Acting in the defense and service of life is the opportunity given to all of us in this age, made possible because of previous generations participation in violent bloodbaths and revolutionary conflicts, as well as the magnitude of the times we are living in. The killing craze of governments and men in the last century will end in this century, which has yet to really begin, but we must not be totally critical of past men, who were led by lies into wars for profits by whores professing the words of prophets. The 20th century provided to poets and prosperity the grand tyrants of mankind as well as the feeble ones, from the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, to Roosevelt, Reagan, Thatcher, and Cheney. Concentrating our historical antennas on these personalities alone, however, is a mistake, because as we all know, their political rise would be impossible if it weren't for the shadow bankers and grand statesmen operating behind them.
WWII was much less the work of Hitler and Stalin than the financial inquisitors, whose necrophilia drove them to fund genocidal operations. But it is not as simple as no money, no wars. History is more complex than that. The quench for destruction is mightier than any power money wields. "The influence of men like Hitler and Stalin," writes Erich Fromm in his book The Heart of Man, "lies precisely in their unlimited capacity and willingness to kill. For this they were loved by the necrophiles." Still, rejection of war is not complete without rejection of the current banking system. At a much deeper level, it is important to understand how money organizes human capacity in our local cultures so that it contributes to growth rather than to decay. Influential minds in history, and in our own time, have given their talents and intellect to this objective and their ideas have won over many admirers. The most prominent example is economist Muhammad Yunus, and his highly successful creation, the Grameen Bank. Usury, the usurpation of power and justice by money, must be eliminated in order for fairness and freedom to triumph together.
Moreover, Fromm examines the characteristics of necrophilia and the indifference shown to life by people who possess death instincts, who withdraw from love and approach death and hate. All human beings, with the exception of saints, have necrophilous tendencies, Fromm says, but is not developed to the degree that is immediately recognizable in a figure like Hitler. Some of these characteristics are "the wish to kill, the worship of force, the attraction to death and dirt, sadism, the wish to transform the organic into the inorganic through order." The last characteristic is prevalent in our modern food system, where dead matter is force fed to live animals, which then is consumed by people who a) have no knowledge of it, or b) think it is normal.
The organic food movement is one of the most important quests in the world today, and the availability of non-mechanized food will only grow during the breakdown of society, barring a severe repression, which is more than possible. For the people to be victorious in the fight against tyranny in the food system, they must once again desire good food, and wish well of others and themselves. The revolution in all fields of life is not about hating tyrants or banking con-men but loving ourselves, our friends and families, our neighbors, and our lives. Not so much down with Goliath, but up with David. What good is it to square up against our enemies when we have not aspired to circle ourselves?
The pro-life, pro-choice debate in America sums up the contradictions of both liberals and conservatives. One side claims it is pr0-life in the hospital, but secretly yearns for a rapture - a rapture that aims for destruction more than anything else. The Christian right's apocalyptic fantasies are suddenly becoming more real, and their intention for an all consuming violence in the Middle East is also being realized. At home, their renunciation of sexuality and freeplay among the sexes is a false support for order of the family. They are the safeguard of family values in much the same way as the devil is the safeguard of hell. I understand family comes first above all else, and order in the family precludes justice and order in the society, however, true teachers and movements lead by example, not by discipline or preaching angrily at the world.
On the other side, the pro-choice-makers, must be aware that not bearing any contempt for women does not automatically put you on the right in every case of abortion. Instilling values for responsibility and sacrificing one's own future in the service of life should not be downplayed. When abortion is being conducted in a mechanical way, by doctors who operate like assembly line workers, can't we admit, without prejudice, that something is wrong? It is part of the culture of quick-fixes, that encourages people to avoid responsibility for one's actions. I see the need for abortion in the cases of rape, or unwanted pregnancy due to some type of abnormality, but our goal should be to minimize these occurrences.
Both sides have important points to make, and I am receptive to all the arguments because it is a complex situation. Although, I am not as knowledgeable on the subject I like to be, I am reluctant to dismiss the ethics of either side. One thing I am sure about, is avoiding any zealous promotion of one's beliefs over others, and that a central government should not be allowed to confiscate money from taxpayers who oppose any social program. This whole discussion shows that modern man must face up and solve these problems, with courage and uncertainty rather than pretending that future technologies and future men will solve everything. There is a humanist tradition in medicine that mus be brought to the surface, and hopefully it becomes more dominant than the current bureaucratic-influenced abortion.
The reason I bring this debate into this piece is because it relates to a point that Fromm made about modern industrial societies. Comparing America's corporate capitalism with the then Soviet Union's state-capitalism, Fromm remarked that what both systems have in common is "the bureaucratic-mechanical approach, and both are preparing for total destruction." After the break-up of the Soviet Union, death-rate among men had a dramatic rise, forcing observers to speculate on the biggest population decline in modern memory that didn't result from a war. So, although the bureaucratic muscle collapsed, the destruction of that society is still on going. Which brings us to the most important truth that should concern us tdoay, which is that in modern societies economic planning kills more greatly than a sustained conflict. Dependence on food is one of the flaws of an urbanized civilization, and not just any kind of dependence, but a dependence on bureaucratic or corporate power. Anywhere in the world today, dependence upon the state or the corporation for a livelihood means death in the long run. It is not ludicrous to suggest that without local independence, people will not survive in this century. Independence equals life. For humankind to persist happily, we must declare right now our love for life, justice, and independence. The aims of the necrophilic elite who desire death, and detest the abundance of life, must be challenged by our voices now, or never.
