“One truth. One way.” That was the last line of an old friend’s away message. He had been… “One truth. One way.” That was the last line of an old friend’s away message. He had been ranting about the liberals of this country, arguing that they need to stop trying to defend foreign cultural evils and just support America.

He was fighting for unity, and I was truly inspired. He was willing to pile up everything valuable about American society and set it ablaze just so those poor barbarians around the world could look up from the dark night that is their petty lives and see the hope — absolute morality — rising from the corpse of our great nation.

I was so touched that even after several years in the military, he’d still be willing to sacrifice his own liberties, and those of his fellow Americans, to raise the unwashed peoples of the world to our status by teaching them to vote, protect the independence of their media, respect women and sip a latte.

I got kind of excited, and I tried to think how we should begin unifying. Since we’re going to silence the voices objecting to U.S. policy in order for the one truth to be ubiquitous, I figured we should start by being consistent.

In the United States — O.J. aside — murder is illegal. If we’re a nation spreading our one way throughout the world, how can we kill citizens of other nations? I don’t follow the logic. If there’s only one way, the American Way, and murder is illegal within America, how can it be legal outside?

Maybe I’ve read too much Cummings to appreciate those subtle, artful writings and press conferences that explain the necessity of war — something about omelets, eggs and children getting shelled. So, I’m going to assume that sometimes consistency needs to be sacrificed for the larger unity, and that unity is what preserves freedom, and freedom is where the whole unity argument really falls apart.

Blanketing vice, laziness and apathy with freedom is childish enough. But suggesting that we need to keep our objections to issues silent in order to preserve our freedom to transmit STDs without shame and pay too much to rent video games is neonatal.

The freedoms to which every thinking man and woman on the planet are entitled are those required to allow each citizen the choice of how to misuse his time. It’s the choice that must be preserved, not the currently popular trend of decisions. The right to try to alter that trend is what’s threatened the moment someone starts throwing “unity” around.

Unifying, accepting one truth in order to protect and spread freedom, is about as effective and sensible as bringing a Bible to a brothel. The only thing that could be more foolish than this urge to unify the American voice is the belief that all the important views are already out there, and they’ve all got equal value. It is the obligation of anyone enjoying freedom to question authority and evaluate issues as independently as possible. And after analysis, to hold one opinion over another as if their decision actually mattered.

I’m not too fond of obligation myself, and I don’t usually spend time doing things I’m not fond of. I don’t vote. I don’t want to serve on a jury. I don’t even watch the news, but I’d say a large part of the way I justify shirking these obligations is that I don’t believe my actions will have an impact large enough to equal the annoyance of contributing.

This obscene suggestion that we must unify our voice to calm worldwide strife builds on the assumption that my actions can’t matter. All that’s left is for me to whine in suburban diners. And if all I’m doing is whining, why don’t I just shut up and support the troops?

While I’m at it, I should probably support those giving the orders, too, because paying their salaries just isn’t enough.

Email Zak Sharif at [email protected] to unify against homogeny.