The legal right to murder

During a psychology course I attended some decades ago, the lecturer asked us to answer -anonymously- the following question: Would you be able to kill someone if you knew for sure you weren’t going to be found responsible or suspect, nor otherwise penalized in any way? A not negligible part of the students (me among them, if you care to know) answered ‘yes’.

Along our lives, a whole lot of people eventually get to wish someone else’s death, and many of them would besides be ready to personally cause that death were they sure they wouldn’t be discovered guilty.

Wishing to get rid of John or Jane Doe is something quite natural. Eventually, we always come across someone who causes us severe or tough to bear affliction or pain, physical or emotional: that loud insufferable neighbour, the embittering boss, some humiliating and aggresive bully, the intimidating borough gantster, the extorting mobster, our nation’s cruel and vile opressor, that terrorist who slaughtered our father, the swine who’s raped our wife… The casuistry is infinite, and one can’t be blamed for wishing our tormentors’ death, or even for feeling the impulse of personally killing them. But the criminal code is there, heavily punishing homicide to dissuade us from commiting it; and, some way or other, we all understand that it’s how it should be, even though this abiding by the law forces us to curb our protection, justice or vengeance instincts. It seems sort of unnice to go around slaying people who get in our way.

However, among the uncountable number of instances in which we might like to get rid of another human being, there is a special case, one only exception on which -without us fully understanding why- most societies seem to agree. I mean those situations in which this other human being, though yet not guilty of anything, will mean -we anticipate- such a colossal hindrance in our life, such an obstacle to our projects and expectations, that we’ll be forced to drastically modify them or to wholly give them up. In such cases, and if a particular circumstance is met, the law allows us to terminate a given fellow being. This circumstance lies in carrying inside our to-be enemy. I’m of course talking about abortion. I’m thinking of the ethical revolution involved in stating the right (not decriminalising, but establishing the full right!) to murder someone for the sole reason that he/she is going to thwart our aspirations and to make our existence a lot more complicated.

I say murder instead of just kill and I mean it, because it fits better the definition when the victim is a newborn.

“Oh!, but the woman who calls off her pregnancy is not killing a newborn -someone will promptly object- but just getting rid of a foetus still unborn”. True; but it turns out that, these days, the question of extending the abortion right to delivery day is already being debated in the US; and I can’t see any essential difference between one day before or one day after, as the litle one who’s dying is exactly the same. Argueing that, as long as the foetus is inside the womb (or still connected to it via umbilical cord), it lacks any “autonomous life” and can’t live by itself seems quite unconvincing, given the fact that, in reality, a newborn also can’t. Likewise, it doesn’t sound acceptable to me that proposition according to which a newborn is not yet a full person, since ethics are not about persons, but about human beings. Not to talk about the outlandish thesis stating that the foetus belongs to the mother’s as much as her liver or her ears do, and is therefore subjected to her real whim. Any pregnant who’s not brainless or a fanatic knows quite well that what grows inside her is a living thing quite distinct from herself. That vague and generic “right to choose” so frequently invoked nowadays regarding a variety of topics is, oftentimes, but a nice-looking mask (the word right has a positive connotation) for hiding some unlawful or unethical real claim. In the case of abortion until delivery date, let’s be honest, right to choose actually means right to murder.

No, no, no. None of these “reasons” convinces me. Alongside with so many other people, I’ve many times questioned myself what’s my own take on abortion; and I still do, because this million dollar question keeps lacking an objective and determining answer: When do the embryo or the foetus stop being a negligible fisftul of dividing cells or an organic scrap we can finish off on a clean conscience? Every criteria I’ve heard so far (heartbeats, movement, full human shape, etc.) seem to me arbitrary and insufficient to some degree or other, perhaps because none of them takes into consideration the prior question, yet more philosophical and unresolved, of what is actually a human being?

Maybe I won’t ever find a satisfactory answer to both issues, but something I believe for sure: the day our civilization begins accepting the legal right to day-before murder, humankind will have taken a trascendental leap towards a novel ethics of unforeseeable results, because from there to an absolute relativization of the right to life there is only one more step.

The healthiest country on Earth

When I heard that Netflix was going to stop broadcasting in Russia, my first thought was: “Oh!, but was Netflix allowed in Russia at all? How imprudent!”

I mean: I’m a freedom enthusiast, and generally am not in the least for banning anything. I believe in free market and, in principle, support people’s possibility to access whatever services and goods they want or need of their own will, even though most person’s ability to choose what’s best for them leaves much to be desired: ideally, in my opinion, choice should come alongside education… But I’m drifting towards a too complicated debate here. For the moment, suffice to say that — well, if someone wants to watch whichever channel or online content, then let them do it.

However, when it comes to Netflix (or HBO, Amazon Video, Disney Channel, DW, etc.), I confess that my belief in liberty wavers quite a bit, and no longer know if I’m pro freedom of choice above all other considerations. And this is so because… well, Netflix and the like are such powerful indoctrinating tools that might even be labelled and treated like toxic: the same as governments regulate and restrict to the average layman the intake of certain drugs, least he poisons himself, so should perhaps be done with the venomous contents fed to uneducated or unprepared societies by those media platforms. Indeed, all of their video productions are manufactured to subtly –yet very efficiently– shape, when not manipulate, people’s minds in order for all of us to think in very much the same way, share identical values and have matching opinions: gender ideology, femin(az)ism, multiculturalism, identity politics, LGBTIQism, climate change, veganism, abortion, animalism, euthanasia, indigenism, welcome refugees, open borders… you name it! Such ready-made ideas are been seeded on most of the world’s population by –though not only– the mentioned platforms. Therefore, any nation endowed with a sensible patriotic sentiment (meaning a feeling of their own traditional values) or simply a healthy self-preservation instict; any nation who does not want to hypnotically and uncritically follow the ideological path devised for –and practically imposed on– us by the global agenda and other supranational powers we’ve never elected nor legitimated, should probably consider banning Netflix (& co.) in order to protect their citizens’ brains from the platforms’ subliminal and insidious indoctrination.

Of course this is not optimal. Ideally, I think, governments should educate their citizens so as to make them able to tell among the garbage and the flowers, while guaranteeing that several and diverse “cultural offers” –instead of one unique set– is available to the public, for us to freely (informedly, critically) pick our choice. But this situation being very far from reality and, as a matter of fact, from our governments’ true goals, some degree of protection –however imperfect– against alien brainwashing may at least be achieved by forbidding those trojans of globalism to enter our home. And that’s why I was surprised to learn that they were allowed in Russia, a country I thought was more concerned than others about its citizens’ healthy minds.

 

Something similar can be said about food corporations like McDonald’s, Starbucks or Coca-Cola, though in this case the poisoning is much more literal, albeit perhaps less harmful. Having many countries their own vast, rich and healthy local gastronomies (and Russia is no exception), it’s a pity that their people succumb to cultural colonization and opt for eating fast food, to the detriment of healthier, often more sustainable and always more profitable (for their own country’s economy) alternatives. Again, there’s nothing necessarily wrong in widening the food offer available to a given society, even if it’s junk, provided the consumers are wise enough to know not only what’s best for them, but also what undermines their culture and identity. In this regard, it would also be desirable that freedom of choice came accompanied by proper information, on the part of publilc powers, about nutrition, feeding habits and by some reinforcement of the confidence in our own traditional food, mostly if it’s healthy. In moderate doses, chauvinism is perhaps a good thing, and opposition to cultural colonization is something at the very least worth having in mind.

In any case, today I can’t but laugh at those companies for trying to “punish” Russian population by discontinuing their businesses in this country and “depriving” its inhabitants of their products. (Here, by the way, we’re pretending to believe that behind such commercial decisions there lies an ideal of “justice for Ukraine” on the part of the corporations instead of cold arithmetics on how to better monetize westerner’s anger at Russia.) First off, such measures are ridiculous –if not mean and contemptible– because they’re aimed to penalize a whole nation not responsible for its government’s decision; and they’re useless too for that matter, because in fact Vladimir Putin’s popularity has only increased nationwide since all the wave of EUSA (European Union States of America) sanctions begun. But then they are hilarious because, it seems to me, those companies are actually doing Russians a great favour: not only for leaving market room which local businesses can seize to settle down or thrive, but mostly because, without Netflix and McDonalds, without Amazon Video and Coca-Cola, Russia is nowadays perhaps the healthiest country on Earth to live in, mentally and physically.

I hope the Americans love their children too

In view of Russian military forces’ huge superiority over Ukrainian ones, it comes quite clear that, no matter how many weapons and mercenaries the latter receive from NATO, Vladimir Putin’s victory over Volodimir Zelenski -aka Joseph Biden- seems inevitable unless the Athlantic armies take direct part in the conflict. Otherwise, there’s no use for the Ukrainian troops -particularly their Azov neonazi regiment- in taking their own civilians hostage -by preventing them from reaching safety via the humanitary corridors- and using them as human shields anti Russian soldiers, who fight handicapped by strict orders to absolutely minimize civilian casualties; and there’s no use, either -except for increasing the suffering and deaths of their own people by absurdly prolonging this war-, in keep receiving the ongoing ammunition and armament loads so hypocritically sento to them by Europe (and not for free, by the way), not really for Ukrainian nationalists to stand a chance of winning over their enemy, but for them to hold fast for as long as possible in the hope that the Russian people, who are the ones who -very unfairly, by the way- suffer and endure the US-imposed embargo, finally get tired and arise against their government in claim for a regime change; which is the hegemonic agenda’s real goal in this fight.

But the eventual Russian victory would mean, in fact, nothing less than Continue reading “I hope the Americans love their children too”

Cui prodest bellum

Whatever the end of the Russian “special military operation” in Krimea be, we can be sure of this: Europe countries’ electorates will have been persuaded about NATO’s essential existence, and -neglecting any possible initiative to dissolve an organization which, in truth, lost its theoretical purpose more than three decades ago- will grant their leaders a carte blanche to engage in enormous increases of their respective defense budgets. With the excuse of a peremptory protection from the Russian bear, NATO’s European members will spend fabulous amounts of extra money on weapons – defrayed, of course, off the taxpayers’ pockets. Chancelor Shcolz has already anounced upping Germany’s military expense in 100 billion euros next year, the rest of NATO countries this side of the ocean to follow suit in some degree, plus other non-NATO nations as well. How much total? A few hunded billions?

And a huge proportion of these expenses in armament, technology and war equipment will likely engross the profit of US military industry, which is by a landslide the world’s top arms exporter. Ineffable delight for the Deep State; the same powers, by the way, who fostered the coup d’etat in Kiev 2014 (disguised as an spontaneous popular revolt called Euromaidan) to oust by then Ukraine’s democratically elected president and sit, in its place, puppets like the actual Volodimir Zelenski, obedient to Washington guidelines.

There is, besides, a second outcome we should also take for granted: gas and petroleum futures (determining actual prices) will remain in historical highs for many months to come (though, paradoxically, the present global demand of such commodities is lower than in the recent past), which makes profitable for US shell companies to turn on again -they’re already doing it- the expensive and polluting fracking industry for hydrocarbons extraction, and whose production will be bought by us silly Europeans twice as costly as what we’d pay to Russian suppliers. Cunningly enough, the very US buys hydrocarbons from Russia at a lower cost than it fracks them. But, as Ursula von der Leyen has recently said, “The sacrifice for the liberty of our Ukrainian brothers has also a price for Europeans, and we must be ready to pay that price”. In short, more market and profits for the United States.

Thus being things, if we now apply rule #1 of political analysis, “qui prodest?“, to the armed conflict in Ukraine, it comes as obvious that its main profiteer economically is the USA; therefore, it turns out as quite likely that, contrary to what West governments and their media payroll try to make us believe, this situation has been brewed, or at least favoured, by the said beneficiary. Gas, oil and weapons (besides other globalist, strategic and hegemonic goals, too obscure for me to analyze, yet unquestionable) are mighty enough reasons for the White House to turn a deaf ear on the legitimate and reasonable security claims the Kremlin has been making these past years on Ukraine’s neutrality, and for the dubiously elected president Biden -another Deep State puppet- to keep pushing his Russian counterpart towards the reckless step he’s ultimately taken. Which step, by the way, is nothing but a self-fulfilled prophecy: first we pester the bear and, and once he finally thrusts his pow, then we justify the pestering… and if possible, the assassination. But probably Russia, for the past decades, did not entail more of a threat to the West than that created by keeping alive the NATO and expanding it eastwards.

Gas, oil and weapons are also mighty reasons to help prolong this war much longer than necessary, and thus we’re witnessing such absurdity as, instead of stepping in between two contenders in order to stop the quarrel, o even -if we dared- boldly intervening in the quarrel in support of the part we perceive as weaker or righter, what NATO does is selling arms by the load to Zelenski and “morally” backing him up with sanctions to Russia, so that our protegé won’t stop fighting or save their lives, rather bleed out slowly for as long as possible; not because Europe doesn’t care, but because it all goes for the superior cause of God blessed Uncle Sam’s profit.

Three Poplars at Plyuschikha

Another little gem of Soviet cinema is Tri Topolya na Plyuschikhe, from 1968, directed by Tatyana Lioznova and written by long-lived dramatist Alexander Borshagovski. It’s an unassumig story, visually simple yet rather touching, which, through a brief episode in the life of a villager, displays before us – with great narrative and interpretative skill – a number of very genuine and well defined characters, while sets forth several exquisitely chosen sides of rural and urban lives in mid XXth century Russia.

In barely 75 minutes runtime the creators of this rather unknown work manage to present to us the longings and joys, the hardships, problems, hopes and concerns of a few human types belonging to that country at that time: the rude frankness of peasants, the diverse attitudes -often ambiguous from a personal point of view- towards the bolshevik system, its goods and bads; the old shepherd whose wisdom and experience we’re only hinted at; a philantropist local courier, crippled of war, understanding and good-natured, who endures the best he can his bad tempered wife; an uncouth, dry man, unpopular because of his nondrinkenness, part time poacher, who tries to keep himself and his family, to some extent, free and independent from the omnipresent kolkhozy (collective farms in the Soviet Union, based on joint property of the produced goods, featuring an excessively rigid and bureaucratic administration); a fat grumpy woman, quite a character, who fully supports ‘the system’; the typically rustic way -almost devoid of sophism and artifice- in which friendships and relations arise; the child who listens to Edith Piaf’s Non, je ne regrette rien on a small radio without barely understanding the lyrics; and among them all, Nurka, a woman native to a neighbouring village who, with unhinhibited resignation, Continue reading “Three Poplars at Plyuschikha”