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)