Austrian Economics - Liberty, Freedom and Peace

When I was a very young man, I wanted to go into politics.  I had a sincere desire to make the World a better place.  I must of had ambitious plans as I distinctly remember attempting to design a system of World Government.  Where I got this idea from escapes me.

Every morning except Sunday, I delivered newspapers to the residents of my street, collecting the money on a Friday evening.  One Friday evening, a lady customer who I remember by virtue of her tight sweaters and ample breasts (such things make a big impression on a 16 year old lad!), asked me what I wanted to do when I left school.  I replied:  "I want to be Prime Minister."  She asked me which political party I would lead and, when I answered that the Labour Party would be the beneficiary of my considerable talent, she laughed said something to the effect that I would change my political views as I got older.

Actually, she was right!

I inherited my political views from my Father.  Dad was a Labour Party supporter and active within the Post Office trade union.  He is a kind, compassionate man and I believe that he honestly thought that socialism, as represented by the Labour Party, was the political system most able to care for the individual.  As a point of interest, his Father, my Grandfather (who was known as "Fromp" to his many Grandchildren), was a committed Conservative voter and fan of Enoch Powell.  He took the Telegraph newspaper (Conservative leaning) whilst my Dad took the Daily Mirror (Labour leaning).

As I got older, I began to think that politics was incapable of solving societal problems.  All political parties seemed to morph into the same entity with the same policies.  I slowly began to see that all political parties were, at heart, socialist and that socialism did not work.  My research delivered shocks such as discovering that Fascism and Communism were actually the same system; after all, the Nazis were "National Socialists" by name.

So if all politicians are socialists and socialism does not work, what is the solution?  Is there a solution?  What is the point of being involved in politics if politics itself is the problem?

The epiphany moment came for me when I realised that all our failing political systems were based on the importance of the majority over the individual and where Governments were increasingly intent on intervening in aspects of economic life.  Nowhere practised a system where the individual had primacy, where government relegated itself to protecting individual persons and property against assault and confiscation by force or fraud.      

One organisation that has helped me to understand this is the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  The institute is named after a leading Austrian economist, a school of economics which champions a true free market economy (where government and economics are kept apart).  In fact, the more I see of the writings of Austrian economists, the more I am convinced that their ideas hold the key to a more just economic system.

 
One champion of Austrian economics is Ron Paul.  Watch the interview below, where he makes a key point about politicians.  If they were to admit that their efforts do not work, they would put themselves out of a job.  Therefore, they must continue to pretend that "Big Government" is the answer and that the State must have more power to intervene in our lives in order to correct the problems which, it can be argued, were created by government intervention in the first place.  This in turn justifies bigger budgets and more bureaucracy, meaning more taxes and a lower standard of living for us all.

 

What was the cause of Nazism?

In continuing to research Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I have come across Leonard Peikoff, the literary executor of Rand.  Peikoff wrote a book entitled, "The Ominous Parallels", linking the rise of Nazism with what was (is?) going on in the USA during the 1980's.  Having just returned from Berlin and having stayed in the old Jewish quarter, I was interested in the Objectivist view of Nazism.

Peikoff thought that Nazism was not rooted in the consequences of World War I but in the philosophy that had developed over centuries, a philosophy consisting of three tenets:

• the worship of unreason.
• the demand for self-sacrifice.
• the elevation of society or the state above the individual.

  In her introduction to the book, Ayn Rand states:

It is a tragic irony of our time that the two worst, bloodiest tribes in history, the Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Soviet Russia, both of whom are motivated by brute powerlust and a crudely materialistic greed for the unearned, show respect for the power of philosophy (they call it "ideology") and spend billions of their looted wealth on propaganda and indoctrination, realising that man's mind is their most dangerous enemy and it is man's mind that they have to destroy — while the United States and the other countries of the West, who claim to believe in the superiority of the human spirit over matter, neglect philosophy, despise ideas, starve the best minds of the young, offer nothing but the stalest slogans of a materialistic altruism in the form of global giveaways, and wonder why they are losing the world to the thugs.

Germany before Nazism was a major European nation, intellectually and industrially developed, widely admired for its culture.  It was considered a modern, civilised nation.

Adolf Hitler, in explaining the moral philosophy of Nazism, said:

It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realise that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual...."

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.... The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call-to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.

Is there anything evil in these ideas?  On the surface, no.  However, it led to this:

The gas chambers themselves [at Auschwitz] and the adjoining crematoria, viewed from a short distance, were not sinister-looking places at all; it was impossible to make them out for what they were. Over them were well-kept lawns with flower borders; the signs at the entrances merely said BATHS. The unsuspecting Jews thought they were simply being taken to the baths for the delousing which was customary at all camps. And taken to the accompaniment of sweet music!

"For there was light music. An orchestra of 'young and pretty girls all dressed in white blouses and navy-blue skirts,' as one survivor remembered, had been formed from among the inmates. While the selection was being made for the gas chambers this unique musical ensemble played gay tunes from The Merry Widow and Tales of Hoffmann. Nothing solemn and somber from Beethoven. The death marches at Auschwitz were sprightly and merry tunes, straight out of Viennese and Parisian operetta.

"To such music, recalling as it did happier and more frivolous times, the men, women and children were led into the 'bath houses,' where they were told to undress preparatory to taking a 'shower.' Sometimes they were even given towels. "Once they were inside the 'shower-room' — and perhaps this was the first moment that they may have suspected some thing was amiss, for as many as two thousand of them were packed into the chamber like sardines, making it difficult to take a bath — the massive door was slid shut, locked and hermetically sealed. Up above where the well-groomed lawn and flower beds almost concealed the mushroom-shaped lids of vents that ran up from the hall of death, orderlies stood ready to drop into them the amethyst-blue crystals of hydrogen cyanide....

"Surviving prisoners watching from blocks nearby remembered how for a time the signal for the orderlies to pour the crystals down the vents was given by a Sergeant Moll. ' Na, gib ihnen schon zu fressen' ('All right, give 'em something to chew on'), he would laugh and the crystals would be poured through the openings, which were then sealed.

"Through heavy-glass portholes the executioners could watch what happened. The naked prisoners below would be looking up at the showers from which no water spouted or perhaps at the floor wondering why there were no drains. It took some moments for the gas to have much effect. But soon the inmates became aware that it was issuing from the perforations in the vents. It was then that they usually panicked, crowding away from the pipes and finally stampeding toward the huge metal door where, as Reitlinger puts it, 'they piled up in one blue clammy blood-spattered pyramid, clawing and mauling each other even in death.' "

 William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

After the Nazis had led their country to destruction, Frederich Hayek attempted to warn the World that countries should not fall into practising the political philosophy (Socialism) that had led to Nazism.  However, as Peikoff's book attempts to show, this warning continues to go unheeded, moving the Human race closer and closer to more destruction. 

Ayn Rand and Objectivism

During a few days rest and relaxation from work, I have been reacquainting myself with the ideas of Ayn Rand, known collectively as Objectivism.

On the front page of the Ayn Rand Institute web site is a short description by Rand of what Objectivism is:

 My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

I once disregarded Rand's ideas as, whether by conditioning or whether by nature, I have always thought of myself as altruistic.  However, I see now that altruism has its flaws.

Firstly, it assumes that all actions must have a "winner" and a "loser". Therefore, if we act out of self-interest and gain from it, them someone in turn must lose.  Is this assumption correct?  Rand thought not and envisaged a society where individuals freely and voluntarily exchanged "value" with each other.  This must be the basis of all relationships, personal and commercial; two or more parties in a relationship from which all gain something of value from that interaction.

Next, it assumes that, in performing an act for the benefit of someone else (or for collective society), it is possible for us always to know what is best for that person (or society).  However, it is impossible for us to have all information needed to judge whether our well-intentioned action will be beneficial or not.

Can it be desirable or, indeed, just for us to reap the consequences of others' actions, whether or not they are carried out with good intentions?  Some may benefit us and some not - how will we learn from experience what is right action and what is wrong action if consequences do not accrue from our actions but from the actions of others?

Lastly, how can we be sure who we are helping when we perform an act of self-sacrifice intended to help another?  How do we know if we are helping hero or villain, peaceful individual or thug? 

Politics, Rand states, originates with the philosophical study of ethics.  World politics in increasingly dominated by socialistic ethics, where it is assumed that the State knows best in all areas of our lives.  However, clearly it cannot and therefore the actions of the State do as much harm as good when it attempts to act for the good of all.  Moreover, it encourages a system of ethics and morals which puts the interest of a vague collective called "Society" (i.e. everybody except ourselves) ahead of me, the individual. 

It is this philosophy which Rand blames for the state we find ourselves in today.  The antidote, according to Rand, is individuals acting from a position of rational self-interest.  As I continue to read her ideas, I am inclined to believe it...    

Nazi Persecution of Jews - A Revelation and a Warning...

Neue Synagogue - Berlin (copyright Emma Biggins 2012)

I recently visited Berlin, staying in what was the Jewish quarter at the time Hitler and the Nazis came to power.  During a walk around the area, I stopped at the Neue Synagogue on Oranienburger Straße, the centre of what was the Jewish community in Berlin at the time.  Ironically, the local police chief protected it as best he could from the Nazis, only for it to be badly damaged during WWII allied bombings.  

Whilst my knowledge of the origins and history of Judaism are limited, both Emma (my partner) and I experienced a revelation during our visit.


It became clear, at least to us, why the Nazis persecuted the Jews and other groups like them.  The Nazis, in my opinion, were the epitome of Statism, where the State seeks to impose a total control of the population by demanding adherence to is own definition of what it means to be a citizen of the State.  It is an extreme form of Collectivism, where the State demands total conformity and subservience, a sacrifice of individual liberty and status for the collective good, in return for the security of being protected by the State.

It is possible to see why the German people were seduced by what Hitler and the Nazi party had to offer.  For a people exhausted, bankrupted and humiliated by WWI and its aftermath, the Nazis quickly redefined, with an almost religious intensity, what it meant to be German.  The Nazis promised a return to peace and prosperity, in return for obedience and conformity to the State.  Reading about Jewish life in Berlin before the Nazis, I suddenly and horribly realised why the Nazis, as extreme Statists, could not let them survive.  I also saw a sad parallel with our modern situation.
  
Before the Nazis, the Jews of Berlin had a Community.  What do I mean by that?

• They lived their lives and took their ethics from a centuries old religious belief system, a belief system that, whilst positive and not hostile to the State, did not originate with the State or its philosophy.
• The Jewish Community had elected leaders, respected individuals that were looked up to and whose wise decisions were followed.  Statists will always find this a threat, demanding, as it does, obedience and respect to and for itself and its officials.
• Many influential Jews were independent business people and had independent wealth, not needing assistance from the State.
• Jewish people looked after their own.  They built hospitals, homes for the elderly, schools and orphanages.  They did not look to the State to provide this assistance and therefore could not be induced to follow the State in return for that assistance.

The State cannot sanction sections of the community that refuse to conform to their control.  The Nazis, as extreme Statists, could not tolerate such a challenge to their wish to subjagate all areas of German society to their wishes.  Jews and their beliefs therefore had to be made to seem foreign, anti-German and dangerous.  I need not go into what happened as a result.

Sadly, Statism is alive and well in modern society.  Our political class, drunk on the easy assumption of power by making citizens believe that Government alone can provide safety and security, continue to maintain the Cult of the State.

In the US, it has culminated in such outrages as Waco, where a religious community was murdered on flimsy pretext.  Their crime, at least in my eyes, was wanting to live independently of, and having a belief system not sanctioned by, the State.

In UK society, it has manifested in the destruction of the Family.  The Family, after all, is the smallest form of Community in Society.  It has (or had) all the independent aspects that I have described above as belongiong to the Jewish Community of Berlin, pre-Nazi era.  If the State can destroy the family, then it has won.  Children then are not members of a family, they are wards of the State.  Adults are not senior members of families or, on a larger scale, communities, they are merely members of a greater "Society", controlled by the State.  I shuddered when I read last week of a UK Government Minister who insists that more children should be taken into care, overriding the rights of biological parents.  The State's record of looking after children in care is abysmal, to say the least.

Wouldn't it be lovely to think we could create Communities once again?  Communities that have a shared vision and belief system - would it matter what those beliefs were, as long as they were positive and non-invasive to others?  Communities that provide employment through independent businesses and security by looking after its own members.  Communities that give security that others in your locality are looking out for you and are willing to assist you in times of hardship.

Most importantly, communities that are independent and free from State control and therefore do not demand that you give up all individual rights in return for what is fake security, as does the State.

Pavement plaques, Tor Strasse, remembering Jewish residents, deported and murdered.

            
        

A Dark Night of the Soul

I recently experienced what Carl Jung called a "dark night of the soul".  I was overcome by the sheer brutality and lunacy that has beset our modern World and felt strongly that I had to escape from it.  

It inspired me to write the following rather bleak assessment of modern life:

   MY POSITION - 20TH JULY 2012

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to explain my position with regard to the current “World Situation”, which, in turn will explain my present and future actions.  It covers subjects in brief and is not by any means exhaustive.

CURRENT WORLD SITUATION - MY VIEWS

Finance/Economy

Since the 2008 “Credit Crunch”, even the mainstream media (who I would allege are complicit in not reporting the illegal and immoral actions of our elected representatives and the Military Industrial Complex) are reporting that the world economy is in dire straits.
The World economic situation has been caused by allowing private banks to issue “money” in the form of credit from, to all intents, thin air (97% of UK “money“ in circulation has reportedly been created this way.
This system of creating “money” is unsustainable and leads inevitably to bankruptcy, both national and individual.  The only beneficiaries are the banks which take interest on credit loaned; this interest can only ever be created from more lending.  Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen is asked to endure “austerity”, another word for poverty.
The current financial system will inevitably crash, despite government bailouts which only serve to delay it, unless the system is radically changed.
This crash will cause huge hardship and disruption across the world.

   Geopolitical Situation

Our own Government has demonstrably lied to us in order to take the UK into an illegal war in Iraq.  This war was colonial in nature (i.e. was designed to install a regime friendly to the US and UK corporate interests, amongst others).
Conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria (where I assert Western powers are covertly backing so-called Syrian rebels) are being waged for the same interests.
Millions of innocent people have been injured and killed as a result of these illegal wars.  The wars are fought using taxes collected from individual citizens, at a time when the same citizens are being asked to endure “austerity”.  This makes every UK tax payer, in my view, a war criminal. 
There is abundant evidence that elements within the Military, Industrial and Intelligence communities have conspired to commit “false flag” atrocities such as the New York “9/11” event (2001), the London “7/7” bombings (2005) and the Madrid train bombings (2004).  The reason, it can only be supposed, is to cause the public to fear Muslims, thus justifying the illegal military action in the Middle East and continual erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.
Citizens of the world now live in a permanent state of fear as the never ending so-called “War on Terror” is fought.

Political Situation

Our elected representatives now clearly view their role as “Masters” over the People, who are “Servants”.  This turns the original purpose of Government (to serve the Citizens of the country using powers only divulged from Individuals by consent) on its head.
Consecutive Governments have passed thousands of so-called laws making an increasing number of actions “illegal” and subject to fines.  Therefore, the Police have been converted from a “keeping of the peace” role to revenue collectors for the state.


London is reportedly the most spied upon city (via CCTV) in the world.  Despite this, no CCTV images of the 7/7 Underground train carriages or the 7/7 bus bomb were captured due to unexplained “malfunctions”.   
Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister downwards have been shown to have lied to the Public on various issues.
There is mounting evidence that public institutions such as Courts and Police Forces are actually registered as profit making, private companies.  This calls into question their role within society and throws up questions around conflicts of interest.

GENERAL/SUMMARY

Endemic corruption now exists within all power centres across the world.
The results of this corruption can clearly be seen in the war, conflict, societal problems, economic chaos and environmental destruction that besets the World at present.
Clearly, something is desperately wrong in the way Human affairs are managed and run.
The long-term prognosis of continuing in this way is misery, never-ending war, possible irreversible environmental damage and world-wide poverty.

ANSWERS?

The systems that perpetuate the madness that exists within the world rely upon the consent and support of individuals across the world.
The only answer can be for individuals to face up to their responsibility for themselves, for their fellow Human Beings and for the Earth which sustains them.
Therefore, the only sane and rational course of action is to, as far is as humanly possible, withdraw support and funding from the corrupt system, whilst making every effort to find more just and humane ways of living.         

This mental anguish occured during a two week break from work so, knowing that I wasn't yet in a position to abandon this corrupt "society", I calmed myself and prepared to return to my labours.  However, in the last few days I have had somewhat of a revelation.

It occurs to me that we have been duped into thinking that we are members of something called "Society".  In the UK now, David Cameron tells us that we are all members of "The Big Society".  Those familiar with the work of Robert Menard, Jordan Maxwell and others will be familiar with their researches into the legal profession and the definition of words within that profession, definitions that are not the same as English.  Their researches are eye opening in the extreme and the remainder of my argument is heavily inspired by their work.   

Let's look at a legal definition of a "society":

     An association or company of persons (generally not Incorporated) unit ed together for any mutual or common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general.

Read more: SOCIETY | Definition of SOCIETY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Going deeper, a legal definition of "association" is:

 The act of a number of persons who unite or join together for some special purpose or business. The union of a company of persons for the transaction of designated affairs, or the attainment of some common object. An unincorporated society; a body of persons united and acting together without a charter, but upon the methods and forms used by incorporated bodies for the prosecution of some common enterprise.

Read more: ASSOCIATION | Definition of ASSOCIATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

And then "community"...

  A society of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations, and who have common rights and privileges.

Read more: COMMUNITY | Definition of COMMUNITY (Black's Law Dictionary)

An English dictionary definition of "society" is:

  a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries, can be referred to as a society

What can we infer about "society" from these definitions?

1. Society is a group of people who have joined together (we assume by consent?) to achieve a common purpose.
2. Society has its own laws and regulations and gives rights and privileges to its members.
3. Members of a society make decisions collectively about how to do things.
4. A wider assumption has been made (rightly or wrongly?) that the noun "society" also refers to "the People in general".

       
We are all familiar with societies that operate according to points 1-3 above and there are many examples (e.g. Masonic societies, trade societies, religious societies, societies relating to special interests, etc.).  Joining a particular society means we abide by the rules of the society when operating within it for the benefits it bestows on us.  When not operating within the scope of the society, the rules and regulations do not influence other parts of our lives.  If we no longer agree to abide by the rules of the society then we leave, thereby agreeing to forgo the benefits offered by the society.

I would argue that the problems that so beset us today are due to a massive con-trick that has been perpetuated on Humanity as a whole.  We presently have a relatively small group of people who, at sometime in the past, have formed their own "society" with it's own ideas about how human affairs should be run.

This society has it's own political establishment, it's own rules and regulations (mainly via Statute), it's own educational system, it's own financial and economic systems, and so on and so forth.

However, it has somehow managed to con Humanity (at least in Europe and the United States) that "the People in general" belong to that society and thereby consent to it's aims and rules and regulations, it return for benefits is bestows on us, the members.  It is now trying to extend its membership to the whole World (Globalism).

It must be clear to all right thinking individuals that the way this "society" is run is destructive, immoral, cruel and barbaric.  For example:

• Its financial system is debt based, unsustainable and must by definition lead to collapse, causing untold suffering and misery to its members.
• It's political establishment is corrupt and routinely lies to the People.
• It sends its armies to fight wars of oppression and occupation, on fabricated evidence that other countries are a threat to its members.
• There is evidence that it secretly uses violence on its members in order to get agreement to its policies.       
• Its educational system teaches information that is decades out of date and seriously flawed (do you really believe the Great Pyramid of Giza is a tomb and was constructed by primitive slaves using ramps and pulleys?  Come on!).
• It's collective health system is collapsing and seems not to be interested in cures but in perpetuating sickness to sell more drugs for the benefit of pharmaceutical corporations.
• It collect taxes from its members and fines them for contravention of its rules in order to fund its aims and policies.
• It arrogantly assumes that all members consent and agree with its aims.   

What idiot would want to pay to belong to a society like that! 

Some years ago I was a member of what I thought was a fairly enlightened internet discussion list.  I raised the idea that so-called "laws" passed by our government and which made certain acts illegal, were not really "laws" but were simply rules that we assume we have to adhere to.

I used the example of the UK seat-belt law whereby if we do not wear a seat-belt during a car journey, we can be fined if caught as it has been deemed "illegal".  I argued that this what not a "crime" as there was no "victim" and no harm had been done to person or property.  It is, in my opinion, a "rule" that it is assumed we consent to being part of "society".

The violent response I received from a couple of members of that list reminded me of the clip below from the film "The Matrix".  I was lambasted for being "selfish" and I was informed that the law exists to protect the rest of "society" from having to pay for me to be fixed up in hospital, should I be injured through crashing my car and not wearing a belt.  My offer to take care of my own medical expenses providing that I could have a refund of the thousands of pounds that I have paid into "National Insurance" over the years (when did I consent to that?) seemed to mark me out as some kind of lunatic.

There are of course many examples of rules and regulations that make us, in the eyes of society, criminals but have no victim or cause no harm to others persons or property.

My revelation was simply this: we can choose at any time to end the illusion that we are part of what is commonly called "society".  We can withdraw from its financial system, stop paying its taxes, stop abiding by its laws and stop buying into its ideas about history, science, education, etc.  Of course, we will also have to give up the benefits and security that the society gives.

Ultimately, this must happen as the societies' aims and policies are so flawed and so destructive that its membership will endure increasing pain and suffering a time goes on.  It may happen on an individual basis or collections of individuals may band together to form their own societies with more enlightened aims and policies.  They will  not wish to impose their society on individuals other than those who consent to be members and their society will not cause harm any other living being (including the Earth) as it goes about its daily business.

Are there agents and gatekeepers stopping us from leaving our "Matrix"?  Only our conditioning, our false assumptions and our fear of what lies outside that which we call "Society" which is, in reality, an outmoded and destructive way of living and of looking at reality.            

   

 

Israel - A Democracy? I Think Not!

This is what you get if you disagree with Israel's genocidal policies towards the Palestinians.  Respect to this young man for standing up for right over wrong.

Egypt - The Brutal Truth

WARNING: Please watch the video below only if you have a strong stomach.  I'm afraid I couldn't watch it all.

Clearly, only the lowest forms of humanity are allowed into the squads of thugs that are sent out against demonstrators in Egypt.  Of course, that is not just the case in Egypt; stories of atrocities carried out by US soldiers in Iraq show that sub-human pond life are also welcome in the US army.

Corrupt governments all over the world are now running scared.  Even in the US and the UK, citizens are protesting against being told that they must make financial sacrifices on one hand, whilst watching corrupt politicians hand millions to bankers and spending millions prosecuting wars on behalf of corporations.

Psychopathic, war-criminal governments and politicians must be swept aside, those that have committed crimes against humanity tried and prosecuted and the para-military thugs who have served them brought to justice.

Only then can we build the kind of world that the majority of peaceful, lawful individuals want to see.