The Clipboard: On Warmongers and Collectivism

From an article¹:

Has bin Laden ever, that we know of, personally killed any innocent people? We know that he killed Soviet attackers some years ago, but that was clear self-defense. (As opposed to sending planes across the world to bomb people who have never gotten near you....) We know that he has encouraged other people to kill innocent people, via officially recognized terrorism. (As opposed to what a government does when it drops cluster bombs willy nilly...?) We know that he has even willingly funded such terrorists.

What about the warmongers?

They are encouraging other people, those in the US military, to kill innocent people in Afghanistan, if not all over the Middle East. Moreover, even though no one pays taxes willingly (though some would argue differently, in theory) warmongers are enthusiastic about having their tax money used for bullets and bombs.

Then let's look at motive. Osama bin Laden, ostensibly, wants American blood because some Americans, the US and its military, have killed and otherwise harmed many a Muslim. Likewise, warmongering Americans want Muslim blood because some Muslims killed a few thousand Americans.

See a pattern here? (link)

I think there is real truth in what this author is saying. So many of the pro-war people seem to be the same as those they condemn.

---

Complete text of the article, On Warmongers and Collectivism, by Diane Rhodes

When I hear someone advocating this war the US government has gotten into, my first instinct is to call him a murderer. Not exactly the best method of arguing for or against anything, I know, but.... Well, as I say, it’s my first instinct -- not my first reasonable thought.

I’ve been told that because these people themselves aren’t going out and killing people, they can’t rightfully be called murderers. Perhaps. However, some of these very same people will turn around and call Osama bin Laden a murderer. I find this very interesting.

Has bin Laden ever, that we know of, personally killed any innocent people? We know that he killed Soviet attackers some years ago, but that was clear self-defense. (As opposed to sending planes across the world to bomb people who have never gotten near you....) We know that he has encouraged other people to kill innocent people, via officially recognized terrorism. (As opposed to what a government does when it drops cluster bombs willy nilly...?) We know that he has even willingly funded such terrorists.

What about the warmongers?

They are encouraging other people, those in the USG military, to kill innocent people in Afghanistan, if not all over the Middle East. Moreover, even though no one pays taxes willingly (though some would argue differently, in theory) warmongers are enthusiastic about having their tax money used for bullets and bombs.

Then let’s look at motive. Osama bin Laden, ostensibly, wants American blood because some Americans, the USG and its military, have killed and otherwise harmed many a Muslim. Likewise, warmongering Americans want Muslim blood because some Muslims killed a few thousand Americans.

See a pattern here?

I’d say that, even if "murderer" is an inaccurate name for warmongers, they are no different from bin Laden.

Some warmongers sadly say, "Yes, it’s a shame (or terrible or tragic or some other grievous understatement) that innocent people will be killed--but that’s the nature of war." Like them, I recognize that the death of innocents is part of the nature of war. However, unlike them, it is because of this that I so vehemently oppose war. How is such a statement different from, "Yes, it’s a shame that Ted Bundy killed so many people--but that’s the nature of a serial killer"?

I’ve pointed this out, and the only answer I’ve gotten is, "Oh, but that’s different! We were attacked and now we have to do something."

"We." The power of collectivist thinking.

I think that’s what it comes down to. Ted Bundy (and bin Laden) was an evil, terrible killer--and he was an individual killing individually. However, somehow when grouped as the state, as a collective, the same actions become reasonable to many who agree that Bundy (and bin Laden) was evil--even when some of them would call themselves individualists.

Whether the collective is a lynch mob, or a mob electing another mob to "represent" them--it is never any better than Ted Bundy or bin Laden. They just have the apparent legitimacy of any other collective.

So, warmongers:

You may feel your murderous desires are justifiable because they are shared by so many others; you may feel I am insane because I dissent from the majority in unilaterally opposing murder--but, as George Orwell said in 1984, "sanity is not statistical." Ted Bundy was insane--but it was not because he acted alone.

reference=http://www.anti-state.com/rhodes/rhodes6.html