Adonis Diaries

Archive for January 10th, 2011

Is violence increasing?  Natural versus acquired developed violence

Should the discussion on “doing violence” be reduced to individual acts of murdering another human person?

Should discussions encompass whether mankind is currently less violent than in previous periods in history?

Are violence on pet animals accounted in statistics?

Should we discuss violence before we define “what is an act of violence” and categorize the kinds of violent acts?

Is encouraging violence in movies and news media coverage, even if not directly leading to violent actions, considered an act of violence?

Is injuring people, physically and psychologically, an act of violence?

Are States strategies of imputing harms, famine, embargoes on other “rogue regimes” and other developing nations, which are not falling in line with superpowers political positions, not considered act of violence?

Is reducing opportunities for education, healthier environment, and private development not represented as acts of violence?

If I say “private multinational companies” are modern pirates, do you believe common people would disagree on the metaphor and fine-tune the differences between activities of pirates and multinationals?  Would any sane person consider that multinational enterprises are less violent and more legitimate and legal to committing highway robberies at a world scale?

Is dehumanizing poorer citizens and people in poor States, ethnic minorities, gender discrimination, sex preferences, religious affiliation, or political positions acts of violence?

Is flaunting the UN Charters for human dignities and rights less violent crimes than those committed by individual people?

There are two major kinds of violence:

1. Naturally induced by fear for physical safety and harm

2. survival and developed violence that are generated by systems.

When nomadic tribes attacked other tribes and killed every male and just saved virgin girls, was it because the custom of fear from retaliations and vengeance dictated such drastic behaviors?

Armies on the march burn villages and instill fear with mass indiscriminate massacres:  The purpose is to preventing reorganization behind their long line that may cut-off their supply lines and endanger their rear-guard. You may think of armies on the move like the Moguls, Tatars, Timorlenk… Emulating these violent activities by States is reverting our current civilization and cultures to prehistoric times.

We need to comprehend that atrocities and brutalities mentioned in “Holy Books” are not allegories:  the stories literally recount the customs and traditions of the prehistoric periods.

Claiming that a God allowed atrocities committed in ancient times in order to alleviating the conscience of people or State governments will not cut it.  It has always been the case, in periods of enlightenment, for all religious dogma to adopt the interpretations compatible with current customs related to moral values and the paradigm of truth and faith.  Even the literal meaning of stories that made plenty of sense in previous periods were interpreted to suit the current moral paradigm.

For example, in medieval Europe, the Church of Rome claimed that Mary Magdalena didn’t in fact wash Jesus’ feet with her long hair:  It should be interpreted as a gesture of total faith in Jesus message.  Why?  Because western culture was not familiar, or refused to accept, the customs in the Near east Orient where common people and even noblemen sprawled in front of a higher individual to indicate complete respect and loyalty.  Moslems kneel the lowest in prayer for their unique God Allah.

The developed violence were initiated in the 12th century.

the Church of Rome dispatched crusading campaigns to capture Egypt in order to shorten the spice and perfume route.  These campaigns failed miserably and the merchant desisted funding further campaigns.  In order to maintain and consolidate its power, the Catholic Church led Europe to is darkest age of ignorance:  All ideas, teaching, or concepts that didn’t match the dogma were judged heretic and scholars burned alive.

The second phase started in the 15th century as Portugal circumnavigated earth and colonized the countries rich in spices and perfume.  As Spain expanded into the Americas, the Pope of Rome divided earth into two parts:  The east belonging to Catholic Portugal king and the west to the Spanish Catholic king.  The “subhuman” species were annihilated and entire civilizations and cultures wiped out.

The third phase started at the turn of the 20th century:  Chemical compound were experimented on mankind, including electroshock for altering human behaviors.  Chemical warfare was initiated in WWI.

The fourth phase took off with the invention of mass audiovisual technologies:  Kids and youth, the most vulnerable categories when subjected to varieties of violence, got aware of many types of violence and got more afraid of this violent world and gathered in gangs for protection and drug abuse: they applied the effective techniques for the wide array of violent acts.  Suicide is the third most prevalent killer in that age category (15 to 22).

It is crime against humanity for any superpower to veto a condemnation against violent crimes committed by another State:  These short-term decisions for short-term political advantages are mining the steady process of qualitatively shifting mankind to a lesser violent attitudes and behaviors.

Mankind moved on to establishing UN Charters after two world wars that reaped over 80 million lives and three times that number in injuries and handicapped people (physically and mentally).  Taking lightly the UN super laws that define acts of violence and what are the human rights is a serious act of violence.

When a superpower veto actions to punishing mass murder, genocides, and apartheid systems it is trampling human dignity and rights; it is blocking the progress of mankind toward a civilized moral set of values that concern “what is an act of violence”.

When former colonial powers adopt “soft” tactics to impoverish developing nations, they are committing acts of violence.  Subsidized agricultural products dumped in poorer nations so that peasants flock to urban centers, and lacking means for survival are acts of violence.  Loaning poorer States at much higher interest rates than what developed nations receive is a violent act at greater scale than witnessed in history.

As long as the UN is measuring with two weights, mankind tendency for violence will increase.

You might say that incremental progresses are taken place, even if solely applied to smaller States, and that one increment upon another will inevitably drive mankind to a more peaceful attitudes.  So far, the attitudes of the developed nations toward the less developed countries are pressuring the people to applying ancient brutal customs by taking Holy Books stories to the letter for retaliation and revenge traditions.

We are now more aware of the different kinds of violence than prehistoric people could ever knew; and it is logical that we tend to apply the types of violence that we learned;.

Discovering newer types of violence and acting impotent or unconcerned should be considered acts of violence.  Thus, mankind is much more violent for not being able to resolving anger and prejudices and abiding by the super laws of the UN.

As long as non-equitable negotiations are still in vigor, it is rational to feeling that acts of violence are at an increase.

With a population of 6 billion, and over 2 billion visualizing and interacting with all kinds of violent scenes and speeches, can we claim that violence will not necessarily increase exponentially in the next decade?

I contend that the complex behavior of mankind and the varieties of his intelligence, especially in the “developed” western hemisphere, are the product of body poisoning from regurgitating unnatural food products in the last 5 centuries, and the dissemination of acquired violent streak due to the poisoning of their mind and feelings with experimental drugs and mental control techniques.

The advance of technology is the byproduct of steam release valve reactions of the unbearable violent tendencies that drove people crazy.  Unfortunately, it is the military institutions that funded and managed most of these technologies:  They adapted and adopted technologies of mass destruction, global eavesdropping, mass media dissemination and control, and gathering spying intelligence such as industrial and scientific spying technologies, and preempting freedom movements by disturbing any kinds of democratic evolution and national development.

I contend that violent acts and violent incitement speeches in the media to violence will increase exponentially, unless serious research are done to courageously pinpoint the dangerous eating habits and curbing violent scenes disseminated to kids and adolescents in the web and movies.

A newer equilibrium to our physical and mental constitution must be investigated in order for more lenient and socially bearable kinds of violent tendencies can be managed and controlled.

It is unconscionable that the individual should be made to bear all the responsibilities for self-improvement and be blamed for not having the capacity to avoiding violent reactions or learning to manage the unraveling of his rage and frustration.

I want to ask simple questions. Since when in history:

1. Children have been rounded up to serve, participate and fight in civil wars? And forced to kill their mothers and parents for pressured indoctrination to extreme acts of violence.

2. Children have used as human shields to protect the soldiers?

3. Parents were forced, and by law, to conceive only one offspring?

4. Parents being able to determine the sex of the fetus and decide accordingly to abort or keep?

Jonas Salk, developer of the polio vaccine, had an idea of the wide range impact of mankind violent tendencies; he wrote: “If insects were to disappear from earth, all other forms of life would end.  If mankind was to disappear from earth, all other forms of life would flourish“.

Note:  A speaker at TEDx claimed that violence is decreasing relying on statistics of individual killing in western developed States. He said that in prehistoric times (meaning less than 4 centuries ago) people would gather in compact masses to watch public hanging, decapitation, dismemberment or stoning to death.

My point was, if the life expectancy was not over 40 in those periods then, most of the crowd was constituted of kids and juvenile delinquents, the same category of people nowadays incarcerated in school systems, for no crimes committed, but because they are the most troubling and troubled age category.

Currently, Saudi Arabia dilapidated women in public places:  a truck brings stones for the crowed to throw at a woman till death.  A physician checks on the woman; if she is still alive then, the throwing of stone is resumed.  It takes about two hours to die in this brutal manner.  I am not sure if decapitation or cutting hands of males for stealing is done in public; but women punishment is a favorite public pass time.

I have been wondering: “What if we engage in an amateurish profession that earn money (loving and earning what we like to do best) and focusing on a continuing education field of knowledge in our spare time as an amateur lover of knowledge?”  Simply because we have and need to develop our mind, because we are lovers of knowledge (philosophy)?

Wouldn’t that make us feel whole, happier, and richer?  Do you believe that you can make more money out of a job you don’t like, dragging your feet to work, and depleting your energy going to a job rather than doing a job you love doing?

I don’t understand how people can make a career of a job they hate.  I get literally physically sick in such kinds of jobs and my stomach aches linger for months; as I quit, I am healed instantly; it is like all these months of pain and suffering were a bad dream.  I take with a grain of salt claims such as: “I hate my job”.  Most probably people stumble on a colleague friend or befriend a “circle of friends” with a couple of “high-energy” type individuals and occasionally engage in intellectual conversations, or bounce around ideas and plans for recreational activities…

Don’t you believe, as you recharge in energy at an earning wonderful job, that you will be far more receptive to knowledge, assimilating quicker what you are studying after work? You might say that the earning jobs are selected to us and set in stone?  I say: “Said who?”

Do you think singing, painting, designing, acting, dancing, taking photos, videos, directing movies, doing sports, writing and other jobs you love doing do not earn money?  How many tried and failed?

I ask you: “How much money is enough to keep you happy, satisfied, comfortable, and healthy?  What kind of standard of living is good enough for you?”

What does give you pleasure?  Living and working with exciting “high-energy” colleagues that recharge you with enthusiasm and support your passion or you prefer wasting your time in a surrounding of envying, jealous, back stabbing colleagues in return for paper money?

I tell you, if those famous people who loved their jobs made the effort or were initiated and encouraged to continue their education in intellectual fields then, most of them would not have indulged in drug, alcohol, and led a life that degraded rapidly at an early age.

The mind is a precious trove that never deplete; and when you develop your mind you never age or sink in depression, apathy, and amoral lax attitudes.

Think of Khaled Hussein, Miles Water, and John Wood doing  it in reverse.  If Khaled started writing his best sellers “The kite runner” and “A thousand Splendid Suns” instead of studying internal medicine, he would be rich and still studying medicine.  If Miles Water started writing songs instead of doing “dentistry” he would still be studying medical journals; do you think if Water called a few clients saying: “I am at my dispensary for a week taking a break from song writing; if you need your teeth pulled then, I will be glad to turn on my drill and pull out my pliers.”  Do you think his clients won’t show up and take a picture with him?   John Wood  started on “Room to Read” instead of working as executive marketing for Microsoft, he would be enjoying learning more about marketing and software industry.  Suppose Wood calls now and says: “I decided to take a couple of months away from my non-profit organization building libraries in developing countries and stacking them with books” then, I doubt that Microsoft would tell him “go to hell”.

Anyway, why working as engineer, physicians, designer, architect…should be boring and depleting jobs if you love doing them?  Maybe it is the educational systems that render these specialties so boring and uninteresting.  What is needed is to recharge in the morning when at work and studying after work while still charged.  You win all the way to the bank, to health, happiness…




January 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,522,128 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: