There is no honour in the uniform

Bill Buppert hard at work behind his masters

Bill Buppert hard at work behind his masters

In every modern society there is a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform whether it be blue, green or any number of randomly associated colours. This idea of heroism inherent to a uniform has been proliferated by government and often continued with unrestricted glee among even the “liberty” movement.

It is the assumption of heroism that continues to cause additional pain around the world.Β  Among those who have been assaulted by the uniformed volunteers. And with increasing numbers it is occurring in the form of a psychologically defined issue known as, post-traumatic stress disorder.

The cause of this disorder is the individual having experienced something that is far outside what is normal for each individual. However, the event is commonly relived by the individual through intrusive, recurrent recollections, flashbacks, and nightmares. These various symptoms may occur regardless whether a person wears a uniform or not. It is generally assumed that every single individual that dons the uniform and travels to whichever new imperial goal their government demands of them will end up with some level of ptsd. wpid-img_13392751342773.jpeg

Of course among the supporters there is the misplaced idea that they are either fighting for the freedom and safety of their loved ones. Additionally they are told they must preform to the best of their abilities to support the men standing next to them. What is completely ignored is the simple fact that none of this would be necessary if we simply never chose to support the government.

The fact remains that any who volunteer to join the military or voluntarily take a job working for the military or law enforcement are directly supportive of the very tyranny and imperialism we see now. There is no positive spin, no beneficial approach and no working within the beast to take it down. Humans are not viruses, we simply do not adapt fast enough or to a degree necessary to work within any system with any chance of destroying that system from within.

The title of this article is, there is no honour in the uniform. This is a simple fact, honour as it is defined is, personal integrity, strong moral character and (not or) adherence to ethical principles. There is no honourable order given by a government when it comes to war. Every action of a government is evil because every action of government is completed using force or the threat of force. The logical conclusion is simple, any order given by government or a representative of government is or will result in evil. iceberg-in-greenland-537x373

The argument can be made that orders can have positive results, this is true. However, as with all human actions though a positive result may come from them, this does not inherently make them good only positive for some. The result of all government decisions will always be evil as long as governments operate using force or the threat of force (rule of law) as a means of retaining power.

I am not going to argue whether there is a potential government that is good in any way. In the entire history of man there have been very few governments that have had any positive impact on society as a whole. Rather, through the use of war and organized religion and throughout the 19th century continuing on police as an organized state controlled entity, government has always harmed people. Some have not harmed their subjects as a whole, however, there is always collateral damage. Voluntaryist Image

Modern man has learned to accept this simple fact, collateral damage occurs when government operates on any scale. In fact government or its policies and laws have been the cause of almost every major non natural disaster in the 20th century. I search every day for one major disaster that is not at its core a result of government or its laws. (If you find one please let me know.)

So here it is, if a man or woman promotes their government, military or police service as anything other than evil at its core, they are not yet capable of freedom. There is no honour in the uniform. Any who continue to willingly work for the state without attempting to rid themselves of it after being enlightened or accepting that the state is the greatest evil to exist show themselves as dishonourable slaves at best and at worse they are enemies of free men and women.

What say you and why?

 

Free the mind and the body will follow.

 

Advertisements

About Jesse Mathewson

Jesse Mathewson is the author of the popular blog, jessetalksback.com and provides commentary to many varied places based on a background that includes education in criminal justice, history, religion and even insurgency tactics and tactical training. His current role in his community is as an organizer of sorts and a preacher of community solidarity and agorism. He also runs Liberty Practical Training, a self defense school specializing in the practical applications of defensive approaches versus the theoretical. As an agorist, voluntaryist and atheist his life is seen as crazy and wild by many, though once they get to know him most realize he is a bluntly honest individual who will give you the shirt off his back if he believes it is necessary to help you. Very simple, "That which is voluntary between all individuals involved is always right, if it is not voluntary, it is always wrong."
This entry was posted in Authored by Jesse Mathewson, Self Defense, Voluntaryism and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to There is no honour in the uniform

  1. Anonymous says:

    I would love to have quality (gentlemanly) discourse with you Jesse but one cannot have solid discussion with another who speaks without knowing what it is he or she speaks of and who refuses to explain or clarify what they say after they say it. That signals that that other really has no intention of understanding or speaking truth. I shall call you “Captain Ambiguous” and your superpower will be casting spells on people using vagueness. I shall be known as “The Questioner” and my superpower will be scaring people away by asking the important questions no one wants to answer. πŸ˜‰

    I have tried hard to determine what you are saying and to clear up the numerous and obvious contradictions in your article. I am not here to compel you to respond but I am here to try and understand what you are saying in what you write. If you are not willing to validate your words with actual legitimate substance then that is that. Although, it is a good thing that you live in a country that gives you the freedom to speak your mind. πŸ™‚

    –Richard

    Like

  2. There is no hidden meaning. Only what is written.

    Thank you for commenting, let me know when you are interested in solid discussion.

    Like

  3. You ask questions which do not apply, your only goal is contention. I have already clarified my beliefs, dont be contentious and than attempt to turn it on me. πŸ™‚

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually Jesse, my questions are quite relevant and very direct. I do not make it my business to trifle in irrelevant and indirect questions when discussing important issues in life. But let me hear your answer and only then can we determine if the matter under discussion is relevant or not.

      If you simply respond to my inquiries with cliche and rather redundant excuses and rationalizations for not answering like, “You ask questions which do not apply,” and “your only goal is contention,” how can you as a professional blogger possibly expect any mature discourse if you are unwilling to answer to your article’s words? More so, pray tell me, how can you possibly know whether a question “applies” or not unless we [together] examine it through gentlemanly discourse (i.e. dialectics–question/answer)? Unless of course you believe that you already know everything there is to possibly know on a matter and you really didn’t mean it when you say at the end “What say you and why?” To present oneself this way is pretentious and shows the reader that the author thinks far too highly of him or herself to feel he or she must lower him or herself to explain what it is they mean by their content. Let me be more pointed then with my questions as you write some controversial and questionable material.

      You said, “In every modern society there is a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform whether it be blue, green or any number of randomly associated colours.

      I don’t believe that small third world societies in third world countries would agree with you sir. I would like to see the actual evidence that supports your statement “In every modern society there is a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform whether it be blue, green or any number of randomly associated colours.”

      Further down you contradict your own words and your statements are incongruent with one another. For example, you said “Of course among the supporters there is the misplaced idea that they are either fighting for the freedom and safety of their loved ones. Additionally they are told they must preform to the best of their abilities to support the men standing next to them. What is completely ignored is the simple fact that none of this would be necessary if we simply never chose to support the government.”

      Here you establish–through unfounded generalizations I might add–that those who serve in the military or law enforcement are confused in their perspective on their service and possess a “misplaced idea of what they are fighting for.” While I will not dispute that there exist those who may possess the wrong convictions and ideas of why they are serving in uniform, I do find your content lacking in any empirical evidence giving you the freedom to generalize in the way that you have. It simply is not congruent with reality. That logic is akin to saying that all black people are criminals because they are black or all gay people have AIDS because they are gay. It is highly prejudicial in nature and reflects an attitude of contempt for that specific group, and it is no secret that you hold great contempt for the military, law enforcement, and pretty much any other authority and this is clearly evidenced in your writing.

      Then, after stating that there is a “misplaced idea” among the supporters of the uniform of why they are serving, you follow it up immediately by stating “The fact remains that any who volunteer to join the military or voluntarily take a job working for the military or law enforcement are directly supportive of the very tyranny and imperialism we see now.”

      Here is your contradiction Jesse; please be patient and read this with an open mind. If these people have a misplaced idea of why they serve (all I have personally served with believed it was for democracy defending freedom), then how could they possibly be directly supportive of the very tyranny they are pledging to fight against? To state this as “clearly as possible” (as you have requested above), I would ask you to explain your contradicting statements so that I may better understand where you are coming from.

      I would also ask that you return the courtesy I have shown you of being as clear as possible, while sticking to actual established evidence, and explain your direct and very exclusionary words (the words with the single quotation marks [‘…’] enclosing them) in the following statement, “The ‘fact’ remains that ‘any who’ volunteer to join the military or voluntarily take a job working for the military or law enforcement ‘are directly supportive’ of the very tyranny and imperialism we see now.”

      I would ask if you are basing your very bold and unfounded wording here off your own experience serving in the military and law enforcement or something else. Please do not use another rationalization or an excuse cleverly wrapped in emotionally-charged words like “contentious” but instead, as a writer who claims much but evidences little, reason with me and answer my questions. When your answers line up with what is real, then you can ask me questions and I will answer you. But since you have asked “What say you and why?” at the end of your article, I would hope that you would actually follow through with your statement and be prepared to answer to your statements as any real writer hoping to affect change would be obliged to do.

      –Richard

      Like

      • What dictionary do you use? Because I prefer commonly accepted definitions.

        Modern is defined as, belonging to present day: relating or belonging to the present period in history of latest kind: of the latest, most advanced kind, or using the most advanced equipment and techniques available using latest styles: relating to or using ideas and techniques that have only recently been developed or are still considered experimental

        If you believe third world nations are modern by definition I would ask what definitions you use.

        In the article I addressed only the evil that is government, this I made clear. You are making additional leaps that are not applicable to the article.

        You also state I made incorrect generalizations, however, I clearly stated what the two main reasons people use for joining are. So I ask you, how is following evil ever right? Is government ever not evil? (By definition evil is, morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck)

        Name one government that does not cause great harm or pain, name one law that does not cause great harm or pain, name one war or one conflict or one foreign policy –

        Stick to the article, and please, understand I use commonly accepted definitions. I will gladly respond to legitimate questions or statements, however, if you continue to attempt to promote argument that isn’t applicable why should I respond? After all, if you had read even the bio I posted you would see, I don’t care what you think or want if it supports state in any way. And you dear brother, support state by deed and word.

        As for the last sentence, again, being a “real” writer who wishes to affect change isn’t me. I write because I enjoy it. If others get something from it or if I learn from others legitimate non confrontational approaches and questions than we all win. I don’t want to be a hero or even figure. I don’t care about that, I write because I enjoy it.

        Freedom is individual, I am free because I choose to be. While I have no problem with others doing what they will, when those same people want to use government to “enforce” their morality on me…they become the enemy plain and simple.

        Take a step back, think, act when you actually have a point. Until then read what was written and use common definitions to understand it. πŸ™‚

        Like

        • Anonymous says:

          So let me understand you then Jesse. Are you saying that when you write “In every modern society there is a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform whether it be blue, green or any number of randomly associated colours,” the word “modern” is not referring to actual societies that exist in our day today, but instead, you intended to apply this word to only represent societies that are not third world, even though they exist in our world today?

          To answer your question above, I am using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary which defines ‘modern’ as “of or relating to the present time or the recent past: happening, existing, or developing at a time near the present time.” Which comes from the Latin ‘modo’ meaning “just now” and ‘modus’ meaning “measure.”

          Seeing that you intended your usage of the word “modern” to refer to “most advanced societies” and not “belonging to present day,” let me ask you this. Would you consider Iraq to be third world or “most advanced?” What about China, and Britain, and the United States? Would you consider these to be third world countries or in the category of “most advanced?” The reason I ask is because of your statement “In every modern society there is a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform whether it be blue, green or any number of randomly associated colours.” Where is your evidence supporting that “every modern society” possesses a certain assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform? Because without even going out and collecting actual research officially, I can tell you that there is a very great public opinion which does not favor the uniform in most of the modern “developed and advanced” societies.

          So I guess then, we must visit the definition of the word “certain” in order to determine if it is used correctly in this context. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘certain’ is defined as “not having any doubt about something; convinced or sure; fixed, settled; dependable, reliable; known or proved to be true: indisputable.” I would challenge your assertion that there exists a reliable and indisputable fact that “every modern society” possesses such an assumed heroism associated with wearing a uniform and I would challenge your claim that this has been “proved to be true.” You have presented no indisputable evidence to show your statement as being indisputable nor have your proven anything to be true actual proof. You have not even presented evidence with your assertion and it takes a great deal of indisputable evidence to prove something.

          _______________________________________________________________________________

          Let me address another inconsistency in which you appear to contradict yourself. I want to understand what your intent is with what you say. You stated in your response to my comments “In the article I addressed only the evil that is government, this I made clear.” Yet you stated in the article that “Every action of a government is evil because every action of government is completed using force or the threat of force. The logical conclusion is simple, any order given by government or a representative of government is or will result in evil.” Now I am confused Jesse because on one hand you are clearly stating that “every action of government is evil” then you turn around and say that you addressed “only the evil that is government.” This makes no sense and does not flow together. Why? Because you are writing about those who serve in the military or law enforcement or other authoritative positions working for the government and you have, without any actual evidence collected objectively, grouped anyone who works for the government into the arena of being evil and this is simply not true nor proven through objective evidentiary research.

          You stated “You are making additional leaps that are not applicable to the article.” I have not made any “additional leaps” and I have brought up some very relevant and concerning contradictions that you have appeared to make–which I might add you have yet to answer to–so I would say that I have not digressed one bit but instead, to the contrary, I have challenged your basis for the statements you are making without receiving any real answer. It appears by your elusiveness that you are attempting to bury my questions by yourself digressing from these relevant questions in an attempt to avoid answering to your contradicting and incongruous statements.

          Furthermore, you stated “You also state I made incorrect generalizations, however, I clearly stated what the two main reasons people use for joining are.” I would ask, have you conducted actual objective research and can I see it if you have? If you have not then you have failed the most basic principle of science and your findings, without being able to be verified by an independent body upon request, are invalid and thus, should be rejected. Unless you are writing fiction here, you must provide some evidence to support your findings. And that evidence must then be independently verified by others who do not have a conflict of interest or bias in the matter. I ask you for objective research as a scientist who understands the value of this evidence, especially when claiming something to be fact.

          _______________________________________________________________________________

          I created a space between this section and the one above to provide emphasis on the need to address these sections independently so please be patient. I appreciate your time. I will address the following statements together:

          “…any order given by government or a representative of government is or will result in evil.”

          “So I ask you, how is following evil ever right? Is government ever not evil? (By definition evil is, morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck)”

          “Name one government that does not cause great harm or pain, name one law that does not cause great harm or pain, name one war or one conflict or one foreign policy –”

          What about your freedom of speech that you are exercising even now? Would you consider that to be evil? Or freedom of the press, which gives you the right to make these statements publically? Would you have the ability to say what you are saying in China or Russia? Could you openly speak against your government in Iraq or Iran? These are all developed and advanced countries. Please answer me here and tell me if you think these laws which protect you and enable you to express yourself are evil?

          What about your freedom to express yourself as an atheist? Could you have this freedom in other countries that persecute their citizens for free expression and force their citizens to conform or face imprisonment or worse for not conforming? Is this freedom of expression now considered to be evil?

          What about your social security disability (if you still receive it)? Is the government’s grace to ensure that your fellow taxpayers support you financially now an evil? Are they evil for giving you the right to exist and live even with your disabilities–unlike Hitler’s regime which would have euthanized you? And Germany was a very developed and advanced country.

          What about your right to carry weapons or bear arms? Or the law protecting your right to defend yourself or your family from harm. Are these evil laws?

          What about your driver’s license giving you the privilege to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway? Is that law evil?

          What about the right to homeschool your children? Is that freedom of choice evil?

          Jesse, I could go on with the endless laws that do not cause harm or pain or evil. Instead, I will address your very definition of what evil is because without understanding what you think evil to be, it is just your perception of what you personally believe evil to be and that is highly subjective, determined by the filters or shapers (traits, abilities, physical characteristics, and memories) that determine your perception of life or, the meaning you associate with what your senses are taking in.

          _______________________________________________________________________________

          What exactly do you consider evil to be? Please give me your personal perspective and understanding of what you think evil to be. Please do not simply respond that it is what the dictionary says primarily because there are many different definitions to be applied to many different contexts in the dictionary, and I will not be able to understand what meaning you intend without hearing your perspective. I really want to understand what you personally consider evil to be and this requires you to explain your perspective of evil.

          And lastly, I would like to address your statement “As for the last sentence, again, being a β€œreal” writer who wishes to affect change isn’t me. I write because I enjoy it.” I also enjoy writing so I can relate here. However, please clarify something for me so that my mind can rest on this matter.

          In your bio on this blog, it says the following regarding you: “He is also the author of the popular blog, Individualstalkingback.com and provides commentary to many varied places based on a background that includes education in criminal justice, history, religion and even insurgency tactics and tactical training. His current role in his community is as an organizer of sorts and a preacher of community solidarity.”

          I am interpreting your bio to be describing someone who wants to affect change and someone who claims to know about these issues. However, your article is highly prejudicial and lacks actual evidence to support what you say. Your provision of commentary implies that you are expressing “spoken or written discussion in which people express opinions about someone or something; a spoken description of an event as it is happening; and something that shows or makes a statement about the true state or condition of something.” you follow that portion up with the statement that this commentary or opinion is based on a “background that includes education in criminal justice, history, religion…”

          If you are expressing opinions then that is your prerogative protected by law, although it is highly unfounded and biased. And the reason I commented is first, because you stated at the end of your article “What say you and why?” and secondly, because I find your rather bold statements to be incongruous with what is real. If you are expressing an even as it is happening, I do not see your expression as having any substance to it. And if you are expressing the true state or condition of something, I would like to see what evidence you have that supports your contentions.

          Again Jesse, I really would like to sort this out. I hope that you will address my questions with clear and concise answers. Thank you.

          –Richard

          Like

  4. lionheart80 says:

    When you said, “any order given by government or a representative of government is or will result in evil,” would you apply this to the founding fathers of America? Also, as you may well have discovered in history, any social community has always had some form of government. Are you suggesting that every individual is capable of self-discipline and self-control? How would you factor in the individuals who do not have self-control and how would you suggest a logical, rational system of order given the individuals who do not possess honor? Also, do you believe that we as human beings are individuals or do you believe that we will all sync up into one central mind where we all think the same? How would you reconcile this reality with your theoretical utopia? Thank you.

    –Richard

    Like

    • The article is addressing federal government as is commonly defined. Take your time and slowly read it again. Your questions are answered.

      I would suggest reading my bio, it is above and clearly linked. You can also read any of the thousands of articles that I have written using the search feature to search “founding fathers” this should clarify that question you have as well.

      If you still have off point questions after reading my bio and articles, ask as clearly as possible so I might give you a direct response. I hope you understand that for a logical man continually restating what has already been stated clearly in written and easily found format is illogical.

      Like

      • Anonymous says:

        To write something then ask what someone thinks of it then to refuse to discuss the points that someone brings up smacks of contradiction as well as close-mindedness. Maybe you cannot answer my relevant questions and maybe you can and simply don’t want to. Either way, thank you for responding the way you did.

        –Richard

        Like

Comments are closed.