The Army and the Gang
by Peter 1
Recently we have seen lots of discussion about the growing influence of gangs in Western countries. The appearance of gangs seems to be completely unexpected by the broad public which is influenced by this phenomenon.
I want to show that the growth of the gangs is not completely alien to our culture, and is rooted in ideas that are widespread in society.
| 1. | Gangsters are civilian people, who are armed and mobilized only during a time of action or emergency. In this respect, gangs are close to the Libertarian idea of the PEOPLE’S ARMY. | |
| 2. | Unlike the regular army, gang leaders are often elected by the gang members. Therefore, the gang is a DEMOCRATIC ARMY. |
| 3. | In the regular army, all soldiers are alike. They are dressed alike, treated alike and killed alike. Individual personalities or ideas are not welcome. In contrast, gang members usually have personal nicknames, dress differently and are treated personally. Therefore, the gang respects personality. Interestingly, law enforcement also respects gangsters’ personalities by treating them personally in court, unlike regular soldiers who are killed en masse. Therefore, the gang RESPECTS THE HUMAN RIGHTS of its members. | |
| 4. | Last but not least, gang leaders prefer to TALK to each other and make PEACE TREATIES. Often the leaders get together and make COLLECTIVE SOLUTIONS, which they later respect. Therefore, the gang is also a PEACEFUL ARMY. |
All of this persuades me that the gang is a PROGRESSIVE and promising idea, which can solve many shortcomings of current military and political organization.
Update: In response to some of the comments, Peter 1 sends this clarification: “The Army originates from monarchy; gangs are the product of liberalism.”
13 comments:
Is this satire on some deep level that I can't comprehend? If not then not only am I offended to have my military service compared to a bunch of criminals, but I would have to assume the writer is partaking of those items which his gang friends are so good at smuggling.
Gangs have a surface similarity to armies which is about as coincidental as a little league baseball team being organized like the NY Yankees.
Otherwise, they're just criminals that band together by preying on the friendless and weak in their communities, forming groups to give these weakings a sense of importance.
Complete garbage.
GTW --
I wouldn't have posted Peter 1's essay if I didn't think it was ironic.
Based on my email conversations with him, I think you can relax.
well, Peter 1 is mostly right. Formally, a gang is way of evolution from a single individual towards the community. Don't tell that the humankind has not passed this step towards the republic.
There are many advantages of the gang over the regular military and law enforcement regarding the freedom of action and accountability. Instead of criticizing the article I would suggest to study about such forms of cooperation, since they will allow to save many of the "ordinary citizens" lives and lives of those who would defend themselves in unorganized fashion.
People from Western Europe seem to have believed in the law enforcement institutions for so long, that they forgot how the justice and law enforcement evolved, and would be incapable of re-creating it themselves. Clearly the sign of the coming Dark Ages.
Pirates also elected and unelected their captains. I guess, in light of this article, we could call them modern navies. Yeah. That's the ticket.
-----
O.T.
After having seen "Wanted", I now conclude that the security word is a secret message from the universe.
P.S. If you haven't seen it -- dont't.
The difference between a mob, a gang and a military is discipline. A mob has none, a gang a little and it is the defining characteristic of a military force.
A gang will only act for its own benefit whereas a military force is sometimes required to do things that have no benefit for itself or the nation it defends. See the U.S. military in Bosnia.
2. Unlike the regular army, gang leaders are often elected by the gang members. Therefore, the gang is a DEMOCRATIC ARMY.
Ummm ... no. The selection of gang leadership frequently involves measures that are diametrically opposite those of democracy, such as murder, physical assault, blackmail and extortion.
3. In the regular army, all soldiers are alike. They are dressed alike, treated alike and killed alike. Individual personalities or ideas are not welcome. In contrast, gang members usually have personal nicknames, dress differently and are treated personally.
Once again, no. Quite clearly you have not bothered to study the pluperfect examples of gangster behavior, namely: (now executed) "Tookie" Williams' Bloods and Crips.
Their attire is remarkably similar, be it their tattoos, wearing of extremely loose and oversized clothing which facilitates the concealment of firearms, or the use of red or blue apparel and bandannas to signify gang allegiance.
What's more, gangs carefully control individual mindsets and frequently discourage original thinking with artificially induced cases of swift onset lead poisoning. Their typically brutal induction rituals go far beyond boot camp's homogenizing practices and more often involve the infliction of serious bodily harm upon the inductee and innocent civilians (as in killing someone in order to join).
3. [cont.] Therefore, the gang respects personality. Interestingly, law enforcement also respects gangsters’ personalities by treating them personally in court, unlike regular soldiers who are killed en masse. Therefore, the gang RESPECTS THE HUMAN RIGHTS of its members.
Law enforcement is legally bound to show what you mistakenly refer to as "respect" for gangsters. I sincerely doubt that many off-duty police officers would bother to pause before a burning gang member long enough to piss on the flames.
4. Last but not least, gang leaders prefer to TALK to each other and make PEACE TREATIES.
If by "TALK" and "PEACE TREATIES", you mean automatic weapons fire and explosives, then I would agree with you. The trail of corpses and mutilated bodies left in the wake of turf wars is a matter of record. Your suppositions are pure drivel.
4. [cont.] Often the leaders get together and make COLLECTIVE SOLUTIONS, which they later respect. Therefore, the gang is also a PEACEFUL ARMY.
The signature aspect of gangs is their routine use of illegal and violent force. I'm obliged to agree with gun-totin-wacko's taking offense at the foregoing smear on legitimate military forces. The Baron's imprimateur notwithstanding, Peter1, is clearly ignorant of gangs and their operating proceedures.
Peter1
Your views and admirations of gangs could have serious consequences. Should you choose to live in an area where the gangs have established "peace" you could well become the former Peter1.
Recall the "peace" in southern California between the Cripts and the Bloods. Lets not overlook the "peace" ambassadors of MS13. The Mafia is also another shining light for "peace". Last but not least let's not over look Mohammad's "peace" gang.
The gangs (including that initated by Muhammad) select their leaders by their ability to install fear in others.
That is utterly barbaric and the antithesis of democracy.
I think y'all are taking this little ironic piece way more seriously than its author intended. I see it as a light-hearted attempt to show how political correctness might try to justify the existence of gangs.
As we all know, one of the functions of PC is to rationalize the existence of horrible things that liberals are too cowardly to do anything about.
Baron, there is little, save Peter 1's infrequent use of caplock in a few words, to serve as any indication that he is not serious. Either he needs to brush up on his sarcasm and use of sneer quotes, or he should consider posting an outright disclaimer with his work.
Military veterans have every right to get their hackles up over an apparently disrespectful hit piece like this.
I invite the author to post his own interpretation of this article as further clarification.
Irony is fine, but there's no reason for this piece. It comes out of nowhere and makes asinine and insulting statements. I for one stand by my contempt for the piece and the author.
Post a Comment