A Certain Type of Madness

On the day that I write this essay, August 24, 2006, the United States of America is currently involved in a non-war: Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have been involved in this war for three and a half years and suddenly all the proponents are tiring. They were expecting a short war--since that is what operation insinuates: that whatever we doing under that euphemism will be quick, to the point, and we will have ejaculated, far removed and asleep by 2006.
But that has not been the case.

The case is that we are stuck in the mire, fighting for our own American freedom. Or at least that's what many supporters of the war--ahem, operation--have stated. We are fighting for all our liberties because these terrorists can take them away, we are fighting for Nationalist convictions.

A conviction that is often perceived as a religion.

It takes a nation, makes it sovereign, as a god, as an idol and compels its citizens to believe in its cause, be it strong as in the 1940's or weak as in our times. Nationalism is the true religion of a nation, making it to be supreme over all people, all laws, all decisions, all wills, all life.

The moment in our history when this type of National Sovereignty was the most evident was when, in 2001, the Patriot Act was passed which was, admittedly, a good move for the nation during a time of crisis, to keep the terrorists down via terrorism, but not a good move for the individual citizen since it collapsed many aspects of our rights for a period of time. At this point, Congress and the Senate had a lapse and forgot that each person matters just as much as national security--this was the reason why the Bill of Rights was created: to protect the individual rights before the state's protection, before the state’s rights.

When the Constitution was created, the emphasis because our Founding Fathers had come from backgrounds of monarchal oppression and saw how it destroyed the citizens and the individuals.

Nationalism does this same thing: it creates a godhead for everyone to worship, much like a metaphysical emperor. In that manner, then, nationalism is nothing but regressing back to the tyrannical days of the dictator and forgetting all we know about democracy.

In that vain, we come to religion. In Christianity, one of the underlying principles is the inerrancy of both the Bible and God--that both are without errors and holistically perfect--and nationalism and patriotism hold this same philosophy: that the government can do no wrong, that the nation can do no wrong, that everything done in Washington D.C. is completely God-bred and God-given.

What this point of view fails to realize is that the nation is nothing but a group of individuals comprised to think of the best for the soil and for its people, two different subjects. And since it is individuals coming together, there is always room for the human element, the human error, the accident.

Everything is for a reason, but an accident must create the purpose first.

Nationalists believe that the Nation, as in this group in Washington D.C., is without any sort of human error, any sort of fault--inerrant. As a result, religion must be removed from politics.

Now, it is obvious that secularity is an aspect of communism, but it is also one aspect that worked; without religion, there is no bias, no prejudice, no guilt about WWJD. Without religion in the government, there would be a furthering of stem-cell research and we would not begin to be surpassed by Singapore and China in this now-vital aspect of science.

There would be abortion, the allowance for the woman to say, "It's my vagina, let me make the decision."

But, even without religion, we would have ethics, and, apparently, ethics tells us that this is murder, that killing a second-trimester child is murder, that the child has no decision and therefore should not be allowed when in all reality, to flip the tables, a parent has no choice concerning whether or not their child will commit suicide. So should suicide be outlawed?

What if a woman wants to abort her baby at home with a wire coat-hangar and claim still-birth, Is that illegal? It's her vagina, her choice.

With a secular government, we would more and more be furthering the individual's rights because we would not be conscious of any sort of command by God in the Congress, which in and of itself, is absurd. God has no part in politics. He was on both sides of World War II, remember?

And if God is all about the individual, the personal relationships, should not politics be the same way, especially if it is constantly emulating God himself and sovereignty...? If God is all about the individual, why have we killed between 40 and 45,000 civilian Militiamen in Iraq?
In perspective, the only thing any sort of Middle Eastern terrorist has done recently (failed attacks and deserved shootings aside) is kill 3,000 in New York on September 11 of 2001, the most in any recent terrorist attack. 3,000 people and two collapsed buildings reminiscent of Henry Cameron's Dana Tower are the reason for the United States and its Affiliate companies killing in Iraq while only a meager 2,692 Americans have been killed. Therefore, taking the minimum of 40,000 Iraqis, we have a 37,000 death deficit. We have killed 37,000 more than anyone has in that region, 40,000 more than any Iraqi killed on "that fateful day." And, on top of that, almost 3,000 volunteers have died serving the country. The death tolls do not match up, and neither does the reason for being there:

No WMD's;

No act of God;

No Holy War;

No loss of freedom because of them.

All this nationalism has created an American Government’s pet project to spread its influence into that region of the world so that they can wear Tommy Hilfiger jeans and eat McDonald's hamburgers.

Just a capitalistic need hindered by a heavily unbalanced death count. Death for profit! Death to Capitalism!

(But if not capitalism, then what? If not greed and business and white-collar crime and scandal, then what? Communism failed. Fascism failed. Dictatorial systems failed. All other systems have failed. We cannot completely revamp John Locke. Perhaps we could tone it down, and vamp up another New Deal with Socialistic Programs to help the poor since when the poor get money they have to spend it somewhere. And then, in turn, we will continue the capitalistic attack on this Earth but with better intentions. But I digress.)

So, then, it must be the American Government that has removed our liberties that we are fighting to keep. Ahhh, yes—you knew we would reach this point: The Patriot Act: the most controversial legislation passed since Roe v. Wade was gaveled. Free-range, warrant-free wiretaps and record searches all done in secrecy.

Searching and wiretapping and stalking because of the fear of subversion.

Removing our liberties because it is war time, which is nothing new... But removing our liberties during an Operation that is built around protecting our liberties?

Oh my how paradoxical it all becomes!

...But not paradoxical all at the same time since it wouldn’t be paradoxical if we acknowledged, openly, that we were fighting for entrepreneurial gain in the region. If we finally admitted that it were for OPEC or for Coca-Cola or for Burger King, I would finally be okay with this war.

But, like the beginning of the Civil War, our president has to hide behind false idioms and reasons because not every Northerner wanted to free the slaves. Not every American wants the country at war.

Why can't the President just state Operation Iraqi Freedom is for the abolition of slavery?
Oh, wait. That is why we brought down Saddam Hussein...or was it paternal vindication...or was it oil...or was it corporate...or was it terrorists...or was it...