User agreements and basic language skills

Of course few of us have the time and energy to read through the user agreements of all the services we use.

In any case I am surprised that such a large and profitable organisation like Paypal could refer to their `User agreement` and then not include a `User agreement`as such anywhere on their site. Rather than just link this actual phrase in the sentence referring us to their `User agreement`, they instead place a link to `Legal agreements` at the bottom of their pages. So legally they have not in fact included any `User Agreement`. To refer us to one reminds me of Douglas Adams` `The hitchikers guide to the galaxy`.

Worst of all is the time it takes to find any way of contacting paypal to correct this. Lots of automatic not-responses and frustration. Do you get the point? Is it so hard to get? Is it so hard to get simple things right?

And why can`t BBC commentators and writers construct simple, concise, sentences. That is their job. How hard is it to find people who can do this?

And why did the guy reporting on the Soccer have to be mean to the other announcer, implying his soccer skills had been weak as a youth? Why are people so desperate to appear humourous that they will resort to such pathetic lows?

Practical, everyday, applied philosophy, as Nietzsche suggested

A saner approach to family planning

Official statistics tell a gruesome and horrific tale. Each year, in the Western, Economically developed world, from the U.S, to the U.K, to Australia, to Germany, and even in the most supposedly Catholic of nations such as Italy and Poland, millions of not-yet-born people are  ´terminated´, at best ´euthanised´, without their consent.

The mass media have decided that footage of a typical ´abortion´ was too  disturbing and shocking to air. They found it too ´sensational´to air. The reality was just too gruesome. Reporting on the reality of the reality of abortion is considered ´taboo´, as it might make those of us with legal rights feel uncomfortable.

Now we would not want our fellow citizens feeling uncomfortable about killing-aborting-terminating-involuntarily euthanizing-getting rid of  not-yet-legally-persons,  would we!

We prefer to deny the reality. We prefer to numb ourselves to the suffering our actions and inactions produce in others. For the suffering of other  sentient beings might interfere with the satisfaction of our own desires. We cannot allow such empathy to inconveniently prevent us in our quest for satisfaction, for the  gratification of our impulses, for our selfish striving for pleasure.

We numb ourselves to the potential suffering that not-yet-born-legally defined-persons might endure during abortions. This is the same response we have to the suffering humans and other animals endure in the production and testing of many of the products we consume.

Empathy means we suffer when others we empathise with suffer. The great philosopher David Hume saw this as the basis of the motivation we have to ease other´s suffering. Thus we help others to ease our own, empathetic, suffering.

However most people simply bypass empathy by pretending the ´other´ does not suffer. If this is impossible, they accept it does suffer, but that this suffering is unavoidable.  Thus we are freed from any compulsion to seek to ease that suffering. We are absolved by our lack of power.

Thus we pretend. We make-believe. We live in subjective realities removed from reality itself.

And so we do not concern ourselves with niggling ethical issues surrounding animal rights, the rights of not-yet-legally-persons, and reproduction.

We are dead against all but the very minimum restrictions on our will that are necessary for society to function peaceable and productively. We fight against anyone and anything that contradicts our own wills. We feel a natural right to pursue our own interests, more or less  independent of the costs this striving imposes on others, those with less power, with less fortunate holistic inheritances, including the poor,  animals, and  the not-yet-conceived, who have fewer, if any,  legal rights.

This is one element of socio-pathic behavior the mental-health industry conveniently neglect!

We would be horrified by the idea of a state telling us we must forgo the satisfaction of any  selfish impulses, whether the desire to eat animals, the desire to use them in testing products,  the impulse to reproduce ourselves, or the desire to ´get rid of´ any unwelcome, inconvenient fetus.

And so there is little public debate over the issues of animal rights, abortion, or responsible reproduction.

And so saner alternatives are rarely considered

There is little public call for the considerations of alternatives to the inherited ´right to reproduce´ and ´right to kill ´a fetus, or animals.

A biblical Jesus will tell us that ´the poor will always be with us´, and this includes their suffering. Life is a ´vale of tears´. One day it will be revealed to us why it was ´necessary´.   Ah, we will see, it was all part of some grand plan we were unaware of. Billions of lifes of misery. Billions of lives not ´intrinsically´ worth living, will prove to have served some great ´purpose´, some ´extrinsic´value.

And so few people have considered that the misery could in fact be avoided, if we wanted to.  Of course their are beneficiaries of this situation. The massive scale misery has provided a select few with gratifying lifestyles of incredible luxury and satisfaction. Guess who owned most of the wealth for most of human history?  Who lived in the palaces?  Who owned the land?  Who collected the tithes and  taxes?  You guessed yet?

Of course it was the priests, the religious authorities, the popes, the bishops.

And who is it that has opposed every attempt at reducing overpopulation?  Who has resisted the adoption of responsible family planning a-la contraception?  Who encourages people to reproduce? Who refuses financial aid to nations which promote safer sex and contraception?

Of course it is the Churches of every age. They defined masturbation as worse than rape, as it represented the ´sin´ of ´waste´ of semen. Each ejaculation could have produced one more value producer to produce more wealth and power for the overlords, the priestly classes.

You can read much more about this is my TROONATNOOR  books, including Religion, Convergences, and Volume One of TROONATNOOR.

This blog is just a quick reminder that saner alternatives exist.

What makes more sense? 

To use one-off, unreliable contraception in 99.9% of all sexual interactions.

Or to harvest sperm, from boys who will then undergo a vasectomy, to be used for the few planned pregnancies he or his partners will desire over the course of his entire life?

It would be logical to  use vasectomies as the operation is simple, cheap, and in most cases reversible. For the occasions reversal is not effective, the stored sperm can be used.

We know for certain that the first option will produce billions of unwanted pregnancies, and thus abortions.

The second option rules out any unplanned, and therefore undesired, pregnancies.

No unfortunate pregnancies would take place. Women would not be faced with having to make the decision regarding abortion. Women at inappropriate times of their lives, such as those strugging with an addiction, the consequences of rape, or less severe but still important economic and social circumstances, would not become pregnant.

There would be no babies born to drug addicts. No babies born to poverty. No babies born to women and men who had no love or affection for them.

This would make abortions redundant. This would save millions of not-yet-legally-persons from enduring what is at best involuntary euthanasia, and at worse, one of the most horrific and cruel forms of murder.

I was not the first to recommend it. Several Noble prize winning scientists have put forward similar arguments. However such ideas are rarely presented in the mass media, as people just don´t want to deal with the issues. People don´t want to face up to the reality of the situation. They don´t want to have to make decisions.

Few people would dare challenge the rights of others to reproduce as and when they want to, for fear of potentially being denied that right themselves.

All of these argments are powerful completely independant of the potential for genetic screening, and the potential for ensuring each not-yet-conceived child an equally fortunate genetic inheritance.

And on a less challenging topic

Around 30 years ago I was considered ´insane´ for suggesting that we should not tolerate smoking in public places. The laws we have today were considered unthinkable a few decades ago. So that is something I can rightly feel good about.

But the laws don´t go far enough. Pregnant mothers are allowed to poison their not-yet-legally-person-fetus.  Mothers and fathers are then allowed to force their children to consume the products of their smoking. Pets also suffer, often being even more sensitive to tobacco related illnesses than their owners.

Generations of parents today will soon be facing up to the fact that they killed their own children, friends, and co-workers, by forcing them to consume their second hand smoke.


About my logo


The colour blue is associated with reason, truth, and honesty. It is also the colour of sunny days. Green is associated with hope, renewal, and life. The shades of blue and green I love most are those of twilight. Twilight with its soft light is the time of transitions. It is also the optimal light level for human ‘vision’. 

In mathematics the triangle is a symbol for change. The triangle is also a symbol of perfection. Like any good argument it has a broad base, and comes to a point.

The i is a universal icon for information. In my case it also represents people. The two triangles with their icons represent people coming together and sharing information, in search of synergies.

The green i, representing hope and renewal, is reaching out to embrace the blue i, representing reason, to take it in its arms. Reason needs the love and support of hope, to avoid becoming bleak and despondent.

©Copyright 2006 Markus Heinrich Rehbach All Rights Reserved


A universal (non-species-ist) definition of Sociopath would include 99% of all humans

Sociopaths focus on the advantages to be enjoyed for themselves, without any concern for the costs others might suffer as a result. 

In our typical anthropocentric, species-ist way, putting humans at the center of the universe, and as the sole referent in cost-benefit analyses, we gloss over the interests of not-humans (other sentient animals), and not-yet-humans (re: abortion), in our definition of sociopathology.

What the term sociopath really refers to is behaviour which jeapardises the smooth, peaceful, productive functioning of society, in terms of human to human social interaction. As such it is species-ist. It is purely instrumental and utilitarian, based purely on our perceived self-interest.  

The state recognises human nature for what it is, and employs the threat and use of violence as a deterrent, to prevent the average human border-line socio-pathology from becoming expressed in active socio-pathology. Thus society is built upon this state monopoly on violence.

 The State employs this violence to ensure our begrudging non-agression towards others. It compels us to respect the rights of others we feel no natural empathy towards. We tend to naturally only love ourselves and ours, our family, our friends, our pets, and less and less, our tribe, our state, our nation, our ethnic group, our species, and mammals, and so on. The less like us things us, the less their natural share in our empathy, and the less likely it is that we will consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses.

Where the state failed to represent the perceived interests of some of its members, these members have exited from the informal ´social compact´ which granted the state a monopoly on violence, and took this right for itself, engaging in acts of terror against the state, and the society it represented.

The State of Israel was founded on genocidal acts of terror, no different in quality from those of the Nazis. The more modern State of Israel was again founded upon terrorism. In fact the modern age of terror was ushered into existence with the King David Hotel bombings, which murdered dozens of completely random people, simply to draw attention to the demands of its perpetrators, including the later Nobel Peace Prize winning head of the Israeli State. Of course the head of the Palestinian Liberation Authority, another terrorist organisation, also won this ´peace´ prize.

Remember that slavery was not abolished as an act of popular will. It took armies and massive violence and destruction to bend most of the populaton to begrudgingly respect the rights of slaves to enjoy the most basic of human rights. 

So far we have limited the discussion mostly to humans. A more enlightened human, or alien, would consider the interests of all sentient beings in its cost-benefit analyses. As such it would define all non-vegan humans as sociopaths.

Keeping in mind that an organisation will be defined as much by the means it adopts, as by the ends these means are employed towards. Most people consider the violent means adopted in the U.S Civil war to be legitimate. More and more have come to begrudgingly recognise the legitimacy of many past acts of terror, as unfortunately necessary means towards noble ends.

An unbiased observer would have included the U.S ´war of independance´ as a set of acts of terror. Whether they really were fighting against tyranny is debateable. However most ´wars of independance´ employ terror to gain freedom for some group of people from the exploitation of another group of people. Certainly the battle of ´The Alamo´ was fought to continue slavery, to escape the ´tyranny´ of a more enlightened state, Mexico, in enforcing the abolition of slavery in Texas.  Thus the ends here would not justify the means, in hindsight.

So what of the animal liberation movments?  What of the rights of animals to freedom from our exploitation of their inherited inequality? 

What means would justify the ends of the abolition of this exploitation, this holocaust, this industrial scale cruelty and abuse? I am talking about future generations looking back to our time. We cannot be trusted to be the judges of our own behaviour any more than the slave owners of their times could be trusted to determine the ethics of their behaviour, in their times.

If we abandon our arrogance, our species-ism, our anthropocentrism, we can see that, and assign each individual sentient being the same rights, we have to accept the scale of our injustice.  The injustice we continue to perpetrate against not-human sentient beings is incomparably larger than that which we have perpetrated on any members of the human species over our entire history.

Thus, the suffering is greater than that associated with any earlier social action.  The cost being higher than any earlier social action, we must necessarily see that the means that might eliminate this suffering, this massive, never before calculated cost, would also be justifyably, incomparably massive in comparison to any past means that had been employed.

Remember these means were all acts of  terror. The means employed was brute force. The consequences were massive scale carnage and destruction. And yet we consider these acts, these costs, these means, to be justified by the ends they attained. These ends included the abolition of slavery, and increasing rights for all members of society to freedom from exploitation and abuse by their fellow humans.

Our empathy for the suffering on not-humans is a weaker determinant than our desire to consume their bodies, and to abuse our power over them by using them as objects for the testing of products we enjoy consuming. In other words we treat not-humans we have no particular empathy for, which generally  includes all but ´pets´,  as means to our ends. We do not consider their interests in our cost-benefit analyses. We numb ourselves to their suffering when we are aware of it, and do our best to remain ´ignorant´of it, so that we may deny it to ourselves.

Ideally we would be able to confront each person with the suffering that their consumption of a particular product produced for other not-humans, at the  ´point of sale´. We would have technologies I call ´tele-empathy´, which would force people to face up to the suffering they are responsible for each time they consume a product.

I doubt that the mass media would even publish any media which showed this suffering. Even if animal rights activists were to suddenly gain access to billions of dollars in resources and creative talent, the mass media would simply refuse to air their advertisements, their public announcements, their documentaries, and so on.

People want to pretend that their enjoyment does not come at the cost of cruelty and suffering to the least powerful members of our society. Their selfish desire is a greater determinant than their empathy. They will not be confronted with the reality of their actions by the media. The empathy they might have felt will never be activated. The determinant power of it to modify human behaviour will not be realised.

And so, what means remain available to those seeking to liberate not-humans from the bureacratic, industrial scale violence and effectively torture, of the mass of the human population?

I have suggested some creative, non-violent means in my novel ´The veil of ignorance´.  My ´Animal Liberation Army´ creatively use the appearance of a threat of violence as a means.

However facts are facts. No group has ever managed to have others respect its rights, to deter others from agression and exploitation, without some form of Army, or at least the possibility of forming such an army, as in the case of Ghandi. And what followed Ghandi´s success was the formation of more armies, and the employment of more violence as a means to the ends of gaining ´liberty ´for some group from some other.

In fact Budhhism and Jainism was brought to most of the world by the armies of  Mahavira (The Jain Conqeror), and Asoka (The Buddhist Conqueror).

Sadly few people who claim to be Buddhist today actually act in line with Buddha´s teachings, which promote  a vegan lifestyle and philosophy.  It is only the few million Jain adherents, and a few million Western vegans, who continue in the tradition of Mahavira and Buddha. Of course even Judeao-Christian bibles recommend the vegan lifestyle as superior. The Eden presented in Genesis, and the ´Next world´ portrayed elsewhere, are all definitively vegan.  And so the power of religion to improve the world has proven severely limited. It is unlikely that religion will become the force for change that a superior ethic demands.

And so, we are left to consider what means justify our ends, keeping in mind that the ends we chose will define us as much as the ends we employ them towards.  We are clear that the more powerful only tend to respect the rights of the less powerful if they are forced to, by the threat of violence. In  other words, the existence of, or potential for, the raising of an Army, by which it can defend itself from the transgressions of the more powerful.  Sadly, history shows that for most people, the only right they recognise is that of might.

History shows that humans only begrudgingly act as if they respect the rights of other humans, if those humans have the power to defend their own rights, personally, or through access to armies, police, prisons, and the use of violence.  Ideally individuals and groups are defended by a State.  Thus others will begrudgingly act as if they respect my rights if the State threatens violence of some kind upon them for failing to do so.

I have experienced many acts of violence at the hands of those representing the State.  I am certain that, if I forced people to investigate my greivances by committing acts of violence, or threatening to employ them in some believable way, the world would find my grievances valid. 

The state would award me some compensation. History would define my acts of violence as justified means to the ends of justice. These means would have encouraged the world to finally define acts of workplace victimisation and mobbing  as the acts of violence they in fact are. That is something for my victimisers to consider. I in fact have nothing to lose, as they have made my life not worth living, having denied me access to the basic rights to work and a deserved reputation. Those without work tend to find themselves without most rights, including the right to acceptance, approval, and love.

Individuals tend to define all their own acts as just, and only the acts of others as unjust.  In other words people generally only define themselves and their loved ones as victims. they define all their own acts as justified and legitimate. They find excuses and explanations for all their own acts of injustice.

 And thus many acts of violence continue, in the form of mobbing and workplace victimisation. Many of these are perpetrated by representatives of the State itself. 

And so we cannot rely on our State protecting the rights of the less powerful, those without a ´mob´to support them,  let alone the least powerful, the not-humans. We cannot even rely on amassing the financial resources to fund a mass-media campaign aimed at targetting the empathy of the average person, or at least the most powerful members of our societies. These campaigns would not be aired. 

We might become as creative as possible, writing songs, plays, poems, books, and movie scripts, and in producing such creative works, all of which seek to elicit an empathy for the suffering, distress, and pain of not-humans, and then engage it to produce new laws and regulations protecting the rights of not-humans.

We might work to make the vegan lifestyle as attractive as possible, by increasing the range, availability, and affordability of a vegan lifestyle in general.  We could set up not-for-profit co-ops to practically facilitate this. A vegan supermarket in every suburb, in every state, in every country in the world!  We must become entrepreneurial, but motivated by the interests of not-humans, rather than our own, narrow, interests.

And in some form, yes, finally, we cannot avoid the need for some sort of Animal Liberation Army. For in the end, it is force that people respect, rather than arguments. They might post-rationalise their motives after the fact, and imagine themselves to have been motivated by empathy, by reason, and by those beautiful principles of justice and fairness, however it is the threat of violence that accompanies non-compliance, that motivates most people to comply with more enlightened laws and regulations, with fairer, more just, expectations and norms of behavior.

So let us lobby the state as hard as we can to take up arms for our struggle. And let leave any ´moral´ judgement of any animal rights activists who take up arms in their legitimate struggle, as legitimate means to legitimate ends, to history.

For it is only history that is able to make such judgements. It is only history that eliminates the partisan, self-interested, short-sighted motives of contemporaries to the greatest fights for right, for justice, for freedom from oppression, exploitation, and slavery, from the judgement process.

Yes, it was not arguments that freed anyone from exploitation, oppression, and slavery. It was armies.

Of course your response will be self-righteous. Like all slave owners, all the Moses´and Hitlers of past, you will be outraged by anyone claiming the right to fight for justice and fairness.  You have a god-given, historical destiny to cruelly oppress, exploit, kill, rape, and torture, all animals, and any people not belonging to your master race.

But history has since shown what happens when you deny TROONATNOOR.  Ultimately we must all submit to reality. And reality can bite. So do not complain when it bites you. You are now in a position to appease the dogs of war, by offering justice for all sentient beings.

Do not complain when you become the victim of your own lies, denial, and cruelty.

But, we beseech you. Do the right thing now, because it is the right thing, and thus avoid the need for might to impose it upon you by force of arms, by acts of terror, by the employment of violent means.

The world as it is is not ´morally´worthy of being reproduced. Little would be lost to a ´moral´ universe, were it to be destroyed. Humans have too much power vis a vis other animals.  They have employed their inherited holistic inequality vis a vis not-humans to the vilest ends.

Rather than seeking to optimalise the experience of life for all sentient beings, humans have exploited their power vis a vis non-humans simply to cruelly, systematically, industrially, and heartlessly, exploit them as means to their own ends. 

One can only wonder at the delusion of those who imagine that this is consistent with any notion of being the image of some just and loving god.

Think, you god-ists. Eden was Vegan. The life to come is Vegan. Between was suffering, ending only in armageddon.

So why not embrace veganism today, and thus avoid the armageddon that a non-vegan society morally ´deserves´(given your own assumption of free will!). Embrace the vegan teachings of the prophets today.

I do not desire any violence at all. I seek a completely violence free world. It is possible. However ´peace´ which shields the massive industrial scale violence committed upon the least powerful sentient beings in our world is no desireable end in itself. It is an ugly peace. An unworthy peace. It is merely the calm before the next war. It is the peace of despots, of tyrants, of dictatorial regimes maintained by continual terror, threats, and acts of violence.

History has shown that, very rarely, societies can move from this stage onto more just stages, without full-scale war. However it has only rarely occured without the real and present potential for violent defense of what is right and good and just.

Only peace with justice for all sentient beings is worthy of being defended and reproduced. 

We are at war. Only it is a secret war. The prisoners and victims are kept away from the public eye. They are kept in ´concentration camps´ on the edges of towns. The public pretend they do not exist. If asked, afterwards, they will claim they were unaware they existed, and what happened there. At the time they are happy to benefit from the cheaper goods and services provided by the slave labour, but now they will feign complete ignorance. And those who are active will claim they were ´merely following orders´, and complying with public opinion, and the norms of their society.

In hindsight, partisan (human) historians will define the time as that of  a ´criminal´ hegemony of the mass media, lobby groups, and religion. They will absolve the masses from any response-ability. They were the victims of others who manipulated them!

However we, today, know that is not true. We have the response-ability. We do not need to abuse our power over animals. A vegan lifestyle can be at least as satisfying as a cruel non-vegan one. We can become deserving of justice ourselves, by being just ourselves.

And this is the final point of anyone who wants to avoid becoming the next victim of injustice. You cannot sanely claim to deserve justice when you act unjustly. You cannot put injustice out into the world and then expect to avoid becoming its vicitim at some point.

Opportunism, and right is might,  define the valuies, behaviour and principles of 99% of humans vis a vis not-humans. We could hardly complain when some not-human, one with a superior holistic inheritance which gives it the power over us, decides to cruelly exploit us as means to its own ends.  

And this not-human is on the radar already. Even if you do not believe in aliens, you will soon come into direct contact with the new, superior, more powerful species that is emerging. The Cyborg.

Within a few decades this superior organism will far surpass us mere humans in power. It will have the might to decide what is right. If we cannot agree on principles that are universal, then how would we be able to program computers to operate according to such principles?

And why should a superior being respect us, when we are unworthy of that respect. When we are cruel, heartless, opportunists, who reproduce and exploit inequality as a means to our own selfish ends. Ends which we could in fact serve without any cruelty.

And this is the final point. We are opportunists. We employ things as means to our ends. However we have vegan means which we can employ in serving our ends, in satisfying our desires, our needs, in gratifying our instincts.

If we do not take this opportunity, it indicates that human nature must be, at its core, cruel. And that is not a nature I wish to inflict upon the universe. That is a nature the universe could well do without. That is a nature that should not be reproduced. That is a nature that should be annihilated before it can contaminate the rest of the universe.

And so, unless we can accept our flaws and optimalise TROONATNOOR, I can only go along with all those religions that yearn for an Armageddon.


Discrimination against homosexuality is a form of violence that must be eliminated

The motives for discrimination and even violence against homosexuals are several, and these are iterative. Originally the priest-kings, kings, and priests, banned any forms of sexual expression that did not reproduce the source of all their power and privelege i.e labour, the only source of value. Humans were viewed as value producers. The more of them you had producing value, the more value their was for you to consume. Remember the Old Testament tells us to give the priests ´the best of the best´ of all valueable things produced. So we have motive one for the crimes against homosexuals.

Motive two is the desire innate in human nature to agressively attack each other. Every society directs this impulse towards minorities and foreigners, so that it does not threaten that particular society itself.  In the past these impulses were vented upon the most recent wave of immigrants, those of minority ethnic and religious groups, Jews, ´Blacks´, and Asians. However today these minorities have gained greater policital power, and with it legal rights which protect them from such agression and acts of violence. And so few ´legitimate´targets remain. Homosexuals are suffering from such an undersupply of targets. The demand has remained constant. And so these violent impulses are directed towards them. And society is running out of groups to define as legitimate targets for the venting of such impulses. Hence the bind. If society grants homosexuals all the normal legal rights everyone else enjoys, it will have eliminated one of the few remaining supplies of targets? 

And so, once homosexuals are given their rights, we can expect that ´criminals´, along with terrorists, will take the full brunt. I add this as criminality is as equally determined as homosexuality is. Blaming someone for acts that are the result of a deterministic holistic inheritance is no more just than victimising someone for the sexuality they inherited. Of course homosexuals do no harm as such, and I apologize for this context. However my point is that criminals don´t get to chose the holistic inheritance that leads them to criminality any more than homosexuals get to chose their sexual orientation.

But, to be honest, if we could chose, then the optimalist would chose that everyone became homosexual. Why?  It would eliminate all forms of unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children, and of course, almost every motive for abortions. All reproduction would have to be planned and occur by mutual informed consent. Every conception would be desired by its host mother. Every child would be wanted and loved. Children would be the result of deliberate, planned, and desired conceptions. See my Eden Protocols for more precise details of the holistic inheritance that I feel every child has a right to, and could, if all conceptions were planned and desired.

And I ´prophecise´the consequences of eliminating homosexuality from the suppy of  targets for the more negative, destructive impulses that define human nature to appeal to those who will become free from this status for greater enlightenment. I hope the victims of one set of injustices will be, based on their experience of injustice, more generous with all the the victims of the other set of injustices which ultimately produce criminality.

This is the true challenge of TROONATNOOR.  We all define ourselves as victims rather than perpetrators. We consider how unfair things are to people like us, people with our holistic inheritances, while failing to address the equally unjust acts others suffer, but which we define as ´deserved´ and ´legitimate´.

In any case, I wish to remind the younger among you that homosexuality was a criminal offense, and defined as a disease, until only a few decades ago. Young men filling out Army selection forms for the U.S Invasion of Vietnam in the 60´s would be asked to tick a box, within the category ´diseases´, if they were homosexual. Electroshock therapy, and other forms of aversion therapy, were the most common ´treatments´ forced upon homosexuals. It was only recently that, at least in the Western world, that homosexuality has been removed from the DSM, the diagnostic systems manual for the identification of psychiatric illnesses, and that homosexuality between consenting adults has ceased to be actively punished as a criminal offence. Sadly, in other parts of the less socially developed world, homosexuals are today defined as criminals, and as ´ill´. They are being persecuted as ´scapegoats´and ´witches´, usually by people connected with the various religious cults a.k.a established religious authorities.

Judaism introduced the concept of collective or ´corporate´ responsibility and hence guilt. It was not enough to observe the laws of Moses yourself. You had to play big brother and make sure others did so too. For it was not enough to make sure you yourself never committed the fashion crime of wearing cotton with wool. NO. God would punish you for the acts of your fellows. And so you had a motive to hate anyone who dared wear cotton with wool. If anyone in your tribe did, then you would all pay. God got really pissed off at people for combining fibres. He wasn´t one for making finer points. No. If one of you wore the wrong garb, you would all pay. And so you became terribly neurotic about stuff, really anxious. You worried that your neighbour might pick up sticks on a thursday, and damn YOU to an eternity in hell, or some other fate worse than death that your kindly, loving god could think up. And so you would HATE anyone who failed to observe the taboos and customs of your tribe. This was reasonable, in this context. How dare they put everyone at risk by being an individual, and behaving according to their own conscience, rather than according to the priests´written laws!  And thus we see another ingredient in the hate and fear of homosexuality. Of course today we must define it as a crime for religious authorities and priests to tell their listeners that homosexuals are breaking their god´s laws, and hence threatening them all with god´s wrath. Remember Soddom and Gommorah! If we do not purge our society of such evils, we will ALL be punished by a furious god!

A third, perhaps most basic motive also exists. Everyone wants to be able to feel ´morally´ superior to someone else. In the past this ´moral´superiority allowed you to enslave and exploit others who were not like you. And so we defined ´blacks´, immigrants, those of other nations, ethnic groups, and religions, as ´morally´ inferior, to legitimate us raping, murdering, enslaving, and disappropriating them of their rightful possessions. Today we can´t get away with that, as the worldś elites have become too interdependant. But the satisfaction of feeling superior to someone else is still a gratification that can be enjoyed. And as it has become inappropriate to feel superior to someone else based on their skin color, ethnic background, or religion, the only source of such gratification left is to define homosexuals somehow ´morally´inferior, even though many of the people and societyś that we hold up as ideal and ´classic´practiced homosexuality without any second thought. In fact for the most brilliant individuals and societyś in history, the concept of homosexuality did not exist. It was just considered one aspect of sexuality. It took a Freud and a Breuer  to remind us of the latent, intrinsic bi-sexuality of all humans. As Nietzsche reminded us, it is a mistake to think of only two sexes, of limiting sexuality so violently as a concept.

Put all these motives together, and watch them re-iterate and spiral upwards into a frenzy of homophobia and hate. Any one alone will be enough to keep people negatively disposed towards granting homosexuals the same rights other people enjoy. But there is one last, perhaps stronger, and reinforcing motive. Freud recognised that phobias resolve to an underlying desire. Hence a fear of dieing is reflexive of a death wish, a desire to die. So can you guess where this is heading?  Yes. Next time you see some man venting all his self-loathing towards a homosexual, consider Shakespear´s lines ´Methinks she doth protest too much´. The more hate these men vent, the clearer the motive becomes. Yes, Freud tells us that those who have a negative emotional response to the idea of homosexuality are really expressing their own repressed, and so now unconscious, homosexual desires. Add the fear instilled by the Church to this, and you have a recipe for widespread hatred and fear of homosexuality, and homosexuals.

Now the context of all this is an epidemic of teenage suicide among homosexual teens. This is one direct consequence of all the violence directed towards homosexuals, in the form of bullying, and outright assault. The other context is the continued denial of most society´s to legally recognise homosexual marriage.

First, we must grant homosexuals all the legal rights any other citizen has. Then we must criminalise the sort of religious indoctrination that legitimates the other ignoble motives as noble, and which produces its very own motives for homophobia and hatred of homosexuals.

I have written much which relates to these issues in my TROONATNOOR books, and in my novel, ´Veil of Ignorance´.


Introducing more rigour into the popular language culture:Stop the misrepresentation, and the abuse of language

In religion

I was recently abhored by the abuses of language people get away with. For example the owner of the largest Chinese restaurant in the world serves still-living fish that have been battered and deep-fried while still alive.  At the same time this person was described by the BBC interviewer as a´devout Buddhist`. She in fact had built a large ´Buddhist`temple in the courtyard of her restaurant.  How dare she associate herself in any way with Buddha and his teachings. 

Of course such things are typical of ´religion´.  It tends to´humanise´ the philosophy of the prophets in the worst ways.  In doing so it tends to ´throw the baby out, and keep the bathwater´.

And how dare Nichols,  the Catholic Archbishop of England, claim to be a ´seeker´, which is the orignal meaning of the Greek ´Skeptic`, and describes the true, open-minded, completely dogma-free philosopher.

And the same abuses of language apply to secular religions. How dare the Chinese billionaire oligarchs call themselves `Communist`. It simply beggars belief.

In the entertainment and drugs industries

And how dare  BBC´s soap opera`Heartbeat` define alcohol as harmless, while demonising other commonly used drugs.  Rob, our young policeman, after catching a ´drug dealer`meets his girlfriend  at the pub afterwards, telling her to “sit down and relax and I´ll get you a drink“.  Of course this represents the typical ending of a ´Heartbeat`episode. Much of the ´action´actually occurs in this location, among drug-taking ´patrons´. Of course there drug just happens to be legal, in this time and place.

Alcohol is defined in the popular culture as a harmless bit of relaxation.  However the medical and social facts illustrate that the ´drugs´our hero had ´gotten off the streets´are in fact less harmful than alcohol!  When are the media going to stop abusing us with propaganda for the alcohol and tobacco industries, and against less harmful drugs.

The hegemonic, popular,conventional media position, and propaganda, is highlighted when the ex-cop, now bar-owner of ´Heartbeat´admires some  home-made spirits, cheering ´Na Strovia`, the equivalent of ´To your health´. This ends a storyline in which  a ´speed´consumer goes a bit crazy and does a high-wire act, falling to his death. While this sort of behaviour not un-typical of drunken clowning-around, it is merely used in this context to ´reveal´ the ´evils´of illegal drug use.

Imagine offering someone an injection of heroine, while cheering them on with ´To your health`and admiring the quality of the drug.

It is a fact that alcohol is more damaging in every way to society, individuals, and our economy. So stop it! Stop distorting reality, and start dealing with the real problems, alcohol abuse, tobacco addiction, and our growing addiction to junk food and gluttony. Around a third of all children are already obese, leading to heart disease and diabetes, the main killers. Yes, poor nutrition and over-consumption of ´junk´foods are becoming responsible for even more  deaths than tobacco and alcohol consumption.

Deaths accountable to ´illegal´drug use are only nominal. They are less than a tiny fraction of those related to ´legal´drugs. See TROONATNOOR for details.

The evils of drug ´pushers´ are promoted in the same programs which hypocritically air product placements and direct advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, and ´junk´food.

The costs of criminalising particular drugs are massive, in terms of the costs of enforcing laws, of imprisoning people simply for consuming a product, and all the drug related crimes and social problems. But the costs in terms of integrity, consistency, and hypocrisy are also important. 

We have to introduce more rigour into the popular language culture. Otherwise the way we think and define things becomes corrupted, and absurd. The media must be compelled to reflect reality, rather than the interests of their capitalist masters and´enthralled´slave-consumers´.

 We need to regulate tobacco and alcohol more than most drugs which are currently criminalised. And in this context  we should keep in mind that gluttony, the abuse of food, more or less as a drug,  is in fact producing a greater social, medical, and economic cost than the legal drugs like tobacco and  alcohol, and other illegal drugs, combined.

This week the Pope clearly revealed his ugly contempt for the plight of children abused by his priests further with an emotional outburst directed not towards the perpetrators of child abuse, but towards the police investigating these crimes.  After having been kept waiting 9 hours by a contemptuous committee of priests claiming to be investigating their own church, the police, acting on their warrants, entered a crypt in search of evidence. 

 It reveals the true values and motives of this popular cult we call Catholicism. The high priest of this cult found the police actions ´deplorable`. He has never come close to expressing himself so emotionally with regard to the actions of his own priests, or the suffering of those they abused.

And so to the main theme. Habermas made the outrageous claim that Western civilisation owes all of its advances to that popular cult we call Roman Catholicism. I have documented in my books the corruption, violence, torture, rape, and prostitution that cult has continued up to the present day around the world.

It is clear, after observing people who define themselves as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, etc, that the values of their prophets play very little roles in the values and actions of those professing to be following them.

Clearly religion has failed as a means to optimalise human society, to advance it ethically, to improve it,  to ´manage`the worst in it, and  to encourage the best in it. Religion has merely continued ancient superstitious beliefs in the magical efficacy of prayer, votive offerings, idols (whether crucifixes, buddha statues, temples, popes, mullahs or golden calves).

People intend religion as a means to their own narrow, selfish ends. They seek power over their enemies and nature. They seek good fortune for themselves and their loved ones, for  them and theirs. This is in fact anti-social.

The religious authorities have always sought to undermine the secular authorities, when they could not co-opt them to their own narrow purposes, to build their own ´Republics`, with themselves as emperors. They murdered, tortured, prostituted, and kept society in their vicious, despotic, mean, nasty, ugly, destructive  thrall, employing a reign of terror never before or since seen, simply to increase their own power and privileges.

Their motives were to secure power and resources for a narrow hierarchy of priests. Some of these priests are actually deluded that they are serving higher purposes. Of course while doing so they feel it is appropriate that ´gods´servants live in luxury, their every whim accomodated, their every urge satisfied, their every dark desire gratified.

It is in fact despite such cults  that Western civilisation has advanced.  It was only in overcoming such cults and their corrupt power that the Western world managed to develop.

And it must be noted that these developments were rarely democratic in nature as such. They were the result of regulations and laws imposed on the masses by a more enlightened minority, through representative parliaments.

 Few of the laws  that  we so highly value and enjoy today, including those protecting basic human rights, would ever have been passed by a truly democratic process.

And on the topic of abuses of language, and distortions of reality, we have to stop ´weasling´our way out of  ethical questions. When a politician or judge accepts money from an illegal drug dealer to ´look the other way´in terms of ethics, we call it ´corruption´. When big business interests in tobacco, alcohol, or junk-food do exactly the same thing, it is called ´lobbying´. Stop it! 

In popular ´science´television programs

And stop misrepresenting space and time. You cannot travel back in time, and time does not speed up or slow down, no matter how great the gravitational field of a black hole. Einstein´s comments on relativity have been misrepresented over and over by media ´scientists´.

All that slows down is the speed at which photons travel, in the case of strong gravitational fields, or their relative speed to an observer, due to their source travelling away or towards the viewer at high speed. Thus all that can slow down is the time it takes for these photons to reach an observers eyes.

To the observer, the object which released these photons will appear to slow down or speed up. However it is merely the photons themselves which change their relative speed, compared to the observer.

So if you travel away from a clock, it will appear to slow down, the faster you travel away from it. But this does not represent a slowing down of your metabolism or aging process. So the oft repeated misunderstanding that a space traveller could leave the earth at high speed for 10 years, and then return to find that everyone else has aged 100 years, is a misconception.

Even if the effects of relativity were such that such aging differences could take place, they would only apply to the individuals who remained away from earth. As soon as they began approaching earth again, the relativity would dissappear.

For as you approach a clock at faster than light speed, it will appear to speed up, thus cancelling out the earlier ´slowing down´.

But please, stop it. Stop misrepresenting things in programs that are supposed to be scientific and enlightening.

 It is like the constant misrepresentation of evolution by people claiming to understand it. Their patent lack of understanding of it is revealed every time they utter statements like ´ X has feature Y, to….. ´, as if evolution had a plan, an intention, and designed every feature of an animal to provide it with some advantage or benefit. This of course leads to the absurd consequence of people searching specifically for the ´function´ of each and every quality or characteristic of a thing, and then assigning it this function, as if this had been the intention or plan of evolution.

This is of course an iterative product and reinforcer of the fallacy of teleology and functionalism that pervades most  popular ´reasons-ing´. It comes from and reinforces the Stoic notion that ´All things happen for a purpose´, and ´All things happen for the best of reasons, in this, the best of all possible worlds´. 

Thus such supposedly ´scientific´ programs, in misrepresenting evolution, reinforce the attempt to justify all suffering as part of some greater plan that we will one day become aware of. Thus in a long chain of reasonsing, and by implicity, subversive, indirect, almost subliminal, ubiqitous and insidious means, we are lead to accept suffering, to put a positive ´spin´ upon it, rather than to seek to eliminate it.

Thus the unfortunate are encouraged to endure their suffering. They pay the price of all this lack of rigour in the popular language culture. And who benefits?  Who promotes this?  See my  TROONATNOOR   books to become enlightened on this and many other subjects you probably never thought much about, if at all.

 I have heard supposed scientists claim that ´sabre tooth tigers must have been different in appearance to current tigers, because their environment was different, and the current striping of tigers would not have been adapted to that environment´. This is an example of the importance of avoiding the error of functionalism in the first place. It leads to ever greater absurdities.

For a detailed and accurate understanding of how the process of evolution works, please see my TROONATNOOR books.

So please, like in the issue of functionalism in descriptions of evolution, and the mistake of ´form follows function´, be more precise in your language useage.

Stop abusing language, either to conveniently misrepresent reality, or out of a lack of discipline. Language is the tool for reasoning. If our language terms, and the assumptions implici in them, are faulty, we have little hope of every formulating compelling arguments. The consequences have been dramatic, and will continue to corrupt our views of reality, and our reasoning, until we purge our popular language culture of them.

In the promotion of Gambling

And while on the subject, how dare television stations mislead people into gambling by misrepresenting their gambling as ´quizzes´. This is an abuse of their viewers, who  are lead to believe that their success will be dependant on being able to answer some question or ´solve´some puzzle, when it is in fact pure random chance that determines who ´wins´ the prize.  The fact that each call costs the viewer about as much as a lotto ticket, while the potential wins are nominal in comparison, adds to my frustration with such unscrupulous television stations. These stations represent all that is worse in our legalistic approach to ethics. Clever legal minds have found the ´loopholes´ to allow television stations to take advantage of their viewers, with no more nobility than any ´illegal´gambling operation. 

 Please avail yourself of the decades of work I have invested in my TROONATNOOR series, including the novel ´The veil of ignorance´, which are available at unibook.com, under the author name  Kim Jestem. Or email me for a downloadable pdf file.



Alcohol and tobacco are the ´hardest´ drugs of all: Stephen Sackur`s BBC`s `Hardtalk`interview with Professor Nutt

First, Stephen Sackur spent much of the program with one Venezualan woman complaining that her sun could not find a job in marketing. Hey, I would love to find a job in marketing. Who wouldn`t? How on earth does her complaint merit so much attention? However on the whole the series on Venezuala deserves some credit. Like Oliver Stone, the BBC is at least providing some clarification in the face of U.S propaganda. The U.S, like the Nazi regime, as in Orwell`s ´1984´, simply repeat lies, abusing language, as a form of propaganda. The U.S have a history of defining anyone who is not pro capitalism as their enemy, and our enemy. How can they be so brazen as to continue calling the president of Venezuala a `Dictator`when he has be re-elected several times in fair elections, which is more than can be said about many U.S elections, and with a greater majority than any U.S or `free-world` politician has ever enjoyed?

Now, back to the issue of drugs, which also fits into the rubric of `propaganda`. Sackur interviewed the psychiatrist, neuroscientist, and psychopharmacologist Professor David Nutt, who was fired from his job as Chairman of the council advising the government on drug abuse, for stating the obvious fact that alcohol and tobacco produce massively more harm than ecstacy, cannabis, and do, in terms of economic, medical, and social costs.

Professor Nutt echoes what I and the leading health research bodies have been arguing for decades. The laws regarding the use of many `illegal`drugs are simply misinformed, unjust, inappropriate, and plain wrong. Cannabis in no more a `gateway`to other drugs or to criminality than tobacco or alcohol. Ecstasy is less dangerous or addictive than the nicotine in tobacco. Alcohol poisoning results in one death per day in the U.K alone. Of course the occasional death from ecstacy is what is reported in the media which are dependant on advertising revenues from tobacco and alcohol.
What dissappointed me was that Sackur himself never referred to alcohol as a drug, despite the fact that Professor Nutt consistently reminded us it was a dangerous drug. Nutt informed us that marijuana consumption had decreased in the Netherlands since it had been legalised, and that its decriminalisation in Portugal was associated with a decrease in crime and the spread of H.I.V.

So, to remind you all. Democratically elected presidents are not dictators, even if you disagree with their politics, and those of their supporters. Democracy means that if more people like the guy your don`t, then he still gets elected, whether or not you like it. That is the nature of democracy. And alcolohol and tobacco are drugs. They are the worst drugs ever known to humankind, in terms of their health, economic, and social costs. In a sane world it would be criminal to allow such products to be promoted and marketed.

If illegal drugs should be banned because they are ´intrinsically bad´, as Sackur put it, then surely there is no place for the most damaging of all drugs, alcohol and tobaccor, in a sane world.

And yes, I do want to be interview by Sackur on `Hardtalk`. I would love the chance to bring him up to speed on TROONATNOOR.

P.S According to the World Health Organisation, every 6 seconds someone dies from smoking related diseases, making tobacco responsible for one in ten of all deaths worldwide since WWII.