Traitor of Patriot…?

Created: 2013, August 2th
Revised: Not yet…


Whether by their actions an indidividual is a patriot or a traitor depends the frame of reference: whether you live in a free society, which does not exist on this planet, or a coercie one, such as a democacy, dictatorship or monarchy. With these differing only in the style of coercion.

Both individuals — Manning & Snowden — were trying to alert people to the act that the coercion is reaching an alarming, threatening level. The level at which a society fails from within, as happened with the Roman empire.

What they did not know and do not know, is that there is a solution readily available. Although becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Same as with the solution to the problems of climate change. In both we may reach — are reaching — a “tipping point”. Where the chaos and disorder in society, created by the very laws which are supposed to prevent it, will doom us — Homo sapiens — to a horrible death.

It depends on your frame of reference and a mutually agreed definition. In politics these are never considered, so almost everything we believe about this subject is false.

People calling Edward Snowden and Brian Manning a “traitor” are operating within the framework of what we call “politics”. Since I have put the word in quotes it means we must define it. Mutually agreed definitions are necessary for the creation and new and useful knowledge and the understanding of existing knowledge.

Individuals must accept the definition for the purpose of understanding the conversation of the moment. After, if they wish, they may discard the tentative, temporary definition and continue life with their previously believed, accepted definition.

We also need to understand the “environment” in which this takes place. Is it the environment of Homo sapiens in their natural state, or the environment of politics. For which we of course must define the word politics.

During this discussion the definition for politics that I will be using is: “A concept under which it is considered acceptable that there is a body of unnatural law that states which individuals may or may not do. And there is an individual or individuals who enforce these rules through the use of force or fraud.”

With three branches of politics; civil, military and religious.

And of course there are styles of politics, the generally accepted ones being of a dictatorship, democracy or monarchy. I think we all have more or less the correct idea about a dictatorship: one person controls everything. Nothing more need be said. In a democracy, we know that “the people&dquo; make the laws. Which in practice means only, for example, “senators” and “representatives”.

And there is the idea that if you — and individuals of the “people” don’t like them &mdashl you can change them. Ever tried that? Doesn’t really work, does it? At the best you may be able to modify that law, adding more “wherefore, but, nevertheless” statements, etc. So that it become even more incomprehensible and offensive.

Then there is the monarchy, which is something of great style, yes? The uniforms, the endearing princes and princesses. The galas and soirees.

With all of these is the matter in which the ruler is replaced. In a dictatorship it is usually by the death of the dictator, natural or otherwise. With the replacement sort of a matter of luck. And opportunity. In a monarchy the replacement is usually by a family member. At least in the case of a natural death.

But there is one common thread in all of these. The name, the identity, the personage changes. But the concept of having a ruler, someone to control your life and property, does not change. Strangely, most individuals feel there must be someone to perform this function.

We would be bereft if there was no ruler and we ourselves — as individual thinking beings — had to make all decisions related to our life. And be individually, solely responsible for the result. No one to blame if we were incompetent at controlling our own life. People are inconsolable. For different reasons, of course.

They cry and wail. There are protests, marching in the streets. “Whatever will we do without some sort of ruler? I can’t, I don’t want to undertake the burden of running my own life to achieve what I want in life! Help! After all, there are some things — many things? — in life that are ‘too big’ for me to make decisions. I need an organization that is ‘too big to fail’ to handle things for me”.

There is dancing in the streets — or crying in the streets — as the old régime is out and the new is in.

And thus it has gone for thousands of years.

But it will not continue forever. The chaos and disorder in society is increasing. As it did during the end – time of the Romans. For the same reason. And increasingly, Draconian internal security laws of the internal security ministry —which the Americans marvellously and incorrectly call a “Justice Department”. The only connection this has with justice is the negative form, injustice.

But back to traitors and patriots. And we will consider the definitions, framework and environment, yes?

Traitor (General, Political)
Anyone who fails to follow the unnatural laws set forth by the régime
Traitor (Normal)
Anyone who fails to attempt to act rationally and morally.
Patriot (General, Political)
Anyone who unquestioningly and always follows the unnatural laws set forth by the ruler, and the dictates of the ruler.
Patriot (Normal)
Anyone who fails to attempt to act rationally and morally.
This means their focus, their intent in life, is to make their own life better without intentionally degrading the life of others.

So maybe we have answered whether Manning and Snowden are patriots or traitors?

No society based on coercion and secrecy (they seem to go together…) has ever survived in the long-term. And none ever will. You should begin to see why. The ever–increasing emphasis coercion and the loss of individual freedom. No one really cares about such a state, yes? Why defend that?

On the other hand, if there had been great personal freedom. Which is also necessary for technological innovation. The barbarians — the so–called “Huns” — would have rushed to the area, wishing to be “Romans”. “Please let me in! I have a valuable trade that will sell in the market.&rsuo; Because the area was known as Rome. A name that was and artifact or relic of the time when it had been a political entity with that name.

The same would probably be true if there was total individual freedom in the area now known as “America”. People would refer to the area by that name, even when it was no longer a political entity. But an area where there was individual freedom.

This essay is not really complete now. Always true of new and useful knowledge needed to overcome an area inundated by a sea of fallacies. Our bizarre societal system in which people think they are free but are not. Believe that in order to enjoy the blessings of freedom they must give it up. To have their lives controlled by others.

More later, as they say in the trade…

Related subjects:

℗ Prototype 1971–∞ — Andrew J. Galambos — All Rights Reserved
© Copyright 1983–∞ — William W Morgan — All Rights Reserved