DENNIS KUCINICH-OBAMA NOMINATED BY ACCLAMATION-BILL CLINTON'S SPEECH-ACCEPTANCE SPEECH IN DENVER

28 August 2008

To believe without evidence or proof is an act of ignorance and folly. The credulous man loses himself in a labyrinth of contradictions; the man of sense examines and discusses that he may be consistent in his opinions. The honest man will bear contradiction because it gives rise to evidence. Violence is the argument of falsehood and to impose a creed by authority is the act and indication of a tyrant.
(C. F. Volney, The Ruins of Empires, 1792)


Beginning with my last posting on 22 August 2008 I am now going to undertake a extensive discussion about "security"- national, homeland, and personal.

America’s probable future with Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government will be drastically different and greatly improved compared to the discomfort, division, and inevitable decline anticipated by the continuation of our conditioned reflexive habit of opposing extreme and fundamental change. The human tendency toward ‘habit’ is, I believe, as instinctive and natural as our fear of the unknown or always seeking the path of least resistance. It is reasonable to conclude that the human proclivity to ‘habit’ is related to self-preservation, the survival instinct. Therefore logic dictates that on some level within the human psyche habit equates with security.

What exactly is ‘security’? Is security a feeling? Is security tangible, verifiable? Can one buy security, or guarantee it? How much might security cost? Who or where would one pay? Is it a concept, a principle, a condition? From what does security arise? Is it an end or a means? Is the argument or question of security with regard to the United States actually about security? Is there a difference between personal security and national security? Is national security even possible? For that matter, is personal security possible? If asked, "Are you secure?" or, "Is the experience of your daily life one of security?" What conditions would have to exist and what process would be used to enable one to respond, "Yes"? What is security?

I submit that ‘security’ in America is a fallacy; that is, a false notion with the quality of being deceptive. Consulting the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd Edition, ‘security’ is defined in a number of ways relevant to the context of this examination.

For example, one definition of security is ‘freedom from risk or danger." A person or nation can never achieve freedom from risk or danger. Another definition is "freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear." This too, is unattainable. Other definitions state that security is "something that gives or assures safety; such as building or body guards, measures adopted by government to prevent espionage, sabotage, or attack; and finally,security is defined as measures adopted by businesses or homeowners to prevent a crime such as burglary or assault."

Neither guards nor measures or laws are capable of providing or assuring safety to individual persons or a nation. At the very most ‘security’ is a desire, a goal, like perfection, to be striven for but ultimately never achieved. Therefore, within the context of this inquiry and analysis, ‘security’ is a fallacy. Security is false because it is always something "we need." It is deceptive because it can never be shown to exist, it cannot be accurately verified or measured. Think about that. Look back through our history. You will find that defense and security is always something we need more of. Ironically, we always need more precisely because how much we have (or do not have) cannot be demonstrated. So, the power of the idea of security to manipulate populations of citizens arises out of the fact it is unknown and unknowable, a condition rife with fear.

Security is a fallacy with primordial power. It is the kind of self-interested and manipulative notion that is perfect for inclusion in American mythology and exploitation by machinery of the elite Status Quo minority faction – America’s ruling class. The most obvious purpose of security is to safeguard and sustain control of wealth and power. Security, especially ‘national security’, is the language of domination and subjugation, of capitalists and corporatists, and of aristocracy and privilege. If this seems incredible, start listening, look back through history; security is always the purview of wealth, power, and authority. And it is always the poor and common people that pay for it and die for it.

Cultivating the myth of security in America is the means to command, to control, and to profit. Defenders of the Status Quo insist that they are the main source responsible for our nation’s mythological quest for security. A closer reading of America’s traditional historical myth regarding its actual security achievements is instructive. It reveals the fallacious and deceptive nature of security for the protection and purpose of special interest. Our security is perpetrated and inflicted by government agencies upon citizens, rather than safety and protection that is actually provided for the people. Security predicated on Humanistic Equalism: Philosophy for Ethical Government is far superior to the current model.

Our examination of "security" will continue next time. Make a comment if you like and please tell others about this blog. Give Peace a chance.
James B. Tinsley, B.A.