When I first started school, I was very
violent, getting into fights a lot, that sort of thing. My
understanding was that violence was the ultimate authority,
and the ultimate solution.
What has changed is my realization that
violence may be the ultimate authority, but it is definitely
not the ultimate solution. In fact, violence is a terrible
solution. It is the most destructive, long term ineffective
way of dealing with just about anything.
Is violence good for
Yes. Self defense. Nothing more.
Especially in this current world that so idolizes violence,
there are going to be a lot of violent people. Occasionally,
a person will be in a position where they will have to use
violence to defend themselves or those they choose to
protect, or property that their survival depends on.
Violence is appropriate when it is used
to prevent people from forcing their will on others. It is
not appropriate to use violence to force your will onto
others. Not only does this include assault and rape against
adults, but also against children. It is not okay to hit
children. In fact it is counter-productive, and a pathetic
alternative to treating them as equals, considering the
results most parents seem to want.
Violence on a national
Let's look at violent revolutions. A
violent repressive government is overthrown by a violent
revolution. What is the result? One violent government
replaced by another. Because it took violence to overthrow
the government, the new government is necessarily a violent
one, and thus cannot govern in a non-violent way. What
results is usually a slightly less repressive regime. Good
examples of this are plenty.
Democracy may not necessarily give you a
say in how the country is run, but at least it provides a
mechanism for non-violent change of government. It seems
that governments that result from non-violent mechanisms,
are better able in this current world to protect the
Violence on a community
This is about violence that people do to
strangers. It is a very small proportion of all violence.
(The vast majority of violence is directed toward people
known by the offender.)
What causes it? According to the police -
drugs. But they don't tell us why. Not really. They just
tell us what justifies their continued existence without
change. But what really makes a person commit acts of
violence against strangers? There's not really a lot of
them, but they sure affect our lives a lot.
What kind of person does not care about
hurting strangers? A person that has learned to think in
this way. Most people are not like this. Most people feel
awful when they realize they have hurt others. They try not
to do it again. Kids are like this too. But a few are not.
It seems that if a person cares about others when they are
seven, then they will always care. So what makes a child
care about nobody? How did they learn this? Is it because
nobody cared about them, so that is how they believe
everyone is, even strangers?
What happened to that person after they
were born, in their first few years, to make them this way?
Highly implicated in this argument is parenting. The
majority of people believe that bad kids come from bad
families. Me too. Like father, like son - that sort of
Why doesn't the government or the police
want to look at the cause of this problem and these people's
behavior? It's pretty obvious that these authorities look
out to protect themselves and their power. So why would the
government want to protect parents that are obviously
abusing their children. Why does the government and the mass
media avoid so much this obvious problem. Why are they
keeping silent on child abuse? What do they get out of
I think that they are well aware that
most child abuse victims do not come to a stage in their
life where they know enough about politics to vote for
someone other than the established parties. They are easily
tricked by lies. They believe everything they are told, as
if they were still children. It seems to me that our current
political systems and the rich minority that control it,
cannot survive without child abuse. People would simply not
allow them to retain power, they would not cooperate with
Violence on a family level
This is something I have had quite a lot
of experience with. When adults say that being hit as a
child did them good, I think it is the ultimate denial. My
'father' thought like that, and look what he did to me. He
became a child abuser, and wrecked my life. Is that
I remember listening to a fat mother say
how she only gave her toddler a certain amount of time to
eat her food, and then took it away. Gee I wonder how she
got fat - and she was very fat. I think she was quite
What I see is a culture that preserves
violence against children, that resists any pressure to
admit that being hit did any harm. We sometimes read in the
news that people committing violent crimes had suffered a
lot of child abuse. It makes sense to us. Yet kids still get
hit. How is it that parents manage to hold such
contradictory values in their heads. Is it because their
parents were hypocrites? Because they said one thing, but
did another? And what of schools, how do they contribute.
They teach children to idolize their parents and authority
figures, and punish children for not accepting whatever is
done to them. The hypocrisy that many children experience at
home is repeated at school. Children are given a complete
and consistent lesson in hypocrisy. Part of it relates to
violence. It's okay to hit your kids, who are defenseless,
but if you do it to an adult (that isnt your wife) it is a
crime and you will be punished. Children are taught that violence against
the powerless is not a crime - if you get away with it, it
is not wrong.
And so we have a problem with violence in
our society. Is it worth it? Is this the solution we wanted?
- to not be safe in our own homes or out on the
If you have, as an adult,
hit a child, then you are living with the consequences of
your actions - an unsafe world.
What is the alternative? How do you get
your kids to cooperate with you, to be helpful, and want to
do the right thing. You have to lead by example. You have to
respect their rights, and allow them control over their own
lives. When children have control over their own lives, they
choose to do the right thing. I have seen it for myself,
otherwise I wouldn't believe in all this - I wouldn't be
completely sure why some children grow up to be violent and
uncaring hypocritical adults.
Potential 'Lone nut'
Here I want to address the issue of
people sort of like me. Those who struggle (or have done)
with thoughts of bombing, arson, mass murder, that sort of
thing. This is a message to people like this. I want to
explain why they will never achieve what they set out to, in
fact they will achieve the opposite.
Take, for example, the Oklahoma bombing,
He wanted to get back at whoever for doing something he
perceived was wrong. He wanted to teach them a lesson they
would never forget, and thus they would change their ways
and not do bad things anymore.
This is not at all how it works!
The result of this bombing was that they
didnt change at all what they were doing 'wrong'. In fact it
has given the police and security authorities more
justification for disempowering individuals more than they
already had. So the people have had their ability to affect
reform compromised. People that are very vocal against
government institutions will have less ability to cause
change, and will be given more attention from security
But you dont have to think about it for
very long to realize that bombing or mass shooting isnt an
effective way of promoting change, but a good way to promote
an authoritative crackdown.
So why don't the people who do things
like this realize it wont do what they want it to? Why can't
they see that?
Yes, it's true, they do see that it is
wrong and it wont work. But part of their mind is not
capable, or allowed, to realize this. Somehow, this part of
their mind is able to take over control of their
This somehow, in my opinion, is called
programming. These people are acting against their will. I
am saying this based on my case, and that I think they have
been through similar programming. I think the controlled
programming of separated consciousnesses has a lot to do
with mass murderers.
I don't know who programmed me, and why
they put what they did in my mind. All I can do is to think
about who would benefit from a bombing such as the one in
Oklahoma. Very high on the list is the security apparatuses,
that control unrest in our societies. Shootings and bombings
result in increased powers for them. The ruling rich also
benefit. As the public become more and more fearful, they
turn more and more to the current authorities to keep them
safe and solve their problems, without realising that this
is exactly what those authorities want them to do.
Or it could be people that just want to
implicate those who benefit. If the security organizations
were innocent, would they not think about this? Would they
not publicly suggest or admit it. The fact that they have
not, despite being publicly accused, suggests that they do
not want the public to realize who is benefiting from the
What do those who claim to be programmed
say about who does it? They say they were programmed by
military and intelligence organizations. Personally I dont
know who programmed me, only that they were professionally
trained and had access to prescription drugs. I don't know
who they were working for. But what I struggle with suggests
that certain groups would benefit from my actions.
And innocent people would have died. What
does that say about my programmers? That they could
knowingly cause this. What kind of people are they? I know
they are doing what they are doing for what they see to be a
very good reason. But for that reason to justify killing
many innocent people. They must have either a very good
reason, or a lack of respect for strangers. Perhaps they
have been abused a lot as kids, then programmed. Then where
does it end?
It ends with the truth.