On the Meaning of "Glory"

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.”

“The question is”, said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master--that’s all.”

                                       -- from Through the Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll

Lately, I have had the dubious privilege of discussing international events with residents of the USA.  Being, as they are, products of their government schools, they use nearly every word they utter incorrectly.  The majority of them are incapable of discussing politics except with brainless slogans and meaningless “sound bites” which they have picked up from the government-controlled media. 

In order to make possible even a rudimentary form of communication with my beloved neighbours to the south, it is necessary to instruct them in the actual meanings of some common words (this would be beneficial to more than a few Canadians too, by the way), otherwise we shall continue to find ourselves cut off at the impasse.

To this task, I now apply my energies:

Country 

This is a geographical region which encompasses a population who share a common culture.  My country is Canada.  It is cold for far too much of the year, and is inhabited by people who remove their shoes when entering a home.  It is not a government, although my country is plagued by government.  Without the curse of government, the country and a society would still exist however, and be much happier at that.  A country is not a government, and vice-versa.

Therefore, statements such as, “my country called me” are nonsensical.  Until your cell phone rings and some millions of voices simultaneously greet you, don’t say that a country has called you.  This stupidity is equivalent to comments such as, “I talked to God, and He told me to sell the car,” and “the son of Sam told me to kill them.”  If you hear from voiceless entities, get professional help; you have “issues”.

Likewise, “I fought for my country,” is only possible if you stayed in your country, the only exception being in the case of a cross-border raid in hot pursuit of an invader.  In Viet Nam, for example, only Vietnamese could possibly have fought for their country.  They might have been nasty or they might have been noble, but they were for sure at home.  The American soldiers weren’t.  They fought for their rulers and for no other reason or entity.

If you fight in another country, you are fighting against it.  It’s basic logic and geography.  If you are proud, however, to have served your masters in the federal government, just say so.  Quit disguising what you have done as anything else, because it isn’t.

Courage

Interestingly enough, the example of this quality which my dictionary gives, is “the courage of one’s convictions.  the confidence to act in accordance with one’s beliefs.”  If those beliefs are in opposition to the activities of the State, then courage lies in opposing, not obeying, it. 

This should be simple enough for even statists to comprehend.  Misrepresenting service to a government as “courage” is an act of cowardice. 

Cowardice

This is defined by my dictionary as a “. . . lack of courage in facing danger, pain or difficulty.”  It makes no mention of the State at all, much less of service to a government.  Refusal to obey the State, in fact, generally leads to danger, pain and difficulty.  On the other hand, obedience thereto rarely does, yet the warmongering masses of rabid statists use this word to mean “opposed to the government’s policies”.

The WTC attackers, by the way, were surely vicious, ruthless and merciless, but “cowards” they were not, unless we add to the standard definition of cowardice “a willingness to attack noncombatants”.  I would agree with that codicil, but most Americans are unable to see that this applies to the actions of the US Government and its military equally as well.

Nowhere, even in Webster’s dictionary, is it written “. . . except when Americans or their rulers do it.”  If we are to denounce cowards who attack noncombatants, we must first point the finger of accusation at the US military and the various federal police forces.  If you don’t believe me, just ask a half million murdered Iraqi children, countless napalmed Vietnamese, or Vicky Weaver.

Finally, it’s not heroism to insult people online, via long distance phone call, or from behind a phalanx of storm troopers.  If you are really tough, you debate ideas without resorting to such “bravery”.  Remember, not everyone wants to be like you, or the “heroic” Bob Kerrey and William J Calley.

Duty

This refers to a moral obligation, and one which is freely assumed, not imposed, as moral obligations come from one’s conscience.  This entirely disqualifies the State as an object of duty, therefore, unless one is a serf. 

I am not a serf, but a Christian.  My sole duty and allegiance is to my God.  Each man has to determine that which is his duty; no other can dictate it.  To assume that your duty is everyone’s duty is simply stupid.  To attempt to enforce that claim is dictatorial and fascistic.  The likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao constantly tell people what their “duty” is.  My duty is to oppose them.

If you feel that you have a duty to a State, that is your feudal problem.  Go lick your master’s boots, but don’t yap at others.

Glory

Alice and Humpty Dumpty had quite an interesting discussion of this term (see above).  Of course, they were debating the general concept of whether words have objective meanings or whether they can be legitimately corrupted in a manner that has since been institutionalised by various States.  George Orwell described this linguistic perversion so well that it was given his name.

Americans would do well to read his essays on this subject, especially before running “Old Glory” up the flagpole.

Honour (“honor” in American dialect)

This word refers to “personal integrity; allegiance to moral principles.  Again, notice that no reference is made to any State, government or even ideology, but to personal integrity and moral principles.  I suggest that blind obedience to any State is worse than mere feudal slavishness; it is dishonest, dishonourable and immoral.

When the US military uses this word, it becomes part of an oxymoron.  It is in no way an act of personal integrity or allegiance to any truly moral principle to drop napalm, cluster bombs or other kinds of ordnance on any noncombatants anywhere under any circumstances for any excuse.  Period.  That is very restrictive, I realise, but that is precisely how moral principles operate; they are not elastic.  If yours are, then you have no honour.

Leader

Here’s one that actually is elastic, at least in its dictionary definition as “a person who rules, guides, or inspires others; head.”

I submit that this is a quality that in its first definition is ignoble and dictatorial, and in its second and third meanings is in general necessary only to sheep and cattle.  Free men don’t need or want “leaders”.  I have my own head, thanks, and can use it in my own best interests, too.  When Americans, or anyone else, follow political leaders, they invariably do evil.

As our parents used to ask us, “If the other kids drive off a cliff, will you do so, too?”  They were trying to teach us a lesson about misguided loyalty.

Loyalty

Here is a term which is meaningless out of context.  Loyalty to what or to whom?  Blind loyalty to any institution of man is always evil.  Outside of allegiance to moral principles, this is a feudal quality and it is dishonourable and anathema to free men.

Don’t talk of loyalty in the abstract.  It’s not an inherently noble quality, and just saying that you are “loyal” is absurd.  My dog is loyal; I’m not.  I don’t fetch, beg, sit or roll over upon command.  If you do, then enjoy your Alpo quietly, and don’t yap at others.

Nationalism

This one is nearly universally recognised as meaning “blind obedience to a nation-state”.  It is not, however, universally considered to be a good thing, so don’t assume that everyone does, or should, get a thrill whenever “The Star Spangled Banner” or “Deutschland Uber Alles” are played.

The Nazis were big on this one, and their name is an abbreviation for “Nazional.”  The next time you wave your silly national pennant, think about that, and the following:

“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war. 

“The pride of nationalism... trumpets its country’s virtues and denies its deficiencies . . . proclaims itself to be, ‘the greatest,’ but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.”

-- Sidney J. Harris

Patriot

When this word is confused, abused and misused by nationalists, Ambrose Bierce summed up their real meaning in just nine words:

“The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.”

The American Revolutionaries were neither.  They fought against, not for, their legal government, on their own lands, and in defence of their sacred God-given Liberty.  Don’t tell me that bombing Afghanistan is a patriotic act; it’s a nationalistic and an imperial one, and an insult to the American Revolutionaries.  Patriotism in the context of loyalty to a state, rather than to one’s country, is an evil thing.  But don’t take my word for it . . . .

Patriotism

. . . Mark Twain, aka Samuel Langhorne Clemens, was a man who knew and loved his country as well or better than any other.  This comes through in all his works.  Yet he echoed Samuel Johnson in saying that,

“Patriotism is usually the last refuge of the scoundrel.  He is the man who talks the loudest... without knowing what he is hollering about.”

  “The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice--and always has been.”

The British historian, Eric J. Hobbawn, observed that,

“It seems that American patriotism measures itself against an outcast group.  The right Americans are the right Americans because they’re not the wrong Americans, who are not really Americans.”

Like racism, nationalism masquerading as patriotism confers noble virtues upon its adherents without demanding anything substantial from them.  It’s a free lunch.

What most Americans don’t know is that the American Revolutionaries’ “patriotism” was loyalty to the ideals of Liberty, not to a nation-state.  They were in rebellion against their own government, and had not even created another to replace it.  In 1774, however, the Minutemen fought for their rights and against their government.  They were “traitors” by the dictionary definition, and I’m glad that they had the courage of their “treason”.

Terrorism

This one is simple for, as others have pointed out, it means, “not in cooperation with the US Government, and actively fighting it”.  When the US government uses the exact same tactics, it’s “a restrained response”.

I would be very much surprised, however, to discover that the victims of the NATO “humanitarian” bombing campaign in Yugoslavia were not terrorised when their schools, hospitals, factories and entire residential neighbourhoods were annihilated.

Hitler’s Abwehr used this word to describe the Ukrainian partisans, by the way.  My, what nice company statist propagandists keep, eh?

Governmental (ab)use of this word has rendered it meaningless.  Don’t use it when talking to intelligent people.

Treason

Like loyalty, this word is simultaneously loaded and, in the absence of answers to the questions of “to what and/or to whom?”, quite empty.  Is a man better to betray his conscience or the State?

When treason is considered as disobedience to nationalism, it no longer looks like such a bad thing, now does it?

I hope this will help to clear the polemical air of malodorous attempts to seize the moral high ground by the occupants of the ethical lowlands.  Whenever anyone makes such a feint, I will challenge him.

Stay tuned for further additions to this Libertarian Dictionary.  Better yet, send me some instances of the abuse of language by various statist slimeballs, and I’ll fire salvos of clear, accurate English back at them.

You know where to find me.

November 27, 2001

Manuel Miles, aka Kaptain Kanada, is a politically incorrect writer from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.  He is rude, nasty, intolerant, insensitive, hateful, hurtful, and proud of it. If something he writes hurts your sensitive New Age feelings, don't bother to whine to him about it; he doesn't care.  He is a self-professed enemy of the state, and his personal goal is "...to die fighting for Liberty."