Tag: Middle East

Theft by any Other Name

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

Conquest is what you call simple theft when it’s perpetrated by a large, well-organized group.

I have lifted this statement from an article by Doug Casey, in which he examines why Islam and the Muslims are likely to win out over the Western culture in the long running, loosely defined war between them. Casey does not get into the morality of theft, but says that the reason the Islamic conquerors in the Middle East became wealthy at all is due to military conquest and heavy taxation of the conquered people. Islam, he says, is not suited to innovation and production, but must rely on spoiling its richer neighbors to enjoy the benefits of profitable enterprise.

This article which I posted recently, Murder by any Other Name, explored the issue of declaring murder a crime if committed by an individual but completely acceptable if committed by a large group, I found it quite interesting that Casey would come out with something very similar about theft. It fits with the conclusion I reached about murder. However, simple theft by consensus is far more prevalent, tolerated, accepted, and practiced than simple murder. The average person might not consider himself a thief because he does not take wealth directly from his neighbor on threat of violence, but he is not the least bit remiss in demanding that someone else, a government of his choosing do the sordid deed for him.

See this definition of theft, which is fairly good.

Theft, boiled down to its essence, is the act of taking something by one person (group of persons) which rightfully belongs to somebody else, without their consent. If you want something which is not yours and you take it, even if the rightful owner does not want to give it up, then you are a thief. It does not matter what is taken, if it is taken against the will of the owner, then it is theft. It does not matter whether the item in question is real, monetary, intellectual, psychological, or sexual. A schoolgirl’s gossip which destroys the reputation of a classmate is just as much an act of theft as a street gang extorting cash from a terrified pedestrian, the dispossession of the world’s poor by genteel, suave members of a multi-national bank sitting in a C-suite boardroom, or the mulcting of citizens by governments through taxation.

Most people would protest that they are not thieves, yet in one respect, their protestations are inconsistent and do not hold water–the use of government to force others into actions which are against their will. Most people do not have one bit of trouble about getting government to raise the taxes on their neighbors if they think they will benefit. Most people have no problem with passing laws which restrict, regulate, control, ban, or otherwise infringe on someone else’s life. Yet, the fact remains, that anything, anything at all, which takes away from rightful ownership is thievery and it is irrelevant, should not matter, that the thievery is condoned and encouraged by a large number of people.

What this tells me is that most people, at heart, have a thievish nature and are not remiss in exercising that whenever they can. However, it is entirely possible that they simply do not understand the dynamic of the issue and might change if they did. Not likely, but possible and I would be quite pleased if a large number simply swore off taking things which didn’t belong to them–either directly or via proxy.

At the very base level of any society or culture stands the individual. Every collective of any sort, from very small to very large, is made up of single individuals acting together. It is important to understand that changing the collective thought requires a change of thought at the individual level. To change a society of thieves into one of honest men cannot come from the top. It is not caused by law, regulation, or punishment. It MUST happen within the hearts of individuals, causing them, as individuals, to stop the destructive behavior in their own lives. From that starting point, it spreads outward to their families, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and eventually the entire society.

Change yourself, change your world.

Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” — Matthew 13: 33, cf., Luke 13:21

The Drive to War, Next Phase

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Who recently bombed the Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq, which purportedly cut Saudi Arabia’s oil production in half? Will this event become a catalyst for war with Iran, instantly blamed even though the Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack? Since Saudi Arabia is not part of NATO nor does the United States have any mutual defense agreement with the Saudis, why is it necessary for the US to retaliate against Iran.

One thing which is not questionable is that if the US and the Saudis, with direct or indirect assistance from Israel, do attack Iran, the price of oil will skyrocket across the globe. Gas prices would spike as a result, perhaps increasing as much as four or five times the current amount. The possibility of gasoline costing $12-15/gallon or even as much as $20/gallon is not out of the question.

One consequence of such a scenario is that the average consumer would drastically cut back on the purchase of gasoline, making non-essential driving a thing of the past. Many, such as myself, would find it extremely difficult to pay for the additional cost of simply driving to work. It is quite probable, in fact almost certain, that world-wide commerce and industry would experience a massive shutdown, causing millions to either lose their jobs outright or going on temporary layoff. Temporary being subject to the system righting itself, of course. No telling how long that would last.

Will the US go to war with Iran? I have included links to five articles by analysts, here, here, here, here, and here, which attempt to explain what really happened. They are not in agreement as to who pulled the trigger. My own opinion is that there is more here than we are being told. Reach your own conclusions.

The consensus appears to be that an all-out assault on Iran will not happen over this incident. I tend to agree with that, but understand that there are particular individuals (neocons, Israel-firsters, war profiteers, power-brokers, etc.) who do want the war to happen, regardless of the cost. Even if no war occurs over this incident, the odds are that something else will happen in the near future to precipitate it. The whole region of the Middle East is virtually a tinder-box, just waiting for a spark of ignition. Or, as Alex Utopium might have put it, “If this was a cardboard box, it would have “Fragile” stamped all over it.”

The good news is that President Trump seems to be reluctant and averse to attacking Iran. Since he is a professional businessman instead of a professional politician, he probably understands the cost of such a venture far better than his “advisors”, who only understand the use of political power. Appearances are deceiving, however, and it’s best not to take him at his word.

The bad news is that he may not be able to withstand the pressure and might give in to the constant drumbeat for war with Iran. In many quarters, John McCain’s legacy still has a life of its own. “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran.”

The upshot is that we simply do not know what is going to happen and are not able to affect the outcome to any significant degree. All that we can do is to continue living as we are and hope that this will all be sorted out in a way which is beneficial for the world as a whole.