- YOUR RIGHTS OR THEIR PRIVILEGES?  -

 VERSION FRANCOPHONE

 

SUMMARY OF LEARNERS      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 demands a completely new life ethic.  Habits tolerated in the past, as well as those found intolerable, should be reassessed for their weapon content.  Fundamental contradictions confront us, between our ideals and the weapon ‘realism’ we have endured, based on imaginary limitations.  We must resolve these contradictions and evolve a new awareness in absolute peace.

 

Assisted death should be discretionary for adults.  Powerful philosophical arguments support this contention, involving personal freedom.  Weapon societies forbid self-termination outright—another effort to cancel personal autonomy.  This restriction, all by itself, validates assisted death in case of need.

Killers should never be allowed to abuse assisted death—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 solemn ritual as carefully thought-out as a marriage or an abortion.

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

During my father’s long 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.

 

Authoritarians would rather not permit prisoners to “cheat the hangman.”  Everyone understands that life imprisonment and capital punishment are far nastier than a quick, clean suicide.  Punishment bureaucracies consider prisoner suicide a grave disappointment, even though they invoke it the automatically to disguise custodial neglect or malfeasance.  They’d rather someone placed at their mercy were stripped of human rights and forced to suffer indefinitely—stripped even of the right to choose their own setting and means of death.

 

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 conveniently multiplies criminal aggression.  Sexual rebels are punished with unwanted pregnancy, moralistic condemnation, social ostracism and genital diseases otherwise controllable by basic public health measures.

 

One might conclude that warfare is a fundamental human imperative, a 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: the obvious outcome of very poor and therefore hyper-violent societies.  Over long periods of time, they spin off fewer male survivors and more females.  This unbalanced sex ratio induces polygamy, more children and social approval for inescapably larger families. 

Poor people might as well congratulate themselves for doing what they couldn’t avoid in any case.  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 more warfare.

Secondly, warfare kills off the strong, the brave, the bright, the creative, the healthy, the dutiful and the enlightened, faster than it kills off the rest of us.  The silage of warfare is a superfluity of irresponsible mediocrities who waste lifetimes obsessing over their favorite topics of tertiary importance and imposing those obsessions on the rest of us.  War’s outcome is their ultimate revenge. 

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

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

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 ferociously debated as there were historians in the debate), but never on those of war.  In turn, the Soviets’ collapse was attributed to the clownlike and ruinous policies of a reactionary con man (President Ronald Reagan), but never to the festering sore of its previous casualties, obvious for anyone to see.  During World War II, 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 – riiight.

 

There are better ways to control population growth: high quality nutrition, universal health care, education, dependable social security for the elderly and disabled and, most important of all, strictly enforced equal rights for everyone, women and children included, without compromise or exception. 

With fanatical obstinacy, weapon management has restricted each of them in turn.  After all, its technicians specialize at inflicting mass suffering and destruction.  Any life-enhancing activity merely adds to their primary goal or subtracts from it.  Improving the quality of life is, at best, a sideline for weapon managers obsessed with other priorities.

Forbidding birth control harnesses explosive human energies: intense sexual frustration and the rage of bastardy, multiplied by the human overcrowding reflexes of aggression and shadism.  Weapon management strengthens itself by sublimating into criminality and abuse 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. 

Any organization declares itself a weapons institution when it discourages family planning and disempowers women in the process: another reason to tag mass religions as 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 hiding their special agendas.

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

The best infantry recruits are those with 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 soldiers.  That is the only reason they exist.  Otherwise they are without a doubt the least profitable neighborhoods to run.

 

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

Everyone realizes that a truncated human lifespan – terminated at the embryonic stage, if necessary – is preferable to any lifelong crucifixion endured in some ghetto nightmare, famine desert or prison hell.  Many people would never condemn their own children to such a demonic existence.  Somehow, they 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 will 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 actively support warfare abroad, prison empires and death penalties 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 by offering legitimate alternatives of adoption and quality child-care, command unlimited respect.  I suspect ‘those’ would mostly be female.  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 waiting lists of unwanted children and desperate, 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 their precious contradictions induce, 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 much responsibility to certifiable neurotics, allowed them to impose their obsession on the rest of us from 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 everywhere, with total impunity. 

Bring out the brooms!

The covert profits reactionaries have gleaned from decades of illegal drug trade have financed a worldwide, media-driven sprint to fascism.  Where do you think all those billions of dollars of criminal funds wound up, except in their bank accounts?  The media don’t mind spurring this race along, since that disgrace is all to their profit.

 

Learners will redraft legal codes with one overriding concern: enforcement through 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 in someone 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.  When significant minorities define the police as hostile intruders, the law as a whole becomes unenforceable.

Many social commentators consider the Law an inexorable Juggernaut.  According to them, it must remain menacing and absolute, and may grow without restraint.  Its failure to grow, or the correction of its worst errors, might invite anarchic chaos.  This attitude leads to Auschwitz.  The law should remain a gossamer web best defined by its absence, in which most humans would agree to entangle themselves when they stray.

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

 

“A State governed in this way requires very few laws, and insofar it becomes necessary to promulgate new ones, this need becomes apparent to everyone.  The first to propose them just confirms what everyone has already felt, and it would not be a question of intrigue or eloquence to pass into law that which each had already resolved, as soon as he or she was sure that the others would do likewise.”  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social, (The Social Contract) Bordas, Paris, Bruxelles, Montréal, 1972. Book IV, Chapter 1.

 

Prostitutes should be inspected and certified often and thoroughly by doctors.  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 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 violence-prone local deviants) without excessive supervision from the outside. 

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 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; it doesn’t matter how hopeless that defiance may be.  Excessive punishment glorifies the criminal in the eyes of his community.  It defeats worthwhile outcomes.

Remember, every criminal prosecution is another confession of collective failure.  We must never view them as welcome rituals of public vengeance and the sacrifice of criminals. 

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

 

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

Murders of passion, ignorance and insanity are a pity.  Wisdom would dictate that we preempt them through stratagems more subtle than neglect-before-the-fact and hysterical brutality afterwards.  Still, lethal self-defense might be half-justified in worst-case scenarios.  Juries might take to heart the cries for revenge of a victim’s family. 

In a society liberated from weapon mentality, murderous violence would have the same appeal as 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 to execute another prisoner, they spatter themselves with that convict’s guilt and carve the Mark of Cain on their own forehead.  Many of them become addicted to consecutive, legalistic murder, each new one less justified. 

Tyranny’s worst and final argument is the death penalty—in that direction lie civil war to settle mere property disputes and the wanton slaughter of innocents to uphold 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 largest voluntary gathering of judge, jury, victims, the accused and their intermediaries should seek to resolve these problems.

 

The media should portray acts of violence as despicable, cowardly and tragic—never heroic.  Rather than eliminate fictional violence, or ‘pretty it up’ and tone down its ill effects (the way it’s done today), movies and television should worsen 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 his or her mutilation and destruction should be, in portrayals of violent confrontation.

Hollywood already upholds an implicit formula: 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 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 serious, complicated and worrisome.  No longer would it ‘solve’ 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.

 

Under intensifying weapon management, our country has turned into a vast prison yard.  In unconscionable numbers, the law-abiding lock themselves inside their fortified homes; outside, more and more harmless prisoners and homeless indigents are victimized.  Regardless of our guilt, innocence, deficiencies or assets, it’ll be our turn soon enough.

A social commentator split civil society into two worlds: open neighborhoods, and a banana republic 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.  We are disgraced and enslaved by failing to defend at all costs our foremost values.  Paradoxically, the incredible wealth of our society matches its inelegance.  Nowadays, perimeter walls and home alarms have become mandatory everywhere.  My house has both: another disgrace of mine.  Too many Americans are in jail or on probation.  A black male citizen has better odds of being crushed in judiciary clockworks than of winning at roulette. 

As peace mentality emerges, so will our self-discipline and virtue, and refusal to accept the unacceptable.

 

NEXT      TABLE OF CONTENTS      PRIOR

LEARNERS: On the Move from WeaponWorld to PeaceWorld

 

CONTACT PAGE