Standing Armies Stand in the Way of Freedom

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

No,
I'm not complaining about little "aberrations" like Waco,
where the standing army assisted the extra-constitutional National
Police Force(s) in the murder of American citizens. That was unspeakable
but only recently has it even been thinkable. Nor will I make any
disagreeable comments about the warrior ethic — I myself subscribe
to it. Then why would old soldiers like George Washington and me
speak against standing armies?

Hint
— it's not because the soldiers are bad guys. It's much simpler
even than that. It is the simple fact that in the world that we
are living in, freedom requires that very warrior ethic we seem
to assume is the exclusive province of national military forces.
To assume that someone else will protect your rights is sadly incorrect
and we are seeing the evidence of it as our freedoms erode. There
is only person you can depend upon to vouchsafe your freedom and
that is you. Once you hire that job out to somebody else, you're
finished.

Could
this be why American men have become such a bunch of lightweights?
Let's explore that some more. The men who fought the War Between
the States were arguably the best American soldiers to ever pick
up a gun. Both sides drew many of their initial officer cadres from
the same tiny national army of between thirteen and sixteen thousand
men. That is less than the size of a modern day army division. Yet
our fighting men in that war, even on the Northern side, were first
rate and utilizing modern weapons and technologies, changed the
face of warfare forever.

These
were state troops, "milishy" as they used call them. They'd
fall in for drill one Sunday a month usually followed by a social
affair and perhaps some horse racing or target shooting. They seemed
like amateurs to some folks but they were quite sufficient to fight
a war of such scope that we have still not recovered as a nation.
It should be noted also that they were quite capable of handling
foreign threats as well — both Brits and the French found that out.
One of my least favorite Yankee war criminals took fifty thousand
troops down to the Mexican border and Mr. Maximilian decided that
messing with combat hardened veterans in such numbers just might
not be a good idea. Britain was a little leery of those boats with
the iron turrets — designed as they were by amateurs.

World
War I began the slide toward militarism — it was too big we were
told, for the old ways. We had to centralize. The threat, although
never really defined, was too menacing to worry about the niceties.
Once again the state troops filled the gap but they were soon nationalized
and lost their identity in the mass. There was a short period of
common sense after that horror when people had sort of got the message
that mechanized slaughter served interests other than theirs. The
US Army was once again reduced in strength to a cadre along with
a small Marine Corps and Navy.

Then
along came Franklin Roosevelt and socialism. "Projecting power"
became important to the political masters and the Navy was heavily
built up as well as a long-range strategic air force that would
shortly bring fire and death to many. World War Two and the draft
put literally millions of Americans in uniform and they were taught
to obey the national leadership without qualm. Whatever moral high
ground America ever laid claim to burned up in Dresden and Nagasaki.

Our
choice of allies had been made for us by leaders of small attainment
so it wasn't long before we were propping up the British in peace
as well as war, and facing off against our communist former ally,
the Soviet Union. Despite the fact that Russia was almost destroyed
in the Second World War, they did have a lot of tanks and they were
utterly ruthless so American politicians made the decision to stand
up to the perceived threat (to Europe!) and the Cold War was on.
The standing army was here to stay and with it the officer class
which made careerism a raison d'etre.

Freedom
however, was lost. Because at the point where we surrendered our
national defense to "professionals" we thrust our remaining
freedoms into the willing hands of those State functionaries we
all purport to despise so much. It also put our fighting men behind
the eightball. How many times have you heard someone say of our
troops in Kosovo, at risk as they are and fighting in the cause
of dishonor, "That's what they signed on for?" Americans
view their forces as mercenaries plain and simple, and have surrendered
control of them to the State, washing their hands of it.

Most
modern Americans depend upon the police and by extension, the military,
for his own personal safety. Well folks, here is the bad news, you'll
never get to keep your lunch money that way! In the case of the
police — you pay through the nose for people who can't or won't
defend you — but they will send someone out to write a nice report
over your body. The military does indeed fight "our" wars,
but are they truly our wars? How interested are you in the
Balkans wars? Interested enough to have your child die fighting
there? I didn't think so.

There
are other dynamics at work here that we must consider. A peacetime
military is a bureaucracy of the worst sort. The generals who command
in peacetime are rarely the ones that matter when wars occur. Taking
our modern forces as an example, the military leaders are cowards
and careerists of the worst sort and have condemned thousands of
their youthful charges to death with their lickspittle acceptance
of the feminization of the fighting forces. They train for situations
like what to do in case of sexual harassment or "hurtful"
language. These officers are expert at producing PowerPoint slide
shows with which they may at least bore a potential enemy to death.
Perpetuating careerism at the Pentagon does exactly what towards
making my family safe? As opposed say, to having the men of my neighborhood
armed and trained with military style firearms and equipment?

While
American men leave such worthies to defend their freedom, they may
consider that freedom to be a mirage. Besides, what does any government
agency care for your freedom? They care, by their very nature,
for their power and their ability to increase that
power. We put too much trust in these men who learn the motto of
"Duty, Honor, Country" at West Point yet produce no men
who will refuse an illegal order. Was not the bombing of Serbian
schools and market places without even a declaration of war, a war
crime? How many of our men have refused to wear the blue beret of
the UN? I can think of one! It's well known that soldiers
with lots of physical courage in combat where their bodies are on
the line still wilt when a superior threatens their career prospects.
If I'm incorrect please send me the names of every American pilot
who refused to participate in the horrific assault against the Serbs.
I won't hold my breath waiting for a reply. I've been corrected
on occasion by military men who tell me it's not up to them to make
policy, only to execute it. That philosophy got a lot of Germans
hung not so very long ago.

What
is sad is that the warrior ethic I spoke off barely exists even
in the military now. It might offend the media types and the politicians,
like the female senator who spoke disparagingly of the Marines when
she found out they trained their men for fighting and killing and
weren't paying enough attention to "real" issues like
gender equity. This is the government upon whom we depend for our
security as a nation. If you are sleeping soundly at night with
this bunch at the helm you must be taking a lot more on faith than
I am.

Foreign
policy? Give the central government a military to play with and
you see what kind of foreign policy we get. It's whimsical, murderous,
it benefits us not one bit as a people, and it's laughable in its
way because our government bozos are essentially fumblers. They
are greedy fumblers, which is the worst kind — they rent out this
high priced military of "ours" for security work such
as they are doing in the Balkans and Columbia. Both of those operations
are immoral, illegal, and they have in common that they are killing
innocents in the interests of those who have sponsored the careers
of our "civil servants." But they couldn't get away with
that if we didn't have a standing military. But what if we had a
national defense based upon the citizenry? Do you really think Michael
and the boys are going to drop everything, grab the ole assault
rifle and hop over to Kosovo? We don't care about no stinkin' Caspian
Pipeline. Some of us have even read history and have a fair idea
of what happens to people and nations that push Russia too hard.
Besides, we are working for our living and couldn't be bothered.
Which of course is why the government insists that we absolutely
must have a large standing army — that way they don't have to ask
our permission to kill people.

There
is another aspect to this that I suspect is not obvious to most
— our foreign policy and our perceived need for a huge standing
army is responsible for most of the wars that are now in
progress. Here is how it works: the army does some figuring and
decides it's armoured forces will need a new main battle tank and
it will have to meet certain requirements such as having a 100mm
gun, chobham armour and it must go 60kph. During the life of this
tank it is determined that we will need a total of twelve thousand
of them rolling off the assembly lines to meet our requirement.
Each tank costs a certain amount per unit. Now guess what, the price
per unit goes down as the production numbers go up — and the government
wants cheaper tanks to hide the cost from you and me. The "defense"
contractors want more sales. So we export them to Israel, Egypt,
and anyone else with a pulse and a dollar. This applies to every
weapon we make from rifles to Patriot Missiles. In some very rare
cases we refuse to export some weapon until we have a new and improved
version for ourselves.

The
result of this process is that we as a country have become the arms
merchants our grandparents hated so much that after the First World
War they called them "merchants of death." When you wonder
why the mythical "peace process" does not work in the
Middle East just think about what kinds of weapons the various armies
are using. The Russians can no longer keep up and their weapons
showed up poorly in the Persian Gulf War so now it's time for guns,
tanks and planes stamped "Made in USA." We are sponsoring
the very wars about which our political leaders and diplomats claim
to be so "concerned." We are responsible in fact, for
murder on a global scale.

We
as individuals give up our own claims to morality by sanctioning
such state sponsored murder.

There
is that alternative we might call a true national defense; one where
the citizens themselves are responsible for the defense of the nation.
Most of us are quite willing to take up arms to protect our country
from invasion. Until very recently, most of us owned and at least
occasionally handled firearms. The individual American was considered
so important to national defense by the founders of this country
that our constitution mentioned it specifically. Despite a very
recent claim that our militia forces in the First Revolution were
painfully inept and that the real fighting was done by the professionals
history shows this to be a lie. Where were the continentals (the
professionals of their day) when Nolichucky Jack Sevier and the
"over the mountain boys" destroyed the British and Tories
at Kings mountain? Can the claim be made that they didn't know how
to fight? The British or at least the ones who survived, could have
told you different. Nolichucky Jack and the boys didn't consider
themselves beholden to any central government but they were armed
and ready to fight, and Kings Mountain was the last time the British
stuck their hand into that hornets nest!

This
includes a very nice concomitant — namely, when you get the guns
back into the hands of the citizenry, you put the political power
back there too. If you were wondering why politicians routinely
betray their oaths and steal everything in sight — it's because
they have the backing of the men with the guns. We could take that
power away from them, it would require only that thing which Americans
lack so profoundly: moral courage.

Shouldn't
we be questioning the motives of a government / media conglomerate
that has made it seem like an awful thing to teach young boys and
men how to shoot? Those idiots running the government indoctrination
centers (schools) are concerned that dodge ball is too rough for
American boys — let's not even consider shooting or boxing. Feminized
boys are a sick joke to anyone but a government flunky who is apt
to admire qualities like servility and docility much more than combativeness
and a commitment to freedom. This is not an accident folks; it is
very much by design.

What
we must consider, and we must consider it now, is how seriously
do we take our freedoms? To me, it appears that we as a nation do
not take freedom seriously at all. That we are a nation of pansies
who exist to support the war machine and our masters, in exchange
for a few crumbs from a table stocked with delicacies provided for
our masters by our labor. Colonel Hackworth reported recently
the US Army has more credit cards on issue than it does rifles.
Guess whose account those bills are charged to? The answer will
be in your mail next year at tax time.

Why
are armed citizens not defending our southern borders? Is it because
Americans overwhelmingly support having their culture subsumed by
migrants in their millions? Hardly. Recent polls show only ten per
cent of us support that insanity. No, it is happening because we
are a nation of whipped puppies and here we stand, big dumb smiles
on our faces, waiting for our wonderful government saviors to do
something about the very situation that they are promoting!

Why
do we tolerate the drug war and the illegal forfeiture of property
by the very police who are supposed to defend us? Here is why, because
we are a nation of limp wrested men who hire others to do their
dirty work. If you don't want a crack house in your neighborhood
— get rid of it. But don't hire those bozos and bullies in the swat
costumes to come around beating on everyone's door with machine
gun in hand and visions of sugar plums dancing in their greedy heads!
Can we call ourselves free when we allow that to happen?

How
do you believers feel, when your despotic government slaughters
Serbian Christians from thirty thousand feet to protect criminal
Marxist terrorists? I figure you must not mind it too much — nobody
much has complained about it. How about now, as Clinton, or is it
Bush, who can tell the difference, is destabilizing Macedonia in
a clear case of militaristic aggression? Feel pretty good about
that too, eh?

It
is obvious that the militarization of the police and the feminization
of the military are both blows against our freedom. The former destroys
our freedoms at home and the latter destroys our ability as a country
to defend ourselves from attack. A military that is so constructed
that it cannot fight a serious enemy but is perfect for "pacification"
duties ("fight light" anyone?) is a military I don't wish
to fund. It is an incubation center for ludicrous schemes of the
pc crowd who can't even run a college let alone a military force.
No matter though, even when our military was at its peak, say at
the time of Desert Storm — we must ask ourselves what was such a
military used for?

The
answer is, to fight for Israel and the oil interests. The former
is no consequence to us since we should be avoiding foreign entanglements
and they have their own military. The latter need armed force because
they have forsaken capitalism for this National Socialist "third
way" we have now, where major companies buy government favors
and call it "the national interest." The sad thing about
it is that there is an alternative. Picture America as a power house
of trade, with a huge citizen army, and a small central government.
Such a country is in no danger of running short of anything and
that includes oil. Nor is such a country in danger of invasion —
who wants to deal with an armed citizenry? If you question my logic
on that consider why Hitler kept his hands off Switzerland. It wasn't
because they weren't close by and full of interesting resources
he craved. It was because he didn't crave a last ditch fight with
an armed citizenry. It should be noted that the various resistance
movements in Europe only began to flourish when we sent them
weapons. Up until then, they had to choke some Nazi to death to
get a rifle and that was risky business. Their governments hadn't
trusted them with weapons and so they were defenseless.

We
must face some harsh facts: whether you believe in a standing military
or not, this one we have has got to go. Clinton's generals are not
my generals. Coed barracks and feminized, sissified training standards
are not something I want anything to do with. I don't believe such
a force can defend me, nor do I want it to. However, I do long for
a military system that can be utilized for national defense, as
opposed to extending the Empire. I want a military that will defend
the borders of the United States. I want a military that will not
obey un-constitutional or illegal orders, that will not attack foreign
countries and that will laugh disdainfully at government murder
squads the next time they wish to fry some children at a compound
near you.

There
is only one way to get what I want. The states must take the gun
out of the hand of government. But will that happen? It could. It
would of course require a near extinct breed of American man to
bring it about. The one called a real man, the one called a patriot.
A man who will fight, who declare himself free by his own actions
and enforce that freedom regardless of what the faceless drones
in New York and Washington have to say about it.

Many
readers have asked me how I can be in favor of secession when the
State has the big guns. Consider who it is that gave them those
guns! It was us! The power to give and the power to take away belong
to us, the people. That we choose not to use that power is whose
fault?

They
say that spiritually and philosophically, a man can be free where
ever he is — even a concentration camp. And I say that the kind
of men who can do that, would not let them build such horrors in
the first place. The people of Poland and Russia and numerous other
countries found themselves in the hands of the kind of men who do
indeed build concentration camps, and they were helpless to do anything
about it. You see, they had put their faith in government and standing
armies.

August
20, 2001

Mr. Peirce [send him
mail
] fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith
side, of course).

Michael
Peirce Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare