- YOUR RIGHTS OR THEIR PRIVILEGES? -

 VERSION FRANCOPHONE

 

SUMMARY OF LEARNER       INTRO & VOCAB

 

 

“A doctrine that does not attack and affect the life of the period in its inmost depths is no doctrine and had better not be taught.” Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West.

 

Peace management would call for a completely different life ethic on our part. Habits found tolerable in the past, as well as some deemed intolerable, must be reassessed for their weapon content. We must address fundamental contradictions between our ideals and the weapon “realist politics” we have been trained to endure on the basis of illusory limitations. We must resolve these contradictions and develop a new awareness in absolute peace.

 

Assisted death should be discretionary for adults. Powerful reasons support this argument, involving personal freedom. Weapon societies forbid self-termination—another attempt to annul personal autonomy. This restriction, all by itself, validates assisted death in case of need.

Killers should never be allowed to abuse assisted termination—that should be obvious. Waiting periods, offers of therapy, counsel and social assistance, and published declarations of intent could secure the safety of potential victims. Self-directed death should be a ritual as solemn and carefully thought-out as a marriage or an abortion.

“To merit a painless death, we officials must certify that you are in unmanageable agony or incurable catatonia. At that stage, of course, you would be unfit to request it.” Such Catch-22 legalisms, mere refinements of weapon enslavement.

During my father’s long drawn-out agony, I witnessed the lingering indignities of terminal illness. I would prefer a quick, clean death at a time and place of my choosing, over any amount of hyperactive, Hippocratic meddling.

As usual in a weapon society, the administration of pain relief and life termination is overseen by healthy people who are not in pain, and the provision of abortion by men who cannot get pregnant. PeaceWorld would see to it that those deeply involved in something were in majority responsible for it.

 

Authoritarians revolt at the idea of letting prisoners “cheat the hangman.” Everyone understands that life imprisonment and capital punishment can be far nastier fates than a quick, clean suicide. Punishment bureaucracies consider prisoner suicide a provocation, even though they often invoke it to disguise custodial neglect, rape and lethal brutality by their subordinates. They’d rather someone placed at their mercy were forced to suffer indefinitely, stripped of human rights—including the right to choose their own time and means of dying.

 

As for contraception and family planning, weapon managers aim to increase the number of abused offspring who make the best cannon fodder. They condemn promiscuity a priori because the resulting sexual frustration multiplies the criminal aggression they desire. How convenient for them. Sexual rebels are punished with unwanted pregnancy, moralistic condemnation, incompetent butchery, social ostracism and genital diseases otherwise controllable by straightforward public health measures.

 

One might conclude that warfare is a fundamental human imperative, the crude but customary method of coerced population control. That is another cherished weapon myth. So is the idea that war promotes “survival of the fittest.” Unfortunately, two realities intrude.

 First off, warfare promotes poverty, ignorance and high mortality. These, in turn, induce polygamy: a self-evident outcome for very poor and therefore hyper-violent societies. Over long stretches of time, they spin off fewer male survivors and more females. This unbalanced sex ratio induces polygamy, more children and social approval for unavoidably large families. Poor people might as well make the best of whatever they cannot avoid.

More often than not, rich folk have fewer children and smaller families, the better to raise them. Larger families require overworked and (more likely) abused women. These, in turn, produce more neglected children. The outcome is a mass of despised womenfolk, potential killers among their children because poorly raised, denser populations and an upsurge of private violence and public warfare.

Secondly, warfare kills off the strong, the brave, the bright, creative, healthy, dutiful and enlightened, faster than it kills off the rest of us. The silage of warfare is a superfluity of ineffectual mediocrities who waste our time obsessing over their favorite topics of tertiary importance and imposing them on the rest of us. War and its outcome are their ultimate revenge.

If warfare were forbidden, future generations would grow up stronger, wiser and more honest. It would take generations of this kind to mend the harmful effects of a single generation massacred. After consecutive generations of massacre, it might take a century’s worth of peace. Until then, evil and indifference to evil prevail over the good and its preventive concern, in direct proportion to those casualties.

 Thus Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire can be attributed to the deterioration of its management due to massive casualties during the Punic Wars and civil wars thereafter. The stagnation of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations, as well as the eventual collapse of their leadership after World War II, to massacres before, during and after.

It is grimly comical to note that subsequent historians have blamed this Roman transition on the effects of Roman peace (almost as many effects proposed and fiercely debated as the count of historians in the debate), but never on those of war. In turn, the Soviets’ collapse was attributed to the clownish and ruinous policies of a reactionary con man (President Ronald Reagan), but never to the festering sore of previous casualties apparent for anyone to count. During World War II (sic), America suffered about two percent of the casualties Russia suffered (600,000 dead versus 30,000,000), and zero percent of its massive infrastructure demolition. Guess who won the Cold War? All that, thanks to Ronald Reagan and his smirking con schemes – riiight.

 

There are better ways to control population growth: sound nutrition, universal health care, quality education, dependable social security for the elderly and the disabled and, more importantly, strict enforcement of equal rights for everyone, women and children included, without compromise or exception.

With fanatical obstinacy, weapon management has restricted each of these in turn. After all, its technicians specialize at inflicting mass destruction and suffering. Any life-enhancement is irrelevant to such primary goals or else subtracts from them. Improving the quality of life is, at best, a sideline for weapon managers obsessed with harsher priorities.

The prohibition of birth control harnesses explosive human energies: intense sexual frustration and the rage of bastard ostracism, multiplied by human overcrowding reflexes of aggression and shadism. Weapon management strengthens itself by abusing such intangibles as the sex drive, deprivation fears and natural differences between men and women, between people of different ethnicities, divergent ideologies and exclusive faiths, and by sublimating them into criminality. 

Any organization that discourages family planning and disempowers women, declares itself a weapons institution: another reason to tag mass religions as shameless weapons institutions.

Sexual promiscuity is unavoidable among people denied adequate education and healthcare; it is equally prevalent among the affluent and well educated. Ordering people to refrain from something as pleasant as sex is a royal waste of time for everyone concerned, except weapons elites disguising their sordid agendas.

The duller and less skilled the female, and the more fragile her support network, the more often weapon managers will urge her to have many children. Those females are raped into motherhood whenever they lack high-privilege male protectors, routinely and without redress. Such sorry ravages occur as often today as they did in antiquity (thus no social improvement can be noted.)

The best infantry recruits are those who experience the least secure childhoods: in short, they are bastards, orphans or both. Ghettos and slums make the best nurseries for a large number of good troops. That is the only reason they exist. Otherwise they are without doubt the least profitable and therefore the most expensive neighborhoods to administer.

 

Reactionaries accuse the average liberal of responsibility for social decline, even though that has always been the reactionaries’ unstated goal. It is just their latest attempt to bury their disgrace. In the name of consensus building and compromise, Dollar democrats (“One million dollars equal one vote!”) have monkey-wrenched progressive legislation. Now that the evils they bargained for have borne their bitter fruit, they declare these outcomes to be the fault of progressives. Only weapon managers running a weapon state could spew so many provocative lies and get away with them, thanks to our collective apathy.

All of us realize that a truncated human lifespan – terminated at the embryonic stage, if necessary – is preferable to a lifelong crucifixion endured in some ghetto nightmare, famine desert or prison hell. Many people would never condemn their children to such a demonic existence, however they manage to convince themselves that the innocent children of strangers, their poor parents and grown-up convicts deserve it.

This contrarian self-righteousness betrays the shadism of religious fundamentalists. They would rather struggle, go to jail and sometimes kill to see that unwanted kids are born―but they wouldn’t cross the street to assure those kids’ upbringing. Furthermore, they’ll vociferously support warfare abroad, prison empires and the death penalty at home—targeting for misery and destruction the surplus children they've insisted on bringing to term.

What would Jesus have said?

On the other hand, those who counter abortion with legitimate alternatives of adoption and quality child-care, command unlimited respect. I suspect “those” would mostly be women. In so doing, they deny weapon technicians their primary source of recruitment.

No one likes the lesser evil of abortion. Safe and speedy adoption should be the norm for every unwanted child and every couple qualified to raise one. I have never understood why there are so many distressing waiting lists of unloved children and would-be parents.

At present, “morning after” drugs – birth control alternatives far less invasive than surgical abortion – have proven effective for days after conception. Attempts to suppress them have been just as bitter.

 

Ignoring the social challenges provoked by their precious contradictions, weapon managers make up bogus challenges to their tyranny. By denormalizing healthy sexuality and criminalizing drug use among consenting adults, reactionaries have produced complete new sets of “deviants” they may persecute at will.

Unfortunately, we have granted too many responsibilities to certifiable neurotics and let them impose their obsession on the rest of us from their positions of authority. Then we’ve let them recruit and train the next, even sicklier generation of neurotics to take their place. This is a typical tailspin of institutional degeneracy over time, until ruthless inquisitors flourish in total impunity everywhere.

Bring out the sweeps!

The covert profits reactionaries have gleaned from decades of illegal drug trade have financed a worldwide sprint toward fascism cheer-led by the media. Where do you think all those billions of dollars of criminal funds wound up, except in their bank accounts? The media haven’t minded spurring this race along even though this scandal wound up destroying their profitability and growth, as plotted by psychopaths indifferent to anything but reducing their boredom by increasing the suffering of others.

 

Learners will redraft legal codes with one overriding consideration: their ease of enforcement by voluntary cooperation.

If a significant minority evades the law, it is unenforceable within that population. If a majority would not do it yet would not turn someone in they found doing it, it is unenforceable. When more than a trivial few are subject to arrest and prison, the law becomes unenforceable. If the law permits penniless wastrels, redundant lawyers and ideological fanatics to entangle honest folk in frivolous legalisms, it becomes unenforceable. Insofar significant minorities define the police as hostile intruders, the law as a whole becomes less and less enforceable.

Many social commentators have determined that the Law should be an inexorable Juggernaut. According to them, it must remain menacing and absolute, and may grow more so over time without restraint. Chaotic anarchy might emerge from its failure to grow or the correction of its worst errors. This attitude leads to Auschwitz. The law should remain a gossamer web best defined by its absence, in which most people would agree to entangle themselves when they go astray.

Learners will enforce a minimum of laws. Destructive activities that cannot be forbidden should be regulated to serve public health.

 

“A State thus governed needs very few laws, and insofar the promulgation of new ones are necessary, this need is apparent to all. The first one who proposes them merely confirms what everyone else has already felt; and it would not be a question of intrigue or eloquence to pass into law that which everyone had already resolved upon as soon as they were sure the others would do the same.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social, (The Social Contract) Bordas, Paris, Bruxelles, Montréal, 1972. Book IV, Chapter 1.

 

Prostitutes should be inspected thoroughly by doctors and certified often. Drug distributors should be licensed like alcohol and tobacco dealers. Gambling receipts should be taxed to defray gambling abuses. Any abuse of minors should become unthinkable and once again difficult to hide, by law, custom and universal conviction.

The populace will learn to do the right thing reflexively, until most people regulate their own behavior (and especially that of local deviants) without excessive supervision from above.

Once our laws have been purged of their weapon-dross, specific offenses will emerge uncovered by precedent. In those cases, a duly appointed jury should determine appropriate outcomes—not after-the-fact legislators with one hand deep in the till and the other stroking rich criminals.

Even convicted felons should view government and administration as benevolent entities by and large. Mean-spirited punishment incites defiance, no matter how hopeless that defiance may be. Excessive punishment glorifies the criminal in the eyes of his community and defeats any worthwhile outcome, however much it may entertain the psychopaths in control.

Remember, every criminal condemnation is another confession of collective failure with money, talent and potential sucked down the black hole of imprisonment and nothing gained. We must never view it as a welcome ritual of public vengeance and the sacrifice of bad guys.

Of course, some crime victims believe their tormentors deserve severe punishment; that their assailant’s suffering will somehow offset their own. I might have come to similar conclusions under the same circumstances. God help us see through this obscurity.

 

The death penalty befouls man and God, Heaven and Earth. We conspire to execute the least fortunate, most disturbed among us – or look the other way in guilty silence – because we are moral cowards. If we loved each other fearlessly, we would find better ways to live and let live in obedience to the basic decree of every creed and culture.

Murders of passion, ignorance and insanity are a pity to behold. Wisdom would dictate that we preempt them through stratagems more subtle than neglect-before-the-fact and hysterical brutality afterwards. Lethal self-defense might be half justified in worst-case scenarios. Juries might take to heart the cries for vengeance of a victim’s family. Also, violent criminals should not be mixed in prison with petty ones.

In a society liberated from weapon mentality, murderous violence would be no more appealing than eating a plate of shit. No-one but the obviously insane would think of doing it, and they’d be easy targets for preemptive identification.

However, when punishment officials and their supporters collude in the execution of another prisoner, they spatter themselves with that convict’s guilt and carve the Mark of Cain upon their own forehead. Many of them become addicted to consecutive legalistic murders, each new one less justifiable. In pursuit of an improved “score,” they wind up executing the deranged, the mentally deficient, mere children and innocent suspects mistried and misjudged, interchangeably. Let all of them perish!

Tyranny’s worst and final argument is the death penalty—in that direction lie the wanton slaughter of innocents to settle mere property disputes, and civil war to argue paltry principles.

In any legal confrontation, the criminal, his victim(s) and official representatives of society (judges and lawyers now; juries and trained mediators soon), should merge their valid needs into a holism. From this agreement, pragmatic solutions may emerge. The widest voluntary gathering of judge, jury, victims, the accused and intermediaries should seek to resolve these problems in a manner acceptable to the greatest number of them.

 

The media should portray acts of violence as despicable, cowardly and tragic—never heroic. Rather than eliminate fictional violence entirely, or “pretty it up” and tone down its ill effects (as happens these days), movies and television should fan the flames of fictional violence until it kills off, maims and disgraces everyone involved. Villains, supporting actors, heroes and heroines alike: the more lovable the character, the more senseless, purposeless and stupid should be his or her mutilation and destruction in portrayals of violent confrontation.

Hollywood upholds an implicit formula already: in the end, no criminal should walk away unpunished. We should change that to read, in violence programming, everyone dies in agony, is horribly mangled or left in total ruin. By the movie’s end, only peaceful onlookers should be seen to emerge from the smoking ruins with any claim to happiness. No longer would “heroes” triumph through skillful applications of violence “fully justified” by lame plot devices. No longer would lethal violence be invoked at the drop of a hat, the moment problems became complicated and worrisome. No longer would it “solve” any of those problems, only aggravate them. Every antagonist in a violent confrontation would be mangled, ruined, driven crazy or destroyed by violence shared. No more heroes except those of peace, or, if violent, self-sacrificial, as in morality tales like Have Gun, Will Travel. Military honor above all!

People often condemn the worsening of fictional violence in the media for inspiring equivalent actions on the street. I am convinced that this count per capita has remained unchanged or decreased.  However, it has become more perilous overall thanks to the presence of way too many fire harms in hands unqualified for that responsibility— including those of bad cops.  I am also convinced that the example of fictional heroes suffering from and inflicting more and more insane levels of violence has incited and will continue to incite “lone gunmen” and small packs of their kind to exceed the current limits of self-promotional massacre.

It would be better to cool down the media and thus the developing minds of potentially homicidal psychopaths, and likely much more problematic to throw ourselves in the other direction like we are doing these days.

 

Under the bondage of weapon management, our country has become a vast prison courtyard. In unconscionable numbers, the law-abiding lock themselves in fortified homes and neighborhoods. More and more victimless convicts and homeless indigents are mistreated. Regardless of guilt or innocence, deficiencies or assets, it’ll be our turn soon enough.

A social commentator once split civil society into two worlds: open neighborhoods, and banana republics where the rich surround themselves with bodyguards and perimeter walls beyond which mass poverty festers unattended.

The richest, most powerful and freest nations are brazenly turning themselves into banana republics. Just like prior to the Second World War (sic), the United Nations and other world organizations are less and less able to address the proliferation of wars, refugees and tyranny. We have enslaved and disgraced ourselves by failing at every level to honor our foremost values.  In our case, indifference spawns chaos and powerlessness breeds it. It is a paradox that our society’s incredible wealth decrees its dwindling liberty, equality and fraternity.

We have all been let down by a news story that the inhabitants of a city block ignored the cries for help of a victim attacked just below their window. What can we expect from people when their emblematic world organizations refuse to do any better?

More and more frequently, perimeter walls and security alarms are mandatory in almost every home. Mine has had both: another disgrace of mine. Far too many Americans are in jail or on probation. An average black male citizen retains better odds of being crushed in judiciary clockwork than of winning at roulette.

Once peace mentality re-emerges, so will our self-discipline, virtue and refusal to accept the unacceptable. Our global organization will stamp out warlike violence and our individual predicaments will work themselves out proportionally.

 

NEXT       TABLE OF CONTENTS       PRIOR

 

Learner, begin

 

CONTACT PAGE