Genocide is the concrete logical conclusion of self-sacrifice, philosphically known as altruism. Coined by Augustus Compte, it was ultimately perfected by the most evil of philosophers, Immanuel Kant.

It is the ethic that drives tyrrany and is the root ethic that resulted in the destruction of the WTC on Sep 11.

On Sunday Apr 15, it is American Holocaust Day and will be commemorated in New York at the Holocaust Museum with keynote speaker, Dr. Henry Kissinger, a man that escaped the tyrrany of nazi Germany.

That genocide, the initiation of force and the application of the Augustinian "Just War Principle" continues today is the greatest moral disgrace post World War 2.

I wrote the following for the Israeli commemoration of the Holocaust that comes up in May. It is applicable in abstract terms to inhumanity in general and is a condemnation.

Injustice
There is a photo I keep of twelve Jewish children all behind barbed wire as they are standing facing their nazi tormentors. Their expressions are captured in their eyes. There is a mixture of confusion, bewilderment and terror.

What have they done? They were born. They are guilty of nothing. But in the world that they live, they committed the original sin of being Jewish. There is nothing they can do and help will always be a dream.

As they stand there in the striped clothing of the German death camp, I focus on the faces of the two tallest girls. They are probably sixteen years old. What can they be thinking? Are they wondering about the boys that they will never date? The pretty dresses that will forever never be theirs? Have they barely stirred as women only to have their joy and dreams crushed by those that hate them for being who they are?

Do they all stand there, dirty, stinking and lice infested, starving, and remember in pain or cold or heat, what they were doing the day the nazis came to get them? Does that thought lessen the physical and emotional pain they are suffering? Their mental murder that even if they were freed at that moment would never leave them?

There is no moral justice that can be arrived at which equals what has been done to them. Justice is metaphysical. There is only punishment rightfully given out to the guilty.

And for those believing in an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God ? what does this all say? That he stood by and watched this suffering? How immoral, how evil, how fiendish, how disgusting, how dare he. Spare me the excuses.

Only rational ideas can create justice because ideas drive man. And words are important, because words describe ideas and lead to action.

Shoah [Holocaust]
My soul cries for you, but you do not feel.
My eyes weep for you, but you do not see.
My voice wails for you, but you do not hear.
There is only silence.

I did not know you, but you were my family.
I did not meet you, but you were my friends.
I did not see you, but you are my people.
There is only emptiness.

You were innocent, but received punishment.
You deserved justice, but did not even find mercy.
Your right was to live, your right was denied.
There is only ashes and dust.

Genocide is the concrete logical conclusion of self-sacrifice, philosphically known as altruism. Coined by Augustus Compte, it was ultimately perfected by the most evil of philosophers, Immanuel Kant.

Your commemoration was beautifully written.

Not sure I understand how altruism logically leads to genocide. Or why you consider Kant to be evil. Care to provide more details?

Genocide is the concrete logical conclusion of self-sacrifice, philosphically known as altruism. (quote)

Please emphasize.

I am sorry, I think you have something interesting to say but I do not understand your statement at all. "Genocide is the logical conclusion of self-sacrifice"? In what way? and the self-sacrifice of who? presumably the sacrifice is of "others" and not of the ones executing the genocide, isn't it? I would love it if you please explain what you meant a bit further. Thanks!

[Your commemoration was beautifully written.]

Thank you John!

[Not sure I understand how altruism logically leads to genocide.]

If one does not hold an individual as the standard of value, which is impossible if one holds sacrifice [the giving up of value or a value] as highest, virtue, value and duty, then the collective [the cause or the deity or the "people" or the "greater good"] becomes more important than the individual.

In order to achieve this, those who object or are considered to be "in the way" or to blame, must be eliminated somehow.

Besides tyrrany requiring mystical roots, it also requires reasons and the ultimate method of eliminating opposition is to subjugate the individual and if neccessary any group of opposition [real or imagined] through murder.

The logical, ultimate action is genocide.

[Or why you consider Kant to be evil.]

Kant expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice.

He was the most influential philosopher post the Renaissance through the Enlightenment because he managed to undermine reason, which is the foundation of the secular, scientific West via the father of logic, Aristotle.

Kant is evil because he advocates that the physical world, the ?phenomenal? world is not real ? reality as perceived by Man?s mind, is a distortion.

He rescued religion and destroyed the morality of the Enlightenment by acutely defining and promoting altruism. According to Kant, any satisfaction or pleasure derived morally is wrong. You have to deny yourself and sacrifice. He was a Platoist and rejected Aristotle.

For Kant, sacrifice and duty were core, opposing the right of the individual to their life.

Rejecting reality means that your values held, your values loved [people you hold close] and your life are an illusion.

The philosophy of Kant is a systematic rationalization of every psychological vice. He is the most evil Man in history because he is the philsopical father of all the tyrranies in the last 200 years or so of the twentieth century into the twenty-first.

I offer in evidence the "Critique Of Pure Reason".

[I am sorry, I think you have something interesting to say]

I do?!! Oh good! :-] thanks! [g]

[but I do not understand your statement at all. "Genocide is the logical conclusion of self-sacrifice"? In what way?]

Please read my answer to John, above.

[..and the self-sacrifice of who? presumably the sacrifice is of "others" and not of the ones executing the genocide, isn't it? I would love it if you please explain what you meant a bit further. Thanks!]

I think I covered this somewhat above but that aside - one cannot partially accept an ethic. Something is either good or bad, true or false, fact or error.

If a person accepts sacrifice, then one accepts it totally, it cannot be avoided metaphysically - there is no other way.

I think Nietsche [you have read philsophy] is a prime example of how even though adherents to his ideas, although they declare themselves to be selfish, cannot avoid hurting themselves because they are not - they are sacrificial - so metaphysical justice ultimately results.

Unfortunately, morally where power resides and sacrifice results, it is also true that the innocent are hurt when the guilty go free.

I submit that there is a difference between sacrifice and self sacrifice. When one sacrifices someone else than one's self for the greater good that cannot be rationally considered to be altruistic although it may be thought of as a good or meritorious act if that which one is sacrificing were held to be of a high value by the one doiing (committing) the sacrifice. If the sacrificial victim is held to be of little or no value or is held to malignant then its destruction cannot be considered to be altruistic but merely an act of self defense if not, at worst, nakedly agressive (which itself, at times, such as when a pre-emptive attack is both necessary and reasonably deemed to be necessary can be considered as being non-malignent although not altruistic.
T sum up: Altruism requires self sacrifice. It can be reasonably argued that the "suiicide bombers" of recent experience are altruistic albit malignant as well as (perhaps) insane, (and thus, perhaps personally excusable) Being malignant eliminating the threat imposed by them and their instigators and support structure by whatever means although not altruistic is, in my opinion, justifiable, even laudible if not altruistic.
/GIL

You can rationalize this anyway you want David (and I'm talking about what the Nazis did to the Jews).
Genocide is not the result of altruisim or self-sacrificing behavior.It is the result of thuggery more than anything.
This is what I've observed in this life - the reasons for thuggery.
1. Poverty. Poverty does cause kookiness in some people.
2. They just don't know any better. (They are social dufuses).
3. They were treated that way. (that they were bullied).
4. They are physically ill and it's affecting their mind.
5. They are mentally ill.
6. Or they are just plain thugs.

War is nothing new. But what they did to the Jews it was monstrous. In my opinion why it happened was because 1. Hitler was treated bad by his father so they say (the bullied becomes the bully), it was a little bit of mental illness and more than anything it had to do with number 6. How were the other people at that time saved from Hitler's ambitions? They weren't. Self-sacrificing also has to do with being optional.
Altruism does not lead to genocide. Genocide is sometimes caused by scapegoating, living on hatred and not caring to know what the word compassion means.

its really stupid to believe that genocides can be attributed to any individual characteristics in some person, like personality traits etc. we can all say that hitler is evil and rwandans/sudanese were/are poor and so on.
rather than being created by certain individuals or groups, genocides are the result of flaws in society.


In the production of the play called genocide, media, education and government ensure a best seller.
In this play, media functions as the curtains, soundtrack, and lighting. The curtains decides how much the public is going to see, and when. The media works the same way. Via television, posters, radio and Internet, the media controls how much the general public will know about a genocide. It also works as the soundtrack and lighting, because these give perspective to a play, they set the atmosphere. In genocides, media utilizes certain strategies to lessen the intensity of this terrible event. Because the media is the only way that an average person will receive information on happenings around the world, people depend on it. But media doesn?t only cover up what is taking place miles away; it also persuades thousands of supporters that will make the genocide a possibility. Like the play, the genocide needs publicity. It needs to be sold to the public. In the Holocaust, Nazi posters were everywhere. Just like advertisements for Broadway shows in rundown buildings. Images like these

Were utilized to manipulate the Germans. They created an individualized image of a Jew, like in the poster, and stereotyped him as evil. The Jews were sold as the villains of the play. They were all equal, and they all wanted to monopolize the German economy. With this kind of thought all over Germany, social psychology worked its magic. It wasn?t long before the Germans believed they were doing the right thing by eliminating the enemy. Radio played a crucial part in the Rwandan genocide. Instead of creating posters, the leaders of the genocide had a radio station. It was called ?Hutu Power?; its discourses sound more like a brainwashing system than a talk show. They repeated over and over, in enthusiastic tones, how the Tutsi deserved to die. Like in Rwanda and Germany, media is always present when genocide is to begin. Without publicity, no one will go see the play.
The media works on human psyche. Through movie theatres and video games, people are constantly being manipulated. It is so normal, that people don?t even notice it anymore. For example, Hollywood is full of movies such as ?Black Hawk Down? and ?Pearl Harbor?, these movies send out the message that war is acceptable. And not only acceptable, but needed because the enemy must be destroyed. In these and many other movies, the soldiers are portrayed as heroes. They are also shown in a very humanitarian aspect in which they are willing to give their lives to save their country. When one grows up surrounded by movies such as these and playing violent videogames, atrocities such as mass killings can be justified as the defeat of evil. Killing human beings becomes less traumatic; these media sources dehumanize the enemy. The right thing is to kill the enemy, there is no justification needed.
Media also utilizes techniques of dehumanization. When soldiers are in war, killing drains them emotionally. It is not part of human nature to go around cutting people?s heads of with machetes. Therefore ?One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder?(Stanton). Dehumanization is seen in genocides and wars. It is the only psychological way that human beings can commit such inhuman acts. It is also the only way that a general population can stand by and watch while it happens.
It is important to point out that human beings can think. They are not supposed to be drawn into such ideas proposed in media if they do not agree with them. However, the power of authority is something that has a powerful influence over civilians. Authority figures control the media in order to control the population. In an attempt to understand the extent to which human beings are subject to authority, Phillip Zymbardo did his famous jail experiment. In an imaginary jail, he entered volunteers that were randomly assigned as guards and inmates. They spent a week playing their parts, and after a while, it was impressive to witness how these men had morphed into their roles. Not only did the inmates begin to obey the guards, they began to rebel and act as inmates would. This experiment shows how human beings are trained to follow authority. Even in the most inhumane situations. And even if they don?t believe in what the situation is at the moment. For many in genocides, it is easier to follow the crowd than to rebel
The next part needed for the play to run, is education. Education serves as the script of the genocide. It needs to be memorized, and it needs to be internalized in order to stop it, or in order to make it happen. Well-educated human beings are more difficult to persuade than ignorant ones. The failure with education is that it doesn?t talk as much about genocide as it should. In high schools genocides are seen as events of the past. They are studies briefly, and in a very cold manner. This creates distance, and most children grow up to believe that horrible acts such as the Holocaust do not happen anymore.
The most important part of the play; the most influential institution in the making of a genocide is the public. Government and general public are included in the audience. It is up to the audience to make this play a hit, and to let it run its course. Or, they could censor it and prohibit such atrocious material from exhibition. Because people outside genocides do not act on time, more innocent people loose their lives. The audience just sits and watches, and apparently so does governments and institutions. Only after the public has gotten tired of such spectacle, certain countries take action. The United Nations could be appointed as the critics of such play. They wont halt it, or make it happen; they will only say what should be done. However, they won?t do it.
It is a fact that genocides can be stopped. It all depends on how human beings begin to utilize their socio-imagination to find the root of social structure problems and mend their flaws. If the audience reads the script before the play ends, they won?t enjoy it. This is why it is crucial to make critical changes on how our social institutions work. Governments need to pay more attention to their countries needs, and the public should demand things from the government. Education needs to be more sincere, more truthful, for the only way to prevent something is to know that it?s coming and know that it is possible for such thing to happen. After all, it?s up to us. How many more genocide plays are we willing to create?

this is a bit of a paper i had to do. pretty straight forward.? ?

[its really stupid to believe that genocides can be attributed to any individual characteristics in some person, like personality traits etc. we can all say that hitler is evil and rwandans/sudanese were/are poor and so on.
rather than being created by certain individuals or groups, genocides are the result of flaws in society.]

Listen auld sonne, if you want something read, precis it and at least put it into brief paras....

It is ethic that results in actions such as genocide. The ethic of self-sacrifice, aka: altruism, is the case of genocide. The opposing ethic is rational egoism.

Why ethic? Because it is the direct consequence or corrollary of the epistimology and metaphysics it rest upon. The action result is the politics.

Philosophy is structured no different to a mathematical equation, able to be simplifed and its irreducible primaries exposed.

The concretes may differ but it is from those that the common abstract - the ethic - can be deduced.