All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:41
439 Shocked and Appalled at War Crimes?

Here's a hint about human corruption - and an invitation for empathy!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hope you're doing well, it's Steph. Oh no!
Good lord, I'm not even getting the mornings or afternoons right anymore.
It is 10.45 a.m.
on Saturday, September the 30th, 2006.
It's chore time and new microphone time, so I hope that you enjoy the slightly better quality of this microphone.
I haven't, of course, figured out any way, shape, or form to get this set up within my car, but I certainly do think that it has a nicer, richer sound, and it's just part of the donation flow-through that occurs from you to me to every Best Buy store in the country and a couple of future shops.
Actually, this is a This is a Sony microphone.
It's very, very nice. Anyway, so we're going to have a brief chat today about this.
I saw somebody sent me a PrisonPlanet.com article, some gentleman named Cafferty, and he says Cafferty is shocked and appalled.
The question is, what are we becoming?
What are we becoming?
Cafferty struck a somber note tonight after the House passed legislation that includes a war crimes immunity clause.
He rightfully asks, what are we becoming?
Cafferty, President Bush is trying to pardon himself.
Here's the deal. Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Convention are felonies, in some cases punishable by death.
When the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Convention applied to al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble.
They've been working these prisoners over pretty good.
In an effort to avoid possible prosecution, they're trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week, before Congress adjourns.
The reason there's such a rush to do this, if the Democrats get control of the House in November, this kind of legislation probably wouldn't pass.
You want to know the real disgrace about what these people are about to do or in the process of doing?
Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hester and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this.
I really do wonder, sometimes, what we're becoming in this country.
Well, what a load of utter tripe.
What a load of complete and total and utter tribe.
And do you see how my arguments are becoming more sophisticated as the show progresses?
I'm quite proud of my new reasoning skills.
We're going to classify this not under ad hominem or any of these sorts of problems, but we are going to include this under the heading tribe.
Look. I sort of want to give you, and I'm sure this is not too much news for you, but it's probably worth going over just a little bit.
I wanted to give you a couple of tips about human nature.
I consider myself a fairly decent psychologist, but I wouldn't say that these insights that I'm about to go with rise much above the level of kindergarten crayon drawings.
But let me sort of run you through a little bit of analysis that might help you to understand where people are coming from who commit crimes.
Now, if a murderer kills somebody in cold blood Drinks their blood and eats a toe or two.
Is it then to be shocked that he tries to hide his tracks?
And would you say that the evil that is really shocking and appalling is the fact that the murderer, who is a cannibal and a sicko of the First Order, that he is trying to dissolve the body In an acid vat or something like that.
Is that what is truly, truly horrifying to you?
Because I think if it is, you may be missing a little bit here and there about sort of the nature of a little psychological state some people like to call evil.
Because I don't really think that the fundamental problem that is occurring in America has to do with bits of words written on a piece of paper to cover the ass of people who approved torture and mutilation, sexual abuse, rape, and the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
And who are holding prisoners without trial in unbelievably horrendous conditions.
Who are setting up military tribunals to try people, sort of quote try people, right?
To have the veneer of legality over a brutal fascistic detainment system.
Who claim to value American lives to the point where in order to defend ourselves against...
Al-Qaeda and the supposed predations of 9-11, they're throwing troops into a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11, if indeed Al-Qaeda did, who knows?
And now I believe that it is the case that this last week, the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq...
Has passed the number of Americans who were murdered on 9-11 by whatever agency did it.
So, I think that for there to be a moment of shocked and appalled silence, because criminals, war criminals, by any definition, right?
I mean, the most egregious act of international evil is what is defined in international law as aggression, which is the unprovoked attack against a foreign nation.
So, to me, the basic issue is that the United States government has lied and terrorized and terrified a brutal and held hostage population, has gone in and attacked and murdered tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people,
we'll probably never know for sure, And it has caused the death of thousands of American soldiers and has run up enormous amounts of debts.
What is it? $340 billion now.
And of course, that's just what we're told.
I mean, the sum is probably far, far higher.
But it seems to me that then, having a moment of being shocked and appalled over the fact that these people are attempting to cover their tracks and to...
To prevent anyone from bringing charges against them.
And of course those charges would never stick.
Anyway, it's not...
I mean, it would just be bad publicity, right?
It's just it would look bad.
It's not like George Bush is going to face the electric chair for declaring war against an unthreatening nation and causing the deaths...
Of thousands of Americans and, of course, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, certainly, possibly hundreds of thousands, certainly wounding hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Right? I mean, this is how the government defends you, right?
It gets you killed. First of all, it provokes foreign threats, fails you to protect against them, and then gets you killed fighting the wrong enemy, right?
This is why when people say, ooh, in an anarcho-capitalist society, how would we handle national defense?
Like, Well, I tell you what, we could not handle national defense at all in a free society, and we'd be a hell of a lot better off than we are right now.
Certainly what's happening up here in Canada is that our fine Canadian government is pouring troops into Afghanistan, and God knows what kickbacks or what political favors are being wrangled in the background for that.
Tasty little self-destructive deployment.
We're throwing troops into Afghanistan and they're getting killed.
And what is that doing? Is it making Canada safer?
Of course not. It's got nothing to do with making Canada safer.
It's got to do with the transfer of money from the private sector to the public sector.
I mean, that's really what war is all about.
So I just think, you know, as far as, well, how would national defense be handled?
You see, it's being handled right now, and the real question is, gosh, how could it conceivably be handled?
In a free society.
Well, you know, you could have no national defense whatsoever other than the right to bear whatever arms you want, and boy, you'd just be a whole heck of a lot better off than you would be with the government provoking foreign enemies, declaring wars, murdering people.
I mean, it's now become official, and it certainly was my prediction, which I'm on the record for, predicting, oh gosh, 10 months ago at least, that...
The war in Iraq, the invasion and murder of Iraqi citizens, shockingly enough, has turned out to lead to have led to an increase in recruitment from terrorist organizations.
Who knows if it's true or not, but it would certainly stand to reason.
That, you know, if you go around murdering people, say, then you are likely going to provoke a rather strict and violent response.
Now, you may not believe that, but all I will say about that is that if you look at what happened as a result of 9-11 when a bunch of Americans were murdered, what happened was a very strict and violent and unjust response.
Instead of getting to the root of what happened and dealing with the first causes, which of course is the government, so they certainly don't want to look in that direction, what happens is you just go around killing a bunch of people.
So when you, as Americans, get attacked and your citizens get killed, you have a strong desire for vengeance.
And you let and encourage, many of you, you let and encourage the government to go and act out that vengeance against others.
And then...
It's somehow surprising news to you that the cycle of violence which you are initiating and participating in has not ended.
So you are attacked and you then go and attack others because you're so angry that your own citizens have gotten killed and then somehow it's news that the society that you are killing people in also wants to do exactly the same thing That you wanted to do, which is to seek vengeance against people who are murdered, right?
I mean, if you have the impulse, then other people, who also, I believe, are homo sapiens, will have exactly the same impulse, and that will be the cycle that will continue until somebody says, hey, maybe we shouldn't be letting governments handle this kind of stuff, you know, which is certainly my perspective, and...
I hold the question of self-defense in a free society how unimportant it is.
How absolutely unimportant it is.
If you have a coach who is beating up his...
He's some totally evil Soviet coach who's beating up his gymnasts and starving them and raping them and so on, then you kind of want to stop that...
That gymnastic teacher.
You don't necessarily want to say, well, you see, we can't stop this gymnastic teacher until we have a viable substitute in place.
That is going to be perfectly valid and never have any problems, right?
That probably wouldn't be a very just approach to the question of how you stop this kind of predation, right?
So it's just an excuse, right?
It's an excuse that people come up with so they don't have to deal with fundamental questions.
They all say, well, until you can provide a totally viable substitute, I'm not going to listen to what it is you have to say, right?
So, like, if...
And to me, it's kind of funny.
It's like if you have a town...
Wherein people are dying because there's cholera in the water.
The first thing that a doctor would probably be wise in suggesting is maybe, my friends, we should not be drinking the water that gives us cholera.
That would be, I think, a rational approach to it.
Stop drinking the water that's getting you killed.
Now... What might not be a rational response to the suggestion that you stop drinking the water that gets you killed would be to say, well, we're not going to do that until you come up with a perfectly safe water source that will never get anyone killed and a cure for cholera besides.
I don't think that's what you would do.
I mean, if it was suddenly proven that fluoride was some sort of intense carcinogenic that made your head explode, then it seems to me quite likely you wouldn't say, well, I'm going to keep drinking this crap until somebody comes up with a perfect water system that contains no bacteria or no health risks in any way, shape, or form for eternity, for all time, for all places, under all circumstances.
Until then, I'm going to keep drinking this crap that's making me sick.
No. The first thing you'd do is you'd say, hey, you know what?
I think I'm going to stop drinking the carcinogenic fluoride-laced water.
And I have no idea about that.
I mean, you hear stories about fluoride, I have no idea.
But the first thing you do is you stop drinking the stuff that, you know, gets you killed, right?
If you're on Jimmy Jones Island, I guess some point in the 70s, and he's saying drink this poison-laced Kool-Aid, you wouldn't say, okay, well I'm going to drink this because there's no Kool-Aid out there that is automatically going to dissolve and repel every single potential poison that could be put into it.
So, yeah, I'm just going to drink this stuff.
You do not need to have a perfectly viable alternative when the existing alternative or the existing system or structure is getting people killed at a pretty regular rate.
So that would be, I think, a pretty rational approach to that.
Well, I'm only going to accept your solution when you've proven to me that it's viable under all possible circumstances and it's never going to produce any problems and, you know, nonsense.
I mean, it's got nothing to do with it, right?
All you have to do is prove that there's cholera in the water and then any rational people will simply say, well...
Let's deal with some of the details about how we replace the water system in the future.
But the first thing we do right now is stop drinking the cholera water and, for heaven's sake, stop feeding it to our children.
In other words, stop sending your children to state schools for those who are having a little trouble with the metaphor, just as I am.
So I think that's certainly an approach that would be viable to take.
And the second thing that I would say about this little article, that this gentleman is so shocked and appalled that he can barely speak about, oh, where are we going as a country?
Oh, the papers!
It's a 19th century hysteric, right?
It sounds like a case of a hysterical woman out of the Freudian archives.
Um... Without wanting to sound harsh, let me just sort of pass along a nugget of wisdom or two that might be of value to you.
You know, once people are capable of starting genocidal wars and torturing innocent civilians and creating rape rooms and sexual mutilation chambers and, you know, approving deviations from the Geneva Convention that end up with electrodes being attached to the genitals of prisoners and, you know, this kind of stuff.
I mean, not to mention, I mean, that's just the foreign stuff, right?
Not to mention some things like throwing people in jail for having little bags of vegetables in their cars, having two million citizens in jail...
And once you have people who are sort of willing to execute and murder mentally retarded criminals and so on, you might, when you look at that kind of moral landscape, you might want to draw a conclusion or two about the fine people who are performing these kinds of actions.
You might not want to be all too shocked that they're attempting to wriggle out of certain kinds of legalities.
Any more than you're going to be absolutely shocked and appalled that a mass murderer steals a candy bar.
I think that you're probably missing something fairly fundamental if you're having an enormous amount of difficulty and feel shocked and appalled that these people who are war criminals by any stretch of the imagination, and although I am certainly not a fan of the death penalty,
if I were, And you felt that the death penalty were an appropriate punishment for certain kinds of crimes, then one would assume that the severity of the crime would have to be at the highest possible before you would even think of applying the death penalty.
But, um...
Surely, the mass murder of tens of thousands of people would be, you know, relatively high up there.
You know, above, say, using dead fetal cells for research, right?
Because, you know, these born-again Christians are so much into preserving life that they're supporting a war that's getting thousands of people killed.
But, of course, they're very concerned about preserving the lives of fetuses and stem cells because...
You know, they're all about the human life, right?
But, you know, that's just sort of something that I would suggest, that once you have people who are willing to commit genocide and are willing to set up torture chambers, that it might be considered rather vapid and ridiculous to then be shocked and appalled that they're trying to wriggle out of certain legal restrictions on what it is that they've done.
And, you know, as far as what you might get appalled about...
I wouldn't put the arguments in the House and attempting to stuff certain kinds of legislation through before the House deconvenes or whatever.
I wouldn't put that necessarily among the highest of the crimes or the ones that it's worth really getting emotionally involved in.
I would say for the average Iraqi, you could reasonably ask, you know, what...
What do you feel is the worst thing that the United States has done, right?
Because I think it's important to have empathy and understanding for how other people experience our culture.
So we're going to go to the average Iraqi and say, well...
Do you think that the evil were the sanctions in the 90s that supposedly resulted in the death of half a million Iraqi children?
Do you think that was the evil?
Do you think that selling Saddam Hussein, the helicopters that he used to release Chemical gas on the Kurds in the 90s, do you think that was...
Oh, what about putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with?
Do you think that... Oh, okay, what about selling arms to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war, which of course caused it to last a whole lot longer, and a couple of million people got murdered in that situation, which never would have occurred in the absence, or at least would not nearly have occurred to the degree that it did, in the absence of...
I'm just touching on the highlights of what U.S. involvement in Iraq has led to.
So if you go to the average Iraqi and you say, oh wait, sorry, there's that little 2003 invasion as well, where you've got bombs falling from B-52s at 20,000 feet, but you know, highly precise bombs that hit civilians as precisely inefficiently as it hits military targets.
Do you think that the average Iraqi, when confronted with a list, and of course they wouldn't need to be confronted because it's carved into the very bones of their collective memories, do you think that the average Iraqi would say, well, that stuff was bad for sure, but you know what really gets my goat is the fact that They're trying to pass legislation to avoid any possible even appearance of repercussions for these crimes.
I can handle and accept the fact that my children are all dead and that my leg was blown off and my family's home has been destroyed and I live like a dog and my son is in Abu Ghraib.
I can live with all of that stuff, the rape, the torture, the murder, the mutilation, the abuse from the soldiers and so on, but...
It's the breaches in legality that really offend me.
Like, that's the stuff that I just can't stomach.
Everything else I can live with.
But the fact that they're trying to pass legislation in a legally binding way, in perhaps a slightly rushed fashion, oh my heavens, does that ever get my moral goat up and running.
Because... When it comes to evil, writing on pieces of paper and speaking...
In a far-off country that does no harm to me, the speaking, of course, that does no harm to me directly, now that, that is the real crime.
Not the bombing, not the raping, not the murders, not the destruction of the economy, not the setting up of and funding of a brutal, rapacious dictator, not the sanctions, not the loss of medical supplies or food or any of these sorts of things, not the oil for food scandal, which, of course, just served to fat in the purse.
Of the people who floated around the moral monster that was Saddam Hussein.
None of that stuff. But boy, you know, this rush legislation, that's what really makes me think, gee, what is the US coming to?
I'd love to see that argument put forward to an Iraqi and see what their response would be.
I don't think I'm going out on too, too much of a limb here when I say that the response would probably not be that they found...
Rushed legislation in the House to be the primary moral crime that makes them say, gee, what?
What? What is America coming to...
Now, the last thing that I'd like to say about this...
Is to just sort of point out, if you don't mind, the complete absence of mystery as to where America is going.
I've got to tell you, I really hate, as you may be able to tell, I really do hate these tentative, shocked and horrified kind of questions that come from people in these sorts of realms.
What have we done?
Where are we going as a country?
What's happening to us?
Come on, people! First of all, it's nothing new.
And second of all, you know exactly where you're going.
There's no mystery here.
There's no, oh gosh, what is the end of the trend that we're on?
The end of the trend is fascism.
I mean, this is no, I mean, it's, you know, more than 50% of the way there.
And if you count the national debt, probably 70 to 75% of the way there.
But, uh... I have to tell you, the result is fascism, and there's no, as yet, no seemingly way, no seeming way to stop this steamroller, right?
So there is no doubt, no question here about where America's heading.
I can spell it out for you in a little bit longer set of syllables.
That's where you're heading.
To give you an example of sort of what it is that I mean, and how the sort of moral principle that I'll talk about in a minute or two might be a little bit more clear, let's have a look at some atrocities from our good friends, the Muslim theocracies.
So here, this is a sort of series of crimes from an article by Barbara Emile.
In the October 9th version of Maclean's, which is the Canadian version of Time or Empire Light.
Anyway, it says here, in November 2005, a court in Saudi Arabia sentenced a high school chemistry teacher to 40 months in prison and a public flogging of 750 lashes.
After he had shared his opinion on various topics, including Christianity, and encouraged his students to engage in critical thinking in resolving apparent differences of meanings between the Koran and the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad, perhaps like marrying and raping a nine-year-old.
He was banned from his trial.
His lawyer not recognized.
No reply from the Saudi government for requests for information.
And so it goes.
In Pakistan, a 26-year-old Christian died after torture while in police custody.
It was alleged, writes the rapporteur, that 40 Christians who sought an investigation of the police involved in this case were brutally arrested.
As opposed to being nicely arrested.
A young Christian drank water from a tap outside an Islamic seminary.
According to his deathbed statement, he was tortured for five days by a teacher and students when he refused to convert to Islam.
A Christian pastor was abducted while walking home.
His head was shaved, his clothing exchanged for the traditional chalois camis, and after an injection, he woke up, quote, suspended by his legs from an iron girder with his hands tied behind his back.
He was reportedly severely beaten with long wooden sticks and given drugs again.
In Lahore, A man charged with blasphemy was sentenced to death.
The Pakistan government explained that he was, quote, accused of being a false prophet, which is an extremely offensive act for the Muslims who believe in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad, and that, quote, all requirements of justice had been fulfilled.
This is where you're heading.
This is where you're heading.
And if you think that that's impossible, I would sort of simply invite you to take a memory back, stroll down memory lane to our good old friends the Romans, circa 300-400 AD. A vaguely civilized society with a modicum of respect for property rights.
Only some slaves, a reasonable sized empire, and only some brutality towards women as a whole.
Lack of ability to hold property and so on.
Lack of ability for recourse.
But relatively civilized compared to what came after when the Christians took over, right?
So the Christian infiltration of the Roman Empire was, along with the general logic of empire, the growth of states, was what sort of resulted in a thousand years of exactly this sort of thing occurring from the Christians, right?
See, this is what's so funny about what the Pope did this last week.
And what's so funny about the Pope talking about atrocities as if the Crusades, the Inquisition, the torture of scientists and unbelievers and heretics and all of the torture implements that you can see coming out of the Catholic Church It's just kind of funny, right? Basically, this is just one of the five families talking about another of the five families.
And yes, yes, yes, I know, and we'll get to this at other time, that modern Christianity in the West is not as brutal as it used to be, and we will get into the whys and wherefores of that in the podcast, hopefully, early next week.
But this is sort of where you're heading.
I wouldn't have any doubt about that.
That would seem to me to be inevitable.
Now, the other thing that's funny about these questions of war crimes and how shocked and appalled certain intellectuals are, that the leaders seem to be covering their tracks and that there is a level of shock, an elemental sense of shock that this has occurred.
Well, I suppose it's just an appalling lack of fairly obvious history, but if you were to sort of ask yourself which people who are victorious in a war ever prosecute themselves for war crimes, I guess you would have to sort of cast your net fairly far and wide in the realm of history to find anybody who might even remotely fall into this category.
Things which were considered to be war crimes in the past would be direct targeting of civilians as a part of a campaign of war.
Direct targeting of the innocent, of civilians, and so on would be considered to be a war crime, which of course was started by the Allies and continued by the Allies throughout the Second World War and killed millions of people and yet, of course, the only people who ever suffered prosecution for war crimes We're the Nazi civilian commanders and to some degree the military commanders because they did,
and again, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not defending Nazism, but if you're going to look at a history, then of course the Nazis were killed because they initiated the war, right?
I mean, this is why we considered it to be vaguely just what happened in Nuremberg, that the Nazis were guilty of the international crime of aggression.
By starting all those little wars, or I guess you could say invasions, they were scarcely wars, places like Austria and Czechoslovakia and Poland and so on, Russia.
Of course, none of the Allied commanders were ever sanctioned in any way, shape, or form for the brutal targeting of the German population, who as victims of a dictatorship were not exactly in charge of their own destiny any more than the average American citizen is in charge of his government.
That's laughable, right? I mean, you might as well imagine that the farmer is going to sit down with the livestock and take a vote about what should be done with the cow's innards For the meat truck to come by.
So, you can go all the way back to the First World War.
Countless atrocities.
You know, the use of mustard gas and targeting of civilians and so on.
All of that stuff went on. And, well, not a whole lot of war crime prosecutions that occurred.
War profiteering occasionally was prosecuted, but I'm sure that's only when somebody was not paid off.
So I think that at this point in history, for somebody to be shocked and appalled and speak in hushed tones, in mute horror, about, oh, where are we heading as a country and as a culture and as a this and a that...
I mean, this is just willful, willful ignorance.
Like a woman who's been beaten for 40 years, who gets beaten again and says, my God, what is happening to my marriage?
Where are we going?
No, you're not going anyplace new.
You're going exactly where you're going when this sort of stuff is allowed to continue.
And I'll tell you that this, fundamentally, I'm not one for blaming the victim, so this is not something that I'm going to say It's fully worked out, but it's certainly an idea I think that's worth considering, that the governments that you end up with are the price of your moral corruption.
I mean, it's certainly the argument that goes all the way back to Socrates, but the fact that Americans, for instance, this is the price, the reason why they have the government they have, in a very sort of fundamental way, is that When 3,000 of their own citizens are killed through a non-state action, right? And, of course, the history of the CIA's relationship with al-Qaeda is a long, fascinating, and fundamentally quite uninteresting one, because it's just so typical.
But the Americans, when they get attacked, 3,000-odd of their own people get murdered in a horrible and evil way.
And their response, of course, is to, generally, right, their response is to lash out at those who cause them harm, without realizing, of course, that that's exactly what the terrorists are doing as well, right?
Which, of course, doesn't make either side right.
But, to me, this is the price that you pay for a lack of empathy, right?
Because if you really had empathy...
Then you would be talking vociferously and there would be a healthy, productive, and virulent debate regarding the growth of U.S. interests in power and destructive foreign policy overseas and so on.
And there would be, you know, when you would hear that, say, half a million Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions, you would actually feel The kind of moral horror and anger and desire for change that would be productive and get to the root cause of the problem,
you would feel that way As surely and as strongly as if you had heard that, say, two or three million American children had been killed by some foreign country.
Because the Iraqis are human beings and the Iraqis are groaning under a horrible dictatorship that they did not choose or create.
And that was not the cause or direct responsibility of the United States, but certainly the U.S. and other Western nations being in the Middle East for the last couple of hundred years, causing regime change, funding brutal dictators, selling weapons.
They're not entirely blameless, the governments, not the people, of course, because the people...
Well, to some degree, yes.
Sorry, let me just sort of alter that, because that's sort of what I'm talking about now.
that if you don't react to the news that half a million Iraqi children have been killed throughout the 1990s by certain kinds of sanctions, if you don't react with horror to the news that the U.S. has invaded a country off a dictator they claim is pure evil, which they actually put into place in the first place,
if you don't react with horror to the news that bin Laden was trained as a CIA operative and taught to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, if you don't react with horror to the stories that I'm talking about, which from the Muslim governments,
which are all governments supported by, funded by, and have arms sold to by the US, if you don't react with horror to the abuse of others because they are, sort of, quote, different, or not you, or not part of your tribe, Then the result is that you're going to get a dictatorship.
And yes, governments are evil and governments grow and governments expand and this, that and the other.
I'm fully aware of all of that.
But if you cannot feel empathy for those who are murdered overseas, and if you can only feel empathy for those who are murdered in your own country, it is that moral failing, it is that tribal bigotry It is that fantasy that somehow you have more in common with your own leaders,
because they look a little bit more like you, that you have more in common with your own leaders than you have with people overseas who are groaning under the same yoke of increasing state power that you and I are groaning under.
If you think that you have more in common with the farmer than with the cow on the other side of the fence, then the result is that you're going to go to the slaughterhouse.
There's simply no possibility that anything other is going to happen until such time as we actually develop empathy towards people who get killed, regardless of what they wear on their heads, regardless of what strange Musain calls rouse them in the morning,
when we finally, finally can feel the same kind of moral horror for the abuse of others that we feel for, sort of, quote, our own, Well then, we will have taken an enormous step towards moral integrity.
We will have taken an enormous step towards the actual creation of a society that can exist without a state because these artificial divisions of us versus them and our leaders are good and their followers are bad, once we can crawl out of that nonsensical hole,
Then, we actually have taken a quantum leap forward as far as the moral development of mankind goes, and that will be a great and glorious day when we react to the murder of foreigners by our government as strongly as we react to the murder of our own citizens by foreign governments.
Then, then, then we will really be on the brink of a new world.
And that would be just a wonderful and fantastic place to be.
So I hope that this has been helpful.
Thank you so much for listening as always.
▲
Export Selection