Destructivism
The Path to Self-Destruction
Some sort of thinking process in action,
without trying to be too alarmist,
what is this existence all about?
Roland Michel Tremblay
44E The Grove,
Isleworth, Middx,
Tel: +44 (0)20 8847
5586
Summary
Used to
be ashamed of existence, of these words thrown out here and there for anyone to
read, and wondered for a while if it was necessary, essential, worth anything.
Of course, it depends on what one writes about, and how much suffering and understanding
have been added to the matter. There are blogs out there, novels,
entertainment, and perhaps philosophy, what deals with the existence, the
universe, the primary questions for which there will never be any answer. This
is how philosophy can be recognised, if there is no answer to the question.
This is what is being discussed here.
I hope
you understand that this book has no answer to offer, but might just help you
identify the real questions one needs to ask. Be wary of any ready made answers
you might get to these essential questions in life, wherever or from whoever these
answers might come from. I believe that in the end only you, on a personal
level, can answer for yourself any of the questions posed in this book.
If you
were to write a similar book one day, trying to answer what this life is all
about, I’m sure you would come up with totally different answers. Like me,
depending on how drunk I am at the time of writing, could certainly make a huge
difference from one day to another.
I feel
there might not be any ready made answers in this world for the main questions
the human race might wish to ask. And yet, I feel it important to ask those
questions and try to figure out the answers. I did it for myself here, you
might want to consider doing it for yourself as well. It could help us all in
the end.
Before I start, I need to remind myself about this most
fundamental question: what I write here, what it is that I feel about these
different topics, is it just what I think in the here and now, and tomorrow I
could write something else? I cannot deny that if I were to live another 50
years, and decide to rewrite that same book with the same titles, I would
definitely write a totally different book, just like it would have been if I
had written it when I was 18.
However,
I have to admit that I have been mostly consistent from the very first book I
have written to the last, I have rarely changed my opinion on anything. I have
written The Eclecticism almost 15
years ago, I do talk in there sensibly about the same subjects, and I still
think the same. I was re-reading it recently and suddenly realised that perhaps
writing the follow up that is Destructivism
was superfluous. Not so, this time it is in English, it is 15 years later, it
is to the point, concentrated, and I am also covering different angles, from
several frames of reference. Let’s face it, on any of these titles I could
write a full book, and yet I limit myself to a few pages.
Where I
am going with this, is that I can only write this book if I feel that this is
it, I’ll be dead before I finish it, and this will remain forever my thoughts
on these subjects. And yet, I say so little, it might as well just be a sort of
thinking process in action, without any purpose or sense of finality to it.
After writing 130 pages of this book, I suddenly got into
panic mode. What if what I am writing here is completely useless? Only once I
reached the topic of determinism, did I wonder, dear me, I better read on the
subject before I start talking bullocks and that it becomes too obvious. So I
read for a few days the equivalent of a book on so many different topics
related to determinism, you wouldn’t believe. As a result, yes, writing this
book is useless. You just need to visit Wikipedia on the Internet and read it
right there and follow all the hyperlinks. There is nothing I could add on determinism
that has not already been said. Not only that, encyclopaedias only give you the
general lines, and yet, it is already containing everything I was going to say.
Imagine what the hundreds of books from hundreds of philosophers from
Parmenides to Jean-Paul Sartre must be saying, then definitely everything has
been said on the subject.
So what is the point for me to write this book? Especially
when I cannot pretend that this is philosophy, when you compare this to proper
philosophy? I am, once again, an amateur, am I not? Am I just pretending to be
an author, but unwilling to do the research, the reading, the necessary work
and write a thesis on one particular topic?
Well,
this book is not intended to be philosophical in the first place, and I am not
writing it so it will get published and get some recognition. I know this won’t
be published, it is for my website and that is it. It is purely a need for me
to write it, the need to ask myself these questions and see if, for myself, I
can reach some sort of answers which will help my existential crisis. I could
be writing commercial stuff instead, but I cannot help it, I needed to write Destructivism.
Also, I
want this book to be accessible, understandable, not boring and sending
everyone to sleep by talking and talking about one specific subject for over
100 pages, after having read all the other authors and regurgitating here all
that they have said, and then adding my little bit to it.
I wish
now I had not read about determinism. I had something to say about it
before-hand, now, I’ll be lucky if any inspiration comes to me. And what I will
be writing now might no longer be my own ideas, no longer be simple or to the
point, it needs to take everything else into consideration. Spontaneity is
good, a thinking process in action, no more than a few pages on any subject
without any long term research, or else, I might just waste 25 years writing a
book I can write in a month.
And I am
not certain if after a long research and 25 years, this book would be any
better. It could be worse, because then I would be unreachable and you would
need a degree in philosophy to understand me. As soon as I would start to
mention the Compatibilists and the Libertarians in the context of Determinism,
that would be it, you would be lost. I would need to write another book on top
of my book just to explain all those concepts to you and what everyone else
said on the topic. And now you know why it would take me 25 years and why
philosophy bores you to death.
I hope
you will enjoy this light philosophy, enough to get you thinking about some
important questions that philosophy through the ages has been debating.
Fortunately for you, I ignored the whole branch about logic and the veracity of
arguments. Unfortunately for me, I will be such an easy target to anyone who
will try to find some holes in my arguments, that perhaps I should keep this
book for myself.
You will
find many contradictions in this book, and I believe it is all right. Because
human beings are full of contradictions, it is in our nature. Someone who never
contradicts himself is a liar and most probably adjusted his ideas and truths
to fit the whole of his logic, when in fact his logic might have been flawed
from the start. So sometimes I will believe in God, and some other times, I
will act like if I never met the guy, that in fact, I don’t believe he even
existed. I met Santa Claus though, many times, and I believe in Santa Claus.
The Eclecticism was
published in
Actually, they may be considered separate entities, it is just
that they are the only two books I have written in that style, sort of essays
about existence and the universe, their meaning and purpose. I understand I am
quite cynical and pessimistic, well, lucky you if your life is like a gentle
opened flower, mine is not.
Destructivism
The Path to Self-Destruction
If we have to work on an imperfect government structure, and
can only change a few things here and there, here are at least a few solutions.
I have observed politics in three countries in my short life,
United Canada,
I say “his”, because it is less often a woman who would act so
blindly against everyone else’s will. For that alone, I am willing to only vote
for women in the future, but I have met many power hungry women in position of authority
within my lifetime, and so, we can never be sure or safe. It is really a
question of transparency about who we do elect to power. Who are they truly
deep down, do we even get to really know, considering all the lies we are being
fed all the time?
I have never read Karl Marx or anything about communism or
socialism, for some reason when they came to my universities to recruit new
fresh minds, I never got on the boat. After my observations, I took several
courses in the philosophy of politics in University, and I guess I must have
read then about socialism, somehow it didn’t stick, I can’t remember anything
about it. I remember The Social Contract
of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke and most especially The Prince of Machiavelli. Now that this
is out of the way, that you know that I am no expert on the topic, like neither
anyone in politics if I may add, let’s see what I think of it.
I know that the American political structure was inspired by
Charles de Montesquieu who lived in
From an early age I always thought politics didn’t work. For
some reason, even though the process looked entirely democratic, we always
ended up voting for parties instead of people, and hence, we always seemed to
elect the wrong people. It has been my observation that it is quite rare that
someone in power will actually do what people actually want. It always ends up
in disaster, and sometimes we even re-elect the same horrible people, and no
one can understand why.
I’m not going to talk here about pettiness, like should we
separate
I simply want to talk about politics at its most basic
function and structure, because this is what I feel does not work and
ultimately fails us all. This is what can give the power to anyone to suddenly
create a world war or destroy an entire economy for the wrong reasons.
When I was a teenager, I always thought that one day I would
write a book about the philosophy of politics, and my classes at university
re-enforced my need to do so. However, up until now I didn’t feel I had all the
answers yet, in fact, I’m not sure if I have any at all. It is certainly not
the easiest topic to address, especially when I feel that a radical change in
the structure itself is required. I have however come to a few conclusions.
The idea of political parties needs to go. It is the most
outdated and impractical concept there ever was in politics. More so because in
this day and age, the line is so blurred between party lines, there is not much
difference if you vote for one or the other.
The only difference is a few main big ideas like being against
gays, against abortion, against women’s rights (should they remain at home and have
babies as their sole social role), should we give more money to big
corporations, should we give more money to the poor, and finally, the big
argument that cannot fail to win you an election: should we lower the taxes (as
if this was a question to ask anyone already paying 60% of their salary in
taxes of all sorts).
Now, these few main big ideas, which truly have nothing to do
with any political party, as for most of the time these will be completely at
the back of their mind and they will most probably do nothing or very little
about it, does not have to be the reasons why you vote for a political party.
These can be debated anyway by all the elected representatives. If you paid
more attention to the personal beliefs and ideas of your local representatives
instead of the political party you will vote for, you would know if the person
you’re about to elect will be a little tyrant and alienate you completely or
not.
That
little group of local politicians is really all you need to study in order to
vote, nothing else. By electing a political party, you most likely vote for the
representative of that party without knowing anything about who that person
truly is and what that person can truly do for you. Most of the time these
people are so powerless anyway, their elections are more like a formality for a
party to get into power, and then the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, or the
President and his few allies, take over the show.
So in
essence, you will be ruled by a very small group of people. And your local
representatives, you will know very little about, and they will be powerless
anyway, without a voice of any kind. You see the main problem which needs to be
addressed?
By
getting rid of political parties and coming back to basics, we will also
eliminate another growing concern in actual politics. Now parties are spending
so much money on their elections, it goes into the millions if not billions.
What does this tell you? That only rich candidates can now get into power.
Where do they get the money? This invites bribery, corruption, conflict of
interests, and now we’re destroying
No one
can now compete freely in the political arena. If I were to present myself
tomorrow as an independent, I will most certainly lose. If I were the
representative somehow of a political party, I could win, but all for the wrong
reasons.
And even
so, how would I go, myself, right now, to represent a political party in an
election? I have no clue. I would probably not be accepted, they wouldn’t want
me. They already have a clique of hungry and greedy little friends who have
been in politics since forever, who will most likely be their representatives
in my own county when they probably don’t even live in my county.
So first,
eliminate political parties. Second, eliminate the right to publicise in any
way thinkable political ideas and representatives. No one should ever be
allowed to accept money from anyone or any corporation for a political
campaign. No one should be able to win an election simply by injecting billions
into a PR and publicity machine. It is too unfair.
As soon
as you hear one guy on the radio or the TV talking about this or that, no
matter what he talks about, you are probably very likely going to vote for him,
because you will recognise his name on the election ballot, when the others
will seem not to even exist. What’s a name after all? I won’t even talk about
negative publicity in order to destroy one’s opponent, a common practice
nowadays, where a divorce in the life of your opponent, is all you need to win
an election.
So now
that we have eliminated the political parties which elect the wrong type of
people, and that we have finally eliminated the big brainwashing publicity
machine that will most assuredly influence everyone to vote for this or that,
all for the wrong reasons, whilst preventing anyone without the money to be
heard, and so speaking destroying democracy, what do we do?
Simple.
Who pays for the publicity campaign? The government, meaning, and we forget it
all the time, the people pay for it. A few pages about each candidate
distributed locally to everyone, so we can find out about these people we’re
about to elect outside of party lines, and hopefully with the thought that they
can think for themselves, that they can be heard and that they can make a
difference. An hour here and there on local TV and radio, for each of them, space
available in local newspapers, all paid by the people. Cheaply done, no more
millions and billions spent on politics and publicity machines. It must remain
at a local level, never national. As soon as a political election is national,
it defies democracy, it elects the wrong people.
So now
that the elections are over, and that people have won for the right reasons,
without being a drain on the economy, without bribes and corruption, who’s going
to be the leader? It has always been the leader of the political party who took
ultimate power, and the leader of the opposition being the leader of the second
most popular party. This needs new thinking.
Well, I
feel we need to work towards a more democratic process where no one is so
clearly an all powerful leader, capable to veto everything, or unilaterally
make decisions with huge impacts upon the country and the world. Either the
leaders are decided after the elections by the people you elected, or in
parallel you also vote for anyone who presented himself or herself specifically
as leader. The opposition should be everyone else in the assembly.
The idea
is that no one should win a seat in an election based on that one man or woman
alone who runs for President or Prime Minister, since all the representatives
should be independent. So no one will win for the wrong reasons, and no leader
will be capable of obliging half the government to vote on any new law or
policy. Following the party line will be something of the past.
In the
end, there should never be a strong leader in charge of any country or any
other government or council, or else, it eliminates the voice of everyone else,
and so, your voice. It cancels the idea of an election and of democracy. Only
after, should it be decided who is the leader, or independently from anyone
else. And that leadership should never be permanent for the whole mandate, it
should change every so often.
This
should not stop there. The ministers or whatever they are called in the
I suppose
I have not thought about all this as much as would be required, really. But
with my full time job I have no time to study politics and develop my own
philosophy of it. It will have to wait until I retire, assuming I won’t die
from cancer at an early age or die in the Third World War or a civil war.
However,
my little suggestions might just give us a better representation of what people
truly want. It will be more likely that the wrong people will not find
themselves in power that easily. It could get rid of corruption, bring back
democracy, and avoid costly elections. Overall, my few pages might just do the
trick. If that doesn’t work, we’ll have to re-assess the situation then. In the
meantime, it would certainly solve a few of the biggest problems I witnessed in
politics today.
Let’s
debate if we need political parties or not, and let’s find solutions, so we can
have a better democracy, or even, so we can have a real democracy.
It is strange that I wrote this whole book before addressing the one subject people are most likely to accuse
me of in time, the one of being an anarchist talking about anarchy. It did not
cross my mind to write about anarchy, because I never thought I was an
anarchist. I realise now that perhaps I am a bit of an anarchist in the closet.
People have accused me of being an anarchist because of the
title of my website, The Crowned
Anarchist, which ultimately was just the title of a book by Antonin Artaud,
the celebrated French author who died in 1948. His book was about a Roman
Emperor originally from
Being an anarchist, in my case, is like being gay. You know
deep down at heart that you are, that there is nothing you can do against your
nature, and that if that nature gets to be known, you will be ostracised by
everyone else, rejected, ridiculed and you are going to suffer the rest of your
life.
I am nevertheless suffering anyway, from a lack of freedom, a
lack of control in the decisions being made that concern me directly, from
these hierarchies everywhere present to which I need to bow down to and be
submissive.
To the point that I feel I am nothing less than a slave, going
through this life making the minimum of decisions, and then will go on without
any kind of freedom or control, and do exactly what all sorts of authorities
will tell me to do, at every single minute of my existence.
Be it the authority of parents, loved ones, teachers, managers
and directors, spiritual leaders, social workers, judges, probation officers,
police, political leaders through a myriad of laws and regulations. Add to it
CCTVs and cameras everywhere, and constant probing and recording of phone
calls, emails and the websites we visit, to insure that we no longer have an
impure thought that goes against their will. Anything can and will be used
against us at some point in time, while everything we do is being recorded, and
the time of reckoning seems to be getting closer every day.
At some point you do feel the need to explode and tell them
all to stop, that enough is enough! That we feel the need to re-assert
ourselves, to exist, to make a few decisions of our own, to do what we want to
do with this life and that a little breathing space would not go amiss in our
life. Do we even have the time to think anymore? Are we free collectively to
decide what we want to do, are we able to stop our leaders in their grand
scheme of conquering the planet at the expense of humankind, our very
existence? The obvious answer is no.
Anarchists seem to believe that we can have a real democracy,
that it seems that our actual government structures and corporate structures
are all against the very idea of democracy and giving the citizens the chance
to rule themselves and make their own decisions. If citizens truly had the
power to govern themselves, the world would be a different place today.
This is what anarchists are fighting for, whether they are
extremists or intellectuals who would never dream of picking up a cocktail
Molotov or even walk outside in any demonstration. And this is perhaps why I
never thought I was an anarchist, because neither of these definitions of
anarchy befitted me. I am not extremist, I am a pacifist. I am not an
intellectual who will go on to write clever articles about what this kind of
anarchist system might look like. I would first certainly give it another name,
because either way you take it, the word anarchist and anarchy are too heavy
for anyone in their right mind. For them it would mean chaos and the end of the
world as we know it, they would be afraid of the word itself, so I could never
really write an anarchist book. On the other hand, I cannot deny that at heart
I share many of their beliefs and, in my own way, I have been fighting for the
same beliefs and freedoms in all of my books.
The fact that you are witnessing your leaders suddenly openly
declaring a Third World War and lightning the seed of civil war as the only
mean to stop it, is very significant. It shows that with the actual structure
of our governments, these hierarchies, supposedly democratic, the leaders are
still capable of working towards their own interests, destroy an economy and go
on to achieve genocides.
The democracy we have right now does not work. A man is still
able to control the elections, make all the decisions, change all the laws
superseding even the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Human Rights
Charter, make torture legal, ignoring the United Nations, and go on to wreck
havoc in the world and bring about a global war. So, everything has failed once
again, and I wonder if we are not ready for a more radical change in our
structures and the ways we govern and organise ourselves.
Where have we gone wrong? What else could we do to change
this? Do anarchists, the intellectual ones, have the answer? They have provided
many alternatives to the kinds of established government structures and even
commercial company structures we have, where there is no more obvious leader
anywhere capable of taking over the world and leash out his evil plan.
There could be groups or collectives being formed on a short,
medium or long term basis discussing democratically all the decisions to be
made, and collectively deciding on who will do what depending on the needs and
skills. And if there is to be a leader, it will be a natural one who can be
constantly questioned and replaced as soon as it seems that he or she is no
longer acting in the interests of the whole group or collective, as anyone else
and everyone else could take over just like that.
In an anarchist organisation, for example, there would not be
a board of directors or an executive board. No leader, just a bunch of people
on the same level voluntary meeting, discussing and making decisions as a whole
for the organisation or the collective. When someone would ask who’s in charge,
the answer would be everyone, free from any authority and coercive social
relations, no corporate structure with an elite at the top making all the wrong
decisions.
I do not intend here to tell you what anarchist ideas are all
about, I admit that I am quite ignorant of such things and I have read little
on the subject. I have read enough though to know that there are good ideas in
there, and that it answers a lot of why I have been living an existential
crisis from the day I was born. Under such a structure, I might have been
happier, I just don’t know.
I am not sure how realistically all of this could be
implemented in real life. There are many people incapable of functioning
without clear leadership telling them exactly what to do. They are quite happy
to go on living without ever making one decision. And this is fine, naturally,
even in some anarchist system or structure, they will be able to find that, if
necessary. There will still be natural temporary leaders.
But although it may seem unrealistic that such a structure
could become the norm, a lot of these elements could be incorporated in the
actual systems and structures in order to become smoother and more acceptable
to all, and certainly prevent other leaders from taking over the place and
serving their own interests above all the rest of us. Solutions will need to be
found one way or another, and at this point I am willing to look for
inspiration anywhere in order for us to gain more freedom and live happier
lives.
So I feel what anarchists is certainly worth reading,
considering and seeing what could possibly be incorporated, in default to be
able to change the whole system overnight.
Until at least our leaders destroy it all and that, after
another bloody war and a civil war, we are left with everything else to
rebuilt, aware of the mistakes of the past structures and systems. All
anarchists would be dead by then, and probably once again, all free thinkers,
all outspoken people against the governments, all gay people and all
immigrants. There are five good reasons for me to be eradicated. I will not
survive, that is obvious, and to be honest, I don’t really care that much. So I
might as well not be afraid to speak my mind and be ready to suffer the
consequences.
It is likely that even under an anarchist structure or system,
wars, corruption, and less desirable features plaguing our governments rights
now, would happen no matter what, as it does not appear that any government
structure can prevent them. Which is why that no matter which government structure
we have, we need to provide for a lot of ways for a quick change of leadership,
and that as soon as there is a bit of smoke, it is the time to act before it is
too late.
One can only dream that one day we will live under a real
democracy, and that we will finally govern ourselves for real, and that no
dictator ever could take over the world so easily while we are all too busy to
pay attention until it is right there under our nose and that we are all
powerless to stop it.
Is pure capitalism a religion we have taken too far? Pure
capitalism and pure greed to the extreme is now our only religion.
I feel it is difficult to speak of capitalism as a whole,
without falling in numerous traps and being accused of not knowing what I am
talking about. So first thing I did was to go on Wikipedia, then I stopped
myself. Don’t get me wrong, I will read it and say what I think of it, but
first capitalism must be, before anything else, what the people inside really
feel it is. Not the perfect book definition that we all wish it to be, because
in practice we know capitalism has evolved into something else, that many
consider a real monster and threat to humanity.
This point becomes clearer when we read Karl Marx and his
ideas of a perfect socialism, which in real life has been the breeding ground
of corruption and governments’ hidden agendas, who drove us all to utter
failure. I read a bit of Karl Marx a long time ago, I like to say I didn’t, and
yes, I was charmed by it. In reality, what I have observed of what we have done
in his name, has alarmed me so much, the only solution I could see was to
discredit the man, because no one ever again should use Karl Marx as any kind
of authority to justify the worst atrocities and injustices this humanity has seen.
I may talk more about this one day, right now I wish to define my own definition
of capitalism.
What is capitalism in your own mind? What is it in my mind?
Well, it is our new religion, it is all that we believe in. We claim it is our
way to freedom, the liberation of the masses, our chance to succeed beyond
measure at becoming filthy rich and powerful, no matter our background, our
education, our social class. Capitalism can be reduced to the American Dream.
In my total ignorance of what exactly is capitalism, I have to
say, yes, capitalism is wonderful! I want that chance to freedom, I want to
become filthy rich and powerful, I want to do what I want to do in this life,
nothing else. At this point I realise that I need to dig further. What else do
we believe it is?
Well, it is a system, an economic system upon which our
existence, our corporations, our governments base everything they think and do.
What it seems to be about is capital, making money, as much as one can, to the
detrimental of just about everything else in life. If the one at the top
prospers, we all prosper. A rich company will create jobs and should in theory
pay its employees well. The private sector is where capitalism is applied,
though even government agencies think in capitalist terms, and if there is a
way to make a profit in anything, we should certainly go for it and make tons
of money that could be re-invested somewhere else.
When I was child, my parents never had with me the big talk
about capitalism and what it meant. They never told me what was expected of me
in such a system. Haven’t they? They certainly pushed my sister and I to the
limits. We had to have a great education, we had to succeed at any cost and
attend the best universities, we had to become rich and have a great status in
this society, the best job one can hope for. Medical, law and engineering were
the only obvious choices available to us. However, in retrospect, they were
misguided. No one becomes rich being a doctor, a lawyer or an engineer. Poor
shadows of what capitalism truly means.
Capitalism means starting your own business and building it
until it becomes a huge corporation employing thousands of people worldwide in
some sort of wonderful perfect globalised world. Lawyers in
Perhaps capitalism should never have been applied in certain
areas of our society. There is no need to become extreme, like in the United
States, or we will eventually reach a point where everything will come
crumbling down to dust, as we are witnessing right now in the stock exchange
market and financial sector. Too much greed will be our downfall, just as it
has always been throughout the ages.
At its most basic definition, I think it is fair to say that
what comes to mind to anyone when we talk about capitalism, is this law of the offer
and the demand. Let’s forget here about advertising and marketing, forcing us
to wish for things we would never have thought we needed in the first place. We
live in a society of consumerism, highly materialistic in nature, where your
only goal in life is to acquire as many possessions and assets as you can, as
it is how you will be judged and respected in society. How much wealth you have
will define how great a man or a woman you truly are, your worthiness to exist.
This is what the meaning of life has been reduced to under capitalism, a game
of Monopoly, and I dare you to deny it. It is such a shame, as I do love to
play Monopoly on my Nintendo DS. I am a product of my generation, well, almost.
It’s okay, I am still not criticising capitalism that badly,
who knows, maybe it is the way to go. After all, what other system has brought
us anything better? None. Might seem a bit superficial, plastic, meaningless,
and so on, and on, and on. If one wishes to be the devil’s advocate in this
case, my God, that one could go on forever about how misplaced this whole
philosophy of life can be, and how more important stuff are actually… well,
much more important. Like, I don’t know, emancipation, happiness, finding a
meaning to our existence and figuring what is this place, the universe we live
in. Finding some peace about who we are and what we are supposed to do here, if
anything.
Freedom and happiness are still key to everything, we should
never forget that. I believe they tried to convince us that it was embedded in
the whole capitalism system. You are free to become a civil servant doing admin
for the rest of your life, or create your own business and become as rich as
your imagination and cleverness or shrewdness will lead you to.
Then, I suppose, capitalism only becomes a real problem to you
if you are just a civil servant with no thirst to becoming rich and controlling
the planet. Otherwise, wow, what a great life you can have, a real challenge
that will answer all your prayers, assuming you have totally espoused the capitalist
way of thinking. You might find later on in life that this was after all a bit
meaningless, but who cares. Whilst you were in the thick of it, it seemed
right, it was fulfilling, it was exciting, you can be proud of yourself and
your achievements, you certainly cannot be faulted for it, you will be envied.
In order to get a better idea about how great capitalism is,
we need to turn to our models and heroes of capitalism. I reckon, that should
be anyone who has made over a billion dollars and who took the time later on in
life to write his or her autobiography, or at least who have given us enough to
understand how they truly felt about it. Then, we also need to assess if they
have not simply continued to play the game and are not just telling us how
great and successful they have been. I mean, a real turn around to assess
exactly and honestly how they feel about it all.
I can think of two great examples, perhaps the greatest ever,
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. It does not matter who they are and how they made
it. If you do not know who they are, forget it. All you need to know is that
they made billions of dollars and build up the most successful corporations
this world has ever seen. And later on in life, they both seemed to have
suffered from some sort of existential crisis, and realised that perhaps life
and our values were not all that they should have been.
So now they have decided to turn the table around and help the
world with their fortune, by squandering their money away to every loser on the
planet who has never heard of capitalism or cannot even dream to ever find out.
The people who most probably suffered greatly at the hand of capitalism, since
no system ever could sustain itself without exploitation of others and some
sort of slavery in the form of cheap labour. Capitalism is not the exception
here, I’m afraid.
So, what do we learn from Gates and Buffett? That capitalism
is great indeed, but that it is not all there should be, and it should not
become a religion. That a good balance about everything in life might actually
bring more freedom and happiness. Greed is eternal, as the Ferengi Commerce
Authority would say, but there comes a point when it simply becomes meaningless
and cannot serve to justify one’s entire existence or course of action, and
certainly should not be the main principle upon witch the whole of humanity
should be based. Greed is not eternal after all in the Divine Treasury after
death. We should welcome entering the Vault of Eternal Destitution at any time,
as a sign that we figured it all out, what life is actually really about, which
cannot be a Blessed Exchequer. At least, I refuse to believe it.
There are other models that we need to study. The ones born
and brainwashed into the capitalist system, driven to madness with this desire
to succeed at any cost, and who simply cannot make it. Ruined existences, by an
impossible desire responsible for a large percentage of the depression and
suicides in our society. It is a fact that, though we have produced time and
time again generations of people driven to succeed in such a system, it is
clear that only a very small percentage can actually succeed.
Is the hope of succeeding and freeing oneself, enough to
sustain such a system? Or is it time to wonder if our values are completely
misplaced and that, how we define success and ourselves in society, has to
change? Excellent question, you can ponder over that one to your heart’s
content, especially if you are a failure and worth absolutely nothing, which
statistically speaking, I’m sure you are.
Capitalism is certainly better than the previous feudal
system. Ironically, we could say that capitalism was sort of invented and made
popular in
Capitalism has a better track record than socialism, and is
clearly the winner over any kind of form of communism we have observed in this
world. I am however Canadian, and
Some American States have become a bit more socialist in time.
In conclusion, I won’t read the entry of capitalism on
Wikipedia. I don’t feel the need to bore myself to death. I think I said all
that I felt the need to say on the topic. Capitalism and socialism are what we
think they are, what we make them to be. Yes, I am charmed by Karl Marx and his
ideal world. I am also charmed by capitalism. There are also many ideas coming
from the anarchist front which I believe are worth integrating as well. However,
history tells us that economic systems taken individually, do not work and lead
to abuse and unhappiness. Driving a system to any sort of extreme is our only
problem, as I believe we already have all the solutions on the table. Extremes
have always been our downfall. A perfect mix of capitalism, socialism and
anarchism is the answer, eliminating any kind of extreme in between. That might
bring the sort of freedom and happiness I’m sure we are all looking for, the
real meaning of this existence, no matter in which system we live in and the
religion we believe in. In people we trust, and nothing else.
Bush/Cheney “Dictator’s
and Psychopath’s Checklists” Complete
I believe we are all aware now that George W. Bush is a
psychopath, with a personality disorder characterized by chronic immoral and
antisocial behavior. His mental health problem will be his only defense if the
War Crime Tribunals catch up with him one day.
I will go through his "psychopath's checklist"
later. Keep in mind that his full political agenda has not yet been entirely
played out, and before it is over, George W. Bush will certainly present a
perfect case of a full-fledged dictator. We still have the time to stop him,
but we won't for much longer. So let's explore what is really happening.
The following George W. Bush and Dick Cheney "Dictators'
Checklist" was gleaned from many websites, but is not exhaustive, and goes
something like this:
1) A leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of
personal power,
2) The power to make laws without effective restraint by a
legislative assembly or a Constitution,
3) Cult of personality/megalomania (like when someone states
that God has spoken to him and told him to go to war, or when a leader portrays
himself as the symbol of patriotism),
4) Head of the military, association with the military and
wearing a military uniform (which Bush did),
5) Repression of political opponents and others without
abiding by rule of law procedures or moral and ethical code (threatening and
succeeding in shutting up one's opponents, Bush has been highly successful at
this),
6) Rule by decree (losing the elections and yet proclaiming
oneself the ruler),
7) Proclamation of a state of emergency to further one's
agenda (9/11),
8) Suspension of civil liberties and spying on its own
citizens (several terrorist acts, being able to imprison and convict people
without due process, use of torture),
9) Control of mass media (Fox Network at the very least, and
probably most of the mass media since they are all so quiet about all this),
10) Suspension of elections following a large scale false
flag/government sponsored terrorist event and declaration of martial law.
As you can see, everything has already been accomplished
except for the last item: suspension of elections through a state of emergency
and declaration of martial law. Wikipedia states that modern dictators have
usually come to power in times of emergency, and so we can certainly expect
that someone as desperate as George W. Bush must be planning another state of
emergency to fully establish his dictatorship. Bush's emergency is entirely
predictable and likely; it is just a question of time, months at most, probably
weeks.
One could even argue that elections have already been
suspended for two elections, through cheating in
However, the worst is still to come, because it is the final
act before absolute dictatorship, and, it is the only way George W. Bush and
his partners in crime will be able to remain in power past November, '08.
Hence, we already have a dictatorship, albeit not an absolute one, and it is
time to impeach the dictator and his associates before the war agenda against
us is complete.
I don't pretend to know all about psychopathic behaviors and
dictators, and perhaps it is a good thing, because as a layperson, I speak
about it in terms that can reach the collective consciousness. These topics are
highly important right now; unfortunately, the experts are only able to write
about it in terms that limit their discourse to other experts. So they speak
together in that language no one can understand, and ultimately they forget to
raise the alarm when a textbook case of a psychopathic dictatorship shows up in
the world and is about to enslave us all. Let's raise the alarm for them.
George W. Bush psychopath's checklist is borrowed from Dr.
Robert D. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist. Of course, no psychopath is going to
exhibit all of those symptoms; however, the more symptoms you exhibit, the more
psychopath you are. It is important to understand that most psychopaths are
pathological liars and are quite capable of presenting a convincing mask of
sanity (the title of a book by Hervey Cleckley, M.D.). In the cases of George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the masks have fallen and there is enough data to
prove that most of these factors apply to their psychopathology:
Factor 1: Aggressive narcissism: 1) Glibness / superficial
charm, 2) Grandiose sense of self-worth, 3) Pathological lying, 4) Cunning /
manipulative, 5) Lack of remorse or guilt, 6) Shallow. 7) Callous / lack of
empathy, 8) Failure to accept responsibility for own actions, 9) Promiscuous
sexual behavior.
Factor 2: Socially deviant lifestyle: 1) Need for stimulation
/ proneness to boredom, 2) Parasitic lifestyle, 3) Poor behavioral control, 4)
Lack of realistic, long-term goals, 5) Impulsiveness, 6) Irresponsibility, 7)
Juvenile delinquency, 8) Early behavior problems, 9) Many short-term marital
relationships, 10) Revocation of conditional release.
I will not develop every single point of these checklists;
this is only meant to be an overall idea to give us some hints about who we are
dealing with. I am certain you are already aware of most events and how they
apply to each item of the checklists. In their case, it is clear, it all leads
to psychopathy and dictatorship.
What needs to be assessed is how such psychopathic minds as
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, succeeded first in gaining power, second in
achieving so much destruction without being stopped by anyone, and third, why
it is so difficult to get rid of them now that we are all aware of where the
events are leading us.
Where their policies and decisions are leading us can be
resumed to: suspension of most freedoms and liberties including the freedom of
speech and privacy, the abandonment of the democracy and of the Constitution,
the destruction of the environment and of the economy worldwide, famines, the
construction of over 800 concentration camps that we know of in America, a
dictatorship, genocides, a world war, and so on. All of these are in an
advanced stage or have already been accomplished. There is no doubt now of
where Bush and Cheney are leading us.
How indeed were they able to achieve such a feat on the land
of the free, being able not only to shut the media down, but also the
scientists and even their political opposition. Is it a reign of fear, of
terror, or are they all collaborators of the tyrants? Excellent question.
So much has been said about how Hitler was able to get into
power and achieve his dictatorship, whilst the Germans were simply sitting back
and letting it all happen. Were they all guilty, you have asked? More so about
the French, and how cowardly they were according to so many Americans, because
corruption was running high at the top, and everything happened in the shadows
and so quickly. Before you knew it, it had already happened. Well, now you
understand. It is very much happening again, and we do not seem to be any more
capable in preventing any of it from happening than the Germans and the French
were. No, it can never be that easy to prevent such events. If it were, such things
would never happen in the first place, and unfortunately they do all the time
in the world.
Oh yes, the difference today is that we have the Internet, and
alternative media are still reachable using search engines (but not for long I
suspect). And if you are reading this, I'm sure you have read a lot more
already, and are fully aware of what I am talking about here.
I did a test at work recently. I asked my colleagues if they
knew that there was a big famine worldwide at the moment and that millions were
dying of hunger. I won't go into the reasons here, I'm sure you know all the
corruption and market manipulations that went on to create that state of
affair, including the World Bank Group's policies and the production of
Ethanol.
The amazing fact was that, most of my colleagues, had not even
heard of this global famine, and this is news that made the headlines on the
most important newspapers and television networks in the country. So how would
the main population know all about the intricacies of Bush's regime, I wonder,
with such a PR and propaganda machine running 24 hours a day on most media
worldwide?
So their plan for a dictatorship could easily still work. They
assume we are dumb and ignorant, and unfortunately I think they may assume correctly.
There comes a point though, and I believe that we have reached that point,
where we can no longer afford to be oblivious.
Such psychopathic minds don't know when to stop and they
always go too far, once they believe that they are untouchable. They may feel
that way, because legally no one can now stop them without a civil war, and
they know that much more awareness and organization would be required before
that happens.
In this case, witho