A contribution to â€œMut zur Ethikâ€ Congress, 30.08. – 1 09. 2002,
Feldkirch (Austria); published in â€œWorld Affairsâ€, vol. 7, no 2, New Delhi 2004; see also www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/2003/1531.html
During our meeting at Feldkirch we witness a kind of a â€clashâ€ of two opposing worldviews, opposing civilizations. In a broader perspective it is an expression of the thousands years old conflict between merchantâ€™s (in latinÂ neg-otium) and aristocratic (otium) approach to the world. On one hand we heard from senatorÂ Bob BarreÂ from United States that privacy, private security, and other Human Rights are wonderful inventions of our civilization, which we have to impose on all these â€œsavageâ€ societies, where an individual has no autonomy, and is fully integrated into his tribal, totalitarian structure. On the another we heard the voice of professorAkira MoritaÂ from Japan, arguing that Human â€“ and especially Childâ€™s â€“ Rights create a danger of crippling childâ€™s â€“ and than of manâ€™s â€“ psychological integrity. I will develop this last position, trying to show that the very formulation of Human Rights contributed â€“ and contributes â€“ to the criminal corruption of our Euro-American culture, which inexorably evolves it into a brainless, ever more malignant â€œhumanoidâ€ cancer.
Already 2,5 thousand years ago Greek philosopher Socrates argued that most destructive wars originate out of unhindered human greed. So, if our world is heading today towards a period of â€warm warsâ€ (the term of Alexander Zinoviev), we should expect that the principal cause of the oncoming geopolitical instability (and of easily predictable destruction of whole nations) is this, know already in Antiquity, unlimited human cupidity.
Is this cupidity â€naturalâ€ for the human species or it is something artificial, a kind of a product of life in an environment artificially enhancing the greed, considered by Ancients as one of capital human vices?
The answer to this question is trivial, and it is easy to demonstrate that in an environment, which continually tends to convince the population that to be a wealthy person is more advantageous than to be a proletarian, we have several times more thefts, acts of violence, bribery and other forms of corruption than in countries which praise the personal austerity. This simple observation suggests that the glorified at present â€liberalâ€ society is in fact an ill one, where the population lives under the overwhelming pressure of â€valuesâ€ which Ancients identified as Seven Capital Sins: the excessive consumption, jealousy, cupidity, sexual perversions, and so on.
These illnesses of the modern world are kind of automatic by-products of a collective drive to acquire the wealth, which in the Western Civilization has become the ultimate goal of Humanity. In particular we have a more than two centuries old work of Adam Smith â€On Richness of Nationsâ€ glorifying the â€Invisible handâ€ which supposedly helps to realize the prosperity of all, market oriented, nations. But who in fact is getting enriched at the market and in particular at its finest emanation called the Stock Exchange?
On one hand we have detailed theories how the market forces work, and on the another one we have a practical â€methodâ€ which makes merchants fabulously rich, creating at the same time the misery of both producers and consumers. This market practice remains usually in a shadow, Noam Chomsky writes that to speak about financial conditioning of the human behavior is singularly not PC (Politically not Correct). However without an insight how The Market â€“ which is an â€idolâ€ of Western Society â€“ works in practice, we will not be able to situate the criminogenous fallacy deeply rooted inside the Western System.
Being, from the initial training, a person specialized in natural sciences, I have only a very little experience both in the theory and the practice of the market. But one thing has become intriguing for me. In 1980-ies, as a members of Polish Himalayan expeditions, we used to bring back to Poland from India few dozens (together up to 5 kg of the legal limit) of womanâ€™s cotton skirts, which we were than selling at popular markets. At that time of scarcity of cotton products in Poland a friend of mine, much more experienced than me in market practices, told me that I cannot sell these dresses at the prize lower than 5 times the prize Iâ€™ve paid for them at the Old Delhi market. Otherwise I will not be accepted by â€the micro-communityâ€ of Indiaâ€™s cotton sellers in Warsaw. And in fact, after only few hours of marketing of less than 5 kg of womenâ€™s skirts of low Indian cotton quality â€“ but of modish style and colors â€“ Iâ€™ve made a profit sufficient to pay the flight from Warsaw to Delhi and back.
Later, in 1990, when Poland has become a really â€freeâ€ country (and when our, previously frequent, expeditions to Himalaya abruptly ended) I heard from those former alpinists, who turned than to professional Indian Cotton merchants that they sell their merchandise in average at the price not 5 times but 10 times higher than the price they paid for it in India. And of course, in a â€free marketâ€ Poland they obtained the right to bring back from India not 5 kg but at least 500 kg of cotton products. (I heard that in France and Switzerland merchants sell Indian cotton for a price 20 to 40 times exceeding its value in India.) It means thatÂ the more â€freeâ€ the country becomes, the easier merchants enrich themselvesÂ â€“ and this we shall consider as a general rule: a friend of mine who “married himself” into a big orchard near Poznan, discovered that in â€socialistâ€ period of 1980-ies, he was selling to Germany cherries for 80 cents per kg, while now he can get for a kilogram only 30 cents, and he is seriously considering to end-up the production. In Poland of today commercial intermediaries have become so potent and so well organized that they feel free to impose practically any price they wish onto producers. Upon a closer investigation the so called â€free marketâ€ occurs to be a place densely covered by the â€invisible webâ€ of formal and informal merchants associations, all of them â€sucking the bloodâ€ â€“ to put my observations in terms common in Europe a hundred years ago â€“ of both impotent producers and artificially stupefied consumers. (The recent story of secret MAI treaty â€“ The Mutual Agreement on Investments â€“ which was supposed to give to transnational merchants the right to impose on national governments any concessions they wish â€“ was a rare case of revelation of the part of the â€webâ€ of underground commercial contracts, which control the everyday behavior of all of us.)
There is a very pertinent, zoological comparison of the behavior of informal (and formal) merchants associations to the hunting habits of a pack of wolves: these smart animals, while trapping the big game, â€˜without wordsâ€™, by simple nose touching, divide their roles in the prey encircling, fatiguing and finally killing. (It is interesting that this collective manner of hunting â€“ and than of feeding, when younger and weaker wolves are invited to participate in a feast â€“ was completely beyond the capacity of imagination of Charles Darwin. In his famous book â€Origin of Speciesâ€ he gave an example of the Natural Selection of a solitary â€œfastest and swiftest wolfâ€ hunting a deer â€“ and than consuming this deer egoistically â€“ during harsh winter conditions. In opinion of prominent zoologists, like Pierre-Paul GrassÃ© from France, the â€Origin of Speciesâ€ belongs to â€œscientific fairy talesâ€ popular in a society dominated by merchants, which pseudo-scientific literature create an impression of existence, in Animal Kingdom, of continuousÂ intra-specificÂ struggle. Of course such false, â€œbourgeoisâ€ understanding of Nature efficiently compromises efforts aimed at our liberation from terrorist grip of “merchantsâ€™ internationalâ€ .)
Already two thousand years ago an unwelcome Jewish prophet Jesus compared â€merchants of the Templeâ€ to a pack of â€wolves in lambskinsâ€, and accordingly to this understanding merchants were considered through centuries as most vicious and rapacious predators â€“ see for ex. Shakespeareâ€™s play â€Merchant of Veniceâ€. This attitude changed at present, but in the middle of 19 century the French publicist Maurice Joly (who at the age of 48 committed suicide out of misery), in an anti-liberal pamphlet â€Dialogue aux enfers entre Makiavel et Montesquieuâ€, ironized about the cognitive value of Montesquieuâ€™s well-known tractate â€Spirit of Lawsâ€. He observed that â€The Law is the pillage under cover of Principlesâ€. Such an unorthodox interpretation of â€˜liberal valuesâ€™ still exists among more educated â€“ and observant â€“ European intellectuals, few years ago the English writer John Berger remarked, in a feuilleton published by â€Le Monde Diplomatiqueâ€, that the commercial establishment of Great Britain two centuries ago consisted of â€small gangstersâ€.
In recent years, after large scale terrorist bombings â€“ first of Yugoslavia, than of WTC towers in New York, than of Afghanistan â€“ we shall be aware that â€small gangstersâ€ of the early 19 century evolved into BIG GANGSTERS of today, ready for a conquest of the entire Planet. As authors of the most spectacular events of September 11 in USA are considered, true organizers of this â€scoopâ€ still remain in shadow. As observed it Andreas von Buelow (see â€Zeit-Fragenâ€ of January 27), only children and utter idiots can believe in the official version of the spectacle shown to us than at TV (to point at the book â€Wut und Stolzâ€ â€“ The Fury and Pride â€“ written recently by Italo-American publicist Orlana Fallaci).
But who are authors of this magnificent show of hightech demolition of Manhattan highest skyscrapers? On a website rumormillnews.net one can read the conclusion of a meeting of about 200 American pilots of military and civil aviation, who agreed that â€all this was choreographed at the distance from an AWACS plane, (…) which demanded the complicity at highest levels of the Government, of the Army and of Secret Servicesâ€. Moreover, at the wsws.com webside we can find information that the war against Afghanistan was prepared in secrecy well in advance, as the â€joint ventureâ€ of New Russian and Old American governments.
Wherefrom originates this enthusiasm of â€New Russiansâ€ for a narrow military collaboration with the old Soviet arch-enemy? â€New Russianâ€ oligarchs, which control the Putinâ€™s government, only a few years ago robbed â€“ i.e. â€privatizedâ€ â€“ fabulous riches of the former Soviet Union, and now they fear, with justice, that the wave of â€national-Bolshevikâ€ revengism will deprive them of their super-wealth. So it is evident that New Russians are â€natural friendsâ€ of Old Americans, especially of these ones which control numerous foundations (not only this one of Soros, but also of Ford, Carnegie, Marshall and so on), which fundations are well rooted at present into overt/covert structures of Moscow and Petersburg business circles. In the last decade they advised selected â€Russiansâ€ how to profit of pierestroika, and surely they will not leave their new friends in Russia defenseless in case of a new wave of â€Bolshevismâ€.
The massive â€privatizationâ€ â€“ i.e. robbery â€“ of the wealth belonging previously or to the King (or State) or/and to village communities (so called â€commonsâ€) began in England already during the First Industrial Revolution, and on the Continent massive â€privatizationsâ€ reached their apogee during the French Revolution, more than two hundred years ago. At that time proud â€Declarations of Human Rightsâ€ were conceived both in France and in North America and it is not a surprise that these boastful â€declarationsâ€ were in a large extent intended to legalize… the theft of the previously common (and regarded as â€sacred nationalâ€) riches. The French â€DÃ©claration des droits de lâ€™homme et de citoyenâ€ of 1798 states for example in its article 2 that â€These (human) rights are equality, freedom, security and propertyâ€, which clearly indicates that previously, during the feudal era, the private property was not considered as sacred.
Once the private property has become a â€sacrumâ€, all efforts to acquire it, previously considered as immoral, have become â€sacredâ€ too. With the industrial revolution the greed began to be considered â€naturalâ€, thus leading to a rapid, characteristic for early capitalism, pauperization of suddenly deprived of their means of subsistence village masses and to the incredible enrichment of bourgeois, commercial â€clansâ€. The criminogenous influence of these famous â€Human Rightsâ€ we can see also today, especially in Yugoslavia, which country was bombed â€“ in the name of Human Rights â€“ by NATO aviation, seeking to demolish especially these factories, bridges, schools, broadcasting stations and hospitals, which until the very end of 20 century remained the Yugoslav state property.
During the 19 century especially one philosopher, at present quickly forgotten in all recently â€won to capitalismâ€ countries, insisted on dangers hidden in elaborated at that time â€Human Rightsâ€. Analyzing the mentioned above â€DÃ©claration des droits de lâ€™hommeâ€ he remarked that in its Article 6 the â€˜freedomâ€™ was described as â€the possibility to make everything, which do not limits rights of an another manâ€. According to him this means that â€limits within which one is aloud to move are settled like a border between two fields, by a balk. Here we have the freedom of a man considered as an isolated monad (…) The right to freedom is not constructed on bonds one has with others, but to the contrary, on â€fencesâ€ isolating him from others. (…) The practical application of the right to freedom is the right to private property (…) which in fact is the law of egoism (…) In the light of â€Human rightsâ€ a man is not considered as a being belonging to a species (…) and the only bond which links him with others is the (economic) necessity, the private interest, the will to maintain his ownership and his egoistic person. (…) In the civil society (â€Burgerliche Gesellshaftâ€) man considers others to be only tools, and degrades himself to the status of the tool, becoming thus an object of play of forces which are alien to himâ€.
Putting the opinion of this philosopher in a most concise way,Â by execution of Human Rights we create the despotic regime of â€men-toolsâ€, i.e. of slaves. (In a classic Aristotelian definition, a slave is a â€living toolâ€, which do not acts driven by an endogenous motor hidden in him, but is acted upon, by exogenous circumstances. This ancient definition of servus-slave fits very well the description of the modern, greed motivated politicians, businessmen, scientists, prostitutes and gangsters)
These â€living toolsâ€ â€“ i.e. adult men whose behavior depends from external to them forces â€“ are accustomed to act out of their limited, commercial self-interest, and thus they are trained only to promote tools (mechanical gadgets and tool-like mechanical human behaviors) in all most remote places of the Planet. This is a very evident â€missionâ€ of the Western Civilization, beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Simply, in our Judeo-Christian culture inanimate objects of worship â€“ in particular the Bible â€“ have become a kind of â€inanimate Godâ€ for very simpleminded people. And in the name of this â€inanimate Godâ€ of religio-economic refugees from Europe, were done all these savage exterminations of â€non Christianâ€ civilisations, in particular of American Indians a dozen of decades ago. This process of â€civilizationâ€ â€“ i.e. of a total mechanization of human behavior and of human environment â€“ is not going to stop by itself. As in the case of child development, various unpleasant stimuli â€“ evidently trespassing â€fencesâ€ set by Human (and Child) Rights â€“ are necessary to grow a fully matured personality, free to trespass the level of childish egoism, which is so characteristic for the Anglo-Saxon, â€Darwinianâ€ bourgeoisie. (If one is not conscious what this artificial â€fencingâ€ of human individuals means, I will recall that our own, normal mammalian cells, when they remain â€“ for whatever reasons â€“ isolated one from another for a long time, they develop a tendency to turn into â€egoisticâ€ and â€economically enterprisingâ€ cancerous tissue.)
Without trespassing of imposed by â€Human Rightsâ€ limits of human contacts, no maturation of human behavior is possible â€“ this states explicitly the Jean Piagetâ€™s psychological theory (and practice) of child development. Otherwise our elites â€“ and controlling them, in a feedback, popular masses â€“ will continuously consider the world â€not yet Americanizedâ€ (it means, not yet privatized) as the World of Evil. This ill, â€childishâ€ imagination was in the past the very source of all bestialities committed by Americans: from the extermination of Indians to bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden, and most recently, to destruction of Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. As the each modern war helps to perfection the â€gadgetryâ€ used by weary for their safety â€commercial warriorsâ€, so unending wars against the â€outer worldâ€ have become one of most juicy American businesses. As ironized Bob Djurdjevic, the author of an interesting website truthinmedia.org â€the real American NWO mantra is â€perpetual war for perpetual commerce,â€ not â€world peace through world trade,â€ as the globalist leaders claimâ€.
At present the American Government openly pushes for â€la lutte finaleâ€ â€“ â€the ultimate warâ€ â€“ against a handful of nations, which until now refused to obey to orders of Global Investors. Moreover, this drive â€to clean the earth from God damned peopleâ€ has the support of a substantial majority of American population, especially in so called â€Biblical Beltâ€ of southern mid-western states, from Florida to Texas. But what will be achieved once these plans â€of a Creation of a â€˜New Earthâ€™â€, in agreement with prophet Isaiah 2,5 thousand years old hallucinations, will be achieved? Already in 1912 the Polish philosopher Henryk Elsenberg, during the first wave of globalization, wrote: â€One would not have a chance to escape from United States of the Earth. The man who thinks independently is condemned to extermination in such a super-state, and this without a hope. A Mankind divided, is a purgatory for a thinker, but the Mankind unified would be a hell without escape from it. (…)Â The catastrophe of unification means the generalized tyranny and generalized death (of human faculties to reason).â€
Ninety years later, at the period when the second wave of â€planetary unificationâ€ is reaching its full swing, we should be additionally conscious that such â€unificationâ€, done in a manner professed by our highly polluting â€merchants-warriorsâ€, in only few decades would change landscape of our homelands into an enormous garbage heap. What kind of a remedy against this, known since millenaries, â€illness of civilizationâ€ we can think of? I will recall only that in a small, usually neglected by the Church, episode related in the Bible, we have a scene of Christ flagellating â€“ against their Human Right to live in security â€“ Merchants of the Temple. And that the name of the 19-century philosopher, who discovered that in a commercial â€Burgerliche Gesellschaftâ€ men consider others to be mere tools, and degrade themselves to the role of a tool, was Karl Marx. He made this comment on the essence of â€Human Rightsâ€ in an excellent essay â€Zur Judefrageâ€ published in Deutsch-FrancÃ¶zisch Jahrebuch of 1844.