Friday, 16 October 2015

an essay on Morality


On Morality

To impose one’s morality onto another is quite a hideous thing. The Christian moralist speaks of no violence, no sex, no nudity, no extramarital affairs, no conflict, no death, no suffering in literature and film. Yet this same person of this faith worships the Old Testament like a fool worships his Government. These Sun-god worshippers are content to read the stories in the Bible such as Noah’s Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and preach about this morality. Such people are happy for God to murder the whole of humanity, well almost, and still speak of this thing called morality. The same people dare not offer the slightest criticism on this God character, raising Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground and almost everybody with it. Surely, beyond all doubt the Old Testament is the most bloodiest and genocidal book ever written. Of that, there can be little doubt.

Yet this same group of people, and there are many of them, dare to impose their morality onto others. The morality in the old Testament is so defunct that preaching morality by its worshippers is an absolute absurdity. One of these so-called moralists, now no longer with us, and has not been for a while, is Mary Whitehouse. Art, to this woman, was an anathema. The greatest piece of art could have been created, and she and her sycophantic followers could believe it to be the case, but if the beautiful piece of art were to feature a piece of violence, sex or whatever, such people would dismiss it as being immoral because they believe morality to be above art. These people continue to pander their nonsense. 
To dismiss morality would be a rather grotesque thing to do, for we have to remind ourselves what morality is. The state can never be moral; in fact the two words, state and moral are oxymorons. Morality, then, is something that is within us always. To be moral is to be good, to have principles, to weave your ethics in this cruel and dark world. If everyone of us were able, physically, mentally, physiologically, and whatever else, to decapitate a toddler’s head from the rest of its body, would the majority of humanity do such a thing? Of course not, for it is very immoral indeed. It shows then that the person who decides not to do this is moral to some degree, accepting that if such an act was done they would be immune from prosecution. It is an extreme example but highlights the difference between morality and immorality.

Some lines ago I made a statement which some may disagree with: 'the state can never be moral,' such a statement needs to be clarified, and reasons need to be stated why a person, any person would think and say such a thing. It is true, the majority would disagree with the statement in principle. Why is this? That is not such a difficult question to answer. Much of it lies in the media. The capitalist press or mainstream press do not have the capacity to be moral, and it is true this is where people receive their main source of information from or misinformation as is often the case. Therefore the majority of the population in any nation state will not believe the state to be immoral because they are reading nothing more than state propaganda. Only moderate dissident opinion is accepted in the mainstream press. In fact it is what Orwell calls 'self-censorship,' and thus such publications get an easy time of governments.

It must be remembered newspapers are a business and the capitalist press have one chief desire; and that desire is to make profits, and profits are not made by printing the truth. It is through large business and corporations that these papers are able to survive, not through selling copies, without that revenue, without the sponsorship, newspapers would die. Newspapers which refuse to embrace the internet will inevitably go out of business, it is nothing to do with news, it has everything to do with getting corporations on your side. The sensible thing for plutocrats who own these newspapers is not to anger big business, just like it is unwise for a slave to smack his master; the slave will always lose for he is enslaved to his master.

Nor should the naive reader take my word for it either. They should take the word of the man who coined the term 'manufacture of consent,' that man being Walter Lippman. He went so far as to maintain that the manufacture of consent was a good idea. He calls the public, the readers of these newspapers 'ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” 'these are not what he calls 'a specialised class,' these are the class of men that ought to manufacture consent. These are the 'responsible men' who know how to manipulate the public mind. These men, Lippman says, are to lead 'public opinion,' which is the title of his book. Such men are chosen because they are 'experts' and such things as 'public opinion' must be kept within a “specialised class” of people. Interestingly enough Lippmann called the 'national interest' that will protect public opinion from outsiders and subversive meddlers. It is akin to being vetted to be part of this “specialised class”. Don’t forget these are 'responsible me”', and it is only these men who should be able to lead 'public opinion.' Walter Lippman wrote this in 1921.

Gabriel Almond was a political scientist, born to Russian and Ukrainian immigrant parents and the Almond-Lippmann consensus, the similarities between the two men, was based on three assumptions:

Public opinion is volatile, shifting erratically in response to the most recent developments. Mass beliefs early in the 20th century were 'too pacifist in peace and too bellicose in war, too neutralist or appeasing in negotiations or too intransigent'.

Public opinion is incoherent, lacking an organized or a consistent structure to such an extent that the views of US citizens could best be described as 'nonattitudes.'

Public opinion is irrelevant to the policy-making process. Political leaders ignore public opinion because most Americans can neither 'understand nor influence the very events upon which their lives and happiness are known to depend.'

Not so many years later, in 1928, a public relations manual appeared, written by Edward bernays. Along with Lippman, the not so subtle propagandists of their day, in the manual, quite honestly wrote 'It is the intelligent minority which need to use propaganda continuously and systematically.' He starts the book by saying the following:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

Now Bernays called  'the freedom to persuade and suggest' and this was the 'engineering of consent.' This is the very essence of democracy and freedoms, so he claimed. He even said “the conscious and intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda.'  The two men, as well as many others of course, were concerned these democratic forms even existed, as they do today, so they claimed it was necessary to control the public mind.

If you are living under a military dictatorship, well for the 'specialised class' or the 'intelligent minority,' a term used by Bernays, it is of lesser importance for the following reason. When you subject people to a military dictatorship, an absolute totalitarian society with a megalomaniac tyrant as your leader, it makes little difference what people THINK because they control what people DO. If you call the despot a bad name, you will be hunted down, imprisoned in a gulag for an indefinite period, tortured, mutilated, murdered, or whatever. But under more democratic forms, the media is they key in controlling the public mind, this has been achieved with a tremendous amount of success. There is vast literature on this, and for good reason it is hidden from the general public. It goes without saying then the capitalistic press has not an ounce of morality, for their main objective, whatever media publication or outlet it may be is to “control the public mind,' the only difference is they are more subtle about it and a little less honest than the likes of Bernays.

These then, the state and mainstream press are clearly not moral, the state being immoral far surpassing the media or indeed anything else. Take the morality of the most important country influentially, the biggest militarily, the richest, and so on, since the second world war is unquestionably the United states, they, since, they sought to control the world, have adopted a global, fascist post-war framework. States that sought to lead an independent path, in creating socialist institutions, adopting impressive and social programs for the poor and unprivileged, forming unions and so forth, going outside U.S-interests is a very dangerous thing indeed and the history on this is very clear. The countries that dared go outside of this hegemonic framework since 1945 are: Italy, France, Albania, Haiti, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Brazil, Venezuela, México, Colombia, Perú, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Greece, Germany, the Soviet Union, China, South Korea, Indonesia, East Timor, Burma and there are far more.

Maurice Bishop of Guatemala was deposed by the Reaganites because he was attempting to institute the social programs Castro had, because of this, Cuba was subjected to a sustained terror campaign, conducted by the so-called Kennedy liberals, in the early 1960's. Terrorism directed from the U.S included chemical warfare, assassination attempts on Castro, bombing factories. At the same time aggression was being directed towards South Vietnam; chemical and biological warfare was a favourite terrorist ploy by Kennedy. Grenada, for its part, was spared the chemical warfare and mass murder that was seen in Vietnam; considering the population of Grenada at the time was just 110,000 perhaps played a part.

Much of it was about preventing independent nationalism in third-world countries; fascism was much the preferred option for Washington, and for good reason; such states who attempt to free themselves from American imperialism can no longer be dominated by U.S-imposed hegemony. The point here is foreign markets, and opening them up to corporate fascism.  'Opening up' markets is nothing more than thieving and exploiting from such countries. Sukarno, 'the father of democracy' in Indonesia, got rid of monetary fascist institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, for his troubles he was overthrown in a coup, many years later, the country was a haven for corporate fascism, around one million Indonesians had been slaughtered, while thousands languished in prisons. The invasion of East Timor in 1975 took the lives of up to 300,000, out of a population of 650,000; the west watched and rubbed their hands in glee at the profits. In fact they did more than watch; they made sure the bloodshed went on.

Such commentary can go on and on in connection with Washington’s postwar framework. Any independent thought is a very dangerous thing. When the U.S have the propaganda that supersedes any other nation, the U.S have already got their people on their side and of course that is they key, the documented evidence on this speaks for itself. States are not moral agents; they are agents of power, control, domination and terror. Indeed every state takes part in some kind of terror. The free market would have Adam Smith turning in his grave, they are grotesque to the most hideous and grotesque degree. It is true, morals and morality act outside the state, not in it. There are dissident voices of course, but such voices are kept away from office, and for good reason. These monsters can only go on and claim to act virtuously and morally because of mass manipulation and lying, much by the media. Without media complicity in state terror and destruction, no such things would ever take place.

Dante puts Brutus in the darkest pits of hell; Shakespeare paints him as a virtuous hero. Nobody would argue, at least no sensible person would, that Iago, Aaron the Moor, Richard III, are moral beings; they are not. In the world of Shakespeare we see morality scattered everywhere. Take Brutus, he commits the ultimate crime along with his fellow conspirators and assassinates Julius Caesar. An immoral act, so it appears at first sight. The first person to speak after Caesar is stabbed to death is Cinna: 'Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!' -this, one could argue, was a moral and courageous act because Brutus is saving the citizens of Rome from tyranny and terror. Before the assassination, Brutus speaks with himself in his orchard:

It must be by his death: and for my part,

I know no personal cause to spurn at him,

But for the general. He would be crown'd:

How that might change his nature, there's the question.

It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;

And that craves wary walking. Crown him?--that;--

And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,

That at his will he may do danger with.

The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins

Remorse from power: and, to speak truth of Caesar,

I have not known when his affections sway'd

More than his reason.

Brutus often speaks with reason, with intellect and above all else, with morality. Brutus has moral intentions; Cassius, his brother, has not. Cassius is a dishonest, corrupt, conniving wretch. Brutus, the moralist, speaks for the 'general,' Cassius speaks only of himself, and of selfish interests, as is highlighted in an early soliloquy:

If I were Brutus now and he were Cassius,

He should not humour me. I will this night,

In several hands, in at his windows throw,

As if they came from several citizens,

Writings all tending to the great opinion

That Rome holds of his name; wherein obscurely

Caesar's ambition shall be glanced at:

And after this let Caesar seat him sure;

For we will shake him, or worse days endure.

Compare this to Brutus’ dialogue in the orchard with cassus:

Let us be sacrificers but not butchers, Caius.

We all stand up against the spirit of Caesar,

And in the spirit of men there is no blood.

Oh, that we then could come by Caesar’s spirit

And not dismember Caesar! But, alas,

Caesar must bleed for it. And, gentle friends,

Let’s kill him boldly but not wrathfully.

Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods,

Not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds.

Brutus here, a moralist, knows he must rid Rome of its tyrant, Caesar, and by assassinating him he will free and liberate his fellow Romans of this oppressive tyranny

Fictitious characters of all kinds are made up of virtue, morality, immorality, benevolence, madness and so forth. Of course it is easy to go and give examples of moral persons in works of fiction. In many works of art, we see humanity in the work through the author’s eyes. There are a few exceptions where this does not happen; it happened in Shakespeare's king Lear, we also see it in Harold Pinter’s the Homecoming. We have already agreed the state has no morality, along with the capitalist press. For indeed the people who work for the media and government know the free market to be an unnecessary evil. The question remains: are institutions of authority moral institutions, guided by moral intentions? The armed forces, the police, the law courts, prison officers, probation officers, probation hostels, schools, colleges, universities, the church and so on. These questions will be answered presently.

The Armed Forces

'The killings began without warning. Harry Stanley told the C.I.D. that one young member of (William) Calley's platoon took a civilian into custody and then "pushed the man up to where we were standing and then stabbed the man in the back with his bayonet. . . . The man fell to the ground and was gasping for breath: The GI then killed him with another bayonet thrust or by shooting him with a rifle. . . . There was so many people killed that day it is hard for me to recall exactly how some of the people died." The youth next "turned to where some soldiers were holding another forty or fifty-year-old man in custody." He "picked this man up and threw him down a well. Then [he] pulled the pin from a M26 grenade and threw it in after the man." Moments later Stanley saw "some old women and some little children--fifteen or twenty of them--in a group around a temple where some incense was burning. They were kneeling and crying and praying, and various soldiers . . . walked by and executed these women and children by shooting them in the head with their rifles. The soldiers killed all fifteen or twenty of them. . . ." There were few physical protests from the people; about eighty of them were taken quietly from their homes and herded together in the plaza area. A few hollered out, "No VC. No VC." But that was hardly unexpected. Calley left Meadio, Boyce and a few others with the responsibility of guarding the group. "You know what I want you to do with them, " he told Meadlo. Ten minutes later--about 8:15 a.m.--he returned and asked, "Haven't you got rid of them yet? I want them dead." Radioman Sledge, who was trailing Calley, heard the officer tell Meadlo to "waste them." Meadlo followed orders: "We stood about ten to fifteen feet away from them and then he [Calley] started shooting them. Then he told me to start shooting them. I started to shoot them. So we went ahead and killed them. I used more than a whole clip--used four or five clips." There are seventeen Ml6 bullets in each clip. Boyce slipped away, to the northern side of the hamlet, glad he hadn't been asked to shoot. Women were huddled against children, vainly trying to save them. Some continued to chant, "No VC." Others simply said, "No. No. No. . .'

This passage is taken from Seymour M Hersh’s investigative piece of journalism from 1969, massacre at Mai Lai. It highlights the absolute immorality of the soldier, this Mai Lai massacre which took place during what is hideously called 'The Vietnam War.' To call what happened in Mai Lai as a moral act or a series of moral acts would be a rather peculiar and particularly outrageous position to take. It is often the case foreign invading armies never get 'found out”,'what happened in Mai Lai was, to coin a phrase, 'the tip of the iceberg,' for those willing to shoot young children, even babies, in the back of the head, are nothing more than crazed immoralists. Other Mail Lai’s happened during America’s campaign of mass murder, it did not happen tens of times, perhaps not even hundreds, but thousands of times more. Hersh continues:

'Doc Chuc is a gnarled forty-eight-year-old Vietnamese peasant whose two daughters and an aunt were killed by the GIs in Mai Lai 4 that day. He and his family had been eating breakfast when the GIs entered the hamlet and ordered them out of their homes. Together with the other villagers, they were marched a few hundred metres into the plaza, where they were told to squat...then the shooting started...other villagers who were breakfasting indoors were killed inside their homes...By this time the shooting was everywhere...Brooks and his men in the second Platoon to the north had began systematically to ransack the hamlet and slaughter people, kill the livestock and destroy the crops. Men poured rifle and machine-gun fire into huts without knowing-or seemingly caring-who was inside...Ray Wood, once one of Calley’s men who was working next to Brook’s Platoon, stormed into a hut, saw an elderly man hiding inside along with his wife and two young daughters. “I hit him with my rifle and pushed him out”...The second Platoon went into Mai Lai 4 with guns blazing...Charles West sighted and shot six Vietnamese, some with baskets, on the edge of Mai Lai 4...when two correspondents entered Mai Lai 4, they saw dead animals, dead people, burning huts and houses. A few GIs were going through victims’ clothing, looking for piastries. Another GI was chasing a duck with a knife; others stood around watching a GI slaughter a cow with a bayonet...Haeberle noticed a man and two small children walking towards a group of GIs: ‘They just kept walking towards could hear the little girl saying,”No, no”…All of a sudden the GIs opened up and cut them down. Later he watched a machine-gunner open fire on a group of civilians-women, children and babies-who had been collected in a big circle...Carter also saw an officer grab a woman by the hair and shoot her with a 45-calibre pistol: “He held her by the hair then let her go and she fell to the further incident stood in many GIs minds: seconds after the shooting stopped, a bloodied and unhurt two-year-old boy miraculously crawled out of the ditch, crying. He began running towards the hamlet. someone hollered, “There’s a kid”. There was a long pause. Then Calley ran back into the ditch and shot him.'

It is true, states fall into different categories of terrorism. The elite terror states are, clearly, the worst offenders, then there are the medium terror states, and finally, lower. But it must be emphasised that ALL states are terror states. and is important for everybody to bear that in mind before they go to the ballot box. People who support their armed forces, and there are many of them, have blood on their hands. 

The large passage above is just one example of many, of what foreign armies get up to when deployed in alien lands. They indeed are not moral agents, it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. The only morality which exists in the soldier is the deserter and they often end up in one of those vile institutions, prison. But the role of the soldier has far more fundamental questions to answer. It is true, the soldier 'fighting for their own country,' are taking part in terror but many of them do not even know it. These men, with large boots, and even larger guns, believe they are doing a great service for their country. What fools! What incredulity! What idiocy! Lay people wave their imperial poppies because they wish to honour their heroes. Such perversity is unparallelled. To criticise “one of our heroes” nowadays is akin to butchering a child.  'Outrage!' 'scandal!' 'an enemy!' 'sacrilege!'  it is the stuff of nightmares.

Go to any war zone, and you will find acts of terror. You will see abductions, you will see villages and entire towns burned to the ground, you will see torturers inflicting pain upon poor and innocent civilians, you will see bloody murder, rape and pillage. This is the role of the soldier. We 'worship our heroes' for torturing innocent men, raping his innocent wife and murdering their innocent children. We 'worship our heroes' for driving tanks through churches, through schools, through hospitals, and destroying everybody and everything in them. We 'worship our heroes' for holding entire nations hostage, for systematically rounding up men, women and children and subjecting them to untold horrors. The soldier must be condemned for the simple fact that he is a soldier. 

Let us now throw a parade for 'our heroes' who have subjugated an entire nation, so let us, the supporters of murder, rape and pillage, honour these killing machines. They love their country, at least that is what they believe, they love their country when they are paid a pittance to risk their lives for the imperial actions of the state. 'Revaluation of all values! 'says Nietzsche. Without the soldier war is not an option. 


'Dear Mr. President: In the last few days, news has appeared in the national press that worries me greatly. According to the reports, your government is studying the possibility of economic and military support and assistance to the present government junta. Because you are a Christian and because you have shown that you want to defend human rights, I venture to set forth for you my pastoral point of view in regard to this news and to make a specific request of you. I am very concerned by the news that the government of the United States is planning to further El Salvador’s arms race by sending military equipment and advisors to “train three Salvadoran battalions in logistics, communications, and intelligence.” If this information from the papers is correct, instead of favoring greater justice and peace in El Salvador, your government’s contribution will undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for respect for their most basic human rights. The present government junta and, especially, the armed forces and security forces have unfortunately not demonstrated their capacity to resolve in practice the nation’s serious political and structural problems.'

The above passage is a letter sent to the former U.S President Jimmy Carter, in February, 1980. It was sent by Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The following month he was assassinated; mourners at his funeral were shot by the national police. It was a bloody massacre, and the footage was even filmed, so we can see El Salvador’s police, playing the part of the death squad, something Himmler would have approved of. The brutality of the police in El Salvador happened not just on that day or even the day before that or indeed the day after. The murders were constant and grotesque. 

People are often gullible and naive when it comes to the role of the police. They believe, quite frivolously, that the police function to protect people and deter crime. What nonsense! They admit to all sorts of perverse crimes because they know, in most cases, they are able to get away with such violations and become immune from prosecution. They have authority, they have power; they also have the bludgeon, and in countries where more democratic forms function they use more subtle ways to terrorise individuals, and are rewarded for their troubles. They knowingly imprison innocent people, falsify information, lie on oath, infiltrate peaceful protest groups, and in the process commit outrageous crimes; they abuse their powers by sexually assaulting women and even children; harass, beat and wrongfully arrest people, and above all that shoot and murder people when they know they are able to get away with it, but the cover-up must begin immediately.

There can be no doubt the state has mastered the art of organised violence; nobody does it better. An analogy can be drawn here: the government may well be the mafia and the police, the assassins these mafia thugs employ to murder and torture people they take a strong dislike to. It is the police that carry out acts of criminality and extreme violence, while the politicians sitting in parliament thieve taxpayers’ well-earned money and spend it on their lavish lifestyles. The police, above all, are an unnecessary evil. Yet like the soldier, the population must be forced into a frenzy to honour these detestable brutes and honour their 'brave' actions. Revaluation of all values! The police of all kinds have now become experts in propaganda techniques. They attend schools and pretend they are concerned about the welfare of these youngsters. They meet members of the public, organise meetings and explain what they are doing to reduce crime. 

They are able to search whom they wish and carry out police checks. Now these police gangs are everywhere to make sure crime levels are high, except in election year of course. We see them in children’s schools; in drinking establishments; even at leftist meetings. It is here where they are waging a war against leftists of all kinds: socialists, communists, anarchists, even supine liberals. They infiltrate such meetings and protest groups, before long the people they are infiltrating have had them name added to some register or other.

These, lest we forget, are countries which have strong democratic forms. If this was not the case, the police on the streets would be acting as death squads, but in these societies, because they no longer have the bludgeon, they can no longer control what you do.  

Those good people who have moral intentions; virtue; good manners; a noble mind for sympathy with others often go on demonstrations and protest marches. Yet, the police do everything they can to cause aggression and violence, for nobody, apart from the protesters themselves will be made aware protests are taking place, unless violence and aggression breaks out. Then the capitalist press spread it all over the covers of their papers. As is often the case the police are the aggressors but that seldom gets reported. In terms of arrests, they are very content to put innocents behind bars, this is more successful with more vulnerable people. 

Law Courts

'Let us convince ourselves once and for all that laws are merely useless and dangerous; their only objective is to multiply crimes or allow them to be committed with impunity on account of the secrecy they necessitate. Without laws and it is impossible to imagine the degree of glory and grandeur human knowledge would have attained by now; the way these base restraints have retarded progress is unbelievable; and that is the sole service they have rendered to man.'

Donatian de Sade

Almost every criminal case which reaches court the defendant is not the biggest criminal in the court; no, it is the judge. These judges of various sorts sit there, in which they call 'my court,' handing out prison sentences to victims of capitalist societies.  'The biggest crime,' wrote Bernard Shaw, “is poverty.' The rich Lord does not rob because he has no place to live or food to eat, he robs, because like judges, he has no morality. He robs because he knows he is immune from prosecution. He does not rob in the usual way either. He receives what we may call 'expenses,' robbed from the taxpayer. The free market, a crypto fascist framework, allows people of privilege to commit the most grotesque crimes. Laws are in place to protect the rich; noble Lords, private investors and so forth, and enjoy instilling free market discipline on the very poor.

In Britain the law courts are something of nightmares. The judge wears wig as if he were impersonating Jonathan Swift, Isaac Newton or Immanuel Kant. Likewise lawyers or indeed barristers go along with this farce and take part in the pantomime. It is rather amusing and entertaining for everyone involved save the defendant and their family. The defendant, must not, in any circumstances, address the judge; this will place them in 'contempt of court.' Then victims will find themselves sent to prison for 'contempt of court.'  'So why are you in prison you dirty little thug?'   'For speaking to the judge,' responds the victim. This is utterly outrageous. 

The judge is the Devil incarnate. He, for it is usually a he, has the power to destroy a person’s life completely. He has more powers than a fictitious superhero, and no one dare oppose the sentences he hands out to these poor victims. These courtrooms are more like pantomimes with the victim playing the villain. All criminals in the one place together! The lawyers defending their client, the victim, speaks with the prosecuting lawyers behind closed doors and in the courts they laugh and joke, as does the judge. These lawyers, immoral creatures, dream about handsome paychecks. That is why the following happens: the rich are given the best representation with the best lawyer the company has to offer. The poor clients, the victims of capitalist society, are offered no such luxury. They are given pathetic representation. That is why the walls of oppression are filled with illiterates and uneducated women and men.

These judges do not sentence defendants on offences but on their person. The politician, the banker, the judge, the General, the doctor, the professor, the economist, the CEO will be handed out light sentences because of who they are and the quality of representation they receive in these pantomime halls. The police officer and the soldier, as we have seen, use acts of violence on innocents but the judge’s violence is rather different. The violence is not physical but of another sort. It is psychological violence and psychological torture which the judge has the power to impose on the pantomime villains.


The judge has little idea in differentiating between reality and fantasy. Sending these victims to prison is a little game for these people. Can we really believe these judges think by sending unfortunates to prisons makes them a better person? That it increases their life chances? It makes reoffending less likely? It was once proposed to me every judge should go to prison before sending anybody else there. I rejected the idea outright because these judges would still send these pantomime villains to the walls of oppression.

Freedom! Liberty! Justice! Such things are shouted from time to time but these things can not exist while we have pantomime courts. The judge has the freedom to wear a ludicrous wig; the defendant has the freedom to shut his mouth and say nothing. Revaluation of all values! Judges, nowadays, use dreadful language that is often employed in the tabloid press. “You criminal”, “you wretch”, “you crook”, “you pervert”, “ you sicko”, “you savage”, “you brute”, “you barbarian”, and so on. It is also this same press which persuades judges to hand out longer sentences. In many instances these judges act outside the law.

These judges often speak of justice. These clowns fit for a faulty circus think that by sending these victims to prison that is justice, or at least they say as much. Justice to these trifling fools is locking up people, and forcing the hardworking taxpayer to pay for their incarceration. By justice they mean punishment, and anybody who believes in punishment to fix society’s ills can never be taken seriously. Imprisonment guarantees one thing: an increase in crime. “I condemn you”, the judge says. What hypocrisy by these clowns. The judge ought to be condemned by everyone.

The authority of a judge, any judge, is illegitimate. It would be unsurprising when the courts are closed these judges had special keys which allowed them private access, taking their own personal frying pans and cooking bacon sandwiches, and hiring prostitutes, getting upto all sorts of scandalous behaviour. The courts themselves are nothing more than amateur pantomimes, staged by jokers. They ought to be abolished and closed down and used to house the homeless; to be turned into hospitals, schools and libraries. These courts are dungeons, and there are many of them. They ought not to exist and by not existing they would create a better and more tolerant society. They should indeed send these defendants to the walls of oppression when this two-tier justice system is dismantled. This can never happen because those in power, all of them, risk life behind bars.


In practice, society has retained the primitive motive in dealing with the offender; that is, revenge. It has also adopted the theological idea; namely, punishment; while the legal and “civilized” consist of deference or terror, and reform...Year after year the gates of prison hells return to the world an emaciated, deformed, will-less, ship-wrecked crew of humanity, with the caim mark on their foreheads, their hopes crushed, all their natural inclinations thwarted with nothing but hunger and humanity to greet them, these victims soon sink back into crime as the only possibility of existence...Nothing short of a reconstruction of society will deliver mankind from the cancer of is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the instruments of the law, the police, carry out a reign of terror, making indiscriminate arrests, beating, clubbing, bullying people, using the barbarous method of the “third degree”, subjecting their unfortunate victims to the foul air of the station house, and the still fouler language of its guardians. Yet crimes are rapidly multiplying and society is paying the price. On the other hand, it s an open secret when the unfortunate citizen has been given the full “mercy” of the law, and for the sake of safety it is hidden in the worst of hells, his cavalry begins. Robbed of his rights as a human being, degraded to a mere automation without will of feeling, dependent entirely upon the mercy of brutal keepers, he daily goes through a process of dehumanization, compared with which savage revenge was mere child’s play.

Emma Goldman

Can it be true prisons still exist in the twenty-first century? For what purpose? For what intention? All sorts of monstrous totalitarian states imprison their fiercest critics, these political prisoners are imprisoned in savage societies, any opposition to these tyrants and they will be accompanied to these walls of oppression. But in more democratic societies this does not happen, instead, people everywhere are imprisoned for what many people would regard as “crimes”, these include murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, rape, attempted rape, conspiracy to rape, sexual assault, theft, battery, fraud, perverting the course of justice, GBH, ABH, common assault, public order offences and so on.

Prison’s aim is to destroy the spirit and soul of the individual, and often it works. It is the most barbaric of all institutions but the emphasis is on “helping” say these politicians by sending them to prison, such statements do not even rise to the level of idiocy. In these vile institutions prisoners are forced to eat the most grotesque “food”, no, it is not even food at all, even animals should not even have to endure such garbage. Often the food contains pubic hair, sperm, and other obscenities or the prisoner starves. Forced labour exists, if the prison refuses they are punished severely and their privileges are taken away from them. For rights do not exist in prison. This is in Britain, not in North korea or China.

Now laws are being created everyday to make it easier to send more people to enter prison. Why does this happen? The answer to this question is quite simple. To control the population and create a sense of terror at the same time; it is social control. Much of this is to do with class war, this war has been going on for generations and will continue to go on. Those who speak of sending people to prison as a moral act is a total absurdity. Remove a mother or father from their child by sending them to prison is punishing an entire family and it must be accepted people all over the place are just products of their environment.

The state is able to commit crimes on an unprecedented scale and be immune from prosecution but the little man with the hammer, or the woman working as a full-time housewife have no such luxury. Stealing, or rather taking bread because you are hungry because the state have forced you and your family into poverty is an imprisonable “offence” in many parts of the world; instead taking bread without paying, starve you little wretches!

Over the last hundred years prison life has changed very little. Nothing exists in these walls of oppression; you as a person no longer exist. You are an unperson, you are of no significance in the world, and it is true the prisoner is more free than the prison officer or anybody else, but only in the mind. But this is of little comfort because physically they are a free as fish in a fish tank. Indeed they have nowhere to go. For the years prisoners have been incarcerated there is to be no shopping; no Christmas parties, no parties of any kind for that matter. All the prisoner sees on a day-to-day basis is other prisoners and prison officers, who like nothing better than to make prisoners’ life a misery. The prisoners’ jobs are lost; careers in ruins; their homes gone forever. This is the stuff of nightmares. Prison is an immoral institution and ought to be abolished. For no decent society would even think of having a single prison. What shame! What lament! What suffering! What repugnance! “Finally”, says the slave of humanity, “these shackles are taken off me and now I am free, free, free!” There is a very degrading and base structure in place for ex-prisoners, and that structure is a fascist one. We, the enemy of morality; the enemy of reason; the enemy of hope; the enemy of liberty which is the state, they will eliminate the ex-prisoner from society indefinitely. Work, work, work! You vile criminals must tell your prospective employers of your dirty criminal past. Worse still, the same prisoner, and let us remember, this is in more democratic societies, is unable to work almost anywhere. Many prisoners will never teach again, never nurse, they are excluded from working with the public completely. This is fascism to end all fascism. Yet the state attempt to justify their actions. They can never be justified. Try and justify the unjustified. “Come, you little vile ex-convict, come back to prison”. Such is the morality of the state which is just as decrepit as these walls of oppression.

Let’s place the mentally ill in prison for all eternity, let us place those with a child’s mind, thoughts and feelings, in prison indefinitely, and so on. This prisoner will never wake up from the horrific nightmare because in truth it is no nightmare at all, the only nightmare they are living is the existence in these dungeons. They can not escape this drudgery; their only escape is suicide. Those who support the very existence of prisons really ought to be ashamed of themselves. These villains, these wretches should really develop a conscience, a fragment of humility; sympathy and empathy for others; to think of the human cost; the annihilation of the soul; of the spirit; of the will to live. They act like savages; like rogues; like demons; like monsters in supporting these things called prisons. The universal crime is sending these poor victims to prison. It is easy to say what an animal a prisoner is for doing this or doing that. It is far harder to say to say that we as a society must help this person and help them become a good citizen yet again.

Probation Officers

Control! Damnation! Manipulation! These probation officers decide where their little victim lives; where they work; what infantile courses they are coerced into attending and so on. The role of the probation officer is very Orwellian. For we are told they are there to help, reform, guide and manage the “offender”, when in fact they are demoralising them to the basest degree. For every ten probation officers one is well-intentioned; this goes through all areas of authority. Reports, reports, reports; we must write reports! They play their malicious games in manipulating their victim. Every question they pose must end only in one answer, if any other answer is uttered, they must attend courses, courses, courses! and think like their probation officers. These courses are in fact designed to force, or at least an attempt to force the individual to think like “we would like you to”, and other thought patterns will earn the status of a “very high risk”. Any kind of independent thought patterns must be stopped at all times, at the very best, prevented. This is why these probation officers would prefer these victims of capitalist society.

These imbecilic courses are designed for what? to stop the young girl from stealing bread? This person maybe starving, but no matter! You must respect the law the government imposes. It is as black and white as that. Think of the person you have stolen bread from, they would say, so this young girl, in preventing her sadistic probation officer from sending her back to the walls of oppression, thinks, on this course, which is a total absurdity, how the person she took the bread from, would feel. The bread, let us imagine, was taken from the supermarket, who indeed is the victim? The billionaire owner of this colossal company? Indeed. We now, must feel empathy and sympathy for the scourges of inhumanity. These courses reduce the individual’s thinking to a mere child. This is nothing more than indoctrination. What happens if you have an independent mind, and do not accept the rational views of the fanatics running the course? Why of course, you are given bad reports, reports! “You must think like us, it will be easier. You will be less-controlled, less-manipulated, and we will no longer threaten you”.

Quell this disobedient rage! It should be clear why these courses function. These courses are nothing more than finding out an individual’s most intimate feelings, emotions, views, principles and so forth. This information is stored away for various agencies to look at and so forth. This is why more and more crimes are being created, or rather laws, so people can attend these absurd courses. We must not forget either, these practices happen where democratic forms function. These courses are one element of controlling and monitoring the individuals, or to use their perverse language “the offender”, they do not even use words like ex-offender.

You are free because you have been released from the walls of oppression; what fool says this? Your slavery has just begun. You are now held by the throat, and your vile crimes, as the state likes to call them, allows us to make your life a misery until you die because we have that justification, justification, justification! The man or indeed woman with unusually long legs should shout through a megaphone: “these probation officers are experts in nothing, as are politicians. They are muddle-headed, their education is limited, they do not even know the words nihilistic, existentialist, metaphysical or avant-garde mean, neither do they wish to know what they mean. What ignorance! what stupidity! what fools! These probation officers are a bunch of oafs!”

Yet the oaf cares not for their own stupidity and idiocy because they have the power over their underlings! Why else be a probation officer? There is no other reason. To help people? WARNING: people who utter this nonsense will be attended with uncontrollable laughter. Do these probation officers, as they call themselves, enjoy the company of convicted “offenders”. They like them so much they choose a career in being around such people. This probation officer may wish to write in her diary that she spoke to 28 people today. What perversity! Are these people revealing anecdotes about helpless victims being bludgeoned to death! These indeed are warped criminals, warped, warped, warped!

It has been concluded probation officers, well most of them in any case, are highly immoral beings, they have not one inch of morality in them. They would paint themselves as grand moralists. They think to be governed is legitimate; they think MPs in parliament are democrats!

These people are robots! Their brains contain batteries and the state apparatus has the control! “Must obey authority; must obey authority”. They must repeat it twice for fear of forgetting. Working for the government is shameful. This “offender”, is guided by strings, and the probation officer pulls them and decides where this person goes. They are in complete control of the person’s life. Only death, exile and the walls of oppression are their only escape, or as most do, endure the nightmare. Revaluation of all values! They wish to turn the “offender’s” brain into cabbage; it is the intention of all figures of authority to turn productive brains into mere cabbages.

Probation Hostels

The main aim of the probation hostel is to monitor the “offender”. It is quite easy for people who possess defects of immorality to rub their hands in glee in sending the life’s unfortunates back to the walls of oppression. In societies where more democratic functions exist this can be for more trivial matters. Missing an appointment with their probation officer; missing their curfews at the circus filled with clowns; for not keeping their room tidy; for failing to leave the premises for the fire-drill; for missing courses at the hostel. How is one to breathe when these unreasonable conditions are forced upon people! Freedom! Whoever heard of such talk! Such unfortunate victims of capitalism shall never be able exist as they were before they were sent to the walls of oppression. It is a kafkaesque nightmare for these people, and the nightmare continues infinitum. These hostel staff are bigger clowns than Ronald Reagan! They are living outside of morality; indeed they are fantasists. They abide by the rules if sordid “justice”.

The technique of these circus clowns is simple, and yet it works. They reduce the individual to a child. This is also the case with the prison officer but it is also practised by the hostel staff. The courses which take place at the hostels attempt to root out any kind of independent thought. When independent thoughts are indeed recognised, they are noted because such people become a danger to authority. They may challenge authoritarian and tyrannical rules and instructions, and induce others to questions things. This is what, in political terms is called the “domino effect”, but instead of countries, it is individuals who have the capacity to think freely and pull away from imperialist tyrants.

It is quite astonishing that reoffending rates are not higher. Perhaps they are. When individuals are recalled back to the walls of oppression for whatever reason this is not considered a crime but a “breach”, what lovely terminology. Targets, targets, targets! Targets must be met. How perverse! Unfortunates are forced on useless courses so probation officers can tick their boxes, just like the young child is given a gold star for doing well at school. These courses, such figures of authority claim, “reduce reoffending”. For every “offender” they introduce courses for. The courses are attended by life’s unfortunates and they tell us it “rehabilitates” them. What nonsense! What rubbish! If these people are rehabilitated why must they be constantly monitored and forced to sign this or that because they are deemed a risk to such and such. This is what Orwell calls Big Brother. Indeed. Big Brother has arrived.


Far from creating independent thinkers, schools have always, throughout history, played an institutional role in the history of control and coercion. And once you are well educated, you have always been socialized in ways that support the power structure, which, in turn, rewards you immensely...The indoctrination is necessary because schools are, by and large, designed to support the interests of the dominant segment of society, those people have the wealth and power. Early on in your education you are socialized to understand the need to support the power structure, primarily corporations-the business class. The lesson you learn in the socialization through education is that if you don’t support interest of the people who have wealth and power, you don’t survive very long. You are just weeded out of the system or marginalized...A good teacher knows the best way to teach students is to allow them is to allow them to find the truth themselves...true learning comes about through the discovery of truth, not through the imposition of an official truth. That never leads to development of independent and critical thought. It is the obligation of any teacher to help students discover the truth and not to suppress information and insights that may be embarrassing to the wealthy and powerful people who create, design, and make policies about schools...The educated classes have mostly supported the propaganda apparatus throughout history, and when deviation from doctrinal purity is suppressed or marginalized, the propaganda machine generally enjoys great success...The educated class has been called a “specialized class”, a small group of people who analyze, execute, make decisions, and run things in the political, economic, and ideological systems.

Noam Chomsky At school is where it all begins. This is where propaganda and indoctrination starts. To be aware the web of lies you are ensnared in, you have to remove yourself from the indoctrinal system; this is very hard to do and this thought control has proved to be extremely successful. The parent is punished if their child misses days at school, for getting out of this system, punishment is their reward. This is why they have what we call a “curriculum”, things we demand you read and study. Children do not read what they wish to in schools. In Britain you do not learn about the criminality of the British Empire in India, Burma, Jamaica, Ireland, Kenya, and elsewhere; in Turkey children do not learn about the Armenian genocide; in the United States, youngsters are not taught in schools about the state support for genocide in Indonesia or the “secret bombing” in Cambodia; in Australia children do not learn of the true and quite gruesome history of the aboriginals. These, lest we forget, are “democratic” countries.

So truths in schools are never told. This is part of the reason why there is no longer a serious anarchist movement of any kind, socialism has just blended in with conservatism, this is certainly true in Europe, in the U.S it has been subverted to a much higher degree, Communists and even Liberals have been ousted. The entire leftist movements around Europe are not the left Bertrand Russell or Herbert Marcuse had imagined. These movements have been literally smashed into tiny pieces. What is taught in schools instead is how to be obedient to your imperial master, and in countries such as the U.S and Britain, any dogma deviating from official dogma is “unpatriotic”. The beauty of this system is that people are so unaware of it and that is not even debated in the capitalist media. That would be totally unacceptable.

Intellectuals get away with documenting such things because most people are unaware they even exist so they are left alone to do as they wish, while government continue on other things like class war, protecting elites from paying higher taxes and so forth.

Pacify the youngsters and soon enough the streets will be surrounded by docile wretches, this is what has happened with devastating effects. State violence in countries where democratic forms function, is no longer the order of the day. Indoctrinating children from the moment they step into playschool until they have left school is a system of manipulating their impressionable minds. If these youngsters grew up being aware of the truth, or how the world works, or how power works and so on they would be totally isolated. As a journalist they would find it very difficult to even find employment with the capitalist press; as teachers or professors they would be sidelined and restricted and censored to what they could do and say by a very large margin. As a politician your name will be unknown and your voice will not be heard. It is a struggle.

The fact that these issues are not debated anywhere in the capitalist press shows the fragility of state power. In Britain this is evident. The state successfully attempts to implant into people’s minds that the country is filled with sexual deviants whose main aim in life is to want to molest children, so the state uses this as a justification in putting the most kafkaesque controls on people. Public sector workers in the same country are now terrified about going on harmless peaceful demonstrations, because any minor scuffle of any kind and their entire careers are over. One can not work in the public sector with even the most trivial of criminal convictions. It is all part of the tactics of a criminal state; of a docile pacified state. What they are taught in schools is just a load of fabricated nonsense. They are taught how the structures of power work, they are taught nothing of any real importance, indeed, more truthful information can be gained through reading the capitalist press.

“The world exists for the education of each man”, wrote Emerson. It ought to exist for every man, woman and child, but rather it is miseducation. Is this freedom; is this democracy; is this liberty? Freedom exists nowhere, the only possible place it can exist is in the mind. Freedom can never exist when you are ruled over by a government and by authoritative figures, that is not freedom; it is authoritarian and is sordid in every imaginable way.

What is needed is a total rejection of the state, schools ought not to be in the hands of the state but in the hands of communities and collectives, volunteer groups as well as charity organisations in assisting and help develop programs in local areas. This ought to be done everywhere. For the government and all its thugs, whoever they may be, enjoy abusing the child’s mind and preventing them from knowing the evils that persist in the world.

Colleges and Universities

Those who believe that radical social change is imperative in our society are faced with a dilemma when they consider University reform. They want the university to be a free institution, and they want the individuals in it to use this freedom in a civilized reform, in my opinion, should be directed as such goals as these: not toward imposing constraints, but rather toward lessening them; not toward enjoining the work which is now often dominant-much of which I Personally detestable-but toward opening up alternatives...the university should compensate for the distorting factors introduced by external demands, which necessarily reflect the distribution of power in extra-university society, and by the dynamics of professionalization, which, though not objectionable in itself, often tends to orient study toward problems that can be dealt with existing techniques and away from those that require new understanding. The university should be a center for radical social enquiry...for example, it should loosen its institutional reforms even further, to permit a richer variety of work and study and experimentation, and it should provide a home for the free intellectual, for the social critic, for irreverent and radical thinking that is desperately needed if we are to escape from the dismal reality that threatens to overwhelm us...these, I think, are the real barriers to serious reform and innovation in the universities as matters now stand...these are the primary problems that should motivate and direct efforts to change the university. In general I think that the so-called now left has a task of historic importance...these are goals that can easily be forgotten in the heat of conflict, but they remain valid ones, and one can only hope that they will be continually resurrected as a guide to positive action.

Noam Chomsky

Oxford and Harvard University are immoral institutions. In Oxford, dissidents and critics of state power, Marxists, nihilists, anarcho-syndicalists are rooted out. Oxford students are geared toward elite positions of state power and authority. Almost every postwar British Prime Minister went to Oxford and this fact is very illuminating. It is true independent thought in these institutions is essential places such as Harvard, this does not happen, on the contrary. At these elitist places of learning, you are expected to think a certain way, and if you are able to manipulate the truth, you are rewarded for it. Take, for example, politicians, journalists, writers, newspaper editors and so forth that go to to Oxford. It is here where you are taught to be subservient to state power, you form “connections” and “contacts” when you can become the next “star” but you must abide by the rules and regulations. It is almost a grooming process. Richard Dawkins, Mary Beard, Timothy Garton Ash, Stephen Hawking, A.C Grayling…

Richard Dawkins is so free market orientated it is not even funny anymore; it is true he reads the capitalist press and writes dull and boring uninteresting things, aside from the important books on biology he writes on; Mary Beard is similar in many respects. She only speaks within the narrow framework of state power and dares not go outside it. She appears regularly on BBC television which tells you a great deal; Timothy Garton Ash is a repugnant fellow who expresses distasteful views, and at times comes across as a crazed lunatic. He lies a great deal, and deliberately misinforms his readers about important issues and events. As for Grayling, his so-called political writings are anything as bad as Martin Amis has written. There is no independent learning at Oxford, it is full of hypocritical, dishonest rogues, and the people who study and lecture there know it. The postgraduates of this damned place often get jobs working for the government; in the capitalist press; professors of universities; writers of various sorts, fascistic economists, CEOs of appalling companies.

The Church

It is not at all difficult to prove, history in hand, that the church, that all the churches, Christian and non-Christian, by the side of their spiritualistic propagandism, and probably to accelerate and consolidate the success thereof, have never neglected to organise themselves into great corporations for the economic exploitation of the masses under the protection and with direct and special blessing of some divinity or other; that all the states, which originally, as we know, with all their political and judicial institutions and their dominant and privileged classes, have been only temporal branches of various churches, have likewise had principally in view this same exploitation for the benefit of lay minorities, indirectly sanctioned by the church; finally and in general, that the action of the good God and of all the divine idealities on earth has ended at last, always and everywhere, in finding the prosperous materialism of the few over the fanatical and constantly famishing idealism of the masses

Michael Bakunin

The religious fanatic says my only book I possess is the Quran or the Bible. These individuals who go to church, and there are many of them, are even bigger slaves than the rest of us. Their views, beliefs, principles, thoughts, ethics, morals, and so forth are all known to many. For they are written in these religious texts. An argument then naturally follows: do these people who go to church even have thoughts and views of their own? The answer can only be no. They are indeed told what to think, and it has to be said this benefits nobody better than the government. Religion has vast similarities with popular culture. That corridor of garbage that enters our heads has the same function as organised religion and those deprived churches. Their aim is to control, subvert and pacify the mind of the whole community. If the state can get the population outside of the political arena and into these churches to worship, government is succeeding in its mission. To mock and mimic religion is easy, to mock prayers of faith is easier. There is a more macabre and threatening element at play here: authority in the church.

These men, for they are usually men, are immoral miscreants. We know only too well god does not exist, and of course much of these religious texts are just fabricated nonsense. They instill fear into the masses and terrorise people by using threatening language, speaking of the “hell-fire” and such things. Children are threatened and shouted down to if they do not submit to this oppressive authority. Then come the threats of burning in hell, eternal damnation. The Bishops, Imams and Rabbis alienate these youngers and these people know no rational person with a free mind would never believe in such a thing as god in the twenty-first century. So they have to develop and invent new ways to convert youngsters to this fraud. These are the sorts of people who force their obscene and perverted views on others.

What values do these churches believe in? They believe in homophobia, misogyny child abuse and so forth. The Islamic faith dedicates itself to repressing women; persecuting homosexuals; punishing women for being raped; this even includes children. The woman in Islamic states is a non-person, she does not exist and must obey the almighty man, this sort of repression has been rampant and constant. This religion, sad to say, is ultra-fascist, for they eliminate everybody else, for they are of no importance. Islam is grotesque and so are its leaders. It ought to be condemned for its brutality and inhumanity. No child should ever be labelled an Islamic child .

These Christians think they are better, but it is not the case. What makes a man want to become a Roman Catholic Priest? His sexual lust for children? Sexual abuse against children amongst Catholic Priests is so widespread that we must use that dreadful word “conspiracy”, because after the abuse has taken place, and much of this abuse is totally sadistic, we are not talking here of psychopaths or sociopaths, there is a systematic cover-up by everybody, and this is accepted in the Catholic church. Catholic Priests like to molest children, it is true, and they do it largely with impunity.

The ultra-orthodox Jew thinks he has a right to walk around with a long, unkept, outdated, frizzly beard, with a ridiculous hat on, going around beating and insulting Jewish women for not sticking to the obscenities of the ultra-orthodox faith. These are the great oppressors of humanity, they utter their filth, their garbage and their bile. Everybody else are mere “gentiles”, this fascist mentality is predominant in the Jewish faith. They believe they are “the chosen people”. These Sun-God worshippers are not only slaves to the state but they are slaves to the church also.

Nowadays we have to respect people who practice these faiths. Why do we? Do they respect atheists, agnosticism nihilists, Marxists, Maoists. Leninists, Darwinists and so forth? certainly not. Do we call our young children Trotskyists and Thatcherites? It would be an odd thing if we did. Why then, is it perfectly acceptable to call your child a Muslim child, a Christian child or a Jewish child? This should be unacceptable. This is nothing more than child abuse, what they are doing is preventing their child from developing an independent mind. They are stopping them from thinking independently, rationally, coherently and reasonably. The child has no values, the only values she or he has are values forced down their throats. The Muslim wants to marry a Christian, the Jew wants to marry an atheist. No, no, no! say the fanatics of religion. Demagogues will not allow it.

If any kind of progress is to be made here, the church ought to be abolished. People still have the freedom to practise their faith in their homes. These child-abusers should not be given the authority to abuse children with impunity. Take this authority away from individuals. The Vatican has excused every sort of savage and abhorrent act against children, it is the same as always; vile figures dressed-up in authority are free to commit crime sprees on the weak and vulnerable. It would be of little surprise if countries around the world furtively decided to legalise child-abuse for special privileges only.

28th November, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment