Democracy and obligation to exist

Animals whose humans do not reproduce, they make other existences different from themselves.

Is it democratic to oblige someone to exist? Everyone knows that it is not democratic to force a person to live in a place that another would assign to him, that is what dictators do with their subjects or their slaves, as well as the so-called democratic society when it condemns a criminal.

Yet this is what everyone achieves by fabricating an existence for himself and for the account of society simultaneously. Are we all born slaves or criminals? Well, yes, we all are. We are treated as such at the same time.

Assigned to patriotic and terrestrial national residence, condemned to occupy our flesh too sensitive and mortal, and forced to work to buy this body daily.

What did we do before we were made to deserve such a fate, the fate of being made and serving such a society of idiots and slavers that will try to train us in this role to replace them as a simple social cog? Nothing, since we were flowing our “inexistence” into the paradise of nothingness.

Making a cog to replace a defective or dead one, or to serve a mother's desire for love, is like making a baby-medicine for the sick child of a family. It is also immoral. So if this is not the reason for making an existence, what is it?

Life is a parenthesis of suffering and misery that never serves the experience of a nonexistent. Life serves the experience of the living, but life and experience serve no purpose, since both terminates. On the contrary of the inexistence which is eternal.

Life is not democratic, it is arbitrary, since imposed by the parents. How can one achieve a true democracy of government despite this basic arbitrariness? It is impossible, it will ever be only an approximation of democracy.

We are born autocratically by maternal dictatorship (in France), to reach a pseudo-democracy stemming from a customary system where the existing ones who forged these customs that enchain us were far fewer than the actual existing ones subjected to these customs by impregnation from birth.

In a democracy, it is the majority choice that has the power over minority choice, but the choice to make lives without control has never been questioned. If we are in Democracy, we are also in a world of morality, ethics, rights, laws, and justice.

Human Rights in the first article assert that we are born equal in dignity and rights. How can we be born as equal to others when our body and our intellect are imposed on us? And how can we make our rights respected when the power of our body and our intellect prohibits us by their inferiority?

And how can one live with dignity when we are born disabled or when a handicap makes us weak bodily or intellectually during our life because our body was built with a fragility that we did not desire? The law prohibits endangering the lives of others.

How can we not endanger a being that did not exist and that we produce for the service of existing ones? It is an infinite risk to pass from non-existence to existence, and it is also an infinite suffering, and all this solely for the service of existing ones.

We are social cogs and democratic governments try to put the oil in the right places in these wheels so that society turns at best.

We shall never succeed in a utopian democracy because, in order to exist, we must already have imposed the existence of the members of this democracy, education itself must be imposed on brains virgins of cultural meanings.

But society is only a concept whereas the existing ones are sensitive flesh, and each person counts, every person who has been forced to exist to serve as a cog must live in well-being.

If parents and society have not foreseen this total individual well-being, they should reconsider their fundamentals on Human rights, or else they should not make children! For to fabricate a child in unhealthy conditions, for a life that has not even request to be made, and still less to serve, is more than a shameful act, it is a crime.

Are the ideas about the world, the society, the human species, and life, worth more than the suffering, the misery, the fear, and the death, of the sensitive and conscious person we want to make to accompany us, pursue and perpetuate our ideology?

To simplify: “Is a concept more important than a person?” No, never. And yet, how many people have been sacrificed, still today, for the stupid ideas of stupid leaders?

The general good of the existing ones should always consider the good of future existences that the existing ones constrain to exist, which must never be forgotten.

To be a spawner (a mother!) it is to constrain a person to exist without mastering the making of this existence, or the life that it will lead, and to propose to exist to a possible handicapped from birth. Every mother is a criminal by definition, for engendering is a crime. Engendering is endangering someone else.

Democracy will never take account of future generations because they are not there to give their voices to the choice that the existing ones make. They will undergo, constrained and forced, for the service of existing ones. We are all born with a morphology, anatomy, and intellect that are imposed upon us, but the social whole is also imposed.

Our voice is not taken into account in the choice of this pseudodemocracy in which we are forced to exist. We enter virgins of cultural meanings, into the social river, and the pseudodemocratic current carries us and shapes us. Two things, however, modify or direct the current, these are knowledge and tools.

The best way to govern humanity is not democracy, it is intelligence, rationalism. The rationalist that I am, proposes the drastic and rapid depopulation of this world. In 50 years this can be settled.

Every form of government is an arrangement between idiots, for the intelligent know how to govern themselves by taking account of others. And it is all the easier to realize that there is no friction due to an excess of population.

But true intelligent do not commit the crime of making children…

Democracy, in today's morally overpopulated world, to be true, must be a constant representative democracy. Democracy must represent our evolving ideas, not just a very short period of time, that of voting time.

During the 5 years of the presidency (in France), people no longer exist by their ideas, only by demonstrations and violent strikes of minority trade unions (singing masters), or when they are consulted by very rare referendums. They no longer direct their lives, they are directed. This is dictatorship.

Democracy designates chiefs. If instead of designating the leaders, it chose the ideas, it would work even better. There would be no longer any fear of dictators.

I propose to realize a “democratic software”

(See the specifications (in French) of the wiki of  “Nuit Debout” at this link:

https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/wiki/Logiciel_démocratique)

One person, each person, desires wellbeing. The aim of any government is to guarantee the welfare of every citizen, every person, on the national territory. Is there a need for an ideology for that? Is there a need for “Democracy”?

Once one has defined what wellbeing means, what is contained in the term, what wants in general, if not in detail, each person, and what is necessary for that wellbeing to be effective, is this to incompetent people (perhaps and not always and on everything) to specify how to achieve it?

If the principle of governance is not to bring individual welfare to all its fellow citizens, what is it? Does the election serve to say that the wellbeing of every individual is not an absolute necessity, and that we can choose a particular policy that will cause a particular percentage of citizens to be abandoned to their own fate?

If this is the purpose of elections then what is the use of Human rights, which assert that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights? What do we mean by the rights to freedom, to equality, and dignity, without wellbeing from birth to death and without having to pay for it?

What does a human being desire? A human being does not want to exist, but once he is forced to be born, he has the right to demand a minimum of rights, such as the right to be healthy, to have a long and interesting life, and not to have to buy his body daily, and to exist in a healthy and non-warlike world, and under the tutoring of caring and loving parents.

If it is constrained to live with a disability from birth, it is entitled to claim compensation and reparation from its parents and society.

Once this minimum is assured, what can be the demands of a human being who has been forced to exist? And does it know this human being that free will is impossible, and all the consequences this absence has on our societies and individual behavior?

It is not a question of finding the best way to govern man. The question is what is the best way for man to exist, to constrain him to exist since he is constrained to exist, and to exist on the planet.

No one wants to be governed, so it is a question of finding this best means and trying to lead the man to that best, from the present (deleterious) state, if possible. But is it really necessary to force someone to exist since in any case the existence of humanity as a whole will cease as it began?

What is the purpose of a human being during its short life? To transmit the culture and try to improve it? So there is only culture that matters. It sounds like a computer system that always ends up to be worn out and that we have to constantly change the storage system if we do not want to lose the data.

But if computer science serves men, to whom serves culture that men pass each other as a relay baton that serves no purpose, because at the end there is nothing and nobody to seize this baton? Pschitt, makes the cultural baton at the end of its journey!

Science is not democratic, it only describes precisely and truly as possible. It affirms nothing, it only demonstrates.

The facts are not democratic. No vote will ever change a fact. Earth is not the center of the universe by a democratic vote, it is or is not. And then comes the description of the facts and the agreements between humans on these descriptions, that's why scientists have chosen a universal language, mathematics.

Those who do not understand this language cannot be among the people who accept or refute the mathematical description, if they want to mingle with the description they must learn.

Democracy, on the other hand, applies to the living conditions of all. A government elected by at least 50% of the voters (which is not the whole of the citizens) “must” grant the wellbeing to 100% of its associates, that is to say 100% of its fellow citizens.

It is his absolute duty. The way in which it achieves it more or less liberally, more or less socially, does not change this mandatory objective. Do you know a single leader who succeeded?

Democracy is the voice of the people, but in what areas can this voice be taken into account? There are areas in which a non-specialist cannot have a valid opinion.

A non-specialist cannot, for example, give a valid opinion on the science and technology of nuclear power, but knowing that the risk is not zero, it has, of course, the right to give its opinion for making known if it wants to accept the risks that society causes it to run.

And, of course, there are varying risks with nuclear power depending on whether you are more or less far from the nuclear plant in the event of a possible accident. Everyone knows, even the scientist, that the zero risk does not exist, and the nuclear industry has enough messed up to be known that there is a risk.

Democracy from the point of view of the proximity of the risks cannot be global since the risks concern mainly those which exist near the nuclear plant, and those who do not run these risks cannot impose them (why is there no nuclear plant in the center of the big cities where the need for electricity is greatest?)

But by altruism those who are out of reach can have a say in the risks in which society puts the others.

There is also the problem of food GMOs, which is still a different problem because here the risk itself cannot be evaluated by a non-specialist. In the case of nuclear power, the risk is certain, but in the case of GMOs the average person knows nothing, it can, theoretically, only follow the advice of specialists.

My answer about that is that if we go beyond intensive agriculture to feed humanity, so there is a big problem of overpopulation. It is not the soil and nature that must adapt to us, but we who must adapt ourselves to it. A small population of humans would have no problem in any field.

If individuals have the right to dream (at home), the state, on the other hand, has no right to dream. And since free will does not exist, the State cannot pretend to believe in its existence simply because democracy, demagogy, demands it. One cannot rule a human without free will in the same way as a being who possesses one.

Scientific truths about the functioning of the world and the functioning of human beings must be imposed as Copernicus, Galileo, Malthus, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein, etc. have done.

It is not only a question of good education, but a question of ethics when false descriptions disrupt the world to the point of producing unspeakable misery on billions of people for millennia.

Free will is impossible, all the more so because we are all obliged to exist. Each of our cells is an automaton, and a set of automata (one thousand billion automaton cells) produces nothing but a large automaton.

Our brain is composed of automaton neurons and the set also composes an automaton producing different automatisms, but which are always automatisms. Thought, of which consciousness, sensations, ideas, result from this automatism, and anything produced by the body can generate only automatisms.

These automatisms can be retroactive, and give us impressions of self-control, but there are nevertheless automations, as we can produce them in a computer system.

The State must impose the popularization of this information, “free will is impossible”, and also recall that we are all obliged to exist without having desired it. The State must accept these consequences in all areas, educational, judicial, social, and governmental.

The human world may only be better. Do you know any policy-leaders who do not assert that the truth must always be said. So, they have to say it!

“Democracy” in China is (in 2016) a representative for 1.4 billion people. The “Democracy” of the USA, it is an elected representative for 300 million inhabitants. In France it is a representative for 65 million people. In Luxembourg it is a representative for 580 thousand. And in Vanuatu 260 thousand.

What is the best for a true democracy? The best of democracies is that each one represents oneself. There is only a drastic depopulation of the human world that can allow it.

The smaller the countries, the more they will want to maximize the population to compete with the countries around them. For example, China and France cannot compare each other.

Once China is developed to the same level of average wealth per capita as France, it (the Chinese nation) will be worth as many times as there are more inhabitants, that is to say about 20 times France . And as for Europe, it's about a third of China…

The good Democracy is inversely proportional to the number of inhabitants of the Earth, since the freedom of one stops where the other begins. The biggest democracy is therefore reached with one inhabitant upon the planet. Long live that Democracy!

Democracy implies secularity, since the power of the people is not exclusive to a few individuals, but to all. But what secularity is it? Secularity can not be secularity in which the ideas of all idiots are accepted as principle of knowledge to be transmitted.

It is therefore necessary to be able to differentiate a good knowledge to be transmitted from a bad knowledge. To whom do we grant this power of selection? Yet it must be done.

Unfortunately, revolutions are needed to move from a social management system in a religious mode to a secular one, the whole legal system being too complex to pass from one to the other by simple choice.

Why not rationalism?

Democracy is a set of democracies. Your property, your house, your office, your business, which is located in a Democracy, is not a kingdom of which you are the King. You must behave at home as in a Democracy and respect the rules of Democracy with the other people who live with you.

In the particular case of the tutoring your children does not exempt you from democracy with them, whether in the private or the public. Moreover, fabricating a child is an offense and a reckless crime according to the law, even if it is not said in these terms directly in the texts, you could be considered by society as a criminal if your children file a complaint against you.

The notion of entity State comes from kingship. Democracies should not operate on this model.

When all the borders have fallen:

- There will be a single human rights system

- We will no longer need armies

- There will be only one general democracy

- No more international competitions leading to wars

- The wrongdoers will have no place to escape the police

- The bosses will not be able to hide their wealth beyond the reach of the people

- No more tax evasion, no more tax havens

- No more brain drain

- No more offshoring

- We can manage the ecology with a single voice

- Nuclear power will be subject to the common law

- Private banks may be abolished

- There will be only one currency

- Compulsory education around the world will make stupid cultures obsolete

- People will no longer flee their country to find employment, security, food elsewhere

- Income of existence will be imposed and generalized

- etc.

Democracy is the present best way to manage overpopulation. I do not want to be managed. I do not want to feel managed. I want to feel free at all times physically and mentally.

The aim of any democracy is to favor the greatest number of people by trying not to disadvantage minorities too much. By allowing overpopulation by the development of the means of health, by the intensification of the food resource and the energies, the democratic countries produce more and more unhappy people. They therefore make the opposite of what they are done for.

Current democracies produce associates (by procreation) without asking if others agree to the introduction of these associates into the group. Every child is an immigrant of nothingness who does not ask to emigrate from the paradise of inexistence to the hell of earthly existence. Democracy is not an improvement of non-existence.

No one is free to be born and die. Galloping overpopulation conditions human relations, freedom of movement today is not that of yesterday. The most favored people cannot be the standard of the measure of human welfare, but only "the one" that is the most disadvantaged as well as the number of disadvantaged.

Today billions of people are treated miserably by others, whereas only ten thousand years ago they were probably no more than a few million of existing. There has been no social progress according to this moral count of overpopulation.

The government of democracy is not democratic since there is a head of government. Democracy is only an electoral principle. Democracy should be the principle of equality between people all the time, every second.

The current democracy chooses a representative who behaves like a leader for the ideas he presents, but he applies to others because the conditions change during his mandate, and above all that no obligation is on him to apply the ideas he proposed (except a desire to be re-elected).

A set of ten Democrats elect a group president, they walk on a path and a cross appears. Four people want to go right whose president, and six want to go left. What does democracy do?

Does the president represent the group democratically according to the elections, that is, as a “leader”, it is he who chooses, or does he represent the group constantly? If the leader is really democrat he will be interested in the constant will of his group, if he is a pseudo-democrat he will only apply to his own desires and personal beliefs.

To govern a boat, it is to react to the elements. The purpose of the voyage is imposed by the shipowner. In a democracy the shipowner is the people. What is this shipowner people expecting to give his orders to the leaders?

If democracies A and C agree on a common project to the detriment of B, this does not give them the right to disregard the right to refuse this project by B. Idem for two democrats who would agree on the back of a third. Same on a majority of voters who would agree on the back of a minority.

We are not in Democracy, we are in an elective "Statecracy". If we were really in a democracy, that should not be just the democracy of the existing ones, it should take care of the following ones in priority since they will be much more, one hundred billion, one thousand billion. We should be concerned about this thousand billion inhabitants of the future.

We are all equal and have the same rights, which means according to the law that we are all entitled to try to enrich ourselves. But we cannot all enrich ourselves, we can only try to enrich ourselves. There are only a few billionaires. We are not equal before the enrichment, but only before the attempt. Is it not cunning, this liberal ideology?

Another problem with this system of enrichment of some is that it is pyramidal and therefore requires that the fund providers, the people, grow in number constantly (or work more and more, or both at the same time). The increase without control of the population benefits the rich, but it will nevertheless have to stop one day!

The salary of the employers is a mandatory check-off on the job of the workers, it is not the workers who democratically decide the salary of their employer by a levy on the work that they carry out. The company is therefore not democratic according to our way of thinking about democracy, it is an Athenian-style democracy where some privileged people, the shareholders, manage the city.

The majority of humans is poor, so mankind loves poverty, and therefore we can impoverish it even more, thinks the billionaire slave trader of fact. Democracy is a system put in place by the rich so that the poor manage themselves and produce work therefore money whose the rich organize flow towards their pocket.

Money is a power of a few men over others. The money is undemocratic. The plutocracy without borders laugh at the national democracies. I do not know how one can call democratic society where 80% of the world's wealth is in the pocket of 20% of humanity.

Soon the rich will manage humans from the Moon or Mars. Will the earthlings be gullible at this point?

In a democratic system how is it that the ultra-rich still exist? What are the laws that protect the rich and enable them to enrich themselves unduly and above all without reason, that is to say without any measure with the work they have done? Democracy is the will of the people. Do the people want to be subject to the bankers?

Do the people want to be poor? No. The majority of the people, however, is poor. This vast majority desires, as is well known, the distribution of wealth. So how is it that this democracy is not implemented by the rulers representing these poor people?

One can be perfect altruists, if one admits that the others also have projects to realize as important for them as for oneself. It is the degree of importance that should not be judged. For example, a child project should not be considered infantile. But as time is short for everyone, the problem is the priority of the projects.

But how to do and say that priority does not mean more important? This is where democratic judgment comes in, and secularity…

When you talk to a non-democratic or non-laic person, you talk to someone who does not care about you, your rights, your health, your life, because in his opinion only his point of view is valid.

For example, the believer thinks that the god he has imagined makes him infallible in his judgment and therefore in the very idea he has of the existence of his God. This believer does not realize that the idea of the existence of his God, it is he who proposes it, that is to say his imaginary, and not a true god. He is mentally caught up in a kind of OCD.

As Chinese governments conduct themselves in an absolutist manner with their own people, there is no reason for them to behave in a different way with us, and probably even worse. The Americans with Guantánamo were very disappointing, it is an image of their Democracy perfectly detestable, proof that no people are protected from the deviance even within a democracy.

The Americans have shown with Guantánamo that they have a national idea of ​​Democracy, not an international one, which is absolutely disgusting, and all humanity can have a great fear of such a powerful “democratic” people who do not practice international democracy.

How can a nation that claims to be “democratic” also claim its “sovereignty”? It is all the more paradoxical for France which has cut off the head of its sovereign.

The birth is not a natural right, it is a natural power, like to use its muscles to move, and since it is a power, it must be regulated. To make a child is to make a person, to add an associate to the nation, an associate that others must take into account (life, education, health, death).

The power to make a child must be democratically managed by the entire nation. To make a child is at first a risk for the child himself (and for the woman who is going to give birth), by what right do you push a person to take risks?

If you want to restore morality in the social system, you have to reanalyze what man is, but this analysis will oblige you to ask yourself the question of the obligation to exist, which is not moral in itself.

Procreation is an immoral act, and all that follows, cannot at the same time deny this immoral fabrication and the invention of morality by humans who seek equality, whereas it is distorted as soon as birth by this immoral act. Procreation produces servitude. Procreation is dictatorial in itself.

It is certainly not necessary to be 7 billion people and even less 10 billion. We should at most keep our species on the threshold of its perenniality, but it would still be immoral to force someone to exist.

If humans were not regarded as possible collateral damage by their own parents perhaps life would be more acceptable, although I doubt it, since the obligation to exist will always be a dictatorship, whatever the welcome gift you offer to each new existence manufactured for parental and social service!

Too numerous human population demonstrates that our animality is not subject to rationalism, and must therefore always be managed authoritatively. To move on to a total libertarian and liberated world, it will be necessary that the understanding of our functioning be distributed individually amid all humans and understood by all.

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016) 

Feminism and the obligation to exist

This is not because women are my equals that they must have the same rights as me, it is not a matter of physical or intellectual equality.

They must have these rights because I am a rationalist being, and therefore empathetic, that I recognize that living beings, in spite of and because of their obligation to exist, must enjoy the world in well-being, enjoy their sensitivity and their intelligence, whatever their value, and to let me do the same.

Why and how do women occupy a subordinate position in society? The subordination of the weakest occurs throughout the animal universe. The "natural complementarity" of the sexes for reproduction is an animal vision of the living world.

The human being possesses a little bit more intellectual which allows it to control its actions, and even its deepest instincts, be it the woman or the man. The society recognizes it by the notion of responsibility of each (man or woman) in equal manner before the Law.

This implies that this bit more we possess on the animals from which we are born and which enables us to control this animality is sufficient to say that women and men are equal in all areas of law, that right which we have invented and which is therefore outside animality.

If we have recourse to the law for a man or a woman, then we are equal outside animality, outside our morphology and our anatomy, therefore outside our sexes. Personally I am a "sapiens analensis", and not a simple “sapiens sapiens”, how then will your Law treat me?

The human brain generalizes, and it can thus classify men and women into two separate groups, making the female or male target easier to designate, and we have added by accentuating the slight morphological difference by clothes.

Male dominance probably took place according to the same principle of domination from one hand to the other, right to left, there is little or no difference at the base, but a simple habit, make the other hand less expert, so less and less used and less and less expert.

Women have been gradually dominated all over the world on the same principle. The relative weakness of the female body during pregnancy a short time is enough to engender the gap and customs of masculinity that have established gradually.

Today it is no longer necessary, especially since women are increasingly taking care of women (and men) without men having to intervene, and this in all areas. Women are competent in everything in our societies, even as a soldier.

And as a politician perhaps we must remember the super-competence of the Queen-Empress Victoria of England.

Humans are so preoccupied with struggles of classes, genders, ideologies, beliefs, that they forget the essential, which is the impossibility of free will and the obligation to exist. What use is it, madam, to make an existence for this existence that you make, before it exists, of course? It is of no use to it, but to you, what use?

If this is useful to you, then it is a servant you make, a slave or a baby-medicine for your psychopathology in this frightening and harmful world! Life is an absurd and morbid vicious circle that our understanding can break.

One cannot base Human rights rules on natural principles since Nature is not interested in the fate of the living. Nature has no Law, Nature has no moral or ethics. It has only mechanisms.

Nature makes in the "perenniality of approximate replication" by its mechanisms, and we humans exist according to this principle of perenniality, but temporarily, because the human will remain as pseudo-species very temporarily.

Machismo and feminism are ideologies resulting from old behavior, coming from a very ancient animal evolution. The removal of these ideologies is the responsibility of all. To control our animality, to escape from all our ideologies, will be the responsibility of each one.

The state of the present culture must be analyzed from the evolution of "species" in the same process of cultural continuity that began as soon as the nervous systems of the animals from which we are born have been sufficient to serve to other things than to handle solely the survival of the animal.

This additional memory makes it possible to record the behavior of the companions, the perpetuation of the improvements being made solely by the continuity of the existences of successive generations.

And as far as we are concerned, we humans, this memory allows us to store a very large amount of data on the world and to realize a quantity of actions that have very little to do with the simple survival, although it is necessarily linked to this survival, hence the machismo of human culture everywhere on the planet.

It seems that we are, thanks to feminist awareness at a turning point in human civilization.

For feminism to be established, women (some) must have the feeling of belonging to a community of women, therefore different and opposed to a community of men, and the feeling that this community of women is oppressed or subordinated by that of men, but also a third sensation which is that the two communities belong to the same whole, humanity.

The law that empowers women in the same way as men with respect to offenses and crimes, and which prioritizes responsibilities according to age and circumstances, recognizes this principle.

It remains to Justice to recognize the impossibility of free will and to admit that we are all, living beings, constrained to exist, and that this constraint of existence even imposes on us handicaps of birth which must be compensated when they cannot be repaired.

There are three main types of machismo: intellectual machismo, economic machismo and political machismo. The three types of machismo still exist on the planet, but the most difficult to dismantle are economic and politic machismo.

It is easy to understand why the intellectual abilities of women are accepted since it serves society directly, while any pretext is obviously good for any boss not to pay people according to their ability,

as far as political machismo is concerned, it is only a stupid and retrograde sexism which has even less reason for being than others, since for the good of the country all intelligences must be used according to their competence, the honest politician should understand and accept.

Machismo originated from the male domination upon females with the consent of the latter, who needed protection in a dangerous nature when they were pregnant (probably every year).

It was advantageous, then, to let the males believe that they were the owners responsible for the offspring (hence the term "seed") whereas according to all appearances the work was performed by the women. Machismo is a rationalization of this animal behavior.

Machismo is no longer necessary to be today, especially since, if women are to be protected, it is no longer against Nature, but against men, these males full of themselves with the culture (of males), whose women are themselves the great dispensers.

For, you, ladies, were carrying around a masculine culture in your brains for thousands of years! It is up to you to do the sorting if you see a necessity, because the mixing of human cultures of nations and genders will take place whether we like it or not by globalization.

The men, at least the most educated, have realized that they were not the real sowers of life, but perhaps they want to retain some power!

Marriage is culturally a religious act where man takes possession of a woman in front of society. Civil marriage, which should be only a contract between two persons, equal before the Human rights and the Law, contains, in underlying manner, this cultural heritage.

When two persons wish to draw up a contract, they usually do so before a notary, but not before the mayor. Marriage is still considered in a special way, for it is necessary to treat other persons, that are children (to come or present), as objects which have no say in the making of their existence, whatever the result of this fabrication, whatever the qualities or defects of the parents themselves who consider themselves narcissistically, whatever the environment and the place where this progeny will live, whatever the society and the culture.

Children are not legal persons. They are not entitled to any particular individual contract, yet they are, each, persons brought, under constraints, in a society that they have not desired.

Civil marriage is a wholesale contract between two adults. It is not individual, since the children are not named in this contract (have not signed and will never sign), and therefore it is not fair, it is outlawed and above all Outside of Human rights.

Every woman and every man are sensitive, conscious and intelligent beings, each decides the life that others have imposed upon him. This sentence seems to make sense and consistent with what feminism demands, and I am perfectly in agreement with it, and if I propose it to a woman, I suppose she will agree.

But in this case how does she see the imposition of existence on something that will become a person like her, and half the time a woman, who will suffer the consequences of her femininity in an unhealthy world for all and even more for her?

Can you complain about being a woman if you allow yourself to make a child who has the risk of being born a woman when you do not appreciate this sexist world? Why not rid the world of sexism before installing a person.

The way to abort of men is simple, not recognizing the child. And since men abort, women must have the same right that is not just giving childbirth anonymously, but a real abortion. And reciprocally if women can abort, men must also have this power.

Social acceptance of abortion is the recognition of sexual error. Humans have the right to make mistakes even when they do something that resembles procreation, but is not one.

The right to abortion recognizes that a woman and a man may not want to procreate while practicing the sexual act, and that the forgetfulness of protection does not force one and / or the other to make a child . Both man and woman may abort.

How does the abortion of women is the business of men, nuns, postmenopausal women, and all those people who will never give birth? Men do not have to legislate on abortion of women, they can eventually legislate on the abortion of men.

If men meddle in the management of abortion or not of women, this means that it is a social issue, and the women's body does not belong to them, and in this case why would men's bodies belong to them?

The women open their legs and welcome a man (one at a time) if they wish, they resort to the sperm bank if they wish, and make an abortion if they so desire. They are therefore totally responsible for themselves, and only themselves, for the manufacture of existences, and for my existence in particular.

Women have control of their bodies, therefore of all that penetrates it, which is not rape, and all that comes out of it, possibly a baby, also called another person. In this meaning, they give man a very secondary role, hence the fear of males and a possible revival of religious machismo.

They thus assume responsibility for the existence of humanity, and, of course, all the human misdeeds on the planet, overpopulation, the perpetual war of humanity against itself, misery, famine, pollution, and so on.

It is necessary to think first of the handicapped of birth that you ladies make (with the complicity of the males) who until now took full responsibility, now this responsibility returns totally to you. Making a baby is a crime.

Men will find it easy to legally attack women when they have taken total responsibility for their body, their person, in front of the Law, since each man was forced to exist by a woman responsible for this act of absolute dictatorship.

The sperm banks cancel the genetic paternity, since the genitor can be anonymous, only paternity of contract is therefore valid.

Women do not want to be raped, but they force people to exist, and to exist in very risky conditions, without any ethical problem to them…

Today (as tomorrow), more than 800 women are condemned to die for having fabricated an existence by simple incompetence.

More than 300,000 women die each year by giving birth to a child. If it is winning the Paradise that interests you, then play Madam, there is much more probability of winning at this morbid game of Life than at the lottery.

To avoid the problems of childcare after divorce, the couple should sign a contract before marriage about this possible childcare. That is, they should know before they get married why they are going to conceive a child.

For millennia, women have selected men for their virility and educated their boys to be aggressive in order to send them fighting for their defense. Today, the women make them feel guilty about being aggressive towards other women, who are sometimes themselves.

A woman lives 8 to 10 years older than an average man, but this does not seem to be enough reason for males to try to change sex.

If the women had the slightest intelligence, they would demand a lot of money from society to bring a child into the world. I assure you that if the child was worth much for society, education would be perfect, and there would never be a need for prison to correct the errors of education, for there would be none.

And the associates, that we are all, would be cajoled throughout their lives by the leaders. Is it not your duty, for the good of your future child, to enter into a contract with society: “If you want my child, if you want a partner, I want you to guarantee his life, his well-being.”

And if society refuses, offer it to another society, you will find one that will accept. Make a union of women to defend your rights and especially those of your future children. It is your duty to give your child the best possible life…

Today a man, to reproduce, must seek permission from a woman. While women can resort to science to do it without a man.

A society is made up of associates. Why do some members, the women, have the right to introduce new associates into society while others do not have that right?

Women hide behind male authoritarianism, but for there was an authority there has to be an accepted submission. Women (like men) have the power to take a gun when they are raped.

If they do not take up arms, it is because they admit their inferiority. One can always fight until death, and the death of women is the death of men.

It is amusing that the notion of equality is only examined from the point of view of social success. Women have the creative omnipotence of the species. They are the decision-makers with regard to the manufacture of humans. And the planet is overcrowded!

All criminals have a mom. All the idiots have a mom. All the disabled have a mom. All the dictators have a mom, and even Hitler had a mom. Being healthy and sound of mind is normal, but all these others, who brought them into the world without taking their defense?

Who did not get involved? Who let it happen? No life, no risk. Why conceive the male that will hit you? Why give birth to a female who is going to be hit? Why give birth to the one who is going to dominate you, the one that will be dominated?

Women want all power. That of creation, they were not even able to manage it soundly. Overpopulation is the cause of all human problems. Let them first deal with the problem of child slavery before thinking about women themselves.

Putting a child into the world, when they are not well in this world, is stupid, even ignoble. The Earth is the cradle of humanity. What are they expecting to clean the cradle before nesting?

The brain of men and women is not identical. The brains of men are not identical with each other, and the brains of women are not identical to one another either.

The way in which information and meanings are stored is not identical, and above all it has no relation to the way in which the structure gives information or meaning. This means that the differences in structure between humans and between sexes have little influence on the content, and especially none on the meaning of the content.

For example, the apple object, its name, and its meaning are all three stored with the same type of memory, which are most certainly neural networks, neural networks that do not have the same structure in any brain whatsoever for men and women.

The believers are perfectly locked, which demonstrates that perfection is of this world. On the one hand, they want us to believe that free will exists and therefore that everyone is responsible for his actions, and on the other they want us to believe that gender is superior to free will, and thus that it cannot transcend gender, which thus nullifies free will.

The real question is whether mental capacities can transcend gender, and whether society can put men and women in the same egalitarian bag, are they equal in will and decision-making, in memory capacity, and so on? And thus grant them the same rights and duties in all fields.

After having made us believe that soul and free will exist, believers want to make us swallow that soul and free will do not transcend the feminine or masculine gender, and that there would therefore be a specific spirit and free will for each gender, which would lead to not managing people by the same laws, and therefore not giving them the same rights…

If one counts only the imprisonment following a crime, men are the majority (more than 96%) to nearly 9 million in the world.

But the women who are imprisoned by their men and by the patriarchal Islamist laws are much more numerous, they count hundreds of millions in the world without having committed any other crime than having been forced to exist with the female sex by Mother, a woman raped patriarchally.

The abolition of masculinism and feminism must go through the following recognition: before being a woman or a man, even before being a human or a transhuman, I am a sensitive, conscious, intelligent being, I want to be considered so in the first approach, after it is according to my good will, and it is up to nobody else to decide for me what I am intimately.

The obligation to exist, possibly handicapped, must make forget all ideologies to the benefit of the empathy that the sentient beings, that we are, should have towards these people who were born weaker and for serving, whereas it was absolutely no need to force them to exist and even less handicapped.

All humans individually and human society must ask themselves the question of the validity of imposing existence, and how they intend to compensate the person with a disability or weaker than others intellectually or physically?

"Reproductivism" is an ideology even more putrid than machismo or feminism. Let us unite to fight "reproductivism".

It is normal that a woman decides herself whether she wants to engender a child or not. She takes mortal and morbid risks to bring an innocent child into the world.

But in this case, since the question of risks is raised for the person in question, why is not this choice to exist even envisaged for the being whose existence is created without any mastery of what it is going to be and become? It is he/she who runs the most risks, is not it?

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016) 

Justice and Obligation to exist

If your builders have fabricated you with an intention, do you feel compelled to realize the goal for which they made you, whether these manufacturers are humans like you or superior beings? How would your own intentions be inferior to those of your manufacturers?

To compel humanity to progress, we must put it before the evidence of its contradictions, its faults and its mistakes. It must be attacked on the notions of rights as did the Australian aborigines to recover part of their land seized by the English colonizers.

We may also treat this in an American-style, and make very expensive manufacturing error of a human being. The least handicap of birth must be at least compensated to the height of that of a handicap deliberately caused on a person after its birth.

These rights, the Society has invented them, but it does not respect them systematically. Some, however primordial, are passed over in silence. We must therefore compel the Society to change, by means of its own laws. It should not be too difficult to force Justice to respect itself, is it?

Three essential notions “forgotten” by society can be brought to its attention and used as of right by any person or association who would feel concerned and who would like to use this means to be heard internationally, they are:

1) The obligation to exist. This crucial notion does not appear anywhere and not even in Human rights, whereas no one asks to exist in any way, even to be a god.

2) Compensation and reparation for the handicapped from birth. The handicap from birth is, however, constant throughout the planet and probably considered as collateral damage. Is it right to be constrained to exist and to suffer the consequences of a dangerously imprudent choice made by another person?

3) The impossibility of free will. Doubt must benefit the accused, yet free will has never been officially proved, and besides, it is impossible. Education itself is made as if we had one.

Children are still beaten or punished as if they were responsible to exist, and to be like they are physically and mentally, and not to accept the lessons that are imposed upon them, while we are all born virgins of culture, as white pages of the book that is our brain.

Brain, which is also imposed on us, manufactured by our parents who are both architects and masons of our bodies, but who have stupidly understood nothing of what they were because they continue to adjust the behavior of their offspring through punishment, coercion, suffering, and death.

I therefore propose to use these points on a case-by-case basis in front of a judge, in simple trials, using complainants or accused who would like to participate in the improvement of the system, so that the case-law becomes law. But there is nothing to prevent honest Members from defending these proposals before Parliament in order to legislate directly…

The obligation to exist:

It is not possible to feel intelligent, sensitive, conscious, pretend to be a moral, ethical, just being, and to constrain someone, a person like ourself, to exist, even and especially if we imagine calling her/him our child and pretend to love him. It is not possible to see justice in the act of forcing someone to exist.

It is not possible to see justice in the act of imposing on someone to exist without mastering the making of his existence, therefore his body and his intellect. Procreation is only an animal, mechanical act, performed by mechanical beings.

Is "the end justifies the means" a system acceptable by the house "justice"? That is, the desire for procreation and the cultural and social vision of an immortal humanity by those who exist are sufficient for the justice system to forget the true meaning of Justice, out of our sensitive and conscious humanity?

One of the basic principles of Human rights is that at birth you serve to nothing nor nobody, otherwise it is that we have planned for you the place you will occupy, as if you were only a family or social system, that is, a slave. If you serve no purpose why did your parents give birth to you?

Making a baby is a crime in itself, pure slavery, since it is manufactured for the service of the manufacturer, whatever that service: for example, to need an object to whom one asks one's love after having risked its terrestrial hell as if the Earth lacked people to love, to need a social servant, a social substitute like a baker in place of the baker, to consider itself important to the point that its genes must not disappear when we know that everything evolves, etc. To do it blindly without mastering its manufacture is an additional crime. To install it in this belligerent and unhealthy world is even more criminal.

All of this, if you are a person of Right, of course. What applies to you also applies to this person you want to make, but as an animal you are just a machine without any state of mind.

The endangering of the life of others is an offense, therefore the law prohibits this endangerment, and in the case of fabricating a living, it is an infinite endangerment compared to the total absence of danger of the “non-existence”.

I did not premeditate to live, Your Honor, my parents may have done it for me.

Why the one, who engenders and her/his social accomplices, should not have the responsibility of engendering and all that ensues which is necessarily included in this initial voluntary act?

If you pull someone in your vegetable garden and he tramples your salads, is it him or you the responsible? If a god creates the garden “Universe” and installs Adam and Eve in this garden, is it him or both humans the responsible for the damage? If you make a child and you bring him into the garden "France" (your proper Nation), is it him or you the responsible for the damage he causes?

Are you responsible, you the manufacturer, for the damage caused to the manufactured being and the non-viability of the place where you install it. Does your child, this other person, have to love and respect this place, and respect yourself, because you have decided that way?

The making of a being is not a natural right, it is a natural power, like to use its muscles to move, and since it is a power, it must be regulated. To make a child is to make a person, to add an associate to the nation, an associate that others must take into account (life, education, health, death).

The power to make a child must be democratically managed by the entire nation. To make a child is at first a risk for the child himself (and for the woman who is going to give birth). From what right do you push a person to take risks? The freedom to make a child cannot be a fair right, since it is not a freedom for that other person that is the child.

The creation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and no one is mastering this creation. Only animals fabricate an existence without asking themselves questions…

2) Compensation for a birth handicap:

The handicapped child was conceived voluntarily. The risks are known, everybody knows them. Disabled children are born every day.

The handicapped child was thus conceived in full knowledge of the causes and effects, therefore he was deliberately handicapped by his parents and without any precaution, without that society, which legislates in all fields, cares the least bit about this constancy to fabricate disability, whereas there is no need to manufacture the slightest living being.

The handicapped child was thus conceived in full knowledge of the causes and effects, therefore he was deliberately handicapped by his parents and in the absence of any precaution, without that society, which legislates in all fields, cares the least bit about this constancy to fabricate handicap, whereas there is no need to manufacture the slightest living being.

While the act of procreation, this blind and random manufacture of a sensitive, conscious, intelligent, and mortal person, is the most important action for a human being who boasts of being himself conscious, intelligent, and sensitive.

You can do any kind of maltreatment before birth to the future baby the Law does not worry about. You can make it blind, quadriplegic, legless, or other ignoble tortures without any legal problems.

Your body belongs to you and the thing inside is like your liver or your lungs, you can booze and smoke as much as you like, damage all your organs, the precursor of the child including, the society stays out of that. The society just hopes that your interest goes in the same direction as its own.

But as you can give birth anonymously and get rid of the supernumerary organ once naturally expelled, your benefit in the viability of the Thing is not really demonstrated. The society relies on statistics, as a good player, to earn a little, but constantly.

Do disabled people have the right to require and call the heads, of those responsible for their daily miseries and sufferings? Why no ? Are not the creators of existences free?

If they are free, it is because they have voluntarily thrown their own child into this earthly hell, do not tell me that they did not know that disability was not a known alternative, a lottery, that they did not know that this insane draw lots could not happen to the person they made blind!

We are no longer to the first defect of birth. There is no longer any surprise about these physical or mental impairments, it is every day that the blade falls on the head of "thousands" of babies.

What could have accomplished this person if it had been endowed with the capacities of the best of us? You must imagine Mozart and what you should have owed him if you had made him incapable of accomplishing his work. You must consider Einstein and imagine what you would have owed him, if you made him incapable of thinking.

You must imagine the best of all athletes, the most intrepid of the adventurers, the most gifted of artists, the most extraordinary of inventors, and see the child whom you have conceived disabled, as one of those geniuses whose wings you cut off from birth. Repay it. Repair it. Compensate him to the measure of his suffering and of the lack to achieve.

Under what right can a person decide in place of others, of its sufferings, its death, or even its hell? Under what right can a person take the unilateral decision to fabricate the existence of another simply, but also, the height of sadism, to make it exist, whatever the consequences for him?

Society ! Indemnifies this person to exist for your service, but unable to fulfill his potential dreams because you have launched its manufacture without mastery and without shame for the only need to replace your partners who die after a useless life in your service and very often miserable in addition.

Society ! Remember your deaths in world wars, count down the suffering in all your hospitals, count your unemployed, your strikers, your demonstrators.

If you handicapped a person during his or her life, through an involuntary but predictable result, you have committed a reckless crime. This applies very accurately to the birth handicap.

The procreation is supposed to be voluntary and its action very frequently leads to a handicap for the person, who is procreated sightless, without any mastery, and quite randomly.

The risk is known, expected from a very long time. Thousands of daily examples of birth disability are visible to everyone. No one is trapped. You, parents, are aware of the risks involved upon other, your own child. You are a criminal through recklessness, even when no apparent disability occurs in the days following birth.

The disability can be genetic and manifested during the life of your child. It is not because you run this risk yourself that you have to put at risk others. Your child is not you, it is not a reproduction of you (two), it is not your continuity, it is another person.

If you and the accomplice society agree to manufacture a handicapped person, compensate him for that existence which you voluntarily messed up, for it is never obligatory to impose the existence on anyone.

Law of Retaliation : A person forced to exist in suffering all his life (or a part), may it cause suffering on the father and mother and society as much as it has suffered? If I am made blind by my mother a minute after my birth the law of retaliation applies, but if I am made blind before I am born (if I am born blind) the law of retaliation does not apply, why?

Everyone is put at the world, to be a full member of the society. It is made for that purpose, for this particular purpose while having the right to choose its society freely, the Human Rights specify in the first article with "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". How do you compensate her/him for not being able to take his place as a member when he/she is born or when she/he becomes disabled?

Retroactive Will: I forbid you to fabricate my existence, whatever it is, whatever the body, whatever the intellect, whatever the environment, whatever the place and the time. I do this ban retroactively because, what you have done and done wrong, you cannot undo it.

And since this act cannot be defeated or repaired, I want to be compensated for all the misdeeds you have committed against me. I want you to compensate my fears, my ill-being, my misery, my suffering, and all the crimes you have committed on me, especially endangering, unequal treatment, and slavery.

3) Impossibility of free will:

What is the use of a trial in our social justice system? First, it serves to separate two parties who are opposed, these two parties may be: the accused of an offense or crime, facing a representative of the society.

The investigators are social, the accused's lawyers are social, the accusers are social, the judges are social, so they are all representatives of society against an accused trained (badly or even very badly) by society as well.

Accused whose manufacture of existence has been approved by society, whose body and intellect are the result of this uncontrolled and above all non-desired fabrication, by the accused himself, whose education is ordered by the society, therefore at no time the accused is a master of what concerns him/her since she/he is not a master of what initiates her/him and the capacities that are provided to him/her without anyone knowing anything of that, barely the initial copulation which engendered him/her.

(Is someone masters of the automaton that is his brain? I would like to know the method.) So such a trial is, first of all, a search for the truth. The society accuses a person of having contravened laws that the society has set up itself.

A person whom the society has forced to exist and attempts by itself to format to its own system, which works globally, but never finely and especially if one does not look after it carefully, which is the case very often. Many children are illiterate by reaching their majority. Broadly speaking, society accuses of bad behavior the human machine it has fabricated and regulated itself.

But try to accuse society, this other party in the trial, of falsehood, perjury, sleaze! Yet society has never demonstrated the existence of free will!

Should not the search for the partial truth, that of the individual, be contained in a search for general truth that of our functioning as a human machine without free will, to which one imposes to exist, therefore without any responsibility?

We are sensitive, conscious machines, with a lot of information processing capacities and degrees of freedom, but we are no less machines because without free will, and above all, the height of all this judiciary absurdity, we are each of us forced to exist in the social demand itself.

The second goal of the society is that this trial serves as a means of self-learning for other social who are tempted to violate the laws, but since the time that humans are threatened with prison and death, nothing has ever changed. Why ? Because educating people is not made on the good model of people.

Humans are not of divine origin, but of a mechanical universe and possess no free will. The education of these two totally different beings cannot be identical.

Human beings are all forced to exist as any living being, but our intelligence understand it more or less consciously, and many of us react to this constraint of existence by social rejection in different ways.

Do we have the right not to accept the fate imposed on us in a society which calls itself anti-slavery and which has even made it an imprescriptible crime? Of course, since society itself affirms it and encourages resisting any form of dictatorship. Parents and society are dictators and will always be, whatever they say, and whatever love and repent they have afterwards.

What would you think if robots makers of other robots in their image, sent them to jail for defects of behavior, by telling them that they are being punished, because they did not do what their software and data commanded them to do ? I guess you would reply that manufacturers would do well to revise the bugs they made by programing their "kids" robots…

If you change the electrical or electronic wiring of your car and you have an accident, the insurance will not work, you will be liable.

By talking to me, you change the wiring of my neurons, so you become responsible for my actions! This is especially true with a child that you have conceived and educated from A to Z yourselves or society. The problem is human incompetence in these areas, conception and education!!!

We are, us humans, even as machines, able to read the panel, "free will, change of direction". The impossibility of free will is not incompatible with this change of direction. We must do it and review the whole educational system in which each person's life depends that of society, and the future of humanity on the planet if it has one.

The least of humanism is to understand as accurately as possible what we are. ("If I understand, they will understand" is a rationalist and honest maxim.)

Where does the block to any radical change in society come from? From the richest. They do not want social changes to lead to the loss of their nabob way of life, while they exist and their direct descendants, it is a deeply animal behavior. And since they have the means to pay lobbies, nothing resists them.

That is why I propose to rely on the honesty of a "small" judge whose judgment will be a case law. Maybe we could even find some people ready to learn the job of judge in order to pass one of these laws! Ten years of learning is short for such a goal.

It is society, through the members that are my parents, who thrown the manufacture of my body, it is it who configured it by education, how am I responsible for its operation, since you did not make me with a free will? It is not the peremptory affirmation that I possess a free will which will give me one.

If for the free will the principle of precaution has been reversed, why not do the same with telepathy: "I am a telepath, Your Honor," said the lawyer, "this man is innocent, I read him in his mind, I guarantee it without invoices."

We are responsible before the law only if there is free will. Does it not seem important to you to know officially whether free will exists? Has the government asked that this research be done scientifically? Has the legislature and the Justice officially requested that research on free will be carried out?

Has the (french) CNRS or any other official scientific body done any research on the subject? It is a technological research that belongs to scientific researchers and not to philosophers. If the research has been done, the results belong to us. I want to know about these results. I want to be able to discuss them.

I want to know the arguments used by the legislator to make his laws and those of Justice to punish people and afford to lock them out of the world between four walls in conditions that are always unacceptable.

Above all, it does not serve any purpose whatsoever for society or for those who are locked up, who have not asked to be born, and have been educated to a great extent by society which allows itself to punish them without correcting itself, even.

By refusing to recognize the impossibility of free will, the house "Justice" is Out-of-science, that is, Out-of-knowledge and therefore Out-of-reason… the house "Justice" is outside moral justice.

About 96% of criminals are men (and 100% of manufacturers of criminals are women). Does this mean that men are more prone to crime than women? Or does it mean that men's behavior is more criminalized than that of women?

Is not the greatest human crime to put a child in the world into unacceptable living conditions, in a world where so many criminals and so many victims are deliberately fabricated?

Humans think that all the functionalities of our bodies, and therefore our thoughts, are identical between human beings, for example our wills, our desires, our emotions, would be identical, and even a kind of control function (free will) that would be identical in all humans, behavioral control of desire, emotions, etc.

It is rather bizarre reasoning. Still an invention of the believers: the divine software is perfect, all humans are equal before their mental capacities and their understandings, and therefore the duty and whatever their age, since we are all part of humanity fixed in a type of man and woman, since Adam and Eve.

What is a prison? A place where the type of society found there is even more stupid than the society that established it. The person sent there may not get to learn to love the previous society, the one that forced him to exist to undergo this hell.

The victim complains about the criminal, but does she/he complain about the society that allowed the criminal to execute its crime and allowed him to develop by his laxity in education?

Today (as tomorrow), on Earth, more than 800 women are condemned without trial to die for fabricating existence, their only crime is to simply be incompetent to procreation.

Today (as tomorrow), on Earth, thousands of babies are condemned without judgment to be handicapped by complicit nations, which is more horrifying than an Islamic Sharia, since these babies have committed no other crime than to exist at the request of others and societies which condemn them all their lives to this burden.

If there was only one question, that all those who want to produce a new existence should ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have fabricated a suffering being, how can I undo suffering?”

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (December 2016)