The Literarian

Justifying Inaction in the War Against Terror

Short Story
Long Fiction
Narrative Nonfiction
Travel Writing
Spiritual & Psychological Writing
Autobiography & Biography
Experimental Writing
Children's Prose and Rhymes
Expository, Persuasive Writing, and Blogs
Academic Papers and Analyses
Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Song Lyrics
Tips from the Experts
Submissions Guidelines

Should Deception and Corruption Warrant Inaction in the War Against Terror?

After viewing a recent site filled with conspiracy theories on the London bombings and on 9/11 ( and calls himself Grimley), I felt compelled to offer my own counterpoint to the author's claims, the latter of which seem to advocate the dissolution of government today as we know it. I did not wish to leave comments on his webpage and chose instead to blog them here on mine (primarily to avoid "guilt by association," so to speak). Thus, the following is my response:

You make some valid points about deception and corruption in a beurocratic society, yet I ask you this: does corruption at various levels of the government in the United States or Great Briton make us necessarily wrong by default? I am referring to the war against Islamic extremism and governments who harbor, aid and abet terrorists.

Ok, let's say "I" manipulate people to maintain power and support the status quo. "You," on the other hand, hijack airplanes, strap on body explosives, etc and kill innocent civilians without the slightest concern for their lives. Can one of us be said to be more dangerous than the other, more ethically corrupt? For me, yes: those killing innocent people indiscriminately. To deny the bombing events as acts of terrorism is to completely ignore the thousands of terrorist attacks that radicals have initiated over the decades since WWII. Past behavior is the best predictor of future actions.

For example, if one steals something, rapes someone, burns down someone's property, trades stock on illegal tips, etc then they go to jail for various numbers of years; but if one kills someone, they go to jail for life! Both of our societies recognize that punishment for different offences must be different, and if one commits the ultimate crime of murder, then that penalty is most severe. Anthropologists, historians and others have uncovered this differentiation in degrees of punishment dates back far, far longer than any freemason or illuminati-type organization.

So, when anyone for any reason - like Islamic extremists - decides they must kill people, it is MORE morally reprehensible than other crimes. Want war against "corruption" and "evil" governments? Then go after legitimate military targets, not innocent civilians. It is illogical to compare a beurocracy filled with inefficiency and corruption to organizations like Al-Qaida, who kill anyone and everyone, for THEIR political and religious agenda. Do you think an Islamic fundamentalist world where women cannot be educated and people are executed for religious differences would be any less corrupt than what we have today? Thus, corrupt though all governments are, we still maintain the moral high ground. Truth is grey, not black and white.

Ironically, it is because of freemasons and free thinkers (from the founders of the Magna Carta to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations") that we have the freedom today to even debate such issues. Until the development of free market economies, women had no suffrage and Africans were still being enslaved. Do you really think a return to the kind of economic and political system pre-dating the freemasons is a return to greater freedom? Can anyone tell me an advantage of feudalism or commune-style self-government that does not lead to more problems than those which they solve?

Every issue should be viewed in the historical, social, political and economic context in which it is set, otherwise, espousing the sort of changes that you seem to be supporting is worthless if one cannot sense the potential conflicts that may arise by enacting such changes. For example, to espouse Marxism today as a solution without observing the history of how previous Marxist societies turned out (totalitarianism, not true "commune"-ism) is near-sighted and works against, not for, social justice.

I am more than willing to debate you on the issues, facts, etc in a fair and impartial manner. If I could just add, your grammar and overuse of capitalization and exclamation marks doesn't necessarily aid your cause in convincing individuals of the validity of your claims. . Just like you said, change and power comes from within us, not from without. You arguments, suppositions and debates are by definition antithetical to the very thing you purport to do: convince us of the Truth. The very Aristotelian act of "beating" change into a person from without rather than nurturing that knowledge from within us is in polar opposition to your stated goal of getting people to be aware of the Truth and is as far from the Socratic Method as can be. It is a contradiction of logic that borders on morally weak sophistry. You could certainly rethink the approach of your argument.

Additionally, there is an implied vehemence in your arguments that hint at a lack of rationality or objective fairness. By spewing anti-government, conspiratorial rhetoric, you really hint at a Divinci Code-like, multi-millennia conspiracy that is beyond rationality. The millions of individuals needed to cover up such a thing over the course of centuries is a logistical nightmare. Perhaps fiction should be your calling.

The open and free exchange of information is important in a free society, but don't think for a moment that I will espouse any agenda that is potentially anarchical or treasonous to Western society. That kind of change is not for the better. Be certain that in revealing and uncovering other people's deception that you are not deceiving yourself.

Enter supporting content here

Copyright Announcement


All  text  and  html  coding  appearing on  are the exclusive  intellectual  property of the   respective  author(s)  and are  protected  under international copyright laws.  The intellectual property   may   not   be    downloaded   except   by  normal  viewing  process  of  the  browser.   The intellectual property may not be copied to another computer,   transmitted,  published,  reproduced, stored, manipulated, projected, or altered in any way, including without limitation any digitization or synthesizing of the images,  alone or with any other material, by use of computer or other electronic means   or  any other method or means now  or  hereafter known,  without the written permission of the  respective  Author(s).   By entering this site,   you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this agreement.     Entrance  to  this  site  is  expressly  on  these  conditions  which   embody  all  of  the understandings  and  obligations  between  the  parties  hereto.   To  secure  reproduction  rights  to any material here, and to contact the respective Author(s), send an e-mail to