Eric Holder said some things about the Zimmerman acquittal the other day that bothered me deeply. It wasn’t his obvious activism as head of the Justice Department under President Obama, or the obvious lies, deceit, and manipulation that has occurred under his control. Rather, it was his reasoning against Florida’s Stand Your Ground law where he reflected Obama’s belief that people have a “duty” to retreat from a conflict when conflict occurs. This implies of course that public safety is more important than individual lives. Holder referenced that the laws of The United States routinely reflect that citizens have a “duty” to always look for a way out of a conflict before engaging in self-defense. For instance, a story I have told before, CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW, where the police came to the office complex where my wife was working as a receptionist at the time and asked her to cheat on me because she was such an attractive young lady meant that I had no right to engage those cops on any grounds of honor because all they had really done was utter some verbal communication. They didn’t place any hands upon her, or force her into a car. If they did, then I would still not be allowed to pull a gun on the police and defend our life together because they represented the state as representatives of the law, and they may not be using guns to apply the force. The state’s position is that there is more honor in sacrifice, even if that means losing a wife, or the sexual molestation of her, than in the honor of defending our marriage and her matrimonial sanctity. The burden of the law fell on me, the citizen because of some ridiculous ideal of “duty” to some cause that is greater than my individual interests, or my relationships that might only be valuable to me. My thoughts about this matter are essentially what my novel Tail of the Dragon is all about. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.
I grew up wearing primarily military clothing that routinely was unkempt on purpose. My army pants had large holes in the knees from all the crawling around that I did—and still do. My shirts were always un-tucked and I have worn a cowboy hat with that attire since I was in the fifth grade. My reason was that I planned to rebel against the government if they ever drafted me into the military and I wanted to be always in a state of readiness in case I was forced into combat by a statist government. The military was always known for their rigidity with military uniform, and my position was to get used to the uniform without the formality. It was my way of thumbing my nose at statist philosophy. When I was a kid, the drafting of citizens was still on everyone’s mind from the Vietnam era where the government decided that individual citizens could be compelled into service to their country for something politicians called “duty,” and I never planned to participate in that activity. I had many uncles, cousins, and other family members who swore to me that if I were drafted into the army that my rigid independent streak would be broken by the drill sergeants. By the stories they told, there was no choice. You either did what they told you, or you were thrown into the brig for insolence. I had no problem with the danger, with shooting at other people, or having them shoot at me. I found that part very exciting. But I was never going to allow myself to get on a bus, get my head shaved, and have a drill sergeant yell at me for six weeks until I surrendered my individuality to the cause of collective salvation calling it “duty to my country.”
Statist use more frequently now than ever this term “duty” when talking about the military. This is why it has become custom to tell military veterans “thank you for your sacrifice and service” when speaking to them. I do not do that. I have known a lot of people who went into the military, mostly because they couldn’t figure out what they wanted to do with their life, or they wanted money for college. They decided to surrender their individuality in trade for security. In high school a Marine recruiter was heavy after me knowing some of the dangerous escapades that I had been involved in, and the court cases that I had attended. He told me that I would self-destruct in a few years with my attitude and that the Marines would bring discipline to my life that I needed. Of course I didn’t buy into the scam, but some of my friends did, and they were never the same after four years in the military. They came out of the military nice little foot soldiers who followed orders without question as they had learned to participate in life with a sense of duty, instead of thought and the statists of government wanted the world to thank them for it so more people would follow in their wake, without having to impose a government mandated draft.
My idea of military life was the flight group, The Flying Tigers during the early days of World War II. If that was what the military was offering I would have signed up in less than a second just so I could fly planes and participate in danger. CLICK HERE FOR REVIEW. But the whole “yes sir, no sir” thing was not for me and I don’t respect those who give up their individuality to surrender thought to any group behavior—including the military. When I attend events where I see formations, salutes, and blind recital of chants I feel sorry for the participants. Yet I have witnessed that the usual emotion from my peers is envy. They envy the sense of purpose that serving in a group the “duty” defined by a statist government provides them. The government might say that soldiers in Afghanistan have a duty to defend American interests, or that soldiers have a duty to defend the world against failed political policies in the Middle East. That duty means a sacrifice of life, limb, or at a minimum–time from their life based on the definitions of statist politicians. The reasons are never considered, only the act.
The idea of a draft in America during the Vietnam era broke the conscious of many Americans. Many men learned as 18-year-olds that the government can do as it pleases with the individual lives of their citizens, and this mentality carried over to the statist policies which came out of the sixties, the counter-revolutionary movement, the rise of labor union influence, collective bargaining legislation, and many other aspects of idiocy that were sold as a social “duty.” The idea of duty had been driven into these men who were broken from the idealistic kids of the Howdy Doody Show growing up in the 50’s by their drill sergeants without a choice available but from their government to say that their life was owned by the federal government, and that the government was more important than their lives. This has affected this entire generation for the rest of their lives and the children they spawned. Eric Holder and Barack Obama know this and invoke the subconscious memory of America’s sense of “duty” when they speak.
When these draftees came out of the military they were told that it was their “duty” to help the poor. They were told that it was their “duty” to help the middle-class. They were told that it was their “duty” to send their children to public school. They were told that it was their “duty” to vote for Medicaid and to sustain Social Security. They were told that it was their “duty” to raise children who would serve their country with sacrifice and that honor was in paying the ultimate price—death.
Today the word “duty” is thrown around by statists of all ranks. People like Eric Holder use the word “duty” which has been ingrained in most of the population through one of two methods, from a drill sergeant, or a college professor to justify a statist policy against self-defense even if sometimes the best defense is a good offense. By invoking the idea of “duty” Holder attempts to overcome the Bill of Rights of The Constitution which are centered on individuality and slides under the door of the American mind an ideal of collective salvation that is artificially created by statists for statist principles. By creating a social concept of thanking service men not with the money they were paid but with the honor of sacrifice, statists like Obama and Holder who stand opposed to traditional American concepts rooted in pure capitalism can advance their philosophy of collectivism by touching the psychological paralysis that is built into most Americans by the statist system of sacrifice in the name of “duty.”
It is clear to me these discrepancies because I have rejected such a sense of “duty” my entire life, including my childhood. But it is not so clear to people who have had to negotiate in their minds the ideal of a military draft which took away their individual rights for the good of the “state” without question. These same people find themselves unable to understand why they feel disarmed when Eric Holder invokes the concept of “duty” in relation to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law so to build up public consensus against the measure. Resonating in their minds are the drill sergeants from their early years who stripped away all their thoughts, all their childhood memories with six hard weeks of basic training so that the mind of the soldiers thought not as individual Americans, but as cogs in a military machine that did not think, but simply followed orders. When Eric Holder states that it is an American citizen’s “duty” to follow the orders of the state, this is what he means, and why such statements are the roots of tyranny established to advance the causes of the left through carefully selected phrases planted in American minds through statist philosophy.