Debating militarists can be very frustrating, but I believe worth the effort.

I despise the military as an institution. Of course, I share no love with its controlling state apparatus, as well. Those civilians who comprise the state are the controlling thugs of the operation. They are usually hidden and unapproachable. Lying is a big part of their profession, to the point of being pathological. They are usually too self-deluded to realize the immorality of their institution because of the monetary compensation they receive to strengthen and operate it. These folks I usually debate merely for the mental exercise, as the possibility of successfully converting them is virtually nil.

The military, however, is merely the armed wing of the stateu2018s bird of prey. It's responsible for enforcing the evil edicts emanating from the civilian thugs.

I feel my chances for successful conversions are much higher with this group for the simple fact that they are being shot at. Risking your life requires constant affirmation that your decision to do so is sound. It's part of the inner survival mechanism of human beings.

In my debates with militarists over the years (meaning enlisted military personnel, retirees, and their chicken hawk supporters) I've been able to recognize three distinct types of debaters:

1) The intelligent, articulate individual who vehemently disagrees with my anti-state position, but does so respectfully while eloquently outlining his position. These folks should be instantly recognized as worthy opponents and be returned the respect and civility they have given you. Chances are good you believed (and presented your belief system) exactly the same way, at one time. This should make it easier to draw your argument as you illustrate, point by point, how you were convinced your comparable belief system was false and immoral. Your chances of immediate success with this type of individual is low. But continue to be consistent and rational in your argument. More than likely this individual will have the integrity to recognize your argument has merit and is worth pondering.

The idea, at the very least, is to plant a seed. As that individual continually questions himself and debates others that seed will be cultivated. The trick is to expose the corrupt institution he is a part of without insulting the individual. You have to remind yourself that this is a thinking, cognitive person. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be debating you in the first place.

2) Those who have had an epiphany and agree with you to so some extent, but will attempt to rationalize the evils of this institution as necessary.

Some of these folks articulate your message and argument so well that you wonder how they were convinced to enlist in the first place. However, they still must be convinced of this institution's lack of integrity and legitimacy. Direct them to resources where they can obtain the knowledge that will lead them to this inevitable conclusion. They must also be convinced that they are powerless to change or "reform" this homicidal organization. They must be persuaded that disengagement is the only rational action to take.

3) Those who vehemently disagree and pepper their illogical arguments and non sequiturs with profanity and insult.

When they respond with phrases such as "I love war" and "I run to the sound of gunfire" it is probably not a good idea to immediately continue debate. Leave time for a cooling off period for them, as well as you.

Why would you need time for cooling off? If you are like me, the first reaction to such blatant hostility is to return my own version, feeling no obligation to restrain myself as I pick apart their depraved, illogical arguments and express insults of my own. This is a complete waste of time. Any hope of intelligent debate is lost as both parties resort to out doing each other at creating clever insults. If you do eventually respond to such hostility, do so in a very tempered, even tone, presenting your argument in the most concise, understandable manner that you are capable of. If the response is still more hostility, write this individual off as a hopeless cause- for now. Keep hope in the possibility that you may have planted a seed, despite the antagonism.

I have walked this earth for over half a century and have been exposed to every kind of statist indoctrination imaginable and have also been around long enough to realize the existence and characteristics of that indoctrination.

I can only hope that afflicted, enslaved soldiers take the time to analyze their situation, continually seeking the truth. Hopefully they will finally realize the deceit their masters have perpetrated against them.

Most all of us have been victims of this brain washing. We were born as slaves of the state and conditioned in their schools to accept that notion as not only reality but as a definition of "freedom." That process is stepped up a notch when one enlists in the military. Yes, this means an even harder shell to crack to complete a moral rebirth. But this individual also has the most to lose.

Many excuse war as a reality that cannot be eliminated, only adapted to. I disagree. War will certainly not be ended or even reduced through political involvement. War is a natural extension of politics. The only power an individual really has is over how he lives his life. Live your live in a peaceful, non-aggressive manner and your chances of not creating any strife are pretty strong. Next, encourage others to live the same way and prove to them (by your behavior) why this lifestyle is preferable over waging violence and intervening in other's affairs. Peaceful involvement and action is infinitely more productive than conflict. Conflict merely breeds still more conflict. The more people who believe and live this way, the fewer potential combatants nation states have to recruit. The Golden Rule is not just a nice sounding theory. It works!

Wars cannot occur without willing participants. Tyrants without armies are impotent. The goal should be to prevent as many young people as possible from joining this institution. Likewise, it is absolutely necessary that we convince those presently enslaved to break free from this abusive relationship as soon as possible.

These folks (militarists) are already victims of the allure of bloody nationalism. Let's work to prevent them being eaten by the voracious beast of war.

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

The Best of Roger Young

Members of the US military often point to the oaths they take upon enlistment as proof they will never violate the rights of Americans. They insist they are committed toward "defending" the Piece of Paper (also known as the US Constitution) and thereby also defend the individual rights that this document claims to protect. But is it wise for the free individual to rely on such an oath being kept?

Since World War II, the US military has participated in numerous illegal, unconstitutional wars. The pace of participating in such actions seems to grow by the year. It has almost become difficult to keep up with them all. When considering such actions, I begin to question just when are these individuals going to begin keeping their oath? I have yet to see any mass resistance by members of the military against any of these illegal actions. I have read numerous accounts that such mass resistance will finally occur when soldiers are ordered to confiscate the weapons of, and/or fire upon, their own people. But why should I believe such an assertion? Members of the military, with very few exceptions, have followed all orders to fire upon, kidnap, and confiscate weapons from civilians in other countries all over the world. Is it that much more of a challenge for them to also execute such action against people in their own country?

How can the US Military "defend" the Piece of Paper while at the same time murdering foreigners in illegal wars of empire, thereby violating the restrictions contained in that very Piece of Paper? They have admittedly participated in criminal acts. Therefore, they are criminals. Why should I believe unrepentant criminals?

The US military claims to defend individual liberty. But how can one who willingly lives as a military slave have any appreciation of liberty? I assure you, people willing to kill on command lack any conscience about violating someone's liberty. Why should I be willing to believe, when given the order to kidnap or kill me, they will ignore this order?

Please remember the following truths:

These people wear the uniform of the regime.

These people work for the regime.

These people are paid by the regime.

These people follow the orders of the regime.

These people actively protect the regime.

Why should I trust them? Given these truths, why I should I be assured that they have my best interests in mind just because a collection of words called an "oath" have passed out of their mouths?

And just who do they give this oath to? They, of course, give it to the corporate entity known as the United States of America- a political organism. It is not directed toward me, a human organism. Nowhere in this oath does it mention obeying orders from me or "officers appointed" by me.

Oaths are merely words that disappear into the vapor. They are meaningless unless backed by action. One such action would be to truly defend this Piece of Paper against "all enemies foreign and domestic" by ignoring the non-existent "foreign" enemies and concentrating on the "domestic" variety. May I suggest a mass, peaceful resistance or petitioning directed at those who initiate such threats.

However, I would be ecstatic if they all chose a less drastic, but no less courageous, form of action. If they really want to keep their "oath," they should immediately begin resigning in droves, deserting, or seeking conscientious objector status.

Protections of my life and liberties can never come from the same institution that directly threatens my life and liberty. You don't protect yourself, your countrymen, and your families from the mafia by becoming part of the mafia. You first free yourself from the system entirely.

If members of the US military truly want to impress upon me their dedication and devotion toward protecting my life and liberty they need to forget about any sacred pledges and concentrate on action. Complete disengagement, by whatever means from the US Death Machine, will more successfully convey that dedication than a book full of oaths.

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

A Declaration is Only the First Step

I received a lot of feedback after posting my latest video inspired by my previous essay, "I Hereby Secede." I also received a number of recommendations on how to make such a declaration into a physical reality. From this I realized I should make clear the nature of such a personal declaration.

Please understand that this declaration/affirmation is just a first step. It must be followed with concrete action. Many folks contacted me offering a number of viable options to choose from. I think whatever plan of action you devise and execute is only limited by your creativity. If that runs out, you have the creativity of the entire human race to draw upon, which I believe is unlimited.

I remember years ago listening to personal improvement gurus. The one belief they had in common was the power of personal affirmation as the first step toward achieving a goal. Such an affirmation settles into your subconscious and directs conscious action toward achieving this goal. By sincerely creating a personal declaration of secession/independence, you have, in a sense, wired and programmed your subconscious into directing conscious thought toward achieving your ambition.

This conscious thought manifests itself as ideas that materialize into action.

Though your plan of action is up to you, I would only caution against substituting your personal plan of action with joining a "movement" of some kind. Such movements are useful in locating and exchanging ideas with like minded individuals, but it would be unwise on counting on "mass produced" action to bring positive change to your particular, individual situation. Make sure you remain the director and not the directed. Don't expect change (as it relates to you personally) to result from merely following and supporting the leadership of such a movement, even if they seem to share your interests and expectations.

The only real‍ power an individual has is how he lives his life – a life structured by his philosophy, his decisions, his actions. Multiply this by millions and the result is change.

Submission is Not Consent

The state's legitimacy only exists in the mind of those who accept it. To those that don't, it is a fiction, a meaningless abstraction.

However, surviving in a state dominated world requires, in some cases, submission to this abstraction that also possesses overwhelming firepower to enforce that domination. But don't confuse submission with consent.

When a robber sticks a gun to your head and demands your money, more than likely you will submit to such a demand, as you value your life more than whatever money you have on you. Of course, you have not consented to such a forced transaction and transfer of property, as the decision was made under duress and an undeniable threat to your life.

People try to tell me that having a social security number is some kind of contract with the US Government. Of course, this is balderdash since a gun was put to my head at the age of 15 to get one. No number meant no employment. I responded to the robber by submitting, but I most certainly did not consent to any kind of contract. You can't be coerced into a contract. And I most certainly wasn't knowledgeable enough at that age to consent to such an arrangement. Of course, today you are branded with this number at birth and are given absolutely no opportunity to opt out.

Many readers label me a "citizen" and insist I am therefore bound with certain obligations toward the ruling state that labels me as such. "Citizen" is merely another word for "subject" or "slave" used by the state to designate and categorize you as their property, not the property of a competing state. The reality is that the state/citizen relationship is just a variation of the classic master/slave arrangement. But I am not the property of any state as I have not given consent to anyone to categorize me as such. Therefore, the issue of "citizenship" is irrelevant to me.

I approach the questions of self-proclaimed rulers from a philosophical view. Such a view can be articulated by asking two questions:

1) When I am born, am I born a free man or am

I born a subject/slave to another individual or a collective entity?

The answer to this question is either yes or no – there is no in between. You can't be mostly free or a little enslaved.

If your answer is the latter, I then have to ask the next question:

2) Why? By what authority does such

a ruler have to make such a claim without my explicit consent?

By the divine proclamation of a deity or some other supernatural entity? By the "authority" of a mob, manifested as a state sponsored and controlled election?

When the state puts a gun to my head, demanding obedience, I will most likely submit. However, I will not voluntarily petition and beg, by political or legal action, for the return of a personal possession (my individual sovereignty and liberty) that is already mine! The Magna Carta, eloquent document that it is, was an appeal to a self-proclaimed ruler to respect certain liberties already owned at birth by his self-proclaimed subjects. It was a request to a self-proclaimed king/ruler to give up a small part of his authority. But that authority was illegitimate from the day it was proclaimed!

Some readers mention the error of referring to the USG as a government, when it is technically a corporation; as if such a designation changes the fact that this body (by whatever name you call it) is a criminal organization that unjustly claims ownership over my life and body. As one reader reminded me: You are Sovereign. You are a Creator. A corporation is a creation. A creation cannot rule a Creator. Why is that so hard for so many to understand?

Government, state, corporation – give it whatever title you wish. They are all abstractions. I was not born a subject or slave to any such fictions created by others. Without my consent, they have no legitimate authority over me. The fact they can offer only violence in response to my resistance further strengthens this claim. Wal-Mart is a corporation. If they claim me as their property, is that claim legitimate? Corporations don't own people, people control corporations

The Constitution of No Authority

A constitutionalist is one who believes that a Piece of Paper will protects one's life and liberty from a predator disguised as a benevolent government master.

Some viewers of my video brought up the US Constitution. They either encouraged me to work for its restoration or claimed it to be a contractual authority preventing my secession.

I highly recommend everyone read the works of Lysander Spooner and his critique of the US Constitution. Not only does he prove such claims as spurious but he essentially destroys this document's legitimacy in two sentences:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certainu2014that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

And he wrote this in 1867! Seeing what has happened in the years since, the above statement seems to be even more relevant today.

The US Constitution was written by a group of self-appointed elites in 1787. Among other illicit powers, it claimed that the US Government had the power to rob individuals. And not just individuals then alive and residing within the geographical boundaries "ruled" by the government, but any future, unborn individuals finding themselves living within those same arbitrary boundaries. In essence, the authors made the audacious proclamation that those not yet born are to be ruled by this new government and are bound by its constitution.

What gives the Founders (intelligent, educated individuals they may be) the gall, the temerity, the arrogance to rule me from the grave?

Please remember, that a constitution is not a contract. A constitution merely charges an institution with the power and responsibility to regulate itself – which any honest constitutionalist will have to admit requires a healthy dose of faith in the moral rectitude of his rulers. However, a contract is an agreement among two or more consenting parties who agree that definite consequences will be suffered by any party that violates this contract. All parties are aware of this responsibility and agree to be held accountable. If a dispute arises, a pre-determined, agreed to, third party decides the outcome of any disagreement – not a court operated by one of the parties involved in the dispute.

The fact that an institution is so feared by its creators that a regulating document is required indicates the admitted creation of a master/slave relationship. The expectation is that the master will be refrained from abusing its monopoly of power by obeying this regulating document. The hope is the master will regulate himself and hold himself accountable. In other words, the Constitution is written by my master to regulate my master, is interpreted by my master, and enforced by my master. In more cases than not, it is ignored by my master.

But if this particular master/slave relationship is so feared, why voluntarily get into such a relationship in the first place? This curious action seems eerily similar to a woman, on the eve of consenting to a relationship with a man, obtaining a restraining order as future protection. Are you sure, madam, this is a guy you want to spend time with?

It can be concluded then that a relationship with a state institution, no matter its regulating structure or guiding ideology, is not conducive to protecting an individual's cherished inalienable liberties. And it can also be reasoned that any such relationship with this institution cannot be considered valid without the explicit, non-coerced, contractual consent of the individual.

Jumping Through Hoops

My video inspired several individuals to suggest methods to secede that are "legally enforceable," as relates to that fictional abstract known as the US Government. Here is one such approach. These are all viable courses of action, if that is the direction you choose. But I still am bothered by the elemental question that continually goes through my head: By what authority does an individual or group of individuals claim rule and dominion over my life without my consent? There is none, of course, and such an illegitimate authority can only be enforced through fraud and violence.

When I am born into this world, am I born a free man or someone else's property? The state has created a maze of legalese to distract you and cloud and hide this inconvenient question that the state can't answer. I don't understand why intelligent and awake people allow the state's matrix of propaganda to obscure that basic question in people's minds. The state creates these legal games to confuse its subjects and keep them oblivious to the simple, rational truths contained in the answers to such questions.

How can any individual or entity (that I had no part in creating) rightly claim me as their property and then require me to navigate through all sorts of hoops and obstacles and legal nonsense to regain a condition (freedom) that I was born into?

It's no different or no less reprehensible than a chattel slave being required by his master to complete whatever perverse directives this despot can imagine, in order for the slave to win or "earn" his freedom – a freedom that was taken from him at birth! How is this slavish relationship any different than the relationship the state forces upon me? Why is the burden upon me to abolish or rectify this relationship – particularly since this entity claims to rule "by consent of the governed?" Asking these questions exposes the reality of the state's existence – it is a tyrannical, criminal band of thugs with a great public relations agent.

Any legitimate "contractual" arrangement with this beast is rather one sided. I'm expected to keep my end of any "agreement," but the state rejects any demand that they keep theirs. They can change the terms of any "agreement" at any time and without any input or consent by me. That's why I never opened a Roth IRA. I fully expect them to eventually change the rules so you'll be paying taxes on that money twice! That's of course, if they don't nationalize (confiscate) everyone's retirement money first.

The burden is placed upon the wrong party. As it is now, the individual is expected to prove why he is not a property of the state. It should be up to the state to prove such an abominating supposition.

Why should I spend my time fighting one legal fiction by replacing it with, or defensively using, another legal fiction? Even if that is successful, what is to stop the state from creating still another legal fiction that I must then counter? Where does it end? I am sovereign. I am born that way. I need no document or state decision to make that a reality. The fact of my sovereignty is confirmed by the fact of my birth as a conscious human being, a property of no one, nor any self-described ruling entity. If you believe otherwise, than you have to believe that all men are born as other's property. You also then have to admit to the tyrannical nature of the entity that you legitimize and obey. And what does that say about you as a person?

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

Dear Neighbor,

Upon arising this morning I discovered a small Yankee War Flag had been planted in my front yard. A tag on the flag stick listed your email address so I must assume you are responsible for this trespass. I noticed other flags had also been placed on properties up and down the block. Did it ever occur to you to ask permission of the property owner before placing a flag, or any other object for that matter, on his/her property? This immediately comes to my mind as a simple, neighborly courtesy. How come you didn't consider it? How would you like it if someone placed a Nazi or other flag/symbol that is objectionable to you? Why do you automatically assume that every property owner does not disapprove being trespassed? Why do you automatically assume that every property owner shares appreciation for your symbols and world view? Many would call this attitude presumptuous, arrogant and rude.

If this particular flag was merely a common symbol of American individuals and communities I would have no objection to it. However, this flag also represents the United States Federal Government and its long, sordid history of murder and plunder — at home and abroad. This flag represents those who have unbending allegiance to the American state and defend its existence and actions no matter how absurd, no matter how criminal, no matter how obscene, no matter how unjust. This symbol is held dear by full time apologists who confuse defending their government with defending their home. This symbol is displayed by those who ignore their conscience to satisfy their bloody, nationalistic appetites.

This flag has flown over every federal building where conniving politicians and meddlesome bureaucrats tirelessly work, thinking of new ways to restrict my individual freedom. This flag has flown with every unit of the US military as it blindly follows any order to kill, destroy and torture anyone, anywhere, its meddlesome master deems not worthy of the right to life. This flag has even flown sacrilegiously in corrupt, American pseudo-Christian churches that can't seem to decide which master, God or the state, they will obey.

I understand that you placed this flag on my property to celebrate the forthcoming Fourth of July federal holiday — you know, one of those monthly days when government employees take the day off from work, yet still force the taxpayer to pay them. This holiday supposedly marks that day in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed. That declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson. If Jefferson was alive today how do you think he would view the recent status of his cherished republic? I feel confident he would have immediately destroyed your little flag in a fit of righteous rage upon examination of the "long train of abuses and usurpations" suffered by the American servile class. He would be greatly disturbed that lives and fortunes were lost to overthrow the governance of a tyrannical king, only to have the inheritors and beneficiaries of that act willingly live subservient to the edicts of a despotic state .

During Jefferson's time and the early years of the new American Republic the stars and stripes was an inspiring symbol to those who cherished liberty and a life's pursuit free from the choking shackles of the stateu2018s enslavement. From it's birth through the next 236 years the American state/empire has grown into a brutal beast while continuing to fly that same bold, radiant, colorful flag that represents it's hopeful beginning. That flag symbol may still fly true and colorful to the eye but the ideals it originally represented have been tarnished and cast aside. How can I possibly declare that state corrupt and illegitimate yet respect and admire it's symbol?

The act of planting that flag on my property without permission is a great symbolic act of how the American Empire imposes its will on other parts of the world without benefit of peaceful discussion and persuasion. After all, the American Way is always righteous and virtuous. "Who could possibly object to having superior American culture and political philosophy forced upon him? Yes, many lives and much property may be destroyed but it's all for the greater good."

I'm sure you must share that same attitude as it relates to your beloved symbol. "No one could possibly object to having my beautiful symbol placed on their property. Why bother to ask, first? Someone who would object to my flag and view the world differently from me must be a……..terrorist!"

Surprise! I may not be the only neighbor that objects or is indifferent to your symbol. The day after the flags were placed I noticed several on the block that had been removed. Apparently, you placed these flags too close to driveways as I noticed a couple of them had obviously been run over by automobiles. Whether this was intentional or not I'll leave to speculation. Your carelessly chosen placement of these flags would therefore seem to violate Section 8(e) of the U.S. Flag Code.

I was a bit more considerate, if not "code conscious," with your flag gift. I merely rolled it up and tossed it in the trash bin which is certainly more respect than this symbol of tyranny deserves. That little flag is now on its way to permanent burial in the local landfill. There it will join the long dead republic it once represented. Soon, the morally, spiritually, and financially bankrupt empire it now symbolizes will join that eternal grave.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

Any state created holiday is accompanied by display of that institution's symbols. Memorial Day in the U.S., when many remember those (at least in the military) that have been consumed or merely abused (but survived) by the beast of war, is one of these holidays where the state's symbols are quite prevalent.

This story, posted back in January, seems to be even more relevant at this time of year. The story tells of a family in Mesquite, TX who want a family member's grave to bear an "American" flag.

Enslaved individual's reverence toward their state master is probably best illustrated by idolization of its symbols and glorification of its acts of mass murder, i.e. wars. Many insist on projecting this demented adoration upon the memorials of loved ones who participated in these acts.

"He could've been killed when he was serving," she [a stepdaughter] said suddenly filled with emotion.

Yes, he very well could have been killed thanks to the state that kidnapped his mind and body and put him in this perilous situation. This fact, alone, should be cause for contempt, not celebration. Why not celebrate the productive life he was able to live, after surviving such threats, rather than dwell on what might have been a tragic, early death?

Why would anyone want this hideous banner, representing slavery and tyranny, flying over a loved one's grave? My father was a WWII draftee/vet/victim who took a German sniper's bullet. For this he received a piece of scrap metal called a "purple heart." When he died, after a long, productive life, some criminal from the U.S. Regime sent me one of these offensive rags. I immediately sent it to the landfill where it belongs.

Mr. Branton was victimized and enslaved by the bloody US regime at the peak of his life. The fact that he "didn't brag" strongly indicates that his horrible experience is a bad memory not worth recalling or remembering. It was a nightmare he wanted to forget- and rightly so. My father talked little about his horrible experience, as well. Why demean his memory by praising and glorifying his oppressor?

"The flag means America to me. It means freedom, defending our country."

How can a symbol that has flown over some of the worst atrocities, genocides, fraud, thievery, and rights abuses in the history of humankind represent "freedom?" Remember, this flag once flew with pride over a "country" whose state protected, with violence if necessary, chattel slavery. It triumphantly accompanied those committing genocide on the American Indian. It flew in exultant glory over each of the scores of U.S. war crimes committed throughout the world. Some of the worst of these crimes were against its own people! It can certainly be argued that war, itself, is a crime. For an activity to be considered a "war crime" indicates a particularly flagrant violation of decency and civilized behavior. And let us not forget the massive political slavery this piece of cloth represents. This symbol is undeniably stained and disgraced by the documented history of a multitude of collective atrocities.

Flying this flag in the name of "freedom" is therefore an egregious hypocrisy. Flying this flag in the name of "liberty" is near criminal naivety. Flying this flag to celebrate "fighting tyranny" is to ignore the authoritarian transgressions of the very state it represents. Flying this flag in the name of "independence" conveniently forgets the millions of minds indoctrinated and subjugated by ideological conformity and barbarous nationalism. It ignores the untold, productive, individual actions that have been outlawed, regulated, taxed, and slandered into non-existence.

You don't defend anyone's "country" when you bleed and die in the state's wars. You defend and advance the depraved ambitions of the ruling regime and the state and corporate oligarchs that control it. Try to remember way back, when a U.S. war actually ended. Was the "country" stronger? Hardly, considering the huge number of corpses, crippled survivors and depleted national wealth. However, the state and its ruling elites remained not only untouched, but wealthier, stronger, and more powerful- all at the expense of the "citizenry."

When the U.S. War Flag flies over a grave, it is a declaration that the soul buried beneath the ground is clear property of the U.S. in perpetuity. It is a proclamation that this soul's most meaningful action in life was killing strangers to accomplish the goals of depraved, power mad psychopaths. It is advertising the idea that consent and slavish obedience to the political order is the highest personal goal for which an individual can achieve and be recognized.

The state's symbols communicate ideas and principles its subjects have been indoctrinated into believing are associated with their ruling state. Considering the mountain of evidence indicating this state does not live up to these virtuous ideals and principles and is not the righteous institution one has been lead to believe, it only makes sense that one would not only end his loyalty to this state but also terminate any reverence and respect for its symbols. His relationship with his state up to now has been revealed as one of deceitful enslavement. This goes for everyone, including family members. Having suffered state slavery and abuse during life, why condemn a loved one to symbolic bondage for eternity?

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

Previously by Roger Young: I Hereby Secede

“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride legitimately, by the grace of God.”

~ Thomas Jefferson

What makes government, government? What gives this institution, created long before I was born, the power and legitimacy to rule my life? Some would say if I object to or reject the legitimacy of any government's rule over my life, I have the power to alter or abolish it. Do I have that power individually? Can I merely declare this government is hereby abolished as relates to me personally? Can I even alter it, only as it relates to me personally? No? I must accomplish this through the political process and elections? I must convince a majority of those now ruled to "vote" for this abolishment? But why?

America's founding documents include the phrase, “We the people.” We the people? How can anyone speak for other people without their consent? To take this question further, how can anyone speak for "we the people" as relates to people who are yet to be born?

If only a relative handful of people created this government that I'm obligated and forced to obey, (though I was not involved nor had a choice in creating) then why can it not be argued that only an equal number of people (or less) can abolish it? Why should more votes be required to abolish this government just because it's ruling area is larger? Is that my fault? Why should I be, essentially, punished because this government has increased its ruling area since it was created?

Why must this act of abolishment be done collectively? Who sets the rules and procedures for such an act, and who or what blessed them with the power to set such rules and procedures? Why wasn't I consulted?

All governments seem to be collectivist, in that none can be altered or abolished (at least peacefully) without collectivist action by "the people." Individuals, through their own means and actions, for some reason, do not have this power. Why not? And when I say "altered or abolished" in this case, I say that with respect to that individual only, not the collective.

I'm told that governments rule "by the consent of the people." In other words, only people collectively have that power. Why aren't individuals recognized as having that power? What if millions of people, each on their own, declared absolutely no consent to be ruled by their declared rulers? Would that declaration be recognized? What if the majority of people (each on their own, not collectively) declared no consent toward being ruled by this declared ruler? Would this ruling state then abolish itself? What gives this ruling state the power to determine how its legitimacy is determined (through political action, debate, and elections) rather than the supposed "free" individuals? If the government rules at the consent of the governed, shouldn't it be up to the governed how they declare their consent?

I'm told that if you don't like the government that rules you then you can move to where the government is better. But what if I don't want any government ruling me? Where, realistically, can I move to where no government declares to rule me? And why should I move? What gives the government dominion over a particular geographic area? It appears that someone, before I was even born, declared that this government has not only declared dominion over the particular geographic region I happen to live in but the power to rule me as long I reside there! Therefore I was born being ruled. Doesn't that make me a slave – merely property owned by this declared ruler? What happened to my consent?

Why did this government not ask me (when old enough to understand) for my consent? It appears that it has assumed I've consented to its rule by merely continuing to reside in its declared geographic region. Why? How does merely living on a particular patch of dirt mean giving consent to being ruled by a government that I had absolutely no part in creating? And if I am truly "free" and I have not consented to its rule, why cannot I not therefore be free of the harassment and violence directed against me and my property?

No man or group of men has the moral authority to rule another man without his explicit consent. No man need feel obligated to obey and serve a government created before his existence as a sovereign human being. No man should need to petition or beg such an institution (created before his birth and lacking his consent) to cease and desist further encroaches upon his sovereignty, liberty and property.

William F. Buckley claimed, "It is not a sign of arrogance for the king to rule. That is what he is there for." Oh, really? Who or what put this "king" in that position? Why can some declare themselves "king" but others cannot?

Even the revered Aristotle professed, "For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." Is that so? What if an individual decides not to be ruled, that it is not "necessary" nor "expedient" as regards his personal interests? And exactly who does the "marking" of who will be rulers and who will be subjects? From whom or what do they get this authority?

Stay angry and suspicious my friend, toward those who assume such an arrogant position.

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

Secession is a topic that seems to increasingly pop up in conversation, discussion, and written opinion. I believe that more people every day are seeing state secession as a viable and even necessary action to counteract increasing personal oppression, stolen liberties, and monetary incompetence and thievery by the United States Government. According to the Declaration of Independence, when such conditions become intolerable for the people, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But why wait for your state to secede? In the meantime, why not make a personal declaration of secession? Below is my idea of what a personal declaration would look like. I encourage others to make this same declaration and add or subtract any statements you deem relevant. Or write your own. Make copies and distribute to friends and relatives, encouraging them to do likewise. By all means, send copies to your Congress critters and other ruling tyrants. Convey the message that you no longer willingly submit to their arbitrary rules, and the theft and violence committed against you personally and against others in your name.

Some will dismiss such a declaration as merely symbolic, lacking any legitimate authority. By how does it contain any less authority than a state and constitution created by others a couple centuries before you were born? Here is my declaration:

I, Roger Young, a sovereign, free-born individual, and a child of God/Nature, do hereby declare my personal secession from the political entity known as the "United States of America." Though reason tells me that this entity has no inherent legitimacy toward ruling my life (as this arrangement was not created by me, nor obtained my consent), I find it necessary to declare such a separation.

By this act of secession, I hereby withdraw any present and future consent toward being ruled by this authoritarian organization. Any laws, edicts, regulations, executive orders, or demands issued by this organization will be ignored as so much verbal static emanating from tyrants lacking any legitimate authority.

By this act of secession, I declare I will no longer consent to being described as a willing citizen or subject, collectively enslaved under the rule of the "United States Government," nor its permanently ensconced ruling class. I hereby refuse to be labeled a participant of, nor a collaborator with, the criminal actions executed by those individuals declaring to be representatives, employees, or agents of the "United States Government." Such actions include waging war and stealing the property and wealth of other individuals. Any such actions declared to "be in my name" or "for my benefit or protection" will be considered blatantly fraudulent. I will hereby consider myself only as a sovereign individual residing on the North American continent, responsible only for the actions I commit as an individual.

By this act of secession, I will no longer be a party to the collectivist "we" used to describe those residing within the geographical boundaries claimed by some as the "United States of America." I will no longer be subject to the responsibilities, agreements, debts, or liabilities, claimed by that institution and "shared" by its subjects

By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my body subject to the rules and regulations of that entity known as the "United States Government." Any attempt to restrict my consumption of any food or drug will be branded as illegitimate and ignored Any attempt to actively apply such restrictions by this entity will be considered an act of violence and dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.

By this act of secession, I will no longer consider my physical, property (tangible or intangible) subject to any "laws" or regulations put forth by the entity known as the "United States Government." Any taking or taxing of such property will be considered theft and will be dealt with accordingly in a peaceful, though effective and persuasive, manner.

By this act of secession, I will no longer deem any restrictions, regulations, or limits on the use of my labor as legitimate, nor the taking or taxing of the fruits of such activity. The interference in the voluntary, contractual associations and agreements that involve my personal labor will not be tolerated. Such agreements and contracts will be considered sacrosanct and immune to the dictates and interventions from that entity known as the "United States Government."

By this act of secession, I will no longer maintain any allegiance or loyalty to the political abstraction named "The United States of America." I will not recognize its "boundaries" as legitimate nor use their existence as a regulator or hindrance toward interacting with those individuals who reside outside said "boundaries." I will also declare no aggressive intentions toward destruction or take-over of this entity. I will also by this act declare no immediate allegiance or loyalty to any other present or future political abstraction.

By this act of secession, I hereby declare absolutely no reverence or respect for that political entity known as the "United States of America" nor its self-declared ruling body known as the "United States Government." I will from this time forward view both with suspicion and as dangerous predators, preying on the lives, fortunes, and liberties of free individuals.

By this act of secession, I will not automatically obey any illegitimate "laws" or orders, not previously mentioned, put forth by that entity known as the "United States Government." Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity exhibiting superior firepower.

Any state agents sent forth by the "United States Government" to contact me will be dealt the equivalent respect and kindness that is shown toward me by such agents. Any perceived obedience by me will be the result of carefully calculated submission to an entity and its agents exhibiting superior firepower.

By this act of secession, I will not tolerate, as a free-living, free-thinking, peaceful individual, any violent, unjustified attacks on other such individuals and private organizations or their property by this entity known as the "United States Government." I will utilize all available time, talents, and resources available to me to expose and ridicule those agents of the "United States Government" that initiate such attacks. I will also help and support any active, peaceful countermeasures to help prevent or overturn any such violent, aggressive actions against sovereign lives and property.

By this act of secession, I will no longer listen to any speeches, comments, or information communicated by that entity known as the "United States Government." All such information will be instantly declared not credible and subject to verification and confirmation by reliable, non-state sources. Any verbal or written communication emanating from this entity will automatically be considered a lie until proven otherwise.

By this act of secession I remain open to the idea of being ruled by similar such entities, but such an action will occur only with unequivocal consent by me and legitimized by mutual contractual agreement.

By this act of secession, I do not make the arrogant assumption of speaking for other sovereign, free-born individuals. This declaration is relevant only to me and not to any other sovereign individuals known personally to me or related by birth. However, I encourage other like minded individuals to do the same. I encourage and even implore them to stand up for their lives, liberties and property. I passionately advise they throw off the yoke of bondage that inhibits, strangles, and even kills them, destroys and steals their wealth and property, and poisons the futures of all who seek to live unchained. No shedding of blood or violent extremism is necessary. Just take the time to officially declare withdrawal of your consent.

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed."

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in US-occupied Texas and has a blog.

In October, a video on YouTube received worldwide attention that impressed and inspired its viewers. The video shows United States Marine Corps. Sgt. Shamar Thomas from Roosevelt, NY berating the police for its mistreatment of protestors at Occupy Wall Street in New York City. Mr. Thomas claims to have spent fourteen months in occupied Iraq. Though Mr. Thomas' analysis and remarks regarding the police's behavior is spot on, I believe he and his supporters has failed to grasp the hypocrisy that those comments reveal.

Let's take Mr. Thomas' remarks a piece at a time and I'll attempt to back up my argument. In the interest of brevity I have purposely left out some phrases repeatedly spoken by Mr. Thomas.

The video begins with Mr. Thomas strutting in front of NYC police, pointing to the ranks and ribbons on his uniform. "They don't lie, they don't lie," he claims. By doing this he establishes that he speaks as a willing and proud member of the US military (since retired) and relates to listeners that his membership in such an institution is relevant to the message he is about to deliver.

"This is not a war zone. It's not a war zone. It doesn't make you tough to hurt these people. There's nothing tough about it. Nothing. If you want to go and fight, go to Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't want to be here beating and hurting US citizens. Where is that in the contract? Leave these people alone."

No, it is not a "war zone." But how is this subjective classification relevant? What defines a war zone? Why should any place be a war zone? And why should such an arbitrary classification change the rules of civilized behavior? The police should not have the power to create such a designation and neither should the US military Mr. Thomas represents. Yes, there is nothing "tough" about what the police are doing but there is also "nothing tough about" the US military hurting people in Iraq. And the fact that this particular country has been declared a "war zone" by those inflicting this violence does not justify or excuse such activity.

"Go to Iraq and Afghanistan" if you want to fight? Fight who? Natives acting to repel brutal aggressors? Is that somehow more honorable or rational than attacking protestors on US streets? Why is it wrong to hurt people in the US but quite acceptable to hurt people in Iraq and Afghanistan? What did those people ever do to you? Why would anyone even sarcastically suggest to hurt them if one feels a need to "fight?"

"Contract?" The only "contract" existing among both the police and military institutions is that its individual members will obey whatever orders are issued by their controlling masters. Yes, the protestors should be "left alone" just as the people of Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone. The violence committed against them by the US military is just as unjustified.

"They're US citizens. US CITIZENS! US! It does not make you tough to do this to them. It doesn't. Stop hurting these people, man. Why y'all doing this to our people? I've been to Iraq for fourteen months for my people and you come over here and harm them. They don't have guns! They don't have guns! They don't. Why are you hurting these people. It doesn't make any sense. How do you sleep at night?"

This is a common ploy practiced by American exceptionalists. Use the arbitrary designation of "citizen" to shield a select group from harm and justify violence against others who don't share that same statist designation. Why is it wrong to hurt those enslaved under the tyranny of the US Government (at least in this case) but not wrong to hurt those that do not share this title, "US citizen?" How can one justify violence against a group of people just because their feet do not rest on the same patch of dirt as yours? If violence against peaceful people is wrong in the US, is it not wrong everywhere?

Mr. Thomas and others may sincerely believe he was in Iraq for fourteen months for "his people." However, this is obviously not true since he and others do not take orders from "his people" and the majority of "his people" did not want him and his colleagues there in the first place. Since retiring, I'm willing to bet he is coming to that realization.

Tens of thousands of individuals in Iraq did "not have guns," yet they were not just harassed and beaten like the Occupy protestors, but were KILLED! Whether their murders were intentional or not is irrelevant. Any arguments trying to justify such action fail miserably. They do not "make any sense." I've often wondered how those involved in such activities (and those that justify such murders) in Iraq and other US created war zones "sleep at night." [Please note: Mr. Thomas claims not to have harmed any Iraqi civilians in this interview and in this statement. I have no reason to doubt him.]

"There is no honor in this. There is no honor in this. There is no honor in this, man. There is no honor in this shit! There is no honor in what you're doing. How do you do this to people? How do you do this to people? How do you sleep at night doing this to people? How? You're here to protect them. You're her to protect them. Protect us. Why are you hurting US citizens?"

Where is the "honor" in invading a country that attacked no one and was absolutely no threat to those the US military claims to protect? Where is the "honor" in maintaining an occupation for eight years now, long after the lame reasons for invading have been thoroughly discredited and proven as lies? Where is the "honor" in invading another country (Afghanistan) that also did not attack or threaten "US citizens" and continues to be brutally occupied and destroyed for over ten years? Where is the "honor" in flying drone aircraft through another country's skies, bombing and killing at will perceived evil doers and hundreds more innocents?

Murder is wrong no matter who does the killing. The fact that a killing is performed by those who wear the costume of the US or any other state does not bestow such action with "honor." And yes, to those directly responsible I ask, "how do you do this to people?"

"This is the United States of America. Why are you hurting people? If you want to kill or hurt people, go to Iraq. Why are you hurting US citizens? Do you get honor of this? Do you get honor by hitting people with batons? Is that what you get?"

Again, why send people who want to hurt others to Iraq? Why is it somehow acceptable to hurt people there, but not here? Hurting "US citizens" is wrong. Hurting Iraqi "citizens" is wrong. Hurting any person is wrong. How is it "honorable" to hurt people in one context, but not another. Moral consistency requires not playing favorites and ignoring allegiances and loyalties. How is it "honorable" to hurt those enslaved within one political system but not another? If there is no "honor" hitting people with batons, how is there "honor" in blowing them into pieces with bombs and guns?

"This is unbelievable that y'all doing this to people. Why y'all doing this to people? I know that not everyone is not bad. Why are y'all doing this to people? Y'all walk around in riot gear like this is a war. These people don't have guns! How can I not act crazy when ya'll hurting the people that I protected? My whole family protected this country. I'm not out here walking around trying to hurt these people."

No, "everyone is not bad." Not all these cops are bad and not all military slaves are bad. But what actions they often are ordered to do is bad. The fact that they nearly always obey these orders is bad. The very institutions they are a part of are beyond bad – they are corrupt, tyrannical, and murderous. Why be a part of such an institution? When it becomes obvious that an institution is found not to be the righteous, benevolent, institution you were indoctrinated to believe, why continue to be a part of it? Why continue to defend it? Why exclude its historical failure and criminal actions from accountability? Yes, these actions were initiated by superiors in authority, but they would have not occurred if not executed by the willing and obedient rank and file. Everyone is born with a brain that allows them to think for themselves. No one is excused.

The military does not protect "this country." The military protects the interests of the ruling regime and its allied corporatocracy. To anyone who believes the US military protects you, I ask this question: From where does the US military receive its orders? From you? From where does it receive its paychecks and who signs them? Yes, it receives its money from you, but it's taken at the point of the regime's gun.

After this period of addressing the NYC police on the street, one officer responds to Mr. Thomas:

Cop: "I was in Iraq with you."

Thomas: "So why do you allow this? Why do you walk around trying to hurt people?"

Cop: Keep it moving.

Thomas: And I can't speak. You want to shut me up. Y'all want to shut me up.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for exposing the robotic attitude and moral compartmentalization characteristic of those who wear the state's costume – be they police or military. They resist critical thinking or rationalizing and instead just continue to follow orders and "keep it [your brain] moving." So many unfortunate events throughout history would have been avoided if those involved had resisted such mindless obedience. Yes, they want to shut you up. You are making them uncomfortable and prodding what remains of their conscience and decency. People need to start challenging members of the military with the same self-examination.

"Why y'all walking around like this is a war zone. Nobody has guns. Why y'all treating people like this? This is America. Why are you treating people like this? Why are you gearing up like this is a war. This is not war."

War is when one people aggress against another and when there is a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end. In the case of Iraq, the US is the aggressor and initiator of the conflict. They are solely to blame. The Iraqis were no threat. So why was the US military "treating people like this?" No, "this [the Iraqi invasion] is not a war." It is a crime!

"Why y'all acting like this, No one has guns. No one is trying to hurt you guys. There are no bullets flying our here. How tough are you? There is no honor in hurting unarmed civilians. These cops are hurting people that I fought to protect. There is no honor in hurting unarmed civilians and I won't let it happen."

The US military killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. Most did not have guns and were "unarmed civilians." Therefore it can be asserted, by the same argument used to defend the Occupy protestors, there is "no honor" in this, as well.

The arrogant, attitude exhibited by these cops that Mr. Thomas rightly abhors is the same exact attitude that inspired the aggression against the people of Iraq. It is also what motivated the US rank and file to carry out their "mission."

With all due respect to Mr. Thomas, outrage rings hollow from someone who claims allegiance to a state and its military institution who is responsible for acts similar or even much worse than those committed by the NYC police force. Militaries are not compassionate organizations charged with the task of protecting and defending their subjects (despite their propaganda). They are instead instruments of state oppression, executing terrorist acts of conquest collectively referred to as "foreign policy."

"Law" Enforcement is just the domestic projection of state power. The military is the international version. How long before the two merge to control their increasingly restless and economically desperate subjects? By looking at the continuing militarization of police forces, I would guess that time is not far off.

My intentions is not to initiate an ad hominem attack against Mr. Thomas. I just believe that his remarks expose a blatant hypocrisy and tunnel vision that needs to be exposed. Many others have this same perspective. That does not make them bad people. But I will attempt to enlighten them to facts and reasoning that may, at present, escape them.

The message I intend to deliver is this: If the actions by NYC Police against US "citizens" is wrong, then so are the actions by the US military against people throughout the world. All victims are human beings endowed with the same inalienable rights to life and liberty. All should be supported and defended against unjustified and unrighteous attacks, no matter the identity of the culprit.

And to Mr. Thomas I will direct these remarks personally: I will not thank you for your military "service" but I will thank and applaud you for so passionately standing up for those who are persecuted. We dearly need those with your energy and devotion to continue to voice these sentiments defending the sovereign rights and individual value of people. I thank you for having the courage to look evil in the face (represented by the state's street warriors) and preach the truth.

But please, please I beg you, preach that truth for all people.

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in Texas and has a blog.

Certainly,
the mind, spirit, and conscience is one piece of our lives off limits
and inaccessible to an oppressive, totalitarian state. Throughout
history individuals have managed to survive and even outlive tyrannical
state regimes by relying on a strong, principled, spiritual conscience
that is untouchable by even the most onerous of despots.

What inspires
and privately defines your self-government is is your own concern.

Recently, US
expatriate Jeff Knaebel (a
contributor to LRC) renounced
his US citizenship at the Mahatma Gandhi national monument in
India. Mr. Knaebel shredded
his US passport and "placing the pieces upon the monument,
Knaebel declared his independence from not only the American government,
but all governments renouncing his birth certificate as well, stating
that citizenship must either be voluntary, or be considered forced
slavery." Mr. Knaebel then read aloud his Declaration
of Renunciation and Severance of U.S. Citizenship which is a
marvelous, inspiring statement.

As this news
spread throughout the blogosphere I noticed some of the usual gnashing
of teeth among atheist fundamentalists impressed with Mr. Knaebel's
declaration but upset with his motivation. It seems that Mr. Knaebel
is a Buddhist and the precepts of that belief were, at least in
part, the source of his declaration of individual sovereignty.

It's no secret
that a large percentage of anarchists are atheists. Included among
this group are agnostics, who will respectfully claim disbelief
until empirical evidence proves otherwise. These folks generally
respect those who are believers. Then there are the fundamentalist
atheists who unequivocally declare that there is no God(s) and therefore
claim access to all the knowledge of the universe (the only way
one could make such a claim). These individuals are generally intolerant
of any sort of religious or spiritual beliefs.

Anyone who
has spent any time examining the philosophy of anarchy will find
that there are many different ideological "versions" of
anarchism. Per Bylund's Anarchism.net
lists a healthy sampling:

"…collectivist
and individualist anarchists, revolutionary and pacifist anarchists,
atheist and Christian anarchists, communist and socialist anarchists,
high-tech and primatism anarchists, industry-centered and environmentalist
anarchists, as well as property abolitionist and free-market or
capitalist anarchists."

However, you
will find at least three key elements of that philosophy that is
shared by all interpretations: the necessary abolishment of the
oppressive state, voluntary association, and self-government. The
latter is the element being considered here.

In order for
a stateless society to be successful, individuals within that society
must practice self-government, i.e., individual responsibility.
They must act in accordance with a code of morality/ethics dictating
non-aggression and respect for other's lives and property. This
"code" may originate from a variety of sources, secular
or religious.

Some fundamentalist
atheist/anarchists brazenly claim that no one can be described as
or declare himself an anarchist if he has a religious loyalty to
a God(s) because he is then submitting to the governance of someone
other than himself. This, of course, is nonsense. Using their argument,
it would also follow that one cannot be an anarchist if married,
as such a relationship entails submitting (at least sometimes) to
the orders of a marital partner. One could also not be employed
by another party, as that relationship, as well, would involve taking
commands from someone other than yourself. Even a self-employed
individual takes "orders" from his customers.

All of these
examples are related to personal accountability, rather than governance.
An individual is accountable to his/her marriage partner in accordance
with their marriage agreement and vow. An employee is accountable
to the contractual agreement made with his/her employer. In a similar
manner, a business owner is accountable to his/her customers if
he/she intends to stay in business. By the same manner, one who
holds a religious belief does so, in part, to regulate his/her behavior.
The individual sees in that religious doctrine a reliable, time
tested philosophy for guidance. Following that guidance offers the
best hope of living successfully and peacefully among other individuals.
The individual sees this doctrine/code of ethics as a guidepost
to compare his behavior and thus make himself accountable.

None of the
above examples can be remotely compared to statist's behavioral
obedience to their governing ruling masters – an obedience created
through fear, force, and coercion. It is the rejection of this illegitimate
governance that characterizes an anarchist. As
I wrote a couple years ago:

"Religious
doctrine, in and of itself, has no collective power over others.
It has no armies or thugs with guns to enforce its edicts. An
individual needs no state or private security apparatus to defend
himself from such doctrine if it is intellectually or morally
disagreeable, but merely the use of his God-given reason and self-education.
The state, however, is a secular/godless construct only attractive
to those with no moral conscience. It is an instrument of force,
legitimized by fraudulent doctrine and promises, and used to control
others by force rather than honest, forthright, peaceful persuasion."

The
fact that some individuals have both accepted religious teachings,
and in some cases accepted them to the point of religious reverence
and/or worship, is irrelevant
to being characterized as anarchists. The fact that they both
dismiss and disavow any allegiance or obedience to any man-made,
man-operated system of governance over their lives, property and
liberty is relevant.

If you come
to these beliefs through religious doctrine – so be it. If
you come to these beliefs by way of an indoctrinated, secular, moral
code of ethics – so be it. What's important is that you have
accepted these ethics and morals as imperative to living peacefully
and freely among other individuals. What is important is a physical,
not spiritual reality – your exhibited behavior toward and your social
interactions with others.

Why should
one give up their own personal motivation to serve the ambitions
of intolerant, atheist evangelists?

July
10, 2009

Roger
Young [send him mail]
is a
freelance photographer in Texas and has a
blog.

DIGG THIS

Not exactly
a bold, controversial statement, right? Even the most ardent supporter
will agree that the military lies during its day-to-day mission
of "defending" the country, in part to confuse the enemy
de jour. But the far greater deceit lies in justifying the reasons
for this organization's mere existence.

My recent
piece asked honest, logical questions disputing certain rationalizations
pertaining to the military. The response from readers was overwhelmingly
positive and the vast majority of those respondents were veterans!
Among the small minority of dissenters, only a few made polite,
thoughtful rebuttals. Not surprisingly, their arguments failed to
convince me. However, their points did cause me to realize that
the military's claim of "defending my freedom" was not
only untrue but an impossible task for the military to accomplish.

Military supporters
certainly claim the organization "protects my freedom."
Does the military make identical, documented claims? The
Army sees itself as "protecting America's freedoms at home
and abroad, securing our homeland, and defending democracy worldwide."
The
Soldier's Creed for the Army and Army National Guard claims
"I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life."

The
Airmen's Creed for members of the Air Force maintains themselves
to be a "Guardian of Freedom and Justice."

The
Creed of a United States Marine seems more about a love affair
with their rifle (their rifle is human?) than a claim of protecting
anyone's freedom. However, one
of their numerous websites does explain the motto, "Semper
Fidelis" and how "this phrase defines the honesty
and dedication of the Marines for their work of protecting the U.S.A."
The Marine's recruiting literature also mentions their search for
"men and women to join their organization who are ready to
fight for their country and protect their people."

The
Sailor's Creed, for those in the Navy, remembers "those
who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the
world."

And let's
not forget the US Coast
Guard whose stated mission includes "protecting" the
public and boasts of it role in the Homeland Security apparatus.

Although their
defense claims are rather broad, I think it can be accurately stated
that the military professes to protect my person and my freedom.
But is this reality?

Lie #1:
The military protects your freedom.

Imagine that
I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member of
the military or a supporter:

Militarist:
"The military protects your freedom from those who would take
it."

Me: "I
disagree. More and more of my freedoms are disappearing through
actions initiated by the government that claims to represent me."
[Numerous examples are given including illegal assaults by state
and federal law enforcement, denial of habeas corpus, spying on
American citizens, being searched without warrant or probable cause
at airports, etc.]"

Militarist:
"I stay very well informed on such matters and I agree –
many areas of the government have overstepped their constitutional
authority and damaged or taken some of your freedoms. However, the
military did not take those illegal actions. Other areas of the
government did."

Me: "Agreed.
But earlier you claimed, unequivocally, that the military protects
my freedom. You have agreed with my assertion that my freedoms
are quickly disappearing. Therefore I can conclude that the military,
despite their claims to the contrary, is not protecting my
freedom. The military may not have the authority to counter other
rogue elements of the government that threaten my freedom, but that
fact is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that my freedom
is not being protected and you claim the military is
protecting my freedom. I'm not so much upset that the military canu2018t
(through legal restrictions) defend my freedom as I am that
they claim they do protect my freedom. When the military
claims to protect my freedom they do so without listing any qualifiers
or exceptions. Therefore, the military and its supporters are promoting
a lie."

Lie #2:
The military protects and defends the US Constitution

Again, imagine
that I have a conversation concerning this assertion with a member
of the military or a supporter:

Militarist:
"The military protects and defends the US Constitution in obedience
to its member's
pledge to defend it "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Me: "I
disagree. Many areas of the government have damaged, taken, and
continue to threaten my liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution.
You have previously agreed to this claim. But the military makes
no effort to protect or rectify these abuses. It cannot do so because
it lacks the legal authority to interfere in the activities
of other areas of the government. Yet, the military claims it does
protect the US Constitution and therefore protects the individuals
safeguarded by that document. Clearly, as these examples prove,
the military does not and can not. The military is
telling a lie."

"In addition,
the military continues to execute acts of war against other states
without the declaration of war
required for such action by
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. By doing so, the
military actively participates in an illegal, unconstitutional action.
How can the military be defending the Constitution at the
same time it is actively violating it? The military may be
excused for not having the authority to question or refuse participation
in such illegal actions. It is, in effect, impotent. But by not
having this authority to refuse participation it is clearly unable
to take steps that would stop such an action. The military claims
to defend the Constitution without offering any qualifiers or exceptions.
Therefore, this unequivocal, categorical claim is a lie."

"To top
it off, members of the US military swear
an oath to defend the Constitution "from all enemies,
foreign and domestic." They obviously violate this oath for
the reasons stated above. Strict Constitutionalists may consider
this offense "treasonous." More importantly, this fact
exposes one of the weaknesses of such a document. Members of the
US military swear an oath to defend a rule of law (the US Constitution)
even though they don't have the Constitutional authority
(in many cases) to defend it! How bizarre is that?"

Conclusion

The military
does not and cannot, protect my freedom. It is in fact a threat
to my freedom by protecting or ignoring those "domestic enemies"
from which they claim to protect me. It is a threat to my freedom
by claiming it protects me when it does not even have the authority
to defend me from the most immediate threats; those of the "domestic"
variety originating from numerous areas of the federal government.
The military is a threat to my freedom by protecting and defending
that very entity that is the greatest danger to my safety
and freedom – the United States Federal Government and the
regime that controls it. There is no "foreign" threat
that can equal it, particularly since so many perceived foreign
threats wind up being
manufactured. Personally, I have more faith in the protection
offered by two large oceans than a
trillion dollar/year "defense" agency that can't
protect its own building.

To
some, my analysis may be viewed as nit picking. But I refuse to
apologize for demanding accountability from an organization that
fraudulently claims to provide a service while pointing a gun to
my head forcing me to finance it.

Why don't the
military and its supporters revise their claim to, "The military
"tries to protect your freedom?" Such a statement
might actually be grounded in honesty, though no more convincing
than the original claim. Or how about, "The military protects
your freedom when it is legally allowed to do so?" Somehow,
that statement just does not have the sound-bite simplicity necessary
to excite supporters, reassure the masses and continue the deception.

Knowing that
the military and its supporters can be proud
of failure
(despite any valid excuses), they should have no problem taking
pride in the fact that they "tried." However, if they
have tried and still failed, how does that benefit me?

And please,
cease and desist the strident demands that I be "grateful."

August
6, 2008

Roger
Young [send him mail]
is a
freelance photographer in Texas and has a
blog.

DIGG THIS

"It is such twisted thinking that leads those who refuse
to examine the content of their minds to bleat about the soldiers
who “fight for our freedom.” What nonsense. Shall we next be told
that Sunset Boulevard hookers are peddling virtue?"

~ Butler Shaffer

Why would someone be "proud" to be a Vietnam veteran? 
Certainly, one shouldn't necessarily be ashamed, particularly if
they were conscripted.  But what is there to be proud of? 
The US government lost the war.  It was a war that, by all
historical perspective, should not have involved the intervention
of the US government and its military.  In other words, the
operation was misguided and a failure.  What is there to be
proud of?

Why is a soldier who is killed or captured in war considered a
hero?  It would seem to me that the first objective, when striving
to be a successful soldier, is not to be killed or captured. 
It is impossible to achieve your goal of destroying your enemy when
you are dead or locked up under his control.  Instead of a
"hero," shouldn't you be considered a failure?

Why does a US soldier say he is fighting for freedom when he, as
an enlisted individual, is not free?

Why is it that military failure is never blamed on the military,
itself, i.e., the individuals who make up the military?  When
confronted with the question of why the military lost the Vietnam
War, or why the military did not protect the country (or even make
an effort) on 9/11, or why was the military on that same date unable
to even protect its own building — the answer is always,
"it was someone else's fault."  Members of the military
can never seem to find fault in their own actions as reasons for
their collective failures but always seem to find someone (or thing)
else to blame – be it politicians, war protestors, insufficient
financial and asset support, etc.

Why do militarists proudly point out soldier's benevolent acts
toward civilians suffering the effects of war when it is the
soldiers that caused the suffering in the first place?

Why do soldiers claim to be fighting for democracy (majority rule)
in Iraq when the American democratic majority, for whom they claim
to fight for, clearly has said they do not want the American military
in Iraq?

Why do soldiers, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution
of the United States, violate that oath when partaking in illegally
executed wars?

Why are soldiers who refuse to fight in violation of that oath
considered "deserters" or "traitors?"

Why are soldiers considered the "best and the brightest"
when they fail to understand the clear language of the US Constitution,
heed to authority without question, and are unable to grasp the
clear evidence that the leaders that command them are ignorant,
corrupt, and deceiving?  Shouldn't they be referred to as the
"clueless and easily deceived?"

Why do soldiers claim "they fight for you" when "you"
never requested the soldiers or anyone else do such a thing? 
Isn't that a rather arrogant claim to make?  I certainly don't
recall making such a request.  "Excuse me, sir; do you
have a signed contract that quotes me agreeing to your services?" 
And if soldiers do "fight for me" why am I not allowed
any input on how they go about doing that?  Instead they receive
and accept orders from elsewhere.

Why
do soldiers claim they "answered their country's call?" 
How do millions of people "call" you?  In reality,
the only parties that called were the draft board and/or the recruiter.

Why do soldiers claim they defend "the country" when
the largest threat to "the country" (the permanent regime
located in Washington D.C.) is not only ignored but protected? 
If "the country" truly is "the people" and the
role of the military is to protect "the people," why does
the military not protect "the people" from its government?

Attempts to answer these questions without the use of expletives,
slogans, revisionist history, clichés, or slander are welcome.

July
24, 2008

Roger
Young [send him mail]
is a
freelance photographer in Texas and has a
blog.

Recently, my father passed away.   When loved ones die we look for material souvenirs to keep close by to remind us of departed loved ones; photos, personal effects, and even clothing.  Clothing, besides having practical value, is a display of identity, a method of expressing what a person is about either in a subtle or very direct manner.  This may explain at least part of my dear mother's thinking when she offered me my father's World War II Army dress uniform shirt to take home as a memento.  Not sure how to refuse the offer without offending her, I responded by saying, u201CThat's not Dad to me.u201D

I remembered another shirt of Dad's I've kept for some time that reminds me of far more important accomplishments of my father's life.  When my siblings and I were still quite young we were fortunate to go on several cross-country road trips, primarily during summer vacation.  One year, my mother outfitted the entire family in identical red and blue patterned shirts to identify us to others as a tight knit clan of travelers – or maybe just to make it easier to keep track of her precocious kids.  I possess the only surviving shirt (we kids quickly outgrew ours) of that wonderful time forty plus years ago.  It happens to be my father's copy and it represents to me the essential character of what my father was really about.

The state is always trying to tag us with an identity – political affiliation, victim group, race – convenient labels to group and track us.  Individuality is despised and the state gets confused and sometimes even hostile when those they assign to a particular group do not exhibit the monolithic group-think expected of them.  Yes, my father once wore the uniform of the state but it certainly wasn't worn voluntarily and most definitely did not represent a direction he had chosen for himself.  It merely represents a necessary detour along his life's path.  Whether that path was necessary or not is a subject for another discussion.

I was not interested in keeping my father's Army uniform shirt because it reminds me how my father was hijacked from his home and loved ones (including a young wife that would become my mother).  He was conscripted by a warring state – a state that had failed, as it always does, to preserve peace.  The elite and powerful had determined FDR's rampage to u201Csaveu201D Europe was far more important than my father's trivial pursuit of individual fulfillment.  The state was not interested in my father's wonderful personal qualities that made him a unique child of God but only as another faceless piece of cannon fodder to throw at an enemy.

My father was pursuing the peaceful profession of pharmacy when he was drafted into the U.S. Army.  His masters promised he could continue to attend pharmacy school while in the service.  But it wasn't long before they threw a B.A.R around his neck and sent him to France where he took a German sniper's bullet through the arm.  While I was growing up he rarely talked about the war, usually only when prodded with a question from his curious children.  Sometimes, while watching a television program about the war he might volunteer information from his personal experiences. Whatever pride he may have had in his service he kept to himself.  Sure, he would march with the Am-Vet color guard in our little town's Memorial Day Parade (then called Decoration Day).  And he would fire his rifle for the traditional 21-gun salute.  But, thankfully, he never was one of those pathetic old men with a veteran's cap, squeezed into his old Army uniform, strutting and sticking his chest out like a male grackle in heat.  I never got the impression he viewed his time in the war as a glorious episode in his life, but rather a necessary task he was given (forced) to do.  The only positive characteristic the Army shirt represents to me is that my father had the guts and resoluteness, along with the blessing of God's mercy, to survive a difficult, horrendous experience.  I am certainly thankful for this fact but I extend absolutely no gratitude to the monstrous state who put him in that situation.

However, the red and blue shirt represents the man whose natural motivation in life was to start and raise a family.  It reminds me of his positive ambition of creating a successful business that provided for that family.  I'm reminded of all the wonderful traveling adventures throughout the American west and elsewhere.  This traveling gave us lessons about life that could never be taught in a conventional school classroom.  Memories of these trips are vivid, even decades later and planted in me a seed of wanderlust that seems to germinate about every fifteen or twenty years.  My father's natural drive in life was to create and cultivate, not the state's perverted mindset to attack and destroy.

After several months of painful suffering, my father is at peace now.  My guess is his soul is content with a job well done.  All the accomplishments that make up his 81-year legacy is embodied in the lives of his children and grandchildren. Their challenge is to duplicate and even surpass his feats.  I'll always have that raggedy, worn shirt to remind me of his vitality, giving spirit, and calming influence.  That shirt, colored with precious, positive memories, is one uniform worth preserving.

Roger Young [send him mail] is a freelance photographer in Texas and maintains a website called PixelPrairie.com.

Remember
the architects
of perpetual conflict, the schemers and tacticians who design the
strategy, chart the acts of aggression, and lay the blueprints for
other's destruction.

Remember
the plague of nationhood that infects the innate free spirit of
men, disrupts the natural order of peaceful
exchange and fuels the slavish obedience to political orders;
regardless their legality
or
morality.

Remember
the irresponsible who jump at the opportunity for conflict, forgetting
reason, composure, and diplomacy. Remember how they delegate to
others
the duty to lead the engagement.

Remember
the propaganda
meisters
who flood the airwaves with poisonous lies to reassure a wary, skeptical
public; all carefully calculated to stultify the truth of war's
consequences.

Remember
the Masters
of War who profit from this heinous spectacle- those who gain
power and tarnished wealth. Watch them flaunt their booty paid for
with the bloody currency of children
not their own.

Remember
those who consider it essential that defense of a state's borders
requires committing pre-emptive
acts of aggression
against people on
the other side of the globe.

Remember
the cheerleaders
who urge on "their" warriors with shouts of jingoistic
fervor; yet refuse or find it unnecessary to give up their
comfort of state side security.

Remember
those who have witnessed, first hand, the horror of battle and tasted
the acrid flavor of war's experience.

Remember
those who discover an epiphany, a life changing understanding that
war is not the glorious adventure of Hollywood imagery, not the
youthful pastime of an entertaining video game.

Remember
those of this group who then fail to warn others of this newfound
knowledge, who fail to convince compatriots of the needless sacrifice
and stolen innocence.

Remember
those on the sidelines who do not obey their conscience to speak
out against the carnage, who hold their tongues through shyness
or cowardice; who stand by silent as family, friends, and neighbors
are whisked off to their inevitable doom.

Remember
the children who witness war and its atrocities. Remember the confusion
within young minds told killing is wrong, than struggle to comprehend
the exception of war.

Remember
their bewilderment when told to accept the killing of strangers
that have done them no harm.

Remember
the irreconcilable conflict within the hearts of Christians whose
testament instruct "love your enemies, do good to those who
hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat
you." and "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to
him the other also (Luke 6:27–29)" Remember their befuddlement
when finding serving their state (be it the U.S.A and/or Israel)
requires disregarding these principles. Remember the ideological
clash when told serving their "country" preempts faithfulness
to their God.

Remember
the broken bodies and shattered psyches, still with us to remind
us of war's human cost. Remember the lost potential, the dashed
dreams, the oceans of shed tears, the newly discovered war against
desperation and hopelessness.

Yes,
remember the fallen, the dead. Visit their resting places with solemn
respect. Make note of their obscenely abundant and escalating numbers.

Remember
that each grave has a face, a story, a soul represented by that
slab of coldly etched stone or weathered cross.

Then,
remember the graves throughout the world without adornment of a
marker- a name, an individual, sentenced to a burial of eternal
anonymity. Don't the numbers now grow exponentially? Some were enemies,
some were allies. Remember they also once walked the earth as those
you honor. Remember they also aspired to a life of peaceful contentment,
though driven by a different philosophy or creed as a means to obtain
it.

Remember
how, when living, all sides were compelled by opposing views of
righteousness but now all are colleagues in death.

Do
not only grieve for their loss but remember the lies and liars that
killed them.

May
30, 2005

Roger
Young [send him mail]
is a freelance photographer in Texas and maintains a website called
PixelPrairie.com.