Make your own free website on

The first thing you should know is how to find the thruth. The best way we have is "The Scientific Method".


Death penalty



Food Imperialism


Anarchist Propaganda Archives

Death penalty:

Now that you know the basics about the prehistory of the mind I am ready to show you how useful is this knowledge. Death penalty has been the subject of controversy all over the world. It has been a useful tool to get rid of criminals (but not of crime) in some different states and during different periods of time.

Anger and fear are very dangerous feelings when mixed with ignorance. And this is what we find in those people in favour of state murders. Anger in those who have lost someone or something because of the action of the criminal. Fear in those who see it possible to happen to them. And ignorance in everybody who let his feelings overcome his rationality.

I think that it is quite clear that death penalty does not solve the problem with crime as well as killing the bee without touching the hive will be useless. As I see it, is more a kind of compensation that the state gives to the victims in order to calm their anger and prevent it to be redirected to the real culprit. But this is my personal opinion and you donít have to trust me. You need to trust facts.

The aim of this text is to make it easier to understand what the situation is by using a metaphor to explain a scientific fact. If you know how our minds evolved, it will be easy for you to follow the next explanation. Before the mixture of the various kinds of intelligence we were able to understand that if a tree had a hundred peaches or pears and one of them had some damage it was not a mistake to throw the fruit and continue eating the ones with best quality. Our ancestors were clever enough to also understand that if the tree only had ten fruits and one of them has a putrefied part, it would be wise to try to remove that part and eat the rest. This rational thinking can be found in some clever animals that inhabit this world. But this good way of thinking lead to a misunderstanding when the natural intelligence was mixed with the social intelligence. One good new feature of those minds was the increase of the imagination when characteristics of the natural world were given to social individuals and viceversa. But there was a secondary effect of this evolution of the mind: people could also be seen as fruits or tools. In that way, one dead in your social group could be understood as less problematic if there is already enough people (it is calculated that our brains can not deal with more than 100 different personalities in each moment of our lives) than if the dead was your only social partner. This that seems obvious it is not if we take in consideration that a few species can behave in that way when facing a death in their social group.

If I have explained my point clearly enough, by now you will be able to see where am I heading: The same case of the individual death can be applied when there is a sick individual in the group. An animal, irrational way of thinking when trying to find solutions is to give to that human being the value that you give to a corrupted fruit. And in a world full of fruits, who cares if one or a few criminals are killed. Only the rationalist that know that the way our minds see the world has not always to be the right one will realise that when dealing with human beings the percentages should not be applied. Only wise people realise that one person in ten has the same value than in millions and that the only fair way to deal with a criminal is trying to wash the putrefied part away of his or her soul. RedRoy 02/2000


cover This job has a contract where it is included the possibility of using violence without thinking of its consequences. Soldiers, policeman and security guards surrender their freedom. The ability of doing things because one believes that they have to be done disappears of your mind as soon as you sign this contract. It doesnít matter if your heart is full of good intentions because it wonít be that heart the one moving your body during working hours but the mind of your boss. Any job like this is denigrating for a human being but it is even worse in the case of these three professions because they involve the possibility of arresting other people, boycotting their actions and even kill them. And all of this without thinking!

I canít imagine any other kind of people closer to behaving like an animal. Those who sit in their chairs giving the orders or those who donít do anything to prevent it are bad or ignorant people, but they are people because their actions are controlled by their mind. Empty of dreams or corrupted by lies but it is still their mind what guide them. On the other hand, people working in the security forces of the State donít act under their own conviction but obeying the orders given by their owners. As trained dogs. The pity that I feel for your condition is mixed with hate when I observe the result of your work.

How much repression will disappear if you think before acting! How cheap do you sell your freedom!

Before being a weapon of repression I would rather prefer to be dead!

cover And if your motivation is the hope of stop crime, you got the wrong profession. Your job consist in attack it once it is already there, in catching the bird when it is flying but never destroy the nest. That is why you are so useless. Until all social injustices disappear, it will be a reason for delinquency. Your partners, priests and clerics together with journalists try to confuse common people. Their human nature and the ignorance that are condemned to live with by those who you support with your actions make them susceptible to do something illegal. Even all your efforts, the poor worker will thieve, rob and even kill for his freedom and survival.

But you will be there to prevent it. Not to prevent him to be poor, this is not why the rich pay you for, but to impede his fight for freedom.

Find another job and work with the ones that will vanish all the injustices. Without them, there will be no reason for crime.

RedRoy 02/2000


It has often been said that stricter punishment would reduce the amount of crime. To what extent do you agree with this.

cover Crime and punishment are two of the most important topics that humanity will face during the next century. After the economical and political problems, justice and the way it is applied are the key of a better world.

The fact that every human being should have a fair judgement is a modern concept and even now it is not well understood in the third world. But the point is : what do we expect of our justice. Unfortunately, the answer in most places is "punishment". This is what humanity has achieved during its evolution. Now the time to ask if hard labour, prison or dead are fair, has come. Do we obtain the two objectives that we search: stop the crime and make the criminal a better person?

Millions of people are closed in prisons and thousands of them in our country. They spend months or years in there and what do they do when they become free?. If we look at the statistics we can see that half of them relapse and many times they commit worse crimes. A lot of new and revolutionary methods have been tried during this century. Some countries have chosen dead penalty as one of them. Others prefer to move prisoners away of their cities. But the outcome is the same : criminals go out of prison worse than they entered. And there is nothing strange in this because prison kills any quality that could make the criminal able to live in a normal society. Soon or later, he will have to return to prison. You can ask me what should we do to improve our prisons and I will answer: nothing. Pestalozzi once said: "Any kind of prison (punishment) is a mistake as the deprivation of freedom is another one. If you deprive a man of freedom, you will not make him a better person, you will only get more criminals."

What does a prison offer to the criminals? First of all, they will have to manage with the same dangers that brought them there. They will learn to deal with drugs and worst of all, they will become lazy. Of course they can find a job inside the prison, but there are different kinds of jobs. Work as slaves is not useful for criminals. And this is what they do when the product of their work becomes the profit of their warders. At the end, criminals will divide the world in two parts: all their comrades and everyone out of prison (warders, ...). They will feel rejected of the society even when they will be released.

What does a prison offer to the criminals? First of all, they will have to manage with the same dangers that brought them there. They will learn to deal with drugs and worst of all, they will become lazy. Of course they can find a job inside the prison, but there are different kinds of jobs. Work as slaves is not useful for criminals. And this is what they do when the product of their work becomes the profit of their warders. At the end, criminals will divide the world in two parts: all their comrades and everyone out of prison (warders, ...). They will feel rejected of the society even when they will be released.

So, what should we do with crime if punishment is not the solution? As I see it, crime is the result of a social illness. Everybody knows that two ways can be taken in order to avoid illness: prevent it or treat it. There are also two kinds of causes that lead up to criminal acts: social causes and anthropologic causes. The last one depends on the genetics of people and although it gives some information about people that have committed crime, it can not be used as a prove because other people with the same genome or brain structure are honourable citizens. Therefore, the difference between them is not inside their bodies but in the environment where they live. Society is what must be changed if we want to prevent crime. Do not let children grow up alone, make them conscious of the world because loneliness is the root of egoism. If you appreciate your live it will be difficult for you to hurt another human being. Sociability is the solution for violent acts as the abolition of private property is the solution for robberies.

Despite all this work, it will always remain some people that represent a danger for the rest of the society. How will we manage to prevent their criminal acts? How will we get rid of them?

It will not be necessary to do so. Criminals only need a hand to escape of their world. We can offer them our hand and show them that we do not want them in prison. We need them helping us in the construction of the future. Show them that this future means hope and they will work. It sounds utopic but it was proved 63 years ago, in Spain, and it worked. If you make criminals feel outside the society, and punishment is a way to do so, you should not expect love from them. If you do not study their past and do not try to clear the wrong marks that guide them into prison, tomorrow you will have another one in the jails.

Read more: No More Prisons

RedRoy 02/2000

Food Imperialism

Oliver Morton's example of vitamin A deficiency in Asia (5 February, p 47) is a particularly inappropriate example to use in support of GM crops.

Vandana Shiva tells in her book Monocultures of the Mind how traditional Indian inter-cropping systems--developed to provide a complete range of foods for local people--were replaced by Green Revolution grain monocultures, exported to the West for animal feed. As part of this process, the vegetable bathua--with its high vitamin A content--was eliminated as a "weed".

The result of such interference--then, as now, under the rhetoric of humanitarian aid--is that the regions of Africa, Asia and South America where gross per capita food production has consistently increased over the past 20 years have also seen a consistent increase in malnutrition.

Michael Heyman

Newcastle upon Tyne

Soon I will place here more things you should know about what is happening in the world.