On the notion that "healthcare is not a right" - On rationality as a means to justify human rights

I somehow ended up reading an article on why healthcare is not a right (!!) but rather a good. The sickening idea that someone who happened to lack money to pay for his own health care ought to be left to die in the streets in case he has a health problem, would not be something to be seriously discussed if there were no voters that sincerely believed that the supposed "right" of the rich not to give a negligible portion of their income is greater than the right of the people to live.

Before I elaborate the reasons why the notion is not only sickening but technically wrong too, I should clarify something: there are some things that can never be approached with pure reason. All those who have bothered to read psychology, cognitive science, or even serious economics (e.g. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tvertsky) are very familiar with this notion; humans are inherently irrational beings, and their perception about right and wrong is not, and can never be, based on pure rational reasoning.

A typical example, extensively studied by psychologists researching on the impact of rational argumentation on how we perceive right and wrong, is sexual intercourse between siblings. Suppose that two siblings -a brother and a sister- decide to have a sexual intercourse. If you are like most people you find it unthinkably disgusting; and if you are like most people too you can't point out a reason why. No matter how you rationalize your disgust, one can find rational counterarguments based on the "individual rights" of the two siblings, yet you will never find it normal and your disgust won't be weakened no matter the rational arguments. It just doesn't feel right.

Well, that's the case with some social issues too, people dying in the streets being one of them. Go elaborate your theories about healthcare not being a right to an orphan dying from leukemia because there is no one to pay for its' therapy. The notion of healthcare being a good one ought to pay for is not, and will never be, normal, no matter the pseudorational "argumentation" about "individual rights" -just as the notion of two siblings having sex will never be OK no matter the "argumentation".

Biological evolution has hard-wired our brains into getting disgusted with the notion of a brother having sex with his sister, just like it has hard-wired our brains to feel empathy towards other human beings -especially who we consider to belong to "our" group. If you sincerely believe that your compatriots should be left dying, you lack a normally functioning brain and I'm ready to bet that you find it OK for two siblings to have an intercourse too. You are horribly anomalous, profoundly disgusting, utterly unsuitable for a society, and natural selection should have wiped out your problematic genes long ago. But I won't talk about it -not now, at least.

One of the most typical "arguments" against taxation and free healthcare is a supposed right not to have portions of your money taken away from the government. I'm not going to elaborate to a libertarian that what we call individual rights are nothing but an arbitrary group of notions designed to sound so good that you would accept any tyrant promising to protect yours. Instead, I will point out that "your" money is merely a means to exchange goods that is not technically yours, belonging actually to a central bank or a government, depending on the economic system. No matter how starkly you fantasize you are entitled to it, it belongs to them.

As a Greek living in Greece during the economic recession, I know first hand that no matter who you are, the buying power of "your" money -which is the essence of a currency and the very reason why it exists- is decided by others. If those "others" decide to devalue your currency or switch it to a weaker one (as in the threat of  Greece exiting the eurozone and returning to the Drachma), you end up poorer. "Your" money does not belong to you, by default. Keep it in mind when speaking of economy. But for the sake of conversation, I will suppose that it actually belongs to you.

To be a part of a society means to abandon some of your supposed individual rights in order to enjoy the benefits of belonging to it. If you want to retain your individual rights, you can go high up in a mountain and live alone and like an animal. To be surrounded by other people and drawing the benefits of it means per definition to sacrifice some rights of yours.

It is just like being in a relationship: you abandon the right to date whomever you want, the right to dress up however you want to, the right not to take a bath, the right to spent all your money for yourself (mainly men),  among others. If you want your right to date everyone you like and the right to dress up like a prostitute, well, don't get in a relationship. It is not differential topology; it is so simple that even a fourth-grader could grasp.

Among the rights you abandon by being a member of a society is the right to live for yourself. That includes the right to keep "your" money. Your economical situation is a result of your interaction with the society, and taxation is a way to ensure that it works properly. Providing free healthcare to your compatriots is the way of thanking them for working for you and buying your products, but first of all it is the right thing to do, and that can never be justified with rational explanations.

At this point I would like to strongly discourage those who agree with me, from supporting their beliefs about taxation using capitalist terminology. Yes, we could claim that it is an "investment" in which you give money to your compatriots so that they will buy your products and services, thereby returning you what you spent for taxation. We could also claim that to provide free healthcare to your compatriots is to help them stay alive so that they will keep buying your products and services.

But every Human (that is, with both a heart and a brain) should develop the strongest aversion to explaining such things in economic terms. It is not about economy; it is because that's the right thing to do. We are inherently irrational, and owe no explanations to those who disagree with what is universally considered moral. Just like we don't owe explanations to those who want us to accept intercourses between siblings. There are things that can never be approached with pure rationality, and if they do, the explanations sound disgusting.

Would anyone seriously bring up the argument that we should provide free healthcare to the poor so that they will stay alive to work and consume? Perhaps some "libertarian" (capitalist), but no one with both a heart and a brain.

Free healthcare not a right? Well, there is no rational argumentation about what constitutes a human right in general. All of the so-called human rights -the right to free speech, the right to an education, the right to live- are completely arbitrary and with no path of purely logical thinking leading to them. We are nothing but valueless structures of cells and microbes, not really worthier than any other life-form in our ecosystem, living on the remnants of a star due to a series of accidents, and everything concerning our "rights" is just what we'd like to hear. 

But since all of our rights are fundamentally irrational, along with many of our beliefs, why should there be a rational justification about free healthcare being on of those rights too? The sole reason is that the taxation necessary for free healthcare threatens the profits of the rich, and that's why they demand elaborated argumentation about it. 

We will not come up with a completely rational argumentation about the right on a free healthcare before capitalists give us a completely rational argumentation about the right of private individuals to own the means of production.

On white guilt

Greek version

The "white oppressors", the "Europeans" that "oppressed Africans", the "whites" that built their empires upon "Africans' dead bodies"... How often has one to deal with such mental defecations in a typical conversation about racism and slave-handling? Instead of feeling guilty as "descendants of oppressors", we ought to examinate such issues by a purely rational aspect. George's spot provides you an elaborate counter-argumentation of four levels of pure rationality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The common denominator of the oppressors was NOT European origin. Arabs bought and sold Africans as slaves long before Europeans set foot in Africa, and some of the toughest slave-handlers stemmed from Arabic or even African tribes and cultures (i.e. Tippu Tip). There were, besides, countless Africans -particularly wealthy ones- who actively participated in the slave-handling of other Africans and helped Europeans and Arabs to carry it out. If you are looking for a common denominator of the oppressors, that is not some "racial origin", but economic wealth: Africans dealt not with "white" oppressors -there were many Arabs and Africans using people as slaves-, but rather with "rich" oppressors. That's the common denominator.

2. The grounds upon slave-handling took place were economical, and not racial. The racial theories of white superiority were used merely as pretexts, with the very purpose of justifying slaughtering and oppression, and were expressed in such ways that made even the most insignificant white soldier feel superior, to rape and kill with no compunction, and sincerely believe he was doing it for some "holy" purpose (i.e. converting africans to christianity). But that was a plain justification of the deed, and not its' origin. The groundings were economical intrests. There have been many places on the earth that were inhabitated by "inferior races", yet never had slave-handling, nor slave-workers in mines: they just didn't happen to have the richness of Africa. Hence, to blame someone racism instead of capicalism for what happened  is, basically, fallacious.

3. Unwealthy Europeans were often as oppressed as the Africans. If there had been no organized slaughter against them, that was not only because there were no racial theories to justify them, but also that they would be rather dangerous for the oppressors: Leopold of Belgium, having his palace in his land, would not take the risk of his people revolving against him and burn his palace to the ground, by allowing the cops of his era to shoot them in case they didn't work well. But Africa was too far away from Belgium, and a revolution was of no risk for the physical security of him and his palace. Yet still, the poor men of Europe were oppressed.

4. In order to blame a group of people for a misdeed, one ought to prove that all or at least a majority of the people belonging to it was responsible. That means, one should prove that there was a considerable part of the "white" population that was responsible for the slave-handling. The typical european of the era was most likely unaware of what was actually going on in africa. Not to mention the fact that even if things were different, no modern European can feel shame and apologize for what his grandfathers did. It is as if one has a robber as a grandfather and is expected to apologize for robberies that took place before he was even born. Besides, to blame a misdeed on the Europeans in general is equally stupid and racist with blaming criminality on african-Americans because of some statistics.



13/2/2018

Even Eistein could be fooled this way! Or not?

Greek version

------------------------------

It is a fact that you can easily fool the people around you and make them seem total idiots: the only thing you have to do is tell them what they want to hear, or even better, provide them evidence about it.

A video that went recently viral -at least in facebook groups and pages I happened to visit- is this:

https://www.facebook.com/449098048626137/videos/469924766543465/?pnref=story

The fact that it's uploaded in a Mussolinian fascist page is enough to raise some suspicion...

In case you are unable to view it, let me give you a synoptic description: in a furnitureless room with Arabian-styled carpets on the floor, a woman (?) dressed up with a black garment of islamic type, is being threatened by a turbaned man in white clothing that speaks some Arabic dialect and holds a belt (or some kind of lash). The latter starts hitting the ground besides the woman, while she is down on her knees trying to cover herself. A second man in an apparently violent mood nears her holding a wooden object.

That's what happens 'till the half of the video, where I closed it so that I wouldn't punch my screen to the wall, yet I managed to share it on my profile. As it seems I am also hell of an idiot.

Slightly after the second man approaches "her", "she" starts screaming like a bewildered asylum inmate while rolling on the floor, before the men lift "her" up. Before the ending someone laughs behind the camera. The "woman's" behaviour and how "her" voice-tone sounds while screaming was (or should be) enough to understand that "she" is a man dressed up this way for the purposes of the video, not to mention the laugh.

Despite the apparently sarcastic behaviour of the alleged woman at the point where "she" rolls on the floor, and the laugh near the end of the video, some five thousend people hastened to share it with their facebook friends, claiming that muslims are barbarians (which is, when it comes to the radical ones, an undeniable fact).

One may ask oneself: how can these people be so idiotic? Well, in fact what one should ask oneself is not how can they be so idiotic, but if they are actually so.

Every human being has a way to perceive the world, and believes with almost no skepticism everything that seems to support it's manner of thinking, while "deleting" whatever comes in conflict with it. Those mental "deletions" are widely known in the field of psychology as "confirmation bias" -one of the most studied biases by specialists. I don't know whether accepting without skeptisicm everything that seems to confirm your well-established views on various issues as evidence has a name in psychology, but it is a phenomenon taking place everyday.

Since one supports a belief, whether correct or not, each kind of evidence seeming to somehow prove it is instantly accepted by him and being treated by his mind as valid even if it isn't. The stupidest, the most visibly counterfeit "evidence" is considered by you to be valid, whether it is a video, a photograph or some kind of survey or research, just because it is in accordance to what you believe it is true.

As if that was not enough, there is also the previously mentioned "confirmation bias" that biases our thinking: each indication that one may be wrong is treated with the utmost skepticism, as if everything that could prove the opposite of one's opinion is definitely a hoax. Clues supporting the opponent's views are considered by one to be fake ("fake and gay" on the internet), even when one cannot explain what exactly is wrong with them.

In this case, the well-established belief of the ones that shared the video is that fanatic muslims are barbarians (a fact that whoever is unwilling to accept, apparently considers the medieval Christians to be cultivated and civilized as well). This particular video is a form of "evidence" supporting their belief, and therefore the brains of the ones that see it while holding this view typically "silence" the laugh near the ending, as well as the manly scream of the "woman".

We can claim, semi-literally, that even Einstein could be fooled this way: it is how the human mind works.

That is not necessarily bad; each human being needs to somehow self-indentify itself, and a self-identification can be achieved, among other ways, by holding a belief. If we were to change our beliefs with each and every clue proving them wrong, well, we would be rather unstable and unpredictable, not only when it comes to opinions, but in general, given that the same mental functions responsible for this, work when it comes to the way we perceive ourselves and how we are supposed to behave and encounter our everyday issues.

"Silencing" everything that threatens our beliefs while believing instantly almost everything that supports them is a crucial defense-mechanism of our mind against the confusion and uncertainty of having to change itself every once in a while, and it helps us remain stable.

But are those who shared this video believing it's real, idiots? The answer is a resounding yes. If you want to be called a "smart" guy you have to question everything you encounter, even if it confirms your views and opinions. Yet we are all, by this aspect, idiots, for we avoid using skeptisicm in most cases.

Given the above, always keep in mind this: it is really easy to fool the people around you. The only thing you have to do is to tell them what they want or expect to hear, and even provide them evidence about it. All different opinions and evidence will be "silenced" by their brains anyway. If you can exploit this weakness of your people you will be taken seriously by them. And there are persons that earn whole fortunes using this method. 

Racism, conspiracy theories and other diseases

Greek version

-------------------------------------------
The human cognition has a capability which, though of high significance by evolutionary aspect, proved to be slightly disadvantageous for humans living in advanced societies: the ability to simplify the surrounding world by discerning or forming patterns that help perceiving and understanding it or approximately describe it.

Even though the use of that cognitional Occam's razor may be helpful when it comes to aspects of everyday life, when it comes to issues of higher complexity (scientific, political, philosophical or social) it is frequently proved to be, not only unhelpful, but a sign of limited mental capabilities -stupidity, simply put. Let me elaborate.

The human species belongs to the kingdom of animalia. Even though the conditions under which it evolved  favoured the development of its' brain to a degree it has abilities no other animal brain has (i.e. verbal abilities, mathematical reasoning etc), its' cognition still shares several characteristics with the animal ones. For instance, just like an animal, human brains are able to form or discern patterns via which they perceive the world simplified -and that's not bad at all. We can, instance, simplify the image of of a leafage to a shape -a pattern- they are familiar with. Therefore, instead of seeing an intricate, unclear leaf arrangement, we see something simpler and easier to perceive.

Evolutionarily put, that was highly significant. The capability to find out patterns could save the life of an animal (or a primitive human), for the shape of a dangerous enemy forms a pattern when hidden behind a tree-trunk. Inability to find it would result to being eaten and therefore, not passing your genes to the next generation.

So, the ability to discern patterns is of crucial importance for an organism, and by an evolutionary aspect it was useful and needful for humans. But it had an unfortunate side-effect: discerning patterns that just aren't there.

Just like an animal that could simplify the image of a leafage or an arrangement of rocks to a shape or a face with which it's familiar even though it isn't there, so have humans the capability of simplifying the world to shapes and patterns that their brain can handle easier than the intricate surroundings. But this ability is not used by the brain only to perceive optical patterns as it was evolutionary supposed to, but it also used to perceive complex issues, such as life and society.

Maybe in everyday life it's helpful, for such patterns helps us bare with situations without having to think much time. And by using them we comprehend the world more easily, make predictions for our future and have an illusion of controlling our life by acting as those patterns demand.

One can, for instance, form a perceptional pattern according to which, whoever is named "Jimmy" has a bad personality and is untrustworthy. In such case, one has the illusion of controlling one's life by avoiding contact with "Jimmies", and also forms a perception of society that's easy for the brain to handle: "Jimmies" are the bad guys and the rest are the good ones.

Does it remind you of something? No? It's a ridiculous example, isn't it? It seems impossible that there are people who would consider "Jimmies" to be the bad guys, for it's an illogical pattern to be discerned by a normal person. Do you want a realer example?

How about the ones that instead of Jimmies consider blacks to be the bad guys?

All racist beliefs, i.e. that the immigrants are "criminals" and "scum", are an unfortunate result of our ability to form patterns that simplify the world. We have to perceive, somehow, society and politics besides images. Well, some of us perceive them via non-existent patterns -just like an animal's brain can detect in a leafage the pattern of a face of a dangerous enemy that isn't there.

The patterns one's brain may create to perceive a situation, are sometimes created to simplify it as much as possible -just like when you see some dots that seem to form a human face and your brain simplifies it considering it to be a face rather than a bunch of dots. When it comes to social issues, racist patterns are easier for our minds to handle than theories approaching them with economical and political terms. But choosing to explain society using them instead of reason is a proof that you are... an idiot.

A typical example of an idiot is the guy appearing in the video below:

(Unfortunately I couldn't find an equally racist video in English. He claims that he doesn't want his children to go to the same school with immigrant "scum" and "murderers", and that "Greece is for the Greeks only" and no one else should be there. He also claims that we should throw immigrants to the sea and that "there's where they're supposed to be" and "not in land", not in 'HIS' land.)

The lovely primitive apperearing on this video, even though he may aggrevate many of its' viewers (in case they understand Greek, of course), some may even laugh at how simple-minded is he and the way he speaks. The laugh will turn to rage when one realises that this life-form has the right to take decisions concerning the future of our children and that there is a relatively large percentage of people that shares the same beliefs.

Like some kind of mao-mao cannibal, like some native american talking about "his land", so the primitive of the video speaks of 'his' land as if he has bought it and has rights on it. But even more idiotic is what he claims about "scum" and "murderers" that'll go to the same school with his child -and there are people out there who actually have such beliefs. And they don't live in Greece only.

Look, my racist friend. You are definitely not responsible for being an idiot the propaganda that professional fascists filled your head with. But you gotta learn that an immigrant criminal is just a criminal, and a criminal from your country is also just a criminal. Being a criminal has nothing to do with where you come from -there are criminals all over the world. The immigrants tend to have a larger percentage of them compared to non-immigrants, because they are poorer and ill educated. Criminality is caused by poorness, not racial origin. If it was so, all blacks would be criminals and no white would be in jail.

Furthermore, my dear racist friend, immigrants are NOT responsible for your country's situation -it's the capitalists and loansharks that fucked everything up. And they did what they did with the help of your nation's politicians which got elected by your people. Your compatriots are more responsible for whatever may be happening in your country than immigrants. Why don't you demand their deportation...?

Think, dear racist: if you lived like an animal in a country far away from your home and got bullied by the nationalists living there, while having to stay in an apartment with about 10 compatriots of yours, wouldn't you seriously think of becoming a mafia-goon if the local mafia-bosses gave you money to sell their drugs to buy your own department? No?? Then, you are a fucking liar, for that's what you'd do. It's not a coincidence that in most cases the leaders of criminal organizations exploit immigrants: they are more likely to commit crimes, for they are in a huge need of money.

The racist beliefs that claim immigrants are "scum" and "criminals" are simplifications like the ones we mentioned above, because approaching social issues using economic or social-science terms is harder than approaching them with all that mental defecation about "races". But since we don't bare with optical images in such cases, when one's brain chooses to simplify them by creating such non-existing patterns, well, that's a sign that one is an idiot.

Same with conspiracy theories. Whoever is too dumb to comprehend politics blames everything on the Jews, the illuminati or the flying spaghetti-monster.

OK dude, we know you don't like the Jews. The killed your lord and saviour, Jesus, they kill all those poor Arab children (even though they are "scum" when coming to your country) and have big noses. But that does not mean that they are responsible for whatever the fuck happens on this planet. All these conspiracy theories that want them to try to dominate economically the whole planet, based on the origins of some bankers, are as accurate as the claim that Greeks conspire to dominate the sea because some shipowners are of Greek origin. Doesn't it sound funny? Even if most bankers are of Jewish origin, the vast majority of the Jews is no different than the vast majority of non-Jews in terms of wealth.

In this case, our lovely primitive friends' brains have formed a pattern according to which a single nation is responsible for everything.

Some beliefs are unreasonable, damn it. Not all claims are logically valid. It is definitely easier to perceive the world that simplified but that doesn't mean that it's correct. If one sees a bunch of dots the centre of which seems to form a human face then, yes, it's inevitable and logical to perceive it as such. But that does not apply to hyper-simplifications of political, philosophical, social or scientific issues -if your mind makes them in those cases you are just a dumbfuck.

Sometimes racist beliefs seem to make sense. I've read, for instance, an article mentioning a research according to which most rapists in nordic countries are of middle-eastern or African origins. That was interpreted via the hate towards women in those parts of the world, and the social-acceptability of rape. The simplified -racist- belief the article was trying to spread was that the Muslims and blacks are possible rapists. A more realistic belief would be that not all immigrants are responsible for what a minority of them does and that maybe most of them are NOT rapists, nor they perceive rape as something normal. After all, even if the research was not total garbage, then the responsible for those rapes would be their beliefs and not their racial origins or the property of being an immigrant.

All this shit about inferior races and dangerous immigrants is the mental vomitus of primitive-minded dumbfucks that blame everything on immigrants because they are unable to find out who is responsible for what's going on in their countries.

If someone wants them to leave because the country's economy can't bare them or because their beliefs and way of thinking are sickening, well, yeah, that's a reasonable and acceptable opinion that can be treated as such. But wanting them to leave because you consider them to be "scum", "inferior" and "criminals"? One has to be a total dumbass to actually have such beliefs. Racist beliefs, just like conspiracy theories, are the result of the innate paranoia of our kind and the ability to simplify the world by forming non-existent patterns. But it's not the immigrants' or the Zionists' fault if someone is paranoid or simple-minded.

What's an undeniable fact is that racism and believing absurd conspiracy theories have a common denominator -being uneducated. Or, in many cases, just dumb as a box of rocks. I'm not saying that there aren't conspiracies or differences between nations and groups of them -I'm just saying that seeing everywhere a conspiracy or blaming everything to the immigrants is a sign of stupidity. What's funny, is that the ones believing such slush consider themselves to be smart. They think that their gibberish is reasonable and can be treated as an opinion, and not as mere slush.

Next time you'll hear a primitive blaming passionately everything on the blacks, immigrants or the Jews, break the first chair you'll see there around on his head. Basically, no, even that is pointless -and it's a pity for the chair to be broken on an empty head.

Should everyone have the right to vote unconditionally?

Should everyone have the right to vote unconditionally?

To some people, this question sounds deeply anti-democratic. Whoever would ask it might be accused of being a fascist, a totalitarian who does not recognize one of the most fundamental human rights -the right to take decisions concerning your economic situation and life. Since politics affect every aspect of one's life, one should have the right to affect politics no matter what, and only a fascist would deny that one should do so. Hence the accusation. But accusations do not give satisfying answers to questions -they are rather a way to avoid answering by calling upon ethics. So the question remains: should really everyone have the right to vote unconditionally?

One may claim that whoever is a tax payer should have the right to choose the ones who would use his money and the way it would be spent. And i definitely agree on this part. But since when is being tax-payer enough to decide for the future of the children of the other tax-payers? Let me elaborate.

In the country in which i currently live, Greece, people have repeatedly shown that being a tax-payer (and even though there are numerous tax-dodgers, the way our money is used by the Greek state justifies tax-dodging) does not mean that you have the education and capability of logically thinking that gives you the right to affect the life of the other tax-payers. Most people, especially in less-developed countries, tend to take political decisions according to how the feel instead of what is reasonable to vote.

In such a rampant democracy it is an inevitable consequence that the governments to be elected are the ones that promise what people would like to hear, even though it would be a lie. Whoever knows about Greek politics, knows that the ex prime minister (who will likely be re-elected today), Alexis Tsipras, seized power by promising unrealistic reforms that would take place without us exiting the eurozone. Though one would be right to vote for a leftist government, since the euro-cannibals and bankers lend hundreds of billions to our state knowing that it would be unable to give them back in case of a crises (an inevitable phase of capitalism), one would be an idiot for thinking that a grexit could be avoided in case of a disagreement with the Europeans. And many Greeks were once again proved to be idiots.

The same thing happens in almost all countries of the world: people vote according to how they feel and not how things actually are. And most of all, people vote without comprehending fundamental principles of economy and political theory. They are anti-communists or anti-fascists, without really knowing what these ideologies actually are. They prefer socialism over liberalism or vice versa, without being aware of the good and the bad aspects of both of these systems. They vote for an economical system without knowing what inflation is, for instance, or how the banks work.

Given the above, here comes the question: should everyone have the right to vote unconditionally? Should everyone have the ability to affect the lives of millions without having the knowledge and reasoning to vote for any party?

It may sound idiotic, and even unrealistic but... shouldn't there be some kind of testing the ones who want to become voters? Testing on fundamentals of economics and law, of the modern history of their state (what kind of voter are you if you don't know how and why the politics of your country are as they are?), of political philosophy (what is each ideology about and how each political system works) and even some proof that one is scientifically literate or capable to reason? Well, there should be some form of testing knowledge and capabilities.

Not everyone is eligible to vote, for not everyone comprehends politics (which require some knowledge of history and what each system is about), economics (which require knowing some fundamentals of economy), logic (knowing when is a claim valid and when is an argument fair to use) and basic science (knowing when is a research or survey trustworthy and to change your theory when the data proves you wrong).

Is it really fair to be a voter just because you pay your taxes? I doubt it. And denying that not everyone is eligible to vote is denying the reality. 

Dear animal-lovers (and super-vegans)

Greek version
------------------------------
It may not be the hottest topic this period, but some things have to be told. After all, there are always other issues besides politics. I started writing the text below after encountering this publication and it was initially intended to be about super-vegans only, but after the reaction of many after a random hunter killed a lion in Zimbabwe, well, i decided to finish and publish it (couldn't translate it earlier due to personal problems).

This text is dedicated to all them super-duper-ultra-hyper-animal-lovers and vegans. Those who are concerned with animal-rights more than with the human ones, those who call immoral (or even murderers) all those who consume meat and even request to ban its' consumption (yeah, they exist). Nothing personal with them, i just want to express my opinions.

The truth is that such people are currently so few that one can claim it's a waste of time to be concerned with them. On the other hand, they become more and more as i realise as time passes by, as that publication indicates, and as the reaction on the murder of that lion showed. "It's some kind of fashion!" one may think, but one would be wrong. After all, becoming a member of NSDAP could be called "some kind of fashion" back then, but we all know the results it had. I don't expect to change their opinions on the issue, but never mind. Some truths have to be told, even if nobody it willing to admit them.

Keep in mind that with the term "animal-lovers" i mean those who love animals excessively, to a degree that they care more about them than about humans, not the ones who own a dog, for instance, and love it. It's dismal to discover the existence of ideologies which try to equate the value of humans and animals. And it's even more dismal to see that there are people out there that get infuriated when animals get killed while they are absolutely indifferent when humans get mass-murdered. The text below is dedicated to that kind of "animal-lovers".

Dear animal-lovers (and super-vegans),
you are idiots. You are even more idiotic than super-feminists (i may write about them in the future) and think that the mental masturbations you call your "opinions" are the one and only and absolute truths, that the others definitely have to accept. It would be great if you just wanted to win on internet

Madness

A rough translation of the previous article.

Madness, is the situation in which some briefcase-holding, tie-wearing faggots are able to decide for the future of tens of millions of people, that can't help but only hope they'll show some mercy. Madness, is making their paranoid economic experiments using whole nations for in-vivo testing, changing the standards of living and the possibility of living a decent life and being able to minimize even the possibility of the biological survival of the members of them. All of these in slacky meetings with their colleagues.

And all of these for the interest and the sake of a bunch of degenerated subhumans, that just because they were born in wealthy families, well, that makes their lives more valuable than ours.

Madness is allowing some shit-souled, mentally deprived, wretched and animalish human-garbage, to decide for the future of kids -worthy and admirable kids- before they are even born. Madness is sacrificing lives for money. Allowing the possibility of you achieving something, being minimized, along with the possibility of your survival. All of these for the sake of a so-called economic recession. A recession created by high-ranking members of our governments, by loansharks and bankers -that bio-junk governing the whole world-, and for which our people are being coerced to pay.

And all this for the sake of money. Yeah, the paper-like mean of exchange, that 's touched by all those subhumans after they whiped their asses without washing their hands. All of this for their money; you are forced to starve for their profits. Your allowance to survive is a mere investment.

The ones that stole your money will remain as  rich as they are, coward Greek. The ones you voted for in order to exploit their nepotism and work in the public sector, resulting to them claiming they and you are equally responsible for the crisis, will still spend in a night as many as you earn in a month. All those disgusting animals will still spend whole fortunes each night to the clubs, along with them retarted and cesspit-souled subape sluts that look down upon you, while you'll be begging for some pennies. And you'll be thankful if you get them.

The above are taking place while the previously mentioned life-forms are living off your blood and depend on your labor.

What will you do, coward? What are you willing to do for this madness?

One alternative is starting forming little, indepentend communities that live off what they produce, but it is an utopia and you have a good time living in the city. The other is struggling for a humanist Europe, but it's also an utopia and you don't want to turn EE into USSR. You don't really need changes after all.

After all, you are born to become rich one day. One day, you will be one of the deciding for our lives, right? Some day you will be the new Onasis -you have the opportunities. Deep down inside you are an ingenious business-man. "Changes" and "revolutions", what's all this childish gibberish? Only some kids believe in such things.

Let's not get crazy, in this bizarre world of madness, and believe something 'll change. Let's be reasonable and mature. Let's just hope the tie-wearing ones will show some mercy.