The Myth of the Innocent Harold Thomas

[NonEntity]

Harold Thomas, due to be on the No State Project radio show this weekend, wrote a little pamphlet called The Myth of the Innocent Civilian.

Several years ago I tried to read it. It has been a long time and I don't care to try to read it again, but I do recall that it did not make sense. It was not logical, at least to me. As Marc has pointed out, there are no citizens. I suggest that there are no civilians either, there are only individuals. That is why I couldn't follow Thomas' argument - he makes the assumption that I am responsible for the actions of another.

So Marc, I ask you, preparatory to this weekend's show, to give this some thought. I think that you think highly of this man's ideas. I would like you to give some consideration, if you will, to the idea that groupspeak is a cop out. There are only individuals, and to hold me responsible for what someone else does is simply insane, not logical, crazy, and it does not help to further the ideas of freedom and personal responsibility. It is possible that I'm completely off base here, of course. If so, maybe it would be worth while to show me how I'm off base as others may be as mistaken as I.

- NonE

[Marc Stevens]

You should read your characterization of those who participate in the FED's credit system and re-read the book. I think you're off base here, I don't remember him writing about groupspeak. Your posts in the foreclosure thread were part of the reason I was prompted to have Harold on the show again. Here's a quote from the book:

"What if you become aware that your government, supported by your tax payments, is involved inunjustified, immoral and possibly even illegal activities? How are you affected? Does a citizen have any legal or moral duty with respect to the behavior of the government? What is that duty? Is there a point at which an average citizen might reasonably be considered an "accessory" to the specific crimes of the government?"

He never claims individuals, in total isolation, are somehow responsible for what others do. He gives clear examples, such as paying taxes to men who then kill others and call it war. He is questioning the moral implications of paying taxes, that it is enabling psychos to kill others. Harold was clear about individual involvement.

The question is: If you pay taxes, do you then share some responsibility, or are an accessory (to some degree), to the crimes "governments" then commit? By paying taxes, you helped, in some small degree, provide the means for the psychos to then murder, steal and lie.

I've said many times, on my show and others, we all have blood on our hands to a degree because we all participate to some degree or stand by and do nothing. We can make whatever excuses we want: I'm just one man; I can't, if I go to jail what will happen to my family etc., but that does not, in my opinion, negate any responsibility we may have for letting it happen, and enabling it to happen.

You should call into the show this weekend.

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:I've said many times, on my show and others, we all have blood on our hands to a degree because we all participate to some degree or stand by and do nothing. We can make whatever excuses we want: I'm just one man; I can't, if I go to jail what will happen to my family etc., but that does not, in my opinion, negate any responsibility we may have for letting it happen, and enabling it to happen.

You should call into the show this weekend.

I think you've described his position as I recall it, and I remain unconvinced. Let me point this out, and see what you think: Your position above makes the assumption of "the body politic." As an explanative example, if you were held up by a Mafioso thug who demanded your money or your life, and you gave him your money, are you then responsible for any criminal acts the Mafia takes? I cannot see any difference between what I've just proposed and what you suggest is Harold's position. And yet, seemingly, you do. I wonder if you'd explain this difference.

- NonE

{edit} P.S. Here is an example of what I call "groupspeak:"

Marc Wrote:Here's a quote from the book:

"What if you become aware that your government, supported by your tax payments,...

MY government? MY tax payments? How, if there are no such things as citizens, can there be MY government? Do you not see where this might be viewed as inconsistent?

{second edit} Let me attempt to clarify. You (and he) seem to equate paying taxes with support. I suggest that paying taxes is often under duress, whereas the point I make - VOTING - is an active, freely chosen participation in violence, even if violence by proxy. This is where I have the problem, I think: paying taxes is often done literally at threat of death. Voting is an active choice to join into the plunder and subjugation of others for one's own benefit. I see this as a big difference. (I can also see where to one who has not thought about it, it might not be as apparent, but that makes it nonetheless different.)

[eye2i2hear]

NonJanE you ignorant slut. Obviously, just about the time you've excruciatingly convinced me of your total incompetence and inability to say anything other than banal dribble, you up and nail one.

:biggrinblue:

Why didn't eye2 see this?!
Though my caveat would be that I haven't read the pamphlet in quite some time, and that could very well mean I wasn't of the frame of mind to connect what you have here. That, and obviously, we don't know whether Mr. Thomas as well has equally expanded his horizons; and/or whether he wrote the pamphlet more with a targeted audience (submitizens) in mind (ie baby steps) --wisdom of that aside.

Quote:"Don't delete, distort, or add to reality."
"Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?" enquired Humpty Dumpty.
"I read it in a book," said Alice."

*the book, Adventures In Legal Land, page 51

"Civilian", eh Alice? ...something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content."

[NonEntity]

Quote:Quick definitions (civilian)

▸ noun: a nonmilitary citizen
▸ adjective: associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military

[right]from HERE[/right]

Binary thinking.

To what it appears Marc and Harold are saying:

How about freedom? How about I'm me, and I can be whatever kind of me I want to be as long as I don't F* with you? How about that, huh? What you're saying, it appears to me, is that I am measured by the yardstick which defines you. What I am is irrelevant. YOU are the measure of all, and I have to be measured in accordance with this image of you.

[center]Not. :-*[/center]

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:Binary thinking.

Well it seems logical that there are realities of binary, no? Like, one (an individual, female) either is or isn't pregnant; and one either is or is not a slave. Both formers being matters of degree, but binary none the less, no?

For me, this is the case -binary- with individuals relative to war/military. One either is or isn't in a State of aka war. And I've appealed elsewhere on the forum about most, (f)actually being at war but totally oblivious to it via newspeak.
One either is or isn't at war*, where if one is it's a matter of degree (and not decree/say-so, say-not). The label of civilian being popularly of that mental escape clause newspeak? Yet arguably, since it is inherently binary (dichotomous) I'd have no problem with the word civilian necessarily as merely one not at war (living the voluntary lifestyle) --tho "normal' suffices. ;-) With pregnant we really don't insist on a specific word for not-pregnant; yet with slavery we do, viz freeman/free.

I think2 of the ole kid's song of "The foot bone is connected to the ankle bone... the ankle bone is connected to the shin bone... the shin bone is connected to the thigh bone..." etc. War is of that same "body" politick, no? The finger bone on the trigger is connected to the other finger bone on the computer typing the Orders, right? (Orders to attack, but also orders to foundries for triggers, and for munitions, and for clothing, meals, sanitation, registration, family provisions, tax forms, lawsuit forms, etc etc ad nauseum, ad infinium...)
And I'm hearing this to be the crux of the message Marc is addressing (and feels Mr. Thomas is as well).

Here's to hoping what you've written here will be brought into the discussion Marc has with Mr. Thomas! I honestly have no idea where he's at presently regarding such --how long ago was his booklet written? (asked rhetorically) [meanwhile, I need to get another scan of his work under my proverbial belt...]

* I was reminded when proofing this, of the comment I read in some history of the americon "Civil War" (Civilian War?!? hmpf) along the lines that for the average soldier there were only 17 days of actual combat/literal fighting, hence "war". It went on to say that per that, the thing they fought the most was boredom. But being at war is way more than the closest of arms, no? (the threat & coercion aspects)

[NonEntity]

Are you still beating your wife, Eye2?
Or maybe, do you still masturbate to the image of the Virgin Mary?

There ya go. Simple yes or no questions. They fit your world perfectly, don't they?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

Actually, there you go... again.

What part of "a matter of degree" don't you get?!?

And the irony: you're trying to lump me in one group (as s0mething 0ppo0site "y0ur's" as the 0bvi0usly m0re valuable/l0gical/rati0nal/reas0nable 0ne 1).

Just because there is a binary reality doesn't mean it's black or white yes or no all the way down/up the not-1 side. n0?

I know I'm not stuck with seeing a pregnant lass of 2 weeks as the same as one 36 weeks (literally or rationally). Nor do I see a slave master who allows his 'property' 36 (work) weeks of freedom the same as one who allows him only 2 hours a week (chattel form). While it's binary, there's a bunch of grey, Mr. Individuality.

So you can put your picture of Muther MaryNancy back in hand now... and Just Say n0oooooh.

[eye2i2hear]

And btw, civilians are just a culture, and so naturally/obviously they exist...

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Actually, there you go... again.

You're cute when you're angry! :-*

Ackshully, I admit that I deserved that, both barrels of it. :rolleyes2:

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

NonEntity Wrote:Ackshully, I admit that I deserved that...

Oh no. No, no, no. We ain't even going there; you just stick to your pixels of Muther Nancy.
I'm not gonna spank your (naughty, naughty boy) monkey butt.

(and callin' me cute ain't gonna change that either)

--NonCutei

[Marc Stevens]

NonE, while Harold does use some words that are used in groupthink, he's getting at the responsibility of individual men and women for their interaction with gangs called governments.

NonEntity Wrote:How about freedom? How about I'm me, and I can be whatever kind of me I want to be as long as I don't F* with you? How about that, huh? What you're saying, it appears to me, is that I am measured by the yardstick which defines you. What I am is irrelevant. YOU are the measure of all, and I have to be measured in accordance with this image of you.- NonE

We're talking about actions and choices. You mention taxes and voting where you agree voting is an act of violence, but because there is a threat attached to paying taxes the act of paying taxes is probably moral. I disagree. Both enable psychos called government and both are immoral.

While there is always a threat behind taxes, the violence is almost never immediate.

I just don't have the time right now to really get into this, call the show.

[NonEntity]

Marc Stevens Wrote:We're talking about actions and choices. You mention taxes and voting where you agree voting is an act of violence, but because there is a threat attached to paying taxes the act of paying taxes is probably moral. I disagree. Both enable psychos called government and both are immoral.

While there is always a threat behind taxes, the violence is almost never immediate.

I just don't have the time right now to really get into this, call the show.

[right](emphasis mine)[/right]
I think you're putting words in my mouth... :tongue2: I don't think I've actually said paying taxes is moral. I think taxation is theft, and therefore is immoral. The paying of taxes is, perhaps, outside of the question of morality, as it is done under the threat of death... as you say - ultimately. Are you suggesting that handing your wallet to a gunman is immoral? Would it be immoral for a woman with a knife to her throat to submit to an assault?

I think that the question of morality (I will probably get back to that thread at some point and work on it) is something that requires choice. If there is no choice, can there be a moral or immoral ... "choice?"

If there is no choice, can there be a [strike]moral or immoral[/strike] ... "choice?"

As I pointed out elsewhere, my sociopath friend once claimed to me that "coercion" cannot exist, as one ALWAYS has a choice. One can choose to be shot rather than hand over the wallet, or have her throat slit rather than submit to rape. If this is "choice," then I think perhaps the word has no meaning.

- NonE

P.S. What the hell is your problem, anyway? Do you actually have a LIFE or something? You are obligated to hang around here in cyberlinkville and solve the world's philosophical problems, dude! Obligated. It's in your "civilian" contract! :biggrinblue: Just ask Harold! :bootyshake:

{edit} P.S. To quote Marc Stevens, "Can you show me where that obligation was created?"

[NonEntity]

Sorry Marc, but the logic behind Thomas's view that I have an obligation as a civilian to do something or other to make the world a better place, to make up for the evil that others do, is that same logic that statists use to proclaim that there is a "social contract" which obligates me to pay for schools and welfare and building roads and paying for cops and so on. SAME LOGIC. And it is false regardless of which side you stand on. It is called slavery.

- NonE

[Dionysus]

This stuff has me pretty flummoxed, I must say. I tried running it by the, uh, wife to see if that helped me elucidate things, but she wasn't biting. Then something happened to help illustrate things in a stark manner for her: Blago!!!

Wife (watching another in an endless stream of stories about the Blago trial): ZOMG!! Having a retrial is a waste of taxpayer money. Why don't they leave that poor man and his helmet hair alone? He was great on "Celebrity Apprentice." He's already broke-- he had to sell all his cool Elvis knick-knacks-- and he was convicted of the one count. Do they want a pound of flesh?

Me (neglecting for the moment to point out that they want to make an example out of Blago to keep up the public relations that corrupt politicians are always caught, that everyone else is honest, and that the system "works"): So, you think it's wrong for taxpayer money to be used specifically for this?

W: Yes.

M: So, what if people witheld payment of taxes because they didn't want to take part in something they're opposed to?

W: You can't do that or you'll (eventually) end up in jail.

M: So, you wouldn't consider the choice between forfeiting your hard-earned money and being a tax outlaw a valid choice?

W: It's not a valid choice.

M: And what if you "choose" to do the expedient thing and pay your taxes anyway knowing they will go to things you're opposed to? Are you not morally responsible in some way for what happens?

W: Well... I... uh...

M: And how is that factually different from the robber and rapist examples I gave earlier?

W: I'm sick of your stupid Internet conspiracy theories!!!!

And with that, she stormed off. I guess she's not a big fan of the Socratic Method.

But the exercise was not completely in vain. I now tend to side with Marc. If you're a party to evil, even if you're given a phony "choice" where you comply under "pain of death," you still have some moral responsibility, however slight. Of course, you'd have the satisfaction of knowing you did the "right" thing while floating around in the clouds playing your harp in the afterlife. Cold comfort, I know.

I think (as always) the rock group Rush said it best in song:

"Take it easy on me now
I'd be there if I could
I'm so full of what is right
I can't see what is good

Make it easy on yourself
There's nothing more you can do
You're so full of what is right
You can't see what is true"