 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 13: Crimes Against HumanityIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
Crimes Against HumanityThis is not a list created by any legal criteria. Nor is it based on right-wing or left-wing ideology etc. This is merely based on the effects of actions of groups on other large groups of defenceless people. It shows that the term ‘crimes against humanity’ is subjective just like our morals and values are. The reason I state the above is because we see ourselves as being just and civilised, but our view of justice and our evaluation mechanism is always controlled by the UT Instinct and therefore totally subjective. There are actions which we take for granted and yet which should be considered as being crimes against humanity. This section could also be read in the context of circumstances and opportunity. No doubt I have left out many situations which are terrible, and should have been included, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Tobacco IndustiresThis is an industry which, for a lengthy period of time, knew that the products they were making were directly detrimental to the health of millions of people; causing throat cancer and cancer of the lungs to mention just two of the many negative effects. Not only did they not reveal this information but they actually covered it up and employed public relations people to disseminate a defence, and to attack those who pronounced the threat which cigarettes had on the health of those who smoked. They even paid people in the medical ‘profession’ to lie to the public and tell them that smoking was not harmful. But, to make matters even worse, these same tobacco companies actually hired advertising companies to ‘fool’ the people into believing that smoking was attractive; that smoking made one more content with life; that smoking would make one part of the crowd; that smoking would make one successful. When tobacco advertising was banned in some countries they did their best to advertise in other ways eg getting people to smoke in films and on television programs, sponsoring sports, etc. The tobacco industries and the advertising companies knowingly and purposefully try to get young people to start smoking - yet with the knowledge that this is harmful to the health not only of the smokers but of those who passively smoke (in the company of those who smoke), and that this is a very difficult habit to break once a person begins to smoke. Huge amounts of advertising budgets are spent each year enticing the young and gullible into starting something which is nothing but destructive to themselves. How many people have died as a direct result of smoking? Millions. How many people's health has been severely affected by smoking? Millions. How many people see these companies, these executives, the advertisers, the grubby politicians who promote tobacco, as committing crimes against humanity? Are the executives and directors of the tobacco industries, cigarette companies and advertising companies seen as ‘evil-doers’? Are they shunned by society? International BanksLending, with fair and just interest rates, would seem, on the face of it, to be an acceptable form of financial enterprise. The main point here in this sub-section, is that of international banking, - the lending of money to 'countries' - or more importantly ‘leaders’ of countries (I use the term bank to denote any lending institution, company, or country). First, we need to be able to see this situation in a truthful light, and since humans has difficulty with objective truth I will begin with a simple scenario. There is a prison, run by the Hightribe, the inmates are the Lowtribe. The Hightribe warden borrows money from a bank. He squanders the money on himself and his tribe. When the going gets too ‘hot’ he packs his bags and the remainder of the money and moves to a different prison where he retires with his ill-gotten gains. The bank tell the inmates of the Hightribe prison that they lent the warden a vast sum of money and that it is the inmates who are obliged to repay the loan. The absurdity of the situation cannot be hidden except from the most feeble minded person. This would be totally unacceptable on moral grounds and on grounds of natural (logical and rational) justice. The logic of the situation, for those who do not understand, is this. The warden borrowed the money. He was not representing the inmates. They had no say in the matter of the loan. They had no knowledge of the loan nor the purpose of the loan. In effect, and actuality, the loan was given directly to the warden for his own personal use. Thus, logically, and morally, it is his responsibility, and his alone, to repay the loan along with the interest. The inmates have no moral, or actual, responsibility whatsoever. The inmates should have no legal obligation to repay the loan whatsoever. This is simple to see. Yet in ‘real life’ things are different; very different. Financial institutions lend dictatorships and corrupt governments vast sums of money. The dictators, and corrupt governments, are not held responsible for those loans. The banks force the country, and thus force the people, to repay that original loan and all its subsequent crippling interest repayments. This is thievery on an international scale. These truly are ‘crimes against humanity’. When dictators make a ‘quick get-away’ when things get difficult in their country, or corrupt governments are overthrown, the politicians usually leave with vast sums of money hoarded away in banks around the world. Yet it is the poor ordinary people of that country who are forced to repay those loans. This is morally corrupt and objectively unjustifyable. For a bank to demand repayments from the people rather than the dictator, or corrupt governments to which they lent the money, is actually to have the attitude that a single person (dictator), or small group of individuals (corrupt government), can legally own the country and the people of that country. If that is so then they should publicly and officially make it known that this is their belief and conviction. Otherwise these countries and peoples do not have any obligation to repay any loan given to a ‘third party’ whether it be to a dictator or a corrupt government. These forced repayments by the poorest of the poor are actually causing misery, starvation, and death on a daily basis. Yet who accuses those banks of committing crimes against humanity? Are the bank executives, those who lent the money in the first place and those who demand immoral repayments, seen as criminals against humanity? Of course not! People starve because of repayments but it seems as if crimes against humanity are acceptable as long as it is BUSINESS. Bombing Of German Cities During WW2During WW2 the British and American airforces bombed German cities. In some cases the target was not some armaments factory or some military installation; its aim was to attack the general public - the civilians. The raison d'être was terror. In all truth they could be described as nothing but terrorist attacks. Dresden was bombed to the point it became a carpet of fires and destruction. One could take it that more people were killed during the attack on that city alone than were killed during the conflict in Kosovo on the 1990s. Yet no talk of crimes against humanity for the bomber crews and their superiors but plenty of talk about crimes against humanity with regard to Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies, likewise as regards other more modern terrorist attacks. Whether Slobodan Milosevic should be tried is not the issue here (written 2002). The point to understand is that the ‘us’ UT Group - in this instance the Allies - were the victors and therefore the dominant UT Group and therefore it was their laws which prevailed. Naturally enough they would, and did, justify those bombing atrocities and were not judged to be crimes against humanity. Yet, logically, they were as savage and as uncivilised as any other atrocity which was considered to be a crime against humanity. If the perpetrator is a member of the ‘us’ UT Group then it will not be seen as a crime against humanity. If Ariel Sharon, the present Prime Minister of Israel, was not considered by the USA as being a member of the ‘us’ UT Group, they would consider some of his activities as being crimes against humanity. To a certain extent Slobodan Milosevic is being tried, not because of any atrocities he may have committed, but merely because he is not considered a member of the American and British ‘us’ UT Group. A show trial can be a show trial even if the individual accused may have had a part of some atrocity which was committed. Selective justice is, in itself, an injustice. In effect the Nuremberg trials after WW2 were show trials. The Allies had a lot of atrocities to explain and defend, but the victors and dominant UT Group never have to stand trial - they are the judges! The act of bombing innocent civilians whether it be Dresden or the Twin Towers is always judged subjectively. Were the bomber crews seen in the same light as the Islamic bombers - by those in the West? Of course not! Also the Allies wanted to entice all the scientists and other ‘qualified’ Nazis to come and work for them and so they were never tried for their crimes. One could say that the only Nazis who were tried were the ones the Allies had no use for. A very strange notion of justice. A very subjective notion of justice. Armaments IndustriesIf one considers this industry in a true light one could describe it as a gathering of human beings with the sole objective of designing better and faster methods of killing more people. Yet this activity is actually seen as being absolutely normal. For human beings this activity is actually normal - it is the nature of our species. The only time we are really astonished, appalled and horrified by conflict is when some of ‘our own’ are killed. Then, to make matters worse, if they could be worse, these armaments are sold to dictators and corrupt governments which use loans of vast sums of money, for which the people will have to repay in the long run, and usually these weapons are used by these dictators and corrupt governments to subdue the people so that the people are victims twice. Because of the huge profits within the armaments industries it is not unknown for large bribes and backhanders to be used regularly. The armaments industry is one of the largest industries in the world. The profits are enormous but go to the very few. The pain and suffering cause by these armaments is immeasurable - in the millions, tens of millions and hundreds of millions. The very few gain hugely and the very many suffer hugely. Why is this type of activity not seen as crimes against humanity? Because those at the top decide what are crimes against humanity and those at the top get all the profits and backhanders. Business is business. Banana RepublicsBig business controls the United States and runs its government. When countries in South America (and other continents) elected governments which intended to nationalise certain industries which were owned by American companies these businesses ‘persuaded’ the USA government to actively participate in the overthrow of those democratically elected governments. Dictators, and (puppet) governments, who were pliable to the ‘American way’ were installed and both the USA military and intelligence agencies helped, by training and supplying both financial and military aid, these corrupt dictators and governments to maintain power by killing and torturing those who opposed them. The USA were directly connected with those ‘governments’. Yet when terrorists planted a bomb on board that plane which exploded and crashed into the town of Lockerbie the USA government demanded justice. To the USA this killing of a few hundred Americans (as compared to the many thousands of people around the world killed by the actions of the American government) is seen as deserving retribution. They cannot see that the American nation has committed terrible crimes and atrocities, even crimes against humanity which they should be called to account for. The killing of the ‘them’ is never, never, never, seen as similar in savagery and atrocity and barbarism as the killing of the ‘us’. It is not the case that America are hypocrites - it is just that they are human and the dominant UT Group, the Hightribe - thus, killing an American is not equivalent to killing a ‘foreigner’. One example of just how biased humans can be is the relationship between America and Cuba. Cuba could have been defined as a puppet state of America, or even the puppet state of the American Mafia, before the revolution which brought Castro to power. Even forty years after the revolution there is enmity. The USA has been ‘acting’ as peace-maker around the world, encouraging, asking, and ‘bribing’ sides in various conflicts to put their weapons down and to seek a resolution by peaceful means. Yet when it comes to the situation as regard Cuba there is no room for forgiveness or understanding. The fact is that the American government actually tried to overthrow Castro and tried to assassinate him. Cuba was nothing but a ‘banana republic’ before the revolution. But, just as Russia wanted to control those countries around its border, no matter what the suffering, the United States wants to do the same in it's ‘backyard’ - the dominant UT Group does not take the wishes or rights of the subordinate, or ‘inferior’ UT Groups into consideration. Superiority in UT Groups breeds contempt. Yet again that most important UT Phrase will raise its head. It is such a simple phrase and yet behind it lies all the ‘logic’ of the UT Instinct. It is the wonderful phrase - ‘that's different!’. It doesn't seem to be much but it is vital to our conscious rationalisation of our irrational evaluation mechanism. The Americans will see the conflicts around the world in a more ‘neutral’ light than they would see their conflict with Cuba - ‘that's different!’ they will ‘think’ and say. And - it IS different! Totally different. It is the difference between the ‘us’ UT Group attacking the ‘them’ UT Group and the ‘them’ UT Group attacking the ‘us’ UT Group and to the stupid, irrational, subjective, tribal viewpoint of humans this is a REAL difference in the absolute sense. The UT Instinct and our evaluation mechanism is our reality. This is all we can ever ‘know’. So when the Americans view the Cuban situation as being different it is their genuine opinion - yet totally incorrect. Other ExamplesThere are many other examples I could use in this section: Their misuse of their monopoly as regards drug distribution and cost - how many people die because of their business practices The crimes against humanity committed by Russia and the United States where they gave weapons and trained guerrilla fighters, dictators and corrupt governments; the only criteria being that these criminals were on their side in the global conflict. One could say that the USA and Russia aided and abetted the committing of crimes against humanity. SummaryThe terms ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, have become very fashionable lately. But this only reflects our subjective and irrational values and attitudes. It is merely playing with words. What is the real difference between a man who rapes and strangles one woman and another who organises the raping and killing of thousands of women? In real terms there is no difference, other than mere numbers; but as regards morals and values there are the same. Yet we treat the number of atrocities as being more important than any single savage action involved. Throughout human history of there have been mass killings - organised killings. Unfortunately it is an integral part of human nature - driven by the UT Instinct. It will happen in the future for it will always be a part of human nature. We cannot help but desire the ruin of any subordinate group (unless we are exploiting them). Not only does the UT Instinct tell us it is acceptable but even tells us that it is the CORRECT thing to do! One another level we ignore the results which large corporations have on indigenous peoples all around the world. If a corporation killed five thousand people it would be murder and yet if these same companies, because of their business activities, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through starvation and malnutrition they would not be accused of any crime whatsoever. Using terms like ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity are merely playing games with words. Humans are selfish and greedy and will cause the deaths of millions of fellow bioents, because of the desire for wealth and financial ‘respect’ and gain way beyond what is required or necessary, or even usefull. We are a subjective species and thus our definition of crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing are subjective. One bioent's crime and act of savagery is another bioent's act of heroism and honour. It seems as if the best defence for savagery is ‘this is business!’. Once the ‘us’ UT Group laws do not say that what you are doing is not acceptable then there is no moral problem as far as the individual is concerned. There is no outside ‘objective’ moral viewpoint from which they can judge their actions. If the people around an individual, those whom be respects, respect ben and what be is doing then how can it even be possible for ben to even begin to question those actions for which be is praised? An individual can only ‘know’ the ‘moral’ values of bes UT Group. They are the controlling values. Within the ‘business’ UT Group the justification are the simple two phrases - ‘I am not breaking any law’ and ‘this is business’ - that is why drug barons and cigarette manufacturers are seen in a totally different light, yet they do the same type of activity. International lending agencies actually partake in a form of slavery - and they don't feel guilty! In general one should not, and one cannot, say that they are moral and believe in justice because the evaluation mechanism used to come to that erroneous conclusion is an irrational instinct. One should say - ‘my morals and values are totally illogical, totally variable, totally subjective and totally biased’ and should be equated with the morals of those perceived to be the ‘enemy’. But we will continue to judge our actions, even though at times equivalent to the actions of the ‘them’, as being justifiable, and yet condemn those very same actions carried out by the ‘them’, and the simple excuse will be - ‘that's different!’. The ‘them’ commit crimes against humanity, the ‘us’ can never see their own actions as deserving similar condemnation. Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|