Cults of Totalitarianism
Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
“Civilization is the precarious labor and luxury of a minority; the basic masses of mankind hardly change from millennium to millennium.” Will Durant, i, 59.
Twenty, thirty, or even forty thousands of years ago, some savage invented the “Word”: the idea that things or actions can be made to come into existence or disappear, or to happen or to have never happened merely by uttering a few magical words; or by not uttering forbidden words.
Not long after, other actions were added to increase the effectiveness of such “words.” A dance accompanied by certain chants could make it rain; waving a particular leaf over a woman’s belly and uttering another chant would make for easy childbirth; another dance and other chants would guarantee victory in war, a successful hunt; a witch doctor could speak gabble to the surf and thereby make fish jump into the nets of men. Thus, every conceivable endeavor of man required intercession by someone who would choreograph a dance, divine the proper sacrifice, or compose the proper set of chants to guarantee the success of whatever men wanted; but, before these ends could be obtained, petitioners had to demonstrate they had complied with charms and taboos decreed by rogues known as magicians.
These dances of savage men have evolved into waggling heads and frothing mouths; proper sacrifices, into taxes; chants, into prayers; charms and taboos have become laws; rogues, into priests.
Over ten, or twenty, thousand years, nothing has changed… men still cling to the voodoo and nonsense first cobbled together by cheats long before men began to record their story.
Ever since the invention of the “Word,” the world has been a slaughterhouse relative to those who don’t believe such nonsense, and a slave pen and slaughterhouse for all others.
It all begins in the mind of an individual man, or woman.
It is inevitable that man must act to survive. Ideally, every action should be performed by the voluntary consent – and mutual benefit – of everyone involved. But owing to the myriad complexities of man’s world, this cannot be so. Hence, it is just as inevitable that men will sometimes act unwisely, and will cause injury to one or more of their neighbors.
When a man acts unwisely, he has two choices: he may choose to correct his action; or, he may choose not to correct it. The wrongful act may be intentional, or it may be accidental; it makes no matter, if it caused injury, goodwill among men requires redress.
If he chooses to correct his action, he provides restitution to his neighbor, torn or strained relations are sewn back together – sometimes with a stronger bond than before, and the matter is at an end. While one man is restored to his former condition, another man attaches to his name that property that is uniquely human: an honorable reputation. He adds to his stature, and all others learn of his trustworthiness. Another brick is added to that edifice that we call civilization; and the bonds of men are made more strong, and tranquil.
Unfortunately, in a large majority of cases, voluntary restitution is not the case; with each failure of redress, another delinquent is added to the ranks of mankind… another brick is removed from the edifice of civilization, and thrown onto that pile of rubble that we call totalitarianism.
Consequences. Every wrongful act involves at least two parties: he, or they, who perpetrate it; and he, or they, who suffer by it. Until redress is accomplished, the perpetrator must contend with feelings of guilt; and the victim must contend with feelings of loss. Both feelings are experienced as pain, with the intensity commensurate with the enormity, or violence, of the act.
Reason. These feelings of pain are sent into a man’s brain by that judge inside every man’s head that demands justice. Some men call this judge a conscience; after contending with it for a few weeks, most call it a demon; and, after a few weeks more, it becomes a plural. Main functions of this conscience are to 1) examine all facts that enter the brain, 2) determine whether they represent a danger or a threat to the organism and 3) resolve on a proper course of action relative to those facts. This voice will not rest: for, nature has commanded that all living organisms must be perpetually alert and superior to its situation; every living cell must obey this command, or perish. A conscience will mercilessly torment the perpetrator of a wrongful act until the act is fully corrected – or until it pronounces a verdict of self-destruction. This is the end; for, a conscience is both judge and executioner: verdict is immediately executed – without fail. For as long as men have lived according to the “Word,” men have searched for other options; but have found none but delay – followed by the ultimate penalty.
Here, we might have difficulty distinguishing between a conscience and reason; for they both contribute to the same three functions given above. Perhaps the distinction is that reason provides the rules by which the functions are performed, and the conscience is the part of the brain that performs by those rules. Regardless, I may use these terms – reason and conscience – interchangeably in the following discourse.
The imperative: reciprocity. The nature of the imperative by which the conscience operates is derived from the maxim that, ‘If one man enjoys a right, all men do’; and this leads to corollaries, ‘If I do not respect a right in other men, then I cannot claim that right in myself.’ In other words, if I do not provide restitution to others when I injure them, I would have no right to ask them to provide restitution to me when they injure me.
And more, if I ask other men to forgive my crimes, I must forgive others when they injure me.
Thus, the only way a man can secure his rights is to act toward others as he would have them act toward him. When one man refuses to respect the rights of others, he invites the whole world to do the same to him; or, to put a black mark beside his name. These are the messages – the dangers – that a conscience tries to convey when one man injures another.
This theme weaves thru all examples and perspectives in this narrative.
Accumulation. A simple example should make the problem clear. It is the misfortune that some hubcaps are stolen. Why? Well… because they’re just nifty; that’s why. They are a kind of dress: the thief wants these hubcaps in order to impress his friends. He puts them on his car; and drives slowly thru his neighborhood, hoping to generate compliments. So, one of the thief’s friends remarks, “Gee, those are neat hubcaps. Where did you get them?” What is our thief to do… is he to respond, “Oh, I stole them”? Most men, even teenagers, are not this stupid. If he answers truthfully, he will confess to be a thief – and everyone at school will know it the next day. Teenagers, and most men, ordinarily, do not aim at this. So, our thief has to lie, “Oh, I bought them.” His friend wants a set just like the stolen one, so he asks, “Where did you buy them?” Another complication: no matter what the thief answers, it will lead to additional complications. It is likely the friend will go to the supposed vendor of the hubcaps to ask for a similar set – and learn that the vendor did not sell to the thief.
The thief began his escapade with the motive of impressing his friends; but day by day, question by question, the web of lies becomes more tangled; and the torment of shame and guilt more unbearable.
The “Word.” He could remove this torment by restitution; but he has learned of the “Word” – that he can cause the torment to cease to exist merely by speaking; or by refusing to speak; or by refusing to “hear” certain words; or by refusing to engage in particular topics; or by avoiding certain people, or certain places.
This is relatively unexplored territory: I will try to make it more clear.
Methods of Suppression
Religion is the activity of perpetual war against civilization.
To avoid the feelings of pain associated with a wrongful act, men have devised three general methods: a) physical avoidance and b) mental avoidance, and c) ethical perversion.
By the first men physically avoid any facts that might trigger feelings of guilt or loss. If a man has stolen hubcaps, he will physically avoid his victim; or, he may dispose of the hubcaps. Sometimes, as crimes become more serious, this avoidance takes the form of murder of victims and witnesses. Also, if the wrongful act occurred in a particular place, one or both parties (victim and perpetrator) will never return to that place, for fear of the feelings (of loss in one, and of guilt in the other) that might be triggered.
By the method of mental avoidance, men seek to prevent any thought or conversation of any fact that might be related to the wrongful act: the name of the other party may not be spoken, the place where it happened may not be mentioned, and a dozen other facts may not be discussed. For this to be successful, the man who seeks to avoid responsibility – let us call him a suppressive, for economy of words – must exercise total control over every thought in his head and every conversation within his presence for the purpose of preventing any mention of any fact that might trigger painful memories. This, for example, drives compulsive talkers who, once started, cannot close their mouths until everyone has left their presence; nor can they let anyone else volunteer a word to the “conversation”.
By the method of ethical perversion, men have invented codes of behavior that justify the failure to provide redress, and that bless he that commits an injury and damn he that complains of one. Such codes justify crime if it is accompanied by “proper” thoughts – or if it is done for proper “reasons.” A Jew (or Christian, or Muslim) may kill or plunder a non-Jew simply because the latter does not celebrate Passover, for example. The irony of this is lost on Jews and most observers; for, Passover is the celebration of the murder of a few hundred thousand Egyptian first-born, both man and beast. This is an example of complete perversion: he who does not celebrate a mass genocide may be destroyed without blame.
The feelings of guilt or loss that a conscience uses against a suppressive are frequently accompanied by other feelings, such as shame and embarrassment, depression and fear. The intensity of these feelings is also the measure of the number of crimes a man must conceal – and the measure of his desperation to control every situation. The intensity of zeal, in other words, is nothing less than a measure of guilt.
Alright, let’s take several of the above considerations, examine them in some detail, and see where they lead.
Accumulation of injuries.
Failure to redress wrong only results in delay of correction – and multiplication of penalties.
A problem with the attempt to suppress a conscience is that, once a man sets out on this course, he establishes a pattern that will govern his life – so long as he adheres to the policy.
It is a law of nature that, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This law governs inanimate matter as well as animate matter. With the former, it is automatic. With the latter, it is moderated by conscious choice; men can delay, but they cannot stop, the reaction. When a man is slapped, he has to immediately determine a fair number of factors: the rank in the pecking order of each party; whether the other party was an adult or a child; whether the slap was in malice or play; whether the slap was appropriate; among other considerations.
With all these different factors, it is very common that a reaction will be delayed and directed against the wrong person. And either one constitutes a failure of redress.
When a man fails at redress – and if the perpetrator is a more powerful person, it is inevitable the victim will perpetrate an injury against an innocent bystander… then another… and another – until his victims (whether other people or his conscience) drive him to suicide or insanity.
I think I can easily say that every man who seeks to suppress his conscience began this effort as a victim; and remained in this status several days, or months. At that time, he committed an unintentional and uncontrolled act of violence against an innocent bystander. Here, he lost his innocence and became a perpetrator of wrong, to go along with his status of victim. Here, also, he can recover his innocence by repairing the damage he has done; but, in too many cases, such does not happen.
As noted, there are two sides to every wrongful act: he, or they, who perpetrate it, and he, or they, who suffer by it. It is equally necessary that both perpetrator and victim pursue redress: the first, in order to do right; the second, in order that he does not become perpetrator as well as victim. When men first decide to suppress their conscience, these considerations are hardly ever a concern. Since they do not see the simple, and beneficial, consequences of correcting a real injury in the present, they also do not see the more complicated visions of the more-distant future – of injuries made inevitable by un-redressed injuries. Here is an example, out of thousands, as to how a victim inevitably becomes a perpetrator.
Let us consider a father who is experiencing oppressive conditions at work; he dares not complain to his boss for fear of losing his job. His treatment at work is a continual stream of insults; and he harbors feelings of resentment, frustration and embarrassment. No man can survive this treatment without disastrous consequences; but he suffers it; for, he occupies an inferior position, and he must support his family. So he tolerates it for days or weeks, with every day and week adding to his frustration; he becomes irascible, and his relationship with his wife deteriorates until their communication consists of senseless bickering; for, while they may be able to name its cause, they cannot design a correction. His mind is like a boiler on a steam engine; whether mind or boiler, each has a limit as to the pressure it may withstand. The inevitable day arrives; at supper table, he and his wife argue; this distresses his child, who makes a poorly articulated complaint; the pressure valve breaks; he raises his fist and begins to lunge toward his child. Instantly, his internal voice tells him that what he is about to do is wrong; but it is too late, the opportunity to release frustration is overpowering… he has lost control. A table is overturned; dishes and food fall to the floor; and a ten-years-old child is beaten senseless.
If the object of life is to maintain the innocence and attitude of childhood, and to preserve a supportive companionship with one’s child, here – in very gentle terms – life, as it ought to be, comes to an end, never to be recovered… all because one or two men failed at redress.
By accumulation of violent acts men experience the meaning of multiplication – but seldom learn from it.
This is the sequence of events in a military-structured society – and its natural consequences. In a military society, it is lawfully mandated that its stronger members may brutalize its weaker members. It must be a military society; for none other can maintain such a structure. It is normal, not necessarily by law – but, always by custom, that a general may slap a colonel; but a colonel dare not slap a general. The colonel, instead, will search for the nearest captain and slap him. Now, what shall the captain do? He searches for the nearest lieutenant, and slaps him. The lieutenant searches for the nearest sergeant, and slaps him. The sergeant searches for the nearest private, and slaps him. The private searches for the nearest friend, wife or child, and administers the socially-acceptable injury.
The ultimate consequence here is that responsibility for the general’s failure is eventually, step by step, loaded onto the weakest member of society – its children. Since most men – and women – seek to avoid responsibility, children have virtually no friends; their only means of escape lies in suicide or mental derangement. (See God-given Rights (not yet linked) for the origin of military law.)
Altho men suppress their reason to avoid feelings of guilt or loss, they still seem to recognize they must resolve ordinary problems of life: which brand of soap to buy; how to fix a broken window, a leaky faucet; how to repair a physical injury, or illness. If such a man employs reason to solve these ordinary problems, the inertia of the reasoning activity invariably carries him face to face with his feelings of guilt or loss. This only needs to happen one time, and he will regard reason as a mortal enemy for the rest of his life. Thereafter, his major activity of problem solving will consist of divining entrails of ducks, hours of prayer, and searching for meaning in the words of men who froth at the mouth for a lamp that will shed light on his problems.
His minor activity of problem solving consists of memory. If he has dealt with a problem before, he will rely on his memory to correct his problems. By exclusively relying on memory – to the exclusion of reason, men arrest their development at the time when they decide they have to avoid feelings of guilt or loss. This is why children of ten or twelve are entertained by the same stories that entertain sixty-years-old men.]]
Reason is the primary tool of human beings: it is used to identify facts, determine if they would benefit or threaten the self, then determine the proper action relative to such facts.
Reason is the standard by which we measure men: thus, a man gains his freedom as he gains his reason. Until then, the law of man regards him as either child, idiot or slave, neither capable nor worthy of self-responsibility: he, effectively, is accorded the legal status of a farm animal. Most societies try to make this condition permanent: a few, so very few, aim to make it temporary – save for the idiot.
A properly functioning reason will quickly identify acts that have not been corrected and remind the person of the need to do so; this message triggers feelings of loss or guilt so long as redress is not done. So, to suppress a conscience, the first requirement is to suppress one’s capacity for reason – the capacity to identify problems.
There is a major problem here: as a man disables his reason, he becomes incapable of productive labor: for, the process of this activity is precisely the same as his reason: identify facts, determine whether they are beneficial or harmful, and then resolve on a proper action relative to such facts. This is productive labor: the means by which all men survive. Thus, what he does to his reason, he does to his productive capacity. If he disables his reason, he, then, must live by the labor of others: he must live as a thief or a beggar. As a man disables his reason he gives a competitive advantage to other men; and must live at a lower level than if he had sharpened his reason.
To disable one’s reason naturally leads to a kind of mental derangement and ineptitude. It is the pain of guilt or loss that drives men into these conditions. Thus, when men are faced with the choice of redress or avoidance of responsibility, the choice is ultimately between a) sanity and competency or b) derangement and ineptitude – between freedom and slavery.
Some people who suppress their conscience will say that they are able to turn off their mind relative to painful memories but turn it on relative to situations where they have to earn a living. Yes, this is possible – for a limited time, and with lower efficiency than without suppression. Owing to the nature of unresolved injuries to constantly accumulate, the sphere constantly shrinks in which a man may use his reason without triggering painful memories. And with each accumulation of an unresolved injury, the fury of the conscience – the intensity of painful memories – becomes greater. The intensity of painful memories is a constantly increasing factor: as it increases, so do levels of derangement, ineptitude and zeal. That is, the longer an injury goes uncorrected, the more damage a conscience will do when it finally overcomes the suppression – and, the more violent will be each random, unpredictable, and uncontrolled violent act. More tables will be overturned; more food and dishes will fall to the floor; and more children will be beaten senseless.
Just as men are violent according to the degree and duration of the oppression they suffer, so a conscience is violent. Just as such men are blind in their rage, so is a conscience.
When men turn off their reason, they must live as beggars or thieves; either condition creates another set of problems. One of nature’s commandments is that men must struggle to establish their status in human society, and to aim as high as each man’s capacity will carry him. The attempt to silence one’s conscience sets this commandment in reverse; and no man can live in either condition, as beggar or thief, without severe damage to his conscience. So, this (that he voluntarily chose to become inept and deranged) is another fact that can produce painful feelings… another fact that must be suppressed.
By the accumulation of uncorrected injuries, the conscience reacts with greater power; and, it soon acquires the power to provoke life-threatening nightmares. At this point, the activity of suppressing a conscience (and controlling other people), becomes a life or death matter, literally.
To avoid these painful feelings, men have invented codes of behavior that make indolence and derangement socially acceptable activities – that make them sacred activities. These codes of behavior go by the name of religion. In all of these codes, the study, and belief, of religious writings is held to be a sacred duty – all of which are plagiarized or works of fiction (see, God-given Rights,); we can derive this conclusion by observing the penalty for its opposite. When men, in a society dominated by religion, profess to not believe in such religious writings, the penalty is usually death, confiscation of all property and corruption of blood (that is, similar penalties against one’s family).
To suppress painful memories requires energy; and the characteristics of this energy that men must generate every day guarantee that a policy of suppression of painful memories will fail disastrously.
It is a fact that man must generate energy every day in order to perform the functions of life. It is also a fact that as man ages, his capacity to generate this energy declines.
Another fact, owing to the tendency of unresolved injuries to accumulate in number and violence, the amount of energy needed to suppress their related painful memories relentlessly increases day by day.
Thus, while time reduces the body’s capacity to generate energy, time also increases the amount of energy needed to suppress painful memories – two trends that proceed in opposite directions. The day will eventually come when these two trends collide. On that day – when energy needed to suppress a conscience becomes greater than the energy needed for positive functions, the end – either suicide or insanity – will arrive.
Men know this; and it takes only a little time for them to realize that their lives literally depend on suppressing their conscience. This leads them to the conclusion that their lives literally depend on suppressing reason and, where they have the power, they also seek to exterminate men who advocate reason.
It is by the experience of painful memories that men learn to hate reason and reality. In the beginning of their morbid odyssey, they still use reason to resolve problems not associated with their guilt or loss. But, by using rational activity to solve these problems, they soon learn that the inertia of such activity carries over into forbidden territory, and exposes the crimes and losses they have not resolved. Each such exposure increases their resolve to suppress reason totally, to rely on solutions that have to be taken on faith: solutions that have no rational basis whatsoever: solutions that invariably lead to greater crime, or greater loss.
While suppressive people usually appear to be moderately well-adjusted people, it is not difficult to demonstrate the mental derangement that lies just beneath the surface of their outward appearance.
All that is necessary to demonstrate this is to approach a suppressive person and explain that you are trying to understand certain passages in the Bible. Then ask the suppressive to help you with these difficult passages.
For example, the book of Matthew (chapter one) lists some twenty-seven generations from David to Joseph in an attempt to establish the line of descent from David to Jesus; the book of Luke (chapter three) lists some forty-three generations from David to Joseph for the same purpose. Between the two lists, the numbers of generations are different; and, the only names that appear in both lists are David and Joseph: all other names are different. Further, to establish that Jesus descended from David, it has to be established that Joseph was the father of Jesus; however, we are told that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. It is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that could contain more nonsense.
Your confusion, and mine too, consists of, ‘Why are there two completely different lines of descent from David to Joseph?’ And, ‘What’s their purpose?’ Since ‘the holy ghost’ – not Joseph – impregnated Mary, these lines of descent have nothing to do with Jesus.
Such questions usually produce quite bizarre reactions on the part of suppressives. Their answers will usually consist of more nonsense; in such cases, be sure to ask them to point-out in the Bible the source of their answer. If they will not, or cannot do so, ask, “Do you just invent explanations to produce the result you want?” Or, “Does everyone make the Bible justify every crime that pleases them?”
Reactions generated by this method should demonstrate the awesome power of a conscience; and what a deadly weapon it is – relative to he who tries to suppress it. These reactions should also demonstrate how easily a suppressive can be disabled; or hastened along his path of self-destruction.
But then, why waste your time trying to hurry along the inevitable? It would be better spent building something positive.
He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when he comes with his axe.
Luther, Works, (Phila., 1943), iv, 261, 261-272; Durant, vi, 393.
Without falsehood – or nonsense, despotism is not possible. The purpose of despotism is to perpetrate, conceal and reward crime on a large scale: that is, to do all these activities “according to law.” This is possible only in societies where ignorance, or belief in nonsense, afflicts a large portion of victims of despotism. For any social system to hold sway, it must command the loyalty of a large segment of the population. Altho despotism is a perpetual war by the few against the many, it can only be done by persuading the many that poverty and oppression, pestilence and famine operate to their benefit – or, that such conditions are a penalty from the local god, who demands greater sacrifice, greater submission to tyranny: this is why the many must believe in nonsense for despotism to hold power.
Crime on a large scale requires a correspondingly large number of people to staff the instruments of suppression: courts and media, schools and jails, army and tax collectors; but I repeat my self three times.
Before people can be recruited for positions of a socially acceptable office of savage, or beast of burden, they first have to be tested with innocuous or innocent-appearing procedures. Such procedures are based on a maxim that has been proven by countless millions of people, and countless thousands of pages of history: Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur. One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow. 1 Co. 102. In other words, if a man will believe one absurdity, he will believe a million; and, if he has time, he will believe more.
Now, what absurdity (falsehood or piece of nonsense) should we use to test men?
How about: ‘It is pleasing to god for men to pay fifty percent of their earnings to a group of indolent pimps dandies and prostitutes, commonly known as governments.’ Those people who willingly accept this nostrum will be allowed to live in our society; those who reject it, we will burn, or drown, or put upon the wheel – until they draw no more breath. By this method we can rid our society of those who are likely to espouse ideals of freedom, and likely to lead other men in rebellion against our enlightened notion of tyranny.
But on the other hand, maybe this isn’t such a good idea. If we murdered people because they opposed our oppression, the connection between murder and guilt is too clear; and the basis of such murder is almost impossible to justify: even a dog knows when it is kicked by accident, and when by intention. We must assume that too many people have the intelligence of a dog – and would naturally oppose us if we use this plan to murder men of integrity and justice; for, day by day we will have to murder deeper into the ranks of men. In the beginning, we will have to murder one in a hundred of our loving slaves; soon, two or three of every hundred; and, every man murdered will create ten friends or relatives who will resent our enlightened leadership; eventually, opposition will overwhelm us.
No, we will have to find some other means to murder deranged slaves; you know, those who prefer freedom.
I have another idea: suppose we invent an invisible witch doctor (or, doctoress) and attribute to him (or her) a doctrine of kindness, of succor to the poor, the lame and the ignorant – a protector of the many. (Don’t worry, it’s only a fiction.) We write a series of essays, assemble them together, and claim the collection of essays was written by our invisible witch doctor. In one chapter, he commands believers to forswear murder, theft, and kidnapping. A few chapters later, our invisible witch doctor commands his believers to go into the next territory and kill everything that breaths – except virgins (that is, females eight years and younger); and to take all property, and to use those virgins as believers please. We will also make our invisible witch doctor administer forgiveness for every conceivable crime; by this, we gain the loyalty of everyone who commits crimes, and, by the promise of virgins, those who intend to commit crimes; for, they will soon learn they can make this collection of essays justify every crime they wish to commit.
This is only one piece of nonsense in our book of The Witch Doctor that contains hundreds of others – probably thousands; see God-given Rights if you want an examination of a few others. Now, we are ready to test every member of our society. If he or she believes in our invisible medicine man, it is likely that he will believe that handcuffs and shackles are instruments of freedom; that good citizenship consists of getting kicked in the teeth and keeping one’s mouth shut; and a hundred other pieces of nonsense – all of these activities of submission, of course, will be very pleasing to our invisible magician. Hence, if our slave believes, we will allow him a job; and take fifty percent of his pay – he will rejoice, sing and dance; and believe that we are nice people; for, he believes in nonsense.
Those members of society who reject our invisible witch doctor, we will burn, or drown, or put upon the wheel – until they draw no more breath. By this method we can rid our society of those who have a capacity for reason, are likely to espouse ideals of freedom, and likely to lead other men in rebellion against our enlightened notion of tyranny – and nonsense.
Oh… how clever. By this method, we kill people – not because they oppose tyranny and nonsense, but – because they reject the nonsense of an invisible being who, at one time, commands kindness; at another, genocide – thus, kindness or genocide is all one to him: either one is pleasing to our invisible witch doctor. When we kill dissenters for this reason, we can appear to be ridding society of mean-spirited people who hate kindness, and who think that forgiveness incites crime; or that thieves should be made to provide restitution to their victims; or that truth consists of connecting facts to opinions.
With this arrangement, we will be left with no one but idiots and thieves in our society: those who labor from sunrise to sunset to feed and clothe us, and those who share in our booty. The one will have no capacity to unravel the nonsense we smother them with; the other will have every reason to continue it. Since we command idiots and thieves – and if any man of integrity or justice should slip thru our test undetected, we will simply have him murdered; and we will do so with the blessing of our unseen witch doctor… you know, the one who protects the poor.
But, then, I have this vague feeling that others have already invented such an invisible witch doctor… and use him as the foundation for despotism… Actually, it’s more than a ‘vague feeling,’ see Fires that Cry, pages 14-17.
Nonsense is the soil out of which despotism grows; we know this soil as religion.
Men dominate a conversation, or a nation, for the same reasons: to prevent the expression of words that might provoke feelings of guilt, to prevent actions that might lead to the correction of crime; the seeming insignificance of one kind of domination, when multiplied by a million, is the foundation for the other.
The number one objective of a suppressive person is to avoid all awareness of any fact that might trigger thoughts of unresolved injuries, and the painful feelings that accompany them.
The desire to suppress these facts manifests itself as a zeal to control the actions and thoughts of everyone in the presence, or within the reach, of the suppressive person: this is the basis of every totalitarianism: that is, total control – and the desire to conceal crime is its motive power. Thus, the more crimes a man must conceal, the greater his zeal to control everything around him. He uses this control to prevent anyone from expressing a thought that might be related to unresolved injuries, unresolved crimes, or unresolved treasons – depending on whether we consider the home, neighborhood, or office of state.
As the number of men becomes greater who must conceal crime – or suppress their painful memories, the practice of exercising dominion over others or of submitting to such dominion also becomes more socially acceptable. This is the origin of despotism, the reason why most men do not oppose it: men who must suppress painful memories will naturally approve when the state suppresses words or actions that might reveal crimes of the state.
Rule by Stupid
While Christians punish vice and reward virtue in an after-life, civilized men do the same on this earth.
See Durant, ix, 126.
It is only natural: men who follow reason and seek justice will naturally appoint the most competent among them to positions of trust and responsibility: that is, to positions of authority and power. Likewise, men who seek to avoid responsibility will naturally appoint the most inept among them to positions of responsibility.
Isn’t it silly? Irresponsible men will appoint other irresponsible men to positions of responsibility. A man who seeks to avoid penalties for crime must abandon his reason and reverse the principles of justice; for this to have more than a momentary success, he must control every word and action that pertains to him. This is the kind of men who are appointed to positions of power and influence in religiously dominated societies; with no reason and with a desire to conceal his crimes, he will have capacity neither to detect crime nor to determine guilt or innocence relative to any crime; nor will he have incentive to do so. Why would such a man sharpen a sword that would eventually be used against him? He aims at nothing less than to make all men as demented as he, and as guilty as he – even his own children.
A household – or a nation – is quickly led to ruin when dominated by men, or women, who seek to suppress their consciences; and those who wish the same condition will be led by no other. For, when men suppress their consciences, they lose the capacity to test their actions or opinions against the law of cause and effect. They refuse to acknowledge that, just as a ship needs a rudder to guide it thru the turmoil of wind and wave, so men need reason to guide them thru obstacles of life.
Consider: when a man commits a crime, apart from the proceeds of crime, what is the number one desire of this criminal? His first wish is that his crime is not detected. This translates to a wish that his victim be deaf, dumb and blind – that his victim has neither the capacity to detect nor to report a crime. A man without reason, or, a man who believes in nonsense, is the ideal victim – as he wishes others to believe any nonsense that will justify his crimes, so he will believe any nonsense that will justify the crimes of others.
The second wish of the criminal is that, if his crime is detected, he may avoid its penalty. Thus, as he wishes the booty of crime but not its penalty, he is happy to allow the same in others. The doctrine of forgiveness satisfies this wish.
When men pursue nonsense and forgiveness, they declare to the world that they wish to avoid penalties for their crimes. Men who take responsibility for their actions have no need of either nonsense or forgiveness.
Now, control is like any other human activity: it may be used properly or improperly. Control of a situation has at least two purposes: a) to suppress words or actions that might expose guilt or falsehood, or b) to coordinate efforts of many people so as to assure success, or efficiency, of a particular project.
How do we distinguish one from the other? The question of dissent is the determining factor.
If control is accompanied by suppression of dissent – or a refusal to hear opposing viewpoints, the control is aimed, particularly, at suppressing feelings of loss or guilt – generally, at protecting falsehood and suppressing truth. If control is accompanied with a policy of allowing deliberation of opposing viewpoints without penalty, control is used to assure success of a particular project – since deliberation may disclose methods that are more efficient, or discover new and better goals. Control without deliberation always institutionalizes error, and guarantees stagnation or a retrograde motion – whether we discuss a home or a nation.
This control without deliberation – some men call it, ‘intolerance’ – is a fundamental doctrine of every religion; and explains one of the monumental achievements of the Catholic Church as it produced a condition in Europe in the year 1400 of the current era that was culturally and economically worse than Europe’s condition a thousand years earlier.
To a civilized man, there is no such thing as forgiveness – only restitution.
When men seek to avoid responsibility for their actions, they abandon their reason, become inept, and must control every action and word in their environment. Here, we have all conditions for tyranny. In all societies and in all ages, a slave is a man without a will: the law does not permit a slave to exercise his rational capacity: he cannot execute a contract and he can appear neither as party nor witness in a court of law; he is a kind of talking property and, thus, cannot own property; and all his actions must be directed by a slave owner: that is, he must obtain permission (thru a license or permit) before he can act. If he commits a crime, his owner is held responsible for the penalty, who is free to transfer the penalty to the slave.
And so, a suppressive person possesses all the characteristics of a slave: where he is a victim, he is denied a reasoning capacity; where he is a perpetrator of crime, he desires such a condition. The suppressive will naturally wish to be treated as a slave. He is a slave by choice; and, to make his slavery less shameful, he will wish that mental derangement, ineptitude and indolence be described as morally superior to intelligence, competence and industry. And, he will give his loyalty to every tyrant or liar who gratifies his wishes. By this loyalty, he will kill to obtain his place among the lower animals; and he will die there rather than pursue the ideals of freedom.
For, you see, it is easier to hold men in slavery if they desire the conditions of slavery. This is one of the verdicts of history; Will Durant expressed it adequately, “Notions of heaven and hell liberate the king’s militia from the time-consuming supervision of cattle.” Thus, while a thousand slaves can be kept in slavery by two hundred soldiers, fifteen thousand can be kept in slavery by one priest. Furthermore, every soldier is a potentially deadly enemy to tyranny if he should ever develop, or discover, a sense of justice. These facts make religion the favored instrument of terror for every tyranny that has ever existed. See Durant, i, 504.
Since suppressive people zealously seek to exercise totalitarian control over their environments, they will readily submit to the tyrant who promises to keep them in a respectable condition of mental derangement, ineptitude and indolence. Suppressive people will support even more the tyrant who promises to suppress, or eliminate, those people who exhibit qualities of intelligence, competence or industry; for these, by their mere existence, bring into sharp relief the ineptitude and derangement of the suppressive person.
Thus, the more men are driven, or encouraged, to avoid responsibility, the more easy it will be to keep a man in slavery – the more easy it will be to maintain a totalitarian society. On the other hand, if we wish to build a free society, we must encourage people to become responsible for their actions. In the former condition, they will zealously support a slave system; in the latter, a free society.
Furthermore, since the policy of avoiding responsibility necessarily results in self-imposed derangement and ineptitude – which are characteristics of a slave, men who operate by this policy will naturally choose leaders who will provide them with chains – and they will care not the name, or color.
The Role of Religion
God is the ultimate tyrant
Men are not naturally stupid: they have to be made that way. This can be done by two general means: by a variant of Operation Phoenix – where death squads roam city and countryside and assassinate men who display above average capacities for reason and justice; or, by poverty – where men and women by the millions live on a starvation diet. By this latter means, the starvation diet of women causes them to bring forth children whose brains are only partially developed – which translates to a life-long sentence of incurable stupidity for such children. While the former have a choice in the matter, the latter do not – and are not to be blamed.
A particular variant and less violent application of Operation Phoenix is the income tax. By this means, the law punishes men who “honestly” report their income and rewards those who “cheat” on their reporting of income: by this process, the former are relentlessly and automatically driven from positions of influence and power, and replaced by idiots and thieves.
All these methods are invariable consequences of societies dominated by religion. Such a conclusion has been documented by scores, maybe hundreds, of historians and philosophers. See Aristotle or Voltaire, Will Durant or Edward Gibbon, David Hume or Thomas Paine, John Locke or Algernon Sidney, for example. For the Biblical origin of the income tax, see my article, God-given Rights.
Men have known it for thousands of years: “Men do in a drunken state what they know to be wrong… religion is a sort of respectable and perpetual state of drunkenness.” See Aristotle, N. E., VII, 2 and 3. It is not necessary to repeat the works of better men. For those who want truth – conclusions based on facts of reality – it is readily available, in better words and more comprehensively than I could present. For those who hate truth, any effort to persuade them would be wasted effort; while we disprove one of their absurdities, they invent ten more.
It is the purpose of religion to make men stupid: to mutilate their brains so they will desire and support despotism. This is done by turning men’s natural sense of right and wrong upside down, by turning virtues into vices – friends into enemies.
The first step on the road to tyranny is a belief in some invisible witch doctor, commonly referred to as a god or goddess; the worship of this god or goddess is nothing more than a disguised neglect, or hatred, of this world: friends, neighbors, children. Men are first wheedled into believing this fiction when they are children, when they have no need of it – when they have no crimes to correct, or to conceal. The oppression of fathers by slave masters, however, will guarantee that such fathers will invariably abuse their children, and fail to correct such abuse. Since children are both helpless and ignorant of the factors that caused their injury, it is doubly impossible for them to correct the injury at the hands of their fathers, or mothers. Owing to the constant pressure of a conscience, it will eventually impel the child to senselessly, unpredictably, and uncontrollably commit an act of violence against someone who is weaker than he – a younger sibling or neighbor, or a pet. Now the child has to deal with painful memories of both conditions – of victim and perpetrator. Now the child will find a use for the doctrine of forgiveness – of allowing a crime to go unpunished.
From this point forward, it is better the child had never been born. If he has a generous regard for his friends and neighbors, he will spend the rest of his life as a long, tortuous and irresolvable conflict between his internal commands to live honestly, and his priestly-imposed belief that he must live by a religion that will punish him for his honesty. If his ethical system gives him no regard for his friends and neighbors, society will have to contend with another Stalin, Nero, or Caligula – and the millions that support such a beast. If the child eventually rejects the Satanism of priests, he will be eliminated from the society of human-looking beasts.
If we examine our history books – or the current face of the globe, we will see that wherever religion dominates society, there will be found every conceivable vice in great quantity: treachery, child neglect, sleaze, poverty, oppression, slavery, ignorance, intolerance – to name just a few. And we will wonder that the human species still survives.
The lesson should be obvious, if we want a society where men may live without the vice and sleaze associated with religion, every religion must be regarded as a satanic creed, and discouraged or penalized as such.
It is not something that we can do in a few years; on a global basis, it will take hundreds of years. All we can do now is to associate together and establish a few small enclaves in our current communities. The object of these enclaves should be to ethically isolate ourselves from those who insist on living by a Stone-Age culture. To do this, we need to establish trading networks for friends, and boycotts for enemies. By the first, we would be able to earn our living without supporting those who aim at tyranny; we could raise and educate our children without that same influence. By the second, we deprive enemies of our power. My book, The Lost Right, provides a history, the law and the technology for what we have to do to make men accountable and to secure our rights.
Timely, and related, pages,
Exodus #23, part 1: The story of the Exoduses from Russia and Ethiopia (1987-1992), as reported by The Los Angeles Times.
Exodus #23, part 2: The Biblical foundation for Exodus.
Fires that Cry: For thousands of years, Jews (formerly known as Babylonian merchants and priesthood) have been favored tax-collectors thru-out the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and beyond.
Turn Back the Clock. I’m 69 (in two months) but I have the health, vitality and body of a near-professional athlete, aged 25 to 35. I routinely have former pro and college baseball players tell me I would “do well” (a modest remark) if I played “men’s senior league”, a level of play equal to a major college. In other words, I’m living proof that people do not have to grow old; they can retain or recover the health and vitality of youth; they don’t have to suffer from arthritis, diabetes, kidney failure or any of hundreds of other ailments. Look what you’ll gain: more strength and a longer life to enjoy the adventures we all know are coming. You might even want to take part in them.
Is the Mortgage Crisis the Mother of Opportunity? The mortgage crisis revealed that those banks too-big-to-fail produced 50 million mortgages with seriously clouded titles. It produced a situation where no one could provide lawful authority to collect or foreclose on such mortgages. In other words, property law 4,000 years old had been violated on a national scale. So far, solutions require that bank shareholders, bank depositors, and taxpayers suffer losses -while those who engineered the crisis waltz away each with millions in plunder. What can be done about it – without creating a new class of victims? Please see the full article.