That all humans are created equal. Equal justice under law. Together these two principles are the foundation and heart of government by the people and for the people.

The dispute about the Jesus statue on Big Mountain has ended with common sense and tolerance, but will we be as successful in providing equal justice under the law if the next question is about a Star of David, an Islamic Crescent, or a statue of the Buddha or a Hindu god?

Under law brings to mind another recent item in the news that has received a lot of attention in the Inter Lake. A public servant is an instrument of the law. The public servant takes an oath to uphold the law of the republic. Like a priest or pastor, a public servant has a dual personality. Before taking the oath the individual-citizen-personality takes action dependent upon a private set of beliefs, and, even after being elected, when dealing with private concerns, continues to do so. The second, public-servant-personality, puts that form of action aside when acting officially and acts only in accordance with the law. Only the people can enact or change a law. A bureaucrat cannot.

In a republic the law is the expression of the will of the majority of the citizenry. The citizenry elects officials to enforce and protect the law. If the public servant, instead, acts in accordance with his own will and set of values, we have taken a turn away from by the people and a step toward anarchy or totalitarianism (or anarchy first and then totalitarianism). If a person cannot put aside personal beliefs that are counter to the law and government by the people, then she/he should advocate her/his views to the fullest legal extent but should forgo becoming a servant of the law.

Then, in a recent poll in several countries people were asked if they were “very concerned” about the Islamic State. In our ally, Turkey, 33 percent said they were. In our ally, Israel, the percentage was 44. In the United States 68 percent said they were. This fact plus the speakers who have recently visited our community and some letters to the editor that attempt to demonize all Muslims, foreign and domestic, bring to mind a book that was first published in 1925-26 by Adolf Hitler. The purpose of the book was to justify, and then lay a plan for, returning a country to greatness by creating an aggressive government under one political party and one strong leader.

According to Hitler, in order to accomplish the takeover a substantial majority of citizens must be led, by the use of propaganda, to speak with one voice. He began with the premise that the population was confused, seriously fearful, divided and in need of strong leadership. He also began with the assumption that given the divided and confused mind of the populace, untruths are more likely to be believed than truths.

As the first step, he borrowed a successful idea from the unifier of the German state, Otto von Bismarck: That is, find and/or create a common enemy, both foreign and domestic, that the bickering majority will recognize as a threat and unite against it. Emphasize over and over, and in many ways, the danger of this evil threat. Turn ordinary incidents into evidence of the danger. This also has the politically beneficial side effect of distracting the people from issues that are politically inconvenient to the leadership.

He goes on. Emphasize religious differences using devices for portraying us as beloved of God and them as evil. We love. They hate. We are defending our homeland. They want to control it. We are constructive. They are destructive. (We must destroy the destructive.) The majority must be led to cherish these and similar beliefs.

To destroy the destructive enemy, it is necessary to maintain a military force capable of, on its own, overwhelming all foreign enemies. For protection against the domestic enemies, it is necessary to have a national internal police force that can work in secret and unrestrained by oversight. Any opposing voices are, treasonably, consciously or unconsciously, in league with the enemy and must be discovered and silenced. This includes the innocent vulnerable who can be intimidated by the enemy (ethnic minorities, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc.). The national boundaries must be protected at all cost. The boundaries circle the sacred homeland. It is almost more of a religious than a political or policing imperative.

The leader is to be an eloquent demagogue. He simplifies all issues, says outrageous things. This makes it easier for him to rhetorically outmaneuver opponents who have expert knowledge but do not communicate well. He emphasizes national pride. Depicts soldiers and secret police as heroic, noble, and dignified and the enemy as subhuman. The leader is a fighter, a tough guy, who will face the weakling enemy on all fronts and rally any weaklings among his supporters. He glorifies violence.

Then, he says that it is very important to cater to the economically elite (CEOs, bankers, money changers), and to protect their power and interests and increase their interdependence with the military, the secret police, and the political leadership.

The book is a warning from the top expert on the subject.

O’Neil is a resident of Kalispell.