and the ultimate goal of making a change in these organizations would take a majority of the human population to actually work but if we do not, the ramifications of continuous ramping up of our defense forces might eventually lead to the obliteration of all life on earth through the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the most egregious use of defense humanity has envisioned.
Another individual effort the human race can embark on and encourage as a whole would be the practice of peaceful parenting. Lloyd DeMause, founder of wrote a book called, “The Origins of War in Child Abuse”, in which he breaks down the reasons wars take place as being a product of the average upbringing of the populace and how desensitized to violence the populace is (2010). He reiterates this point in an article from his website saying:
“The poor child rearing of so many Americans explains why the U.S. has the largest military in the world and continues to be in the middle of unnecessary wars around the world, plus has one of the highest murder rates of developed nations. Ending child abuse must be the goal of all families and nations on earth for the next 50 years, so that the world in the future will be like the European Union today — uninterested in starting wars in order to re-enact the violence of their brutal childhoods.” (2010)
Studies done by Christian Pfeiffer, director of the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, “found a correlation between declining rates of children being spanked (or otherwise punished physically) and subsequent decreases in violent crime (2013),” and that parents should try “what he calls “Liebe statt Hiebe” (love instead of beatings)” (2013).
If we can bring the necessity of defense back to a more personal and local level, the dangers the defense industry presents will be cut down to a more manageable level that people can actually feel a part of and are responsible and accountable for. Living life more conscious of the people and organizations one supports in relation to defense will also help bring back the power to the people these defensive organizations are supposed to be protecting. Making peaceful changes in your own life and explaining and encouraging these same changes in others is the most effective way to spark a change in the community. Gandhi said:
“If we are to reach real peace in this world and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with children; and if they will grow up in their natural innocence, we won’t have to struggle; we won’t have to pass fruitless idle resolutions, but we shall go from love to love and peace to peace, until at last all the corners of the world are covered with that peace and love for which consciously or unconsciously the whole world is hungering.” (2002, p. 120)
He points out that the ultimate way to change the world is to raise peaceful children who look at violence as something that should never happen and only know to love. I think he’s right.
From self to national, each level of defense presents it’s own operational challenges, problems, and strengths. National defense has shown itself to be an extremely large version of community defense that has the potential to grow too big for it’s own productivity to humanity. Community defense has been proven to be essential to biological life but must be kept under the accountability of the individuals that use it’s service and not be shifted to becoming community policy enforcement. Self defense doe not need to become more powerful a level of defense but the one that people turn to first when looking for physical defense and where a preventative defensive stance to situations can be implemented.
Self defense involves more than just being able to physically defend oneself; it involves being aware of your surroundings and conducting one’s life in order to come in contact with the least physical resistance. In my case, not joining the military would have been the path of least resistance but this was my individual choice, albeit uninformed. The individual is the final decision maker and most important stakeholder in all matters pertaining to their own defense. This means that their choice in supporting the community and national levels of defense is on them, not the society as a whole. If the individual takes more responsibility for the life they live and the people and organizations they support, defensive organizations would not be able to become the burdensome organizations they have today. Individual review of actual physical threats in one’s own life and community will help most realize that the military and police are not conducive to resolving these dangers.
The advice the Detroit Threat Management Center gives emphasizes first the use of deterrence and detection in the face of violence, followed by defending oneself against an act of aggression. After first living one’s life avoiding places and people that might provide a need of defense, if violence is still detected, the individual then has the chance to call for community defense as back up in the event that the individual actually encounters the violence they first detect, but before actually needing to defend oneself alone. This allows for the defense organization to actually do what they are supposed to do by defending individuals physically unable to defend themselves; instead of arriving after the violence has taken place with nothing to do besides assessing what had happened. The individual is the only person able to ensure that their life is as defendable as possible.
While the threat of national aggression will not go away soon, contributing to these threats by supporting the current structure of the world’s militaries is not helping get rid of the aggression. This support comes in the form of apathetically accepting the current state of our militaries by paying taxes that pay for them, joining these organizations, and vocalizing support of these organizations via patriotism and nationalism. Making such changes in one’s own life can be hard and the ultimate goal of making a change in these organizations would take a majority of the human population to actually work but if we do not, the ramifications of continuous ramping up of our defense forces might eventually lead to the obliteration of all life on earth through the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the most egregious use of defense humanity has envisioned.
Another individual effort the human race can embark on and encourage as a whole would be the practice of peaceful parenting. Lloyd DeMause, founder of wrote a book called, “The Origins of War in Child Abuse”, in which he breaks down the reasons wars take place as being a product of the average upbringing of the populace and how desensitized to violence the populace is (2010). He reiterates this point in an article from his website saying:
“The poor child rearing of so many Americans explains why the U.S. has the largest military in the world and continues to be in the middle of unnecessary wars around the world, plus has one of the highest murder rates of developed nations. Ending child abuse must be the goal of all families and nations on earth for the next 50 years, so that the world in the future will be like the European Union today — uninterested in starting wars in order to re-enact the violence of their brutal childhoods.” (2010)
Studies done by Christian Pfeiffer, director of the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, “found a correlation between declining rates of children being spanked (or otherwise punished physically) and subsequent decreases in violent crime (2013),” and that parents should try “what he calls “Liebe statt Hiebe” (love instead of beatings)” (2013).
If we can bring the necessity of defense back to a more personal and local level, the dangers the defense industry presents will be cut down to a more manageable level that people can actually feel a part of and are responsible and accountable for. Living life more conscious of the people and organizations one supports in relation to defense will also help bring back the power to the people these defensive organizations are supposed to be protecting. Making peaceful changes in your own life and explaining and encouraging these same changes in others is the most effective way to spark a change in the community. Gandhi said:
“If we are to reach real peace in this world and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with children; and if they will grow up in their natural innocence, we won’t have to struggle; we won’t have to pass fruitless idle resolutions, but we shall go from love to love and peace to peace, until at last all the corners of the world are covered with that peace and love for which consciously or unconsciously the whole world is hungering.” (2002, p. 120)
He points out that the ultimate way to change the world is to raise peaceful children who look at violence as something that should never happen and only know to love. I think he’s right.
The Death of Heaven
I used to believe that there was a heaven, a goal to achieve after life to keep people in line
I believed if I was good according to my parents reading and understanding of the Bible, I would get to be in a perfect utopia forever
I didn’t understand this and remember specifically asking my dad when I was getting tucked in how heaven wouldn’t be boring after such a long time
He asked what my favorite food or thing was and I answered with pizza after which he said heaven would be like the feeling pizza gave me but forever because being in the close proximity of God would be so overwhelmingly awesome that it would never get boring
I guess I believed that and it kept me from being bad according to what my parents thought being bad meant from the Bible
I rose through the Catholic Holy sacraments of Baptism, First Communion, and even Confirmation, going along with this idea that I was being good and would get my eternal awesomeness but still not quite sure what it was and if I could actually wrap my head around it enough to believe it
My parents forced us to go to Church every Sunday so I was sure God would think I or we were pretty good compared to the many friends I had that didn’t go at all or just during Christmas and Easter
I always thought “Why don’t they want to go to heaven?”
I kept going weekly even after I graduated and didn’t live with my parents until I found out the Priest I went to Church in Iraq with had a cancer that killed him within months of getting back from Iraq
Iraq already felt like a horrible situation that I as a libertarian at the time thought wasn’t a good thing for the country but a good Marine doesn’t ask questions so I went without much struggle even with my Mom not wanting me to go
We got back from that first year in Iraq and with the passing of my Priest I felt like my first 19 years were spent chasing a lie
I had to figure out morals, ethics, and reality all over again and the Marine Corps had a hand in helping me find this
I realized that even the Catholic Church was a human made organized structure of living and that it could be replaced with any number of other belief systems BUT which was right and was there a right and how close to perfection was anything and is there even perfection
Nope and none
Even looking at the military and Marine structure of living you could see all the mad made contraptions of control and conniptions
After that first year in Iraq and subsequent death of the Priest, I was pretty lost
I knew that I should, at least, do my best to do no harm to others and that others number continues to grow but I realize it’s not for the nonexistent goal of heaven but because these other living things are all we have to cherish and find love from and that takes either control or cooperation and no one can or should have control over others
Why no control, because I know I never liked being controlled and would have rather had a relationship of cooperation and care and all I have is my own outlook and opinion so maybe others won’t agree with me and that Ok as long as I can cooperate with them without either of us controlling the other
I can’t rely on anothers opinion if it doesn’t make sense to me anymore, I spent 19 years being controlled by my parents’ interpretation of Catholicism and then another 4 by the USMC, after that I won’t even take a long term job that feelings controlling
I have been in a bit of a controlling relationship and I recognize my gravitation to such situations as they can seem comfortable when I don’t have to come up with my own way to live but that was not healthy for either of us
I wish there was a real goal but all it really seems to be is to not control or be controlled and to cooperate as much as possible with the living around me from bacteria, to plants, to other animals and humans
We all matter, we all feel, we all can love, we all want what’s best, we all want to continue on in some sense, we all want to be loved, we all want happiness
Heaven may have died but now I don’t have to wait until I die to feel like I’ve got it made and see the light because I’m doing the best I can with that right now even when I feel like absolute shit and don’t want to do anything because there is no real goal, there is nothing that I have to do, there’s nothing to control that will make things right, there’s no reason to find a reason
I used to believe that there was a heaven, a goal to achieve after life to keep people in line
I believed if I was good according to my parents reading and understanding of the Bible, I would get to be in a perfect utopia forever
I didn’t understand this and remember specifically asking my dad when I was getting tucked in how heaven wouldn’t be boring after such a long time
He asked what my favorite food or thing was and I answered with pizza after which he said heaven would be like the feeling pizza gave me but forever because being in the close proximity of God would be so overwhelmingly awesome that it would never get boring
I guess I believed that and it kept me from being bad according to what my parents thought being bad meant from the Bible
I rose through the Catholic Holy sacraments of Baptism, First Communion, and even Confirmation, going along with this idea that I was being good and would get my eternal awesomeness but still not quite sure what it was and if I could actually wrap my head around it enough to believe it
My parents forced us to go to Church every Sunday so I was sure God would think I or we were pretty good compared to the many friends I had that didn’t go at all or just during Christmas and Easter
I always thought “Why don’t they want to go to heaven?”
I kept going weekly even after I graduated and didn’t live with my parents until I found out the Priest I went to Church in Iraq with had a cancer that killed him within months of getting back from Iraq
Iraq already felt like a horrible situation that I as a libertarian at the time thought wasn’t a good thing for the country but a good Marine doesn’t ask questions so I went without much struggle even with my Mom not wanting me to go
We got back from that first year in Iraq and with the passing of my Priest I felt like my first 19 years were spent chasing a lie
I had to figure out morals, ethics, and reality all over again and the Marine Corps had a hand in helping me find this
I realized that even the Catholic Church was a human made organized structure of living and that it could be replaced with any number of other belief systems BUT which was right and was there a right and how close to perfection was anything and is there even perfection
Nope and none
Even looking at the military and Marine structure of living you could see all the mad made contraptions of control and conniptions
After that first year in Iraq and subsequent death of the Priest, I was pretty lost
I knew that I should, at least, do my best to do no harm to others and that others number continues to grow but I realize it’s not for the nonexistent goal of heaven but because these other living things are all we have to cherish and find love from and that takes either control or cooperation and no one can or should have control over others
Why no control, because I know I never liked being controlled and would have rather had a relationship of cooperation and care and all I have is my own outlook and opinion so maybe others won’t agree with me and that Ok as long as I can cooperate with them without either of us controlling the other
I can’t rely on anothers opinion if it doesn’t make sense to me anymore, I spent 19 years being controlled by my parents’ interpretation of Catholicism and then another 4 by the USMC, after that I won’t even take a long term job that feelings controlling
I have been in a bit of a controlling relationship and I recognize my gravitation to such situations as they can seem comfortable when I don’t have to come up with my own way to live but that was not healthy for either of us
I wish there was a real goal but all it really seems to be is to not control or be controlled and to cooperate as much as possible with the living around me from bacteria, to plants, to other animals and humans
We all matter, we all feel, we all can love, we all want what’s best, we all want to continue on in some sense, we all want to be loved, we all want happiness
Heaven may have died but now I don’t have to wait until I die to feel like I’ve got it made and see the light because I’m doing the best I can with that right now even when I feel like absolute shit and don’t want to do anything because there is no real goal, there is nothing that I have to do, there’s nothing to control that will make things right, there’s no reason to find a reason
Prayer to the LandLORD
Oh dear and marvelous LandLORD, we thank You for letting us pay You homage to live inside and sleep inside, out of the elements. We know that You could definitely use and need more than one dwelling but have graciously offered up Your excess in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes so that we may live in dwellings and not illegally outside or in jails and prisons where many of us renters belong. We are unworthy of being responsible to take care of our place of residence and You are always aware and on top of fixing any problems that happen to Your and in Your tenements and real estate wealth. Making a living by owning and renting out basic needs of life is amongst the highest callings in the universe and You should feel a great sense of pride in ensuring only the worthy have a safe and warm place to be. Without such an ideology, humanity would descend into chaos and people would be free to live anywhere that is unoccupied, a sick scary world to be sure. If people were free to live places without an income, WalMart may not be able to find any workers, travesty. In the name of my LandLORD, AMEN!
Oh dear and marvelous LandLORD, we thank You for letting us pay You homage to live inside and sleep inside, out of the elements. We know that You could definitely use and need more than one dwelling but have graciously offered up Your excess in exchange for Federal Reserve Notes so that we may live in dwellings and not illegally outside or in jails and prisons where many of us renters belong. We are unworthy of being responsible to take care of our place of residence and You are always aware and on top of fixing any problems that happen to Your and in Your tenements and real estate wealth. Making a living by owning and renting out basic needs of life is amongst the highest callings in the universe and You should feel a great sense of pride in ensuring only the worthy have a safe and warm place to be. Without such an ideology, humanity would descend into chaos and people would be free to live anywhere that is unoccupied, a sick scary world to be sure. If people were free to live places without an income, WalMart may not be able to find any workers, travesty. In the name of my LandLORD, AMEN!