Tuesday, July 03, 2012
OMMP, NAP and A Clean Sword
Until today, I was unfamiliar with the acronym OMMP, which stands for the Orkin Man Master Plan. I am familiar with, though, what the OMMP calls for, as history has provided us with many examples of just how such a plan actually works.
...the Orkin Man Master Plan (“OMMP”) - a plan designed to systemically root out very high-level officials of our corporatist financial system across the globe, and ultimately exterminate them. Everyone agrees that the plan will invariably involve a significant number of innocent “casualties of war” along the way.
There is a very interesting discussion of the OMMP at the website The Automatic Earth under a post titled The Orkin Man: Which Side Are You On?, and the question encapsulated within the title to that post, and the question whether OMMP should be implemented, are questions which bear consideration.
Some additional ideas which should be considered, in relation to the OMMP, include the tenets of the Non-Aggression Principle, which does not mean pacifically standing by when force is inititated against you.
Individuals of faith additionally must consider what participation in such a violent plan, the OMMP, would mean for them as adherents to Judeo-Christian teachings, as Jacques Ellul so eloquently pointed out in his book Violence, which I mentioned here.
I do ask, however, that the man who uses violence at least have the courage to admit the consequences of his action, namely, violence against himself. Let him refrain from appealing to great principles—a Declaration of Rights, democracy, justice—in the hope of escpaing the reaction of the power he has attacked. He must recognize, and clearly, that violence begets violence.
No government established by violence has given the people either liberty or justice—only a show of liberty (for those who supported the movement) and a show of justice (which consists in plundering the erstwhile “haves”).
The unhappy fact is that violence operates only for the good of its users.
Values have no meaning except as they are lived by man! We always come back to man. Everything depends on how man relates to man.
And while I consider these words of Ellul’s accurate, I also think, and firmly believe, that man must stand up to violence with violence, though man must do so with a clean sword, an idea that is discussed in a book by Lynn Harold Hough titled The Clean Sword, from which the following quotes are taken.
A sword has no character until you use it.
There is nothing fundamentally good about it. There is nothing fundamentally bad about it. It is ethically neutral until it is drawn and wielded; and then the cause gives character to the sword.
There is only one kind of world where a real man may have a philosophy which makes it impossible for him to put his body between danger and those whom he loves: that is a world where there is no danger. There is only one kind of world where a real man can refuse to use force for the protection of those whom he loves against invading evil: that is a world where there is no invading evil.
Now we know that the only safety for the world lies in the forces of good will being stronger than the forces of ill will at the definite point of physical might and its moral and intellectual control.
The principle at the heart of all this may be very simply and clearly put. Whenever organized unbrotherliness tries to conquer the world, the sword of brotherhood must be unsheathed in order to make the world safe for friendliness. The conflict may be sternly hard and terribly long. But it must be fought out in the name of brotherliness itself.
If swords are to be drawn, when the sword’s character will be revealed, one must carefully consider whether it will return to its scabbard clean, or soiled.
Link to OMMP piece via Claire Wolfe.