Money and the obligation to exist

What is money? It is first, the materialized or digital recognition, that is to say recorded, for a service rendered to others. Service can be time spent by using body or intellect, or indirectly a loan of money or material, etc.

Then, it is the possibility of using this recognition of rendered service, as a debt due from anyone else who is willing to settle that debt in exchange for the money representing this recognition. Money represents a flying debt that everyone can share, and is never canceled.

This money or acknowledgement of debt can therefore run until death and never be refunded to the person having this social acknowledgement of debt.

It is also possible by inheritance to earn this money or social recognition of debt without having ever worked, that is to say without having ever rendered any service to anyone,

as it is also possible, conversely, with this system, to have a social debt inherited from birth and having to pay by simply having been forced to exist with social complicity, by debtor parents.

Recall, incidentally, that believers discard their educational errors about a person, their child, that they forced to exist, being born virgin from cultural meanings with unwanted faculties, claiming that free will reached this new member as a divine grace, as soon as they are fed up with not being able to get from it what they wanted.

We cannot yet be heir of parental and social debts at birth, without being, similarly, heir of everything that the culture produced, starting from fire, wheel, glass, paper, etc.

The society is, it, always creditor, at least should be, since it makes money, which is quite practical. That of which it should benefit for the good of all, to erase inequalities. But the society has delegated (unintentionally?) to private banks for more than 85%, the production of an impalpable money, since digital.

(Read the Nobel prize Maurice Allais, who does not hesitate to compare the bankers to counterfeiters) (And I add for my part, that, since the system works globally, it means that the salary of people on the planet is devalued accordingly).

The simple obligation to exist makes you debtors, which is called the social slavery, which is amplified by the second fact, that is, when you are able, having to work to buy your body, i.e. feed it.

Do not worry, one won't charge you for the air, only solid and liquid. After mom-dad threw you in nature, you have for three days before dying of thirst, that's enough to find a job...

The flaws of this system are numerous. The one who understands them, and knows the art of plucking a patsy, can enjoy it at leisure.

Obviously it is better to be finance specialist than being bakery specialist. It takes you as long to learn one of these professions, but you will amass millions, even billions, more easily if you are in the bread rather than flour.

What is the money for all of us? For a farmer, a worker, a teacher, a manager, a boss, a banker, a shareholder, a minister, a parliamentarian, a judge, a policeman, a lawyer, a mannequin, an artist, a sportsman, a former sportsman , a poor man,

a rich man, an owner, a tenant, a homeless, a sick, a disabled from birth, a disabled from life, a healthy, a suicidal, a dying man, a third-world, a fourth-world, a tourist, a vacationer, a genius, an idiot, a philosophical writer.

The bosses' salaries is a compulsory levy on the labor of the workers, it is not the workers who democratically decide the salary of their boss. This is essentially the same principle for bankers, shareholders, parliamentarians, ministers, the President, and all civil servants, and others I've certainly forgotten.

If all the customers of a bank check the presence of their money at the same time, they will see that their account is provisioned, which is a lie of the bank since the bank could not refund everyone, if all the depositors wanted to clean out their account simultaneously.

Some people are paid according to the actual work they do, others are paid according to what they produce, others are paid according to time that they pass in the society, others are paid according to what is bought to them, others are paid according to the pleasure which they give to the spectators or to the listeners and according to their number,

others are paid to work others, others to supervise them, some are paid according to their manual skill, some are paid for their imaginary, their inventiveness, their force, their glibness, their physical beauty, their only celebrity, etc.

Why? Human isn't it human, human that those who already exist have constrained to exist to be partners on equal terms?

A pleasant example: you are a singer songwriter. It takes six months to compose a beautiful song (according to you). But then, little back in time, we are in the Middle Ages. The minstrel, you are, strolls from castles to village squares, and "makes his grub" from day to day, and hit the sack in the stables.

Modern time: you print your song on thousand DVDs, distribute them in commerce, and if it works you print a million, and why not seven-billion! You did the same job as the minstrel, but have multiplied like hotcakes, you are Jesus Christ the son of the god of song.

Why do your six months of labor are worth more than mine, me the baker? All this simply because you are able to print the "result" of your work (it's not your job that you repeat) in as many copies as you want? And it's not even you, who make the backbreaking job of multiplication, unlike the baker!

There are even more profitable, don't even need to make records, you sing, or play football, on TV, and you get paid according to TV ratings by SACEM or equivalent. Isn't she beautiful this rip-off?

Why send a word in 2000 ears, it should be worth more than sending a word in both ears? It is not you who do more work, it is the air or the electron which transports the sound.

Money does not only represent the visible product of people's work, it also represents the time that we spend to produce ideas, or other invisible forms and especially not measurable of human activity. Who measures ?

Getting rich, it is to impoverish others. And the money representing the work, it is forcing the poor to work more and more to get the minimum subsistence level, thus make it your slave.

It is easy to demonstrate that, enriching people, even without losing anything ourselves, apparently, impoverishes us ineluctably.

The progression of poverty is as invisible and inexorable as the advance of the small hand of the clock, contrary to the advance of the wealth of some that is seen as much that the progress of the sweep seconds hand of the clock.

For example, you buy your seat for a show, a football match, being perfectly voluntary to pay, without going into debt, and you enrich the footballer. Ostensibly, you lose nothing, but where goes the money of the footballer?

It's worse than enrich a person on the other end of the world, there is very little chance that this money comes back in your personal circuit.

The money is the result of Murphy's law regarding the exchanges between humans. Humanity itself is the culmination of Murphy's Law produced by Evolution.

Money is a prehistoric concept. It probably represented a kind of barter, in fact the memory of this barter. Money is now a leading cause of human misery.

The concept was completely misguided. He serves to measure the food, health, work, that of the man or machine, and objects, and among these objects, countless totally superfluous.

It also measures the pleasure, relaxation, recreation. Money is a concept that is used both to measure the concrete one as the abstract. The money is mainly used to amalgamate the vital and the superfluous, the real and the virtual. To change the world, we must fully reexamine this concept, to perhaps split it into two...

Perhaps two currencies would be needed, one for vital and one for the superfluous, one to measure life and another to measure frivolous. The first would be a serious matter and the second a game ... Today, only the second exists, but many of us are dying of this stupid game between billionaires!

But, they retort: “we, also, were constrained to exist, just like the poor bastards whom we trick, and since they continue to make children, it is that they agree to be gullible, if not, they would change the rules of the game, and forced us “democratically” to accept.”

Divide the money into two types of currency, vital and superfluous, is a hypothesis that must be considered by its ethical side first. For Justice, it must be applied, regardless of the economic impact on the moment. Tens of billions of people to come will thank us.

Money is a symbol which was set up in small groups of humans. Very few people lived on Earth at the time of the invention of money. Today this symbol, valid in the past, is used in two forms by billions of people. It rots the life of billions of people.

What was valid in prehistory no longer is today. We must cancel everything and start from scratch. Any world political management is based on the economy based itself on this prehistoric symbol. We must change that. The money symbolizes both the vital and superfluous, and that is not normal.

We cannot sell or buy life, we cannot sell or buy what represents us, our life. This rice, this soup, this salad as soon as they crossed our mouth, it is us. By habit, and because we cannot do otherwise, we buy a ring, a table, a DVD, a kilo of apples, a pizza with the same currency.

We even represent the game by money, whereas people starve to death not to have some. TV entertains us with gambling. It's filthy. This is blind slavery. We do not even realize our stupidity when we do this immoral action, to confuse superfluous with vital.

Money represents the work of people, and the freedom of some stops where the freedom of others starts. If there is one thing that must be controlled, it is money. The "monetary liberalism" is the leitmotif of slave traders.

Why the rich would have complexes to get richer, since you persist in mass reproduction to provide them slaves? Obviously, as long as the poor will recur, they will give reason to the rich.

Because reproducing, it is to accept the rules of the world in which we live by imposing them to a person who did not even ask to exist, and who will bear these stupid rules that you impose, you poor, forcing it to exist, your own child. (Is that clear enough?)

There is, however, no reason that there are poor people because the money is public, made by the State, and we are forced to exist, therefore forced to feed us every day, which is known to all, and, of course, from the government in charge of social management, so new entrants.

The mere anticipation of birth, requested by the State, the society, implicitly but definitely, implies the forecast of the food for this person throughout its life, the forecast of its wellness and its security.

The money, which represents food, welfare, and safety should be available for each individual without it having to ask, since it was forced to exist.

Today, there is no need to compel by force the people to work, there is no need to tell them, the dumb money has replaced the vociferous dictatorship. If you want to eat, if you want money, work! There is no place where you can install freely to live, to shelter and cultivate your parcel of land.

Your parents know it. Have they prepared your part of Earth cradle before imposing you to exist? Is it healthy and clean this cradle? Is it hygienic? Isn't it dangerous? Because you know that the endangerment of the lives of others is an offense, and a crime when that offense leads to suffering and death? You, the child of your criminal parents, you are an "other".

When one speaks of "liberalism", it should be understood that this kind of "liberalism" is the opposite of freedom and equality. This "liberalism" is a liberalism of competition, and therefore hierarchy of people.

Even if we left all pretty much on an equal footing at birth, it is impossible that there is a billionaire spot for all, a president place for all, an island paradise for all.

We are not in a meritocratic system, but in a random system (lottery of life) and martingalocratic, that is to say, if you have the chance to have wealthy parents or you have the chance to fall on the martingale that allows you to discover how to get the most out of others, well, you've won the game of human society.

Money seems a necessary evil to exchange the work, but is it really necessary?

Could we keep the money as a labor-exchange system and abolish capitalism, that is to say, how to remove the weaknesses of this system of calculation of trade, and to ensure that the calculating men, the profiteers are excluded (or controlled) as they are, in casinos, when they are identified?

When money is handled as a virtual product, it is forgotten that it represents the work. How not to forget? How to ensure that the accumulation of money is seen as what it is, that is to say indirect and hidden slavery?

If the entire human society is regarded as a casino by the millionaires and billionaires, well, made as in casinos, exclude those who cheat and found a martingale !!! Prohibit cheating, luck, inheritance, martingale. Outlaw enrichment, which is nothing less than slavery, imprescriptible crime against humanity.

If the entire human society is regarded as a casino by the millionaires and billionaires, well, made as in casinos, exclude those who swindle and found a martingale !!! Prohibit cheating, luck, inheritance, martingale. Outlaw enrichment, which is nothing less than slavery, imprescriptible crime against humanity.

All taxes are taxes on income: The actual VAT on a product depends on the income of individuals. VAT is a progressive income tax (progressive opposite of decreasing, but that is the opposite of social progress).

If your salary is 1,000 dollars and you buy an item of $ 5,000, a 20% VAT will cost you 100% of your salary, which is the real tax on your income, whereas if you earn 10,000, the VAT cost you "only" 10% of your income.

Normally, taxes, they say, should not be confiscatory... But who requires you to buy food and water, but also electricity, gas, and paying rent and charges which cost more than 80% of your salary or pension? No one !

When you realized that you had to work to live, why did you not commit suicide? If you have not done, it is that you accept the principle of being tricked by all these nice people.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (July 2016)

Subsistence income and the obligation to exist

The subsistence income, or basic income, is an income obtained from birth, to the new associate (to whom, it should constantly recall, one imposes to exist) to live properly in the world, to ensure the sustainability of its body, its intellect, its health, so its protection,

to live as long as possible under good conditions, in a healthy environment, not warlike, and where this new partner, this new person can enjoy this life that was imposed on it, to serve, while harping that it must do its life itself, and to liberate it from its parents who treated it like an object until his majority. What hypocrisy!

We invented the concept of Right, as well as the laws and Justice, without speaking of morals and of ethics. And since the Right and Justice exist, they should be respected.

We were put in the world, manufactured in any part with the Meccano set, which is maternal food, to serve our parents and their associates, i.e. the society in which they live. This initial servitude, is it not pure primary slavery? Should we not recognize it honestly?

The first reason for the basic income is justified is that we are obliged to exist, obviously without our prior consent. The least one could do, wouldn't it not that the world be pleased to welcome us before to install us on the planet?

Would it not be well that, at a minimum, this world is clean, healthy, non-bellicose and friendly, that the "intelligence", that we boast of being, wish to take as associates?

Why else swinging this baby, this new person, in a dustbin, the Earth, cradle of humanity, whereas yourselves you do not wish to be social slave, and pay your body daily?

We are obliged to exist, and, moreover, that is to be useful, but since it is to serve in a world which rejects the slavery, which regards it even as an imprescriptible crime, we should have at least a free body for life (food and water), a free health for life, a free security for life, all that is necessary to the life.

If we are put in the world to reproduce the animal behavior with the dominant ones and dominated, a hierarchy of humans, it is not necessary to make laws.

The second reason is that we all are heirs of inventions, tools and concepts, which are in the public domain, starting with the invention of language, of fire, of wheel, etc., and that we must share the incomes of the use of these inventions which are constant since they exist.

The third reason is that we all work, more or less consciously, to cultural transmission and its evolution, and the transmission of language and its constant growth, which improves the logic of our reasoning and science.

This work must also be remunerated. We all also constantly take part in the services within our families and in the society, when it is not in volunteer associations.

The fourth reason is that we invented the concept of society… This is the absolute proof that we count the ones on the others.

As this society is a continuous system consisting of people who all end up dying, well, the dead must be replaced by new young associates, to whom are not asked their opinions to exist, fill the gap, to belong or not to the society and accept the rules, because on Earth there is no out of society, all the terrains are already privately owned.

The worst undoubtedly, after this obligation to exist, is, that nobody, no woman controls the blind manufacturing of this existence in her uterus.

The person to be born is like a soldier who goes on the road to war (the road of life), it may undergo more or less serious handicaps in the womb, probably treated as damage which is self-evident, a collateral damage in this war of life against life, by its own mother, and complicit governments that need associates. Madam, are you a soldier, an army general?

The child is brought into the world to serve. He will serve that he wants it or not.

Please, do not say you give us life, whereas you do nothing but trigger it. If you really give it to us, give it until the end of life, with sound body, sound mind, healthy environment, interesting life, without being social slaves in need simply to survive.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (July 2016)

Human Rights and the obligation to exist

Human Rights seem to implicitly recognize that it goes without saying that we can impose on someone to exist. Why would it be normal for the intelligence that we claim to be, and according to the moral that we have invented throughout the world?

These Rights therefore admit that fabrication of an intelligent human, sensitive, conscious, invariably suffering, and mortal undoubtedly, can be triggered by a couple of humans without social control, whereas it is the first and most important social act.

Once triggered by a voluntary act (copulation), this being will be built blind in the female uterus (a laboratory of Frankenstein type), which produces about anything (see teratology, stillbirth, etc. ) with huge risks for the fabricated person (endangering the lives of others leading to suffering and death, which is thus a crime according to the definition).

This, only for the service (slavery) of the existing one, and certainly not for it as it does not exist. And, incidentally, endangering the life of the woman who conceives that person (after a possible patriarchal rape), what love!

After the birth went well or bad, the child will have to live in an unhealthy world, morbid, warlike, and then the adult, if it reaches the age, will have to buy its body daily in fighting its way with elbows, or sometimes with weapons, in the multitude.

Which difference is there between the attempt at manufacturing an existence in a laboratory by an unspecified scientist (Doctor Frankenstein, for example) and the manufacturing of an existence launched in blind in the uterine laboratory of an unremarkable woman without any control of the process nor no precise follow-up of the manufacturing process?

The billions of known results of this manufacturing show well that it is always a question of a random manufacturing, really like an experimental work, a true laboratory of Life, a Life conceived like Frankenstein which worries little about the feelings and sufferings of manufactured beings.

Most people are not even aware that they had been forced to exist, and therefore had rights, the right to claim a healthy body, a healthy mind, a healthy world, healthy society, an interesting life, to say the least.

The right to reproductive freedom, the right to be free to impose the existence, the right to be free of making a life in blind in the female uterus, therefore the freedom to impose suffering and death, as well as all intermediaries we collect in hospitals,

and other multiple bellicose results of repulsion of living that we see daily in these filthy TV news. But why to impose us to exist in an unhealthy world?

Are our parents and their associates thus blind? Don't they support themselves this vision of the world?

Procreation, i.e. the blind manufacturing of an existence in the female uterus, is an animal principle, a simple mechanism which produces the perenniality of life. But the life evolved to equip the animals which we are of an intellect which made it possible to invent morals, then the Human rights.

In all honesty, it should be recognized that we all are in the obligation to exist and the obligation to die (without speaking of the impossibility of not suffering, i.e. obligation to suffer), it is thus necessary to register these essential components for the Life of the Human rights.

All the powers of an individual on another must be controlled. The first social power, and moreover the most important, being the manufacturing of existence, it must be controlled imperatively.

What right an intelligent, aware, and sensitive being, has he to inflict life to an intelligent, aware, and sensitive? What right an intelligent, aware, and sensitive being, has he to inflict suffering, disability and death to an intelligent, aware, and sensitive being?

How to indemnify and compensate a handicap of birth? Life is a handicap race, but for us humans, since we are born free and equal in rights, how the society compensates for birth defects that are imposed on life?

How can one reconcile the Human rights and the procreation of existence, knowing that it serves only those which already exist, as well as the fact that nobody controls this blind manufacturing in the female uterus, which on Earth inevitably causes, daily, very many handicaps, suffering, ill-being, misery, death, etc.

How can one impose on a significant percentage of people, who are born that day, to be immediately disabled, and live in unhealthy conditions or even dreadful?

Why Rights defenders of the human being were not seized themselves of this problem of birth conditions, whereas that life is absurd and nevertheless imposed only to serve the existing ones?

One cannot deny it, we are constrained to exist. Our parents manufacture our existences without our agreement, it is an undeniable fact, and it is impossible that humanity exists differently than by this continuity, therefore, this parental dictate. But nobody, however, is constrained to procreate according to the Human rights (rape is a crime everywhere on Earth).

If we exist, it is because a woman, our mother, manufactured our existence, theoretically according to its will, and freely. This constraint should necessarily be registered in the Human rights, since it is an absolute power and that, like any power on an innocent person, it must be controlled.

It is too easy to launch the manufacturing of existence, and then wash its hands.

The society representatives are complicit in this state of the human world, and the conditions of life in general on the planet, for us humans, and for all life that suffers the consequences of our smelly and dictatorial impact on the world.

I suppose you claim for yourself the Human rights? And you think that you have the right to force somebody to live where you wish it, simply because you have an immense power on him, whereas you cannot even ensure him a healthy body and a healthy life, in a healthy environment?

If you have the power to impose someone, someone who hasn't done anything to you, to live where you want, with a feeble body, do I have the right to make you live in an igloo, a desert , a slum, a favela, a jungle, a trash can, a polluted planet?

How much have you fabricated small slaves, infants first, then job flesh, tax flesh, and cannon fodder, to accompany you until retirement (that I wish you without Parkinson or Alzheimer) and lead you to your last home?

And of course, you will not see them nor will not endure them, when they are elderly, and perhaps with their filthy diseases of this age. But since they (dad and mom) have made you the blow, why wouldn't have you the right to do likewise, haven't they?

Law is a concept created by humans from the Power they have in the world, on the others, and themselves. The Human Rights assert that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

Since we are born equal in rights according to this first article, which means that we must be born equal in powers, since it cannot go without the other. However that is impossible, as the body which is given to us at birth is a lottery.

What say the Human rights to prohibit or at least compensate these de facto inequalities? Is it worthy to be born handicapped and mocked all its life due to this handicap granted free and shamelessly by mom?

And how a being who possesses an intellect far below the average can he hope (otherwise than playing the lottery) to become a billionaire and climb the social ladder?

Since our existences are made without our consent, since we are forced to accept the social contract, without the signature of our part, with open threats, we must be compensated to exist.

"The creation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and when it is not mastered this creation is the work of an animal or an idiot or that of a slaver or a sadist . "

Given that it is completely immoral and amoral to put somebody in the world according to this truism, how and why do you think that children can understand social morality, and Human rights? When "intelligence" exists, it acts to facilitate its own existence, it does all that is useful for him, that seems normal.

But why a conscious and sentient existence should it impose the risks of existence to another person "intelligent" and sensitive? This is, necessarily, for its own utility that existing person wants to generate another existence.

Is it not contrary to the human rights to enslave another person for its personal needs? Of the 350 000 people who will be born today, what percentage is going to have a physical or mental defect? That is, however, a prenatal ill-treatment not punished by society. Why ? Because it is a natural event...!

What difference does it make for the person who undergoes it, whereas there was no valid reason to put it at the world?

Anyway, even if you do not want to give up the procreation of an entity which will live an absurd life, and very risky for itself, but for your only pleasure, whereas at its majority you will tell him that it will have to make its life by itself,

anyway, therefore, you must admit all the same that this entity did not wish to exist, and that the Rights that you agree for you must be valid for this entity forced to exist for your service which is a strange service of accompaniment and maintenance of the society,

society that the person created can also leave at will to live in another, or even commit suicide.

Is it not the height of the absurd, the strange, the paradoxical, for a being who claims itself intelligent and able to understand the universe?

That is to me, a few things to add to leading articles of Human Rights:

1) The beginning of life, which is an obligation to exist (so servitude).

2) The end of life, which is the impossibility not to die, so an obligation to die.

3) The impossibility of not suffering, so the obligatory of suffering to exist.

4) Indemnify and compensate disabled people (?)

5) Free explanation, with arguments, scientific, accurate of what is the thought, the matter, the universe (and humans), with constant updating of that understanding accessible to all.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (July 2016)

Death penalty and the obligation to exist

We are obliged to exist, and yet we are punished to the maximum (they say), of deprivation of existence if we make a fault regarded to be unspeakable by our judges. The pseudo, "penalty" of death (or other custodial sentence) is obviously a good riddance!

We have a brain, virgin of cultural significance. We arrive into a system of rights, laws, and rules that are imposed on us. We all have different body and intellect from the others, with IQ and PQ (Physical Quotient) highly variable, and more or less malleable therefore more or less easily educable.

We are educated obligatorily, and badly, because it is impossible to control this education. We are educated in societies by wholesalers of education, and rarely into detail, as if we all were certified copies.

We are then released into society after a youth, when our seething brain, in a state of permanent construction, and constant filling, was the draft on which wrote our teachers, parental and societal, and then come what may of that copy.

The copy must fend for itself, it is declared responsible for what it will do, whereas it is responsible for anything, neither its existence, nor of its body, nor its intellect, nor its education, nor the environment,

and not anymore with rules that educators have tried, in the essential parts, with more or less success, desire, responsibility, to integrate into the system which is this new person, this new partner.

It must be added, for the excuse of educators, equally devoid of free will that the pupil, they are the result of the same absurd trajectory, and closer to Cro-Magnon than the child, modeling clay, that they have between hands.

Initially, the power makes the right, and not the opposite, but after we forget, the laws belonging to the landscape. Every right, any law, any rule must be submitted to the knowledge of the functioning, as realistic and true as possible, of the human being, of matter, of the universe, of society itself.

These rights, laws, and rules may not fail, by custom or ease, to comply with the new knowledge that science brings to the understanding of the world, and especially the functioning of individuals, each individual.

Rights, laws, rules must be fair and equitable. How could they be without respecting the truth as much as possible? Truth of the world, the truth of the individual...

Making a life is, of course, for the manufacturer's service. This production, it must be remembered, is made blind without mastery. Impose to exist, it is also to impose the body, the environment, culture, education in a virgin intellect of cultural meaning, as well as the rules of the game. It is worth repeating.

If we are moral beings (we have at least invented morality and the Rights), how to impose a rule to somebody who cannot refuse it? Is this moral?

What difference does one between forced labor, to specify this, call it by its name "slavery", and impose on someone to work because it has no choice but to die if it cannot make a living, that is to say it must buy his body, whereas one forced him to exist?

Which difference does one make between the obligation to follow rules imposed by a dictator and rules imposed by a Democracy by “simple” obligation to exist?

"The creation of an existence only serves existing ones, when it does not control the creation nor the path that will follow this existence, the creator is either an animal or a fool or a slaver, even a sadist."

When our parents create our existences, for their personal service (it's not us that ask to exist), we are born with a completely virgin nervous system of cultural significance. The nervous system is a blank memory, a white paper culturally.

We have in memory no word and no function associated with the familial and social culture. All cultural functions will be taught and learned in our lives. We did not ask to exist. We were violently inserted into the Social Jungle, into the Earth trash, without our consent.

Our life will be a lottery. The body we have is itself a lottery, gender, IQ, health, events, lifetime, all is lottery. Our parents played the lottery on our back shamelessly. They will never apologize for our defects, they will be just happy with what they call quality.

To insert these social mental functions that no one has of birth, they do not know how, nobody knows. It works generally just about, by a rough formatting, but they, parents and society, have to do this by themselves. They want to insert ourselves into society, so they want us to have mental functions approved by the society, they have to do this by themselves, not to children.

Children are not to blame. Their own existences are not of their fault, nor their mental functions, that will enable them, or not, to integrate properly into society. All these children have a very variable IQ, it goes from zero, the vegetable, to some prodigies and few geniuses. Do you think all these intellectual differences give the same opportunities to everyone to integrate into society?

We are born unequal, intellectually and physically, but equal according to the Human rights and before the law. Whatever the quality of mental functions that your parents have managed to insert into your nervous system, it is you who will take if you commit an antisocial act, or if you are not able to serve society properly.

These are your parents and the society which create and ask for your existences, it is them which introduce the social mental functions in you, but it is you who will take whereas it is them which were flunked in your creation and your insertion. You are the turkeys of the human joke.

But this applies to your parents and their ancestors, to the initial beastie, and this is why the progress of humanity is slow. It's too bad that the population growth is faster than the diffusion of understanding!

Have you noticed the following sentence, Madam, and especially have you understood it?

"The creation of an existence only serves existing ones, when it does not control the creation nor the path that will follow this existence, the creator is either an animal or an idiot, or a slaver even a sadist."

Doubt benefits the accused. However, nobody can prove the existence of the free will, since it is impossible. But why are people punished by a society which did not even ask the official science to make this demonstration?

Our leaders, our legislators and judges, are they irrational at this point?

Why lawyers and defendants do they not try to benefit from this lack of demonstrations? Why are convicts locked up in shitcells? Mystery!

There is necessarily a difference between a human being resulting from a creation, and a human being resulting from the only mechanisms of the universe. In the first case, we are created with features decided by our manufacturer, and in the second we are elements of the universes adapted to it because born from it, but without any intention.

These two entities cannot be identical. For thousands of years, we live by believing us superior beings. We are taught by our parents and our societies as divine children. I, the author, personally, I have no particular power, I'm not telepathic, and I have no free will. I wish I was educated as such.

Humanity needs to clear everything out, from birth to death. We must question everything, education, justice, governance, etc. Everything is done according to the first scheme, everything must be done according to the second scheme.

Today, millions of people are stored in jail because our justice decided that according to the first scheme they were responsible. It is infinitely stupid to create a human, evil educate, and lock it up. Worse, to take its life given by you, punishing it for faults of creation and education for which it is not responsible...

Free will does not exist, since the universe cannot make mechanisms going against its own mechanisms. This implies that the judge is not responsible for his own actions... Blimey! but if the judge is not responsible then the criminal is not either...

Well! Let's invent free will, no problems like that. And for that matter, let's invent immortality. And then, add a soul ... and add a creator. That's it, well done, and let's prevent people from thinking, by making them work like slaves. They won't notice anything. Above all, let them ignore the idea that free will does not exist ... Shh!

(If you are a believer, the following does not apply to you. The believer has convictions that do not need demonstrations, and displaying a conviction, it is perhaps beautiful, but it doesn't even matter when one does not know oneself.)

This is not the assertion or denial that makes the existence or non-existence of facts (fairies), it is the proof. A horse can be stubborn, and its rebuff does not indicate that it has a "free will". My computer can display "no" and that does not give it a "free will". A robot could learn to refuse to perform an action that would penalize it, it would be enough to program it.

A child learns how to say "yes" or "no", wisely or not, this is not the pronunciation of those words that makes a "free will", no more than the associated actions. If I speak French, it's because I was constrained to be born, and forced to learn French. The universe cannot make mechanisms going against its own mechanisms.

The clock shows the time, and not the opposite. The human being gives the thought, and not the reverse. The thought does not activate neurons, but the activity of neurons give thought.

"Free will" would be the act of determining oneself (in full knowledge of cause and effect), how do you do that? If you know, please let me know and send your findings to the Academy of Sciences, and especially to Justice.

Since they punish the men, they will finally be happy to know that they were right to lock people up, or condemn them to death... Until today they do not know why they do it, but it is much easier for the society to get rid of the problem of the ill-educated people by the society itself.

It is convenient to make people believe they have a "free will" in order to make them punishable under despicable ill-treatment conditions.

These people, locked in shitcells, are even ready to swear that they have a free will without any proof, whereas with a bit of intelligence (they do not possess) they could rely on the fact that the "free will" has never been shown by the official science, to benefit from the doubt.

They cry out for this "free will", which allows them to believe in their own intelligence. That's the beautiful maneuver! It must be said that the society has done everything for they confuse freedom with "free will", which is far from being the same thing.

Parents have no accountability to poor education they give their child, and the society which still has a greater part in the education of children is quite happy with this invention of "free will".

The only culprit is the one who did not ask to be born and has not accepted social rules that one ordered him to accept without even a signature, which is contrary to the law itself which says that what is obtained by coercion is illegitimate.

Anyone who does not feel good in society must be able to lodge complaints against their parents and society for giving birth without intent to ensure its well-being and its health, and for endangering the lives of others.

As for the criminal, he may complain about having received a bad education that led him to break the law. Free will is a religious belief; associated with heaven and immortality of the soul, it enables humans to give birth and get rid of the guilt of this birth ...

Evolution has made us a big brain, but as this analyzing machine is too powerful, it took it to be forced not to cogitate certain concepts by belief. Congratulations evolution!

The principle of Justice wants that before to involve someone in any action, one asks him for his opinion, his permission: "Will you participate in this or that? "I conclude that no creator god, no parent, can be just since the creation of existence and involvement in life are always made without the consent of the created being.

Would you like me to believe that the guy who is born physically or mentally disabled, the one who is born of stupid parents, of spirit-rappers, who is born in a war zone, a place where one is starving,

would you want me to make to believe that he, who is born in abject conditions, has nothing to claim from the human world who let him create his existence, unnecessary creation for him that did not exist, and therefore did not apply to exist and even less in unspeakable conditions, whereas humanity claims for the Human Rights, morals and ethics, justice, equality as of the birth, between all?

Do you know that abused children prenatally (in the womb) have the right to complain against their vile parents? Are you sure, Madam Zero, that your child will see the light of day with healthy body and mind, and that your blind laboratory Frankenstein, your uterus, will not make a monster that will blame you for as long as you live?

Madam! it was you who arranged blindly the thousand billion cells which constitute your child.

The death penalty is used to assert, for a government, to the people and to other countries, that it is the absolute master at home. It has the power of life and death on each of the subjects it manages.

The death penalty is the education of the masses by a social crime. As for the dead one, he learns nothing. And if there was a heaven, hell therefore, he would suffer a double penalty terrestrial and "hellish".

The death penalty is not only unfair, it is absurd, stupid.

We must not only be against the death penalty, we have to be against the idea of ​​any penalty, at all.

When a country has in its laws the death penalty, it does not respect its own citizens, and in fact it does not respect itself and its own culture, since its own citizens come from its own culture. A society gives birth and educates its own associates. Killing them, it is to admit that his own cultural system is crappy. It is an admission of powerlessness.

The death penalty is not a punishment, because the right sense of punishment is learning. The death penalty is only a moral torture before execution for the "punished" one, and a final punishment for the family. Serves them right, since they have educated the criminal.

But society forgets the very great part that it has taken in the education and conduct of criminal that has resulted. You the victims! Bring charges against the society for educational failure, endangering the lives of others, etc.

After the "penalty" is executed, the condemned no longer exists and therefore suffers no more pain, instead of his family who lives thinking of the brother, the sister, the son, to the daughter, the father, mother, etc., which has been carried out, which is very long family stain. The death penalty is in fact a social stigma, defect of putting into the world, failure of education, lack of understanding, etc.

The death penalty is a sudden death, like that of the infant. It is also, it seems, an exemplary punishment, which therefore aims to threaten all associates (of the society) so-called the people. Strange society, where one threatens its associates if they do not behave well. What social atmosphere!

It's constant blackmail, as are many laws. The Act is our "Big Sister" ... Are there any rewards based on such strong emotions? No, None.

In a democracy, capital punishment is not only a governmental crime. When one is for capital punishment, one is oneself a killer.

It is the executioner, one who holds the ax, the one that activate the blade of the guillotine, the one who pulls the trigger, one that injects the poison, who grilled the brain of convict to the electric chair. The crime is not divided by the amount of population, each taking a share, no, it is multiplied.

The executioner is your representative, how many men have you killed through it? This social crime is a common crime. By the fact that we do not prevent this social crime, we are accomplices. We are accomplices by laxity. The society probably wants to impose this complicity.

It is in our country a democratic complicity. The society puts us a pistol in hand and it forces us to kill to impose us complicity, so silent. Refuse complicity! Vote no to the death penalty worldwide is a human duty.

When you create the existence of a sensitive and mortal person, it will suffer and die to a minimum. Does this person have to use the law of retaliation against you? Why do you use the law of retaliation against it when it does something that does not suit you, an antisocial act, that you call crime, by cultural habits, and mental comfort?

Is it moral not to tell the truth, even if it is disturbing? Is it right to exercise justice without knowing what a human being?

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (July 2016)