This is the corrected version of an article I submitted recently for publication under the title heading this thread:
Summary: A few years ago, something totally autonomous and practically unnoticed happened in Iceland. All by themselves, with no outside prodding, young people became bored of war games, found Porn and became addicted to love games.
Porn as Peacemaker, by Manfred F. Schieder
“(The) radically egalitarian premise that sex and sexual expression can break down any other barriers separating people is no doubt one of the reasons that they consistently have been viewed as threatening to established political as well as moral and cultural norms.” (From “Defending Pornography,” by Nadine Strossen)
“Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today” (From “The Romantic Manifesto – Introduction,” by Ayn Rand)
By the time we are born most of us are thrown into a type of society that is proper to non-rational animals but not to human beings. We may not like it – and many don’t – but this is the sheer fact. As beings resulting from an evolutionary process, which Darwin traced and further scientists, up to nowadays geneticists, investigated and developed in its various aspects, we know that we are part of the animal species, and must here add the significant fact that, against all other animals, we own a brain capable of thinking. Leaving aside the further detail that some of the thinking brains surrounding us are more, and some less, developed, the fact as such imposes specific considerations that allow us to reach determined differences to what is Nature’s “natural state”.
Matter follows the general natural laws and rules of its physical and chemical characteristics which turn evolution itself into an automatic and blind process that is unable to make any conscientious decision. It evolved us as the final and highest end of the automatic process mentioned. As from there on, all further evolutionary processes are directly at our disposal, genetics and robotics, up to artificial intelligence, being the most spectacular parts of this course.
There’s an obligation resulting from our existence, a condition implicit and imperative to our condition as rational animals: the fact that, to insure our survival as a species, we must, in opposition to all other species, who cannot but adapt to the environment, adapt the environment to our own specific needs. Among these is the obligation of constructing a type of society adequate to our characteristic as a thinking and, thus, decision taking kind of being. The communistic type of society, which is the natural way of coexistence of all other species, is absolutely inadequate to our being, for we must not, as all other species do, adapt to the environment but, on the contrary, adapt the environment to our own needs. In accordance, we do not exist for the world – specifically, the planet called Earth – as the enemies of mankind would want it, but, on the contrary, the world exists for us, which, automatically, produces a very interesting outcome: Wouldn’t we exist, the whole world would lack every sense of existence.
The start of producing a kind of society suitable for us human beings can be dated back to 1623, the place where it happened – Plymouth – being located in the northern part of the so-called New World. It was colonized by English Puritans, and the man who started the Great Change was Governor Bradford, obliged by the conditions of life then existing at the community. He took the momentous decision of replacing the established Puritan conditions of coexistence by the essentials of a society adequate to the requirements of us human beings.
Bradford set the premises that established a new type of society on a trial basis, for the length of one year, to test if it could, perhaps, solve the problem of practically losing, year after year, 2/3 of the population due to hunger, sickness, etc. as produced by the existing impossible living conditions. In spite of new people arriving continuously at Plymouth after having left the British Isles because they rejected the more freedom biased conditions there existing, the life erasing conditions in their new surroundings neither stopped nor diminished. Thus, an urgent solution was required.
Bradford established the new stipulations not out of conviction but because conditions obliged him to do so. Thus, the full significance of his decision wasn’t recognized by himself. However, the result, once the first test year had elapsed, presented a general betterment of the living conditions as well as a noticeable increase of population. He himself declared that “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious…”
About a hundred years later Jefferson, Adams and the further Founding Fathers, in their effort to build a standard on which all or, at least, most adherents could convene, used premises similar to those applied by Bradford. The outcome was somewhat different from what they themselves had targeted, but corresponded precisely to what the premises applied implied.
In each of the two instances mentioned, the new type of society was exactly the opposite of what the Puritan communistic conditions had originally established and expected for a penitent, deeply Christian community. The new premises and the resulting conditions weren’t at all religiously minded, however much those who established them were convinced of their Christian beliefs, but these newly established conditions were adequate for a rational species, because a rational mind operates under conditions that are different to so-called “natural conditions”. The communities established in America in the 1600, ruled on Christian premises, weren’t adequate to thinking, i.e. human brains. Christian premises are socialist principles, where each person contributes the fruit of his labor in accordance with his ability, to a common storehouse run by a government owned institution, from which each one receives as his needs require. This principle contains a major mistake which, of course, cannot be recognized by any of the lower species, for they cannot think and, thus, live under conditions that Nature, itself incapable of thinking, automatically established, namely conditions barely suitable to sustain life. Human life operates under other premises, those that promote development, the exact opposite to the general starvation and hardships that Nature has in store for what can be considered as barely living conditions.
The error contained in the socialist premise dwells on the fact that a human brain thinks, and among these thoughts there can also be ones with hidden secondary effects. Thus, humans can reach the conclusion that some can live from what others produce in surplus. But the hidden Second Effect also reveals the fact that productive people immediately deduce that they themselves can also live out of what others produce, a recurring problem in all communist societies. This general lowering of the minimum required for survival produces an increase in the general death rate of, at least, two thirds of the population. Who survives? Those that control the stores of supply, those who steal from the little that is produced, those who are able to produce, due to the habitat they happen to occupy, an additional quantity for their own survival. Prices, the guide of production required and of exchange, don’t exist, and, besides, are forbidden. Marx, who himself continuously lived from handouts, later secularized this religiously based idea that originated in Christ’s Sermon of the Mountain, and turned it into a political agenda that meant the premature death of thousands of millions of people. Else, remember that Christ threw the merchants from the steps of the Temple by using the whip to eliminate business, i.e. the use of prices which automatically regulate production and exchange or see “Jedermann” (Everyman), the play presented in front of that same Temple, which deals of a rich man that, being neither a Nobleman, Emperor or such, had obtained his riches not by theft but by production. i.e. goods, and now faces death for the sin of having been productive.
That same whip of the old days used by Christ, was then taken over by those in power to oblige their slaves to produce the food the slave-drivers needed. This isn’t proper to our lives as human beings, but, unfortunately, most people are reluctant to draw the right conclusion from such a situation of exploitation, and, thus, same extends in time. Living standards won’t be raised, merely reducing the main part of the population to an animal level. Those who could contribute to a betterment of the situation, for example by supplying a novel idea of production, will refrain from doing so, since no advantage at all will come to them, and, on top of it, they run the risk of being eliminated by those in power, for these will fear that their own stability may be endangered, as has happened so often in history.
Bradford’s proposed and applied change to the up to then communitarian system included several of the main features of what was later to be called “Capitalism”. These included rules that allowed the Plymouth community to cultivate a small private plot of land for their individual use. Thus private production was applied, and, automatically, ownership and exchange on the market of the goods produced operated with the use of the price mechanism. Since, to operate at all, it had to recognize the property rights of the means of production, it consequentially implied the recognition of individual rights in general. This system and, later on, the type of society established by the Founding Fathers through the revolution set in operation, corresponded to our condition as human beings.
While some of the premises has been used separately in various places during the progress of history, none had been joined, up to then, into a full array. Even today, most of mankind is still immersed in the collective kind of society taken over automatically from our lower animal origins. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the spreading of this new kind of society produces distrust, apprehension, fear and, unfortunately, hate, which moves to oppose it by using the kind of reaction taken over from our earlier origins as grumbling monkeys, namely sheer violence, persecution, enslavement, killing and all the additional arsenal of attack at monkey’s disposal. In the meantime, those living under the new conditions, developed weapons reaching up to atomic and bacteriological, etc. warfare, to defend themselves against their opponents.
Since the communist way of behavior dates from old, its opposition to the new system of coexistence emerged already at a time when there was only a feeling of premonition that something different was in the making. Intellectual opposition was already on the guard to preserve the established, More, Rousseau and Saint Just being among the early defenders of the old way of existence which, later on, Marx turned into a full political and violent activity. Thus, up to now, we haven’t been able to fully shed the collectivist premises that rule the main part of mankind. We are in the middle of a time of transition.
Some of the weapons used to secure the old kind the society aren’t even noticed as such. They are, subconsciously, taken for granted, and not perceived as deeply antagonistic to the new kind of society. Thus, the educational organizations, mainly under government’s domain, enhance the teaching of history, which is filled with clans, kingdoms and further rulers that base their continued existence on killing their next of kin, other populations and those that don’t adhere to their own creed, race or status, heightening and intensifying the use of war games of all kinds, as well as in arcades and on play-stations, etc. where brutality and destruction are taught and enhanced. Religions and further such groups promote, for this is their main principle, hate against those that don’t follow their same beliefs and/or don’t belong to their own group and like. The main instruction is that survival and betterment can only be attained by killing, stealing and subjecting others to the leash and the whip, as all books of history teach and the facts subliminally promote. Personally I’ve never heard of a teacher or college professor warning his pupils that what history teaches is not what should be accepted as the proper way of survival and development for human beings. On the contrary, those who oppose this historical kind of behavior are bracketed as unsocial and fiendish and persecuted by law up to their total removal. Whoever opposes any kind of war game is directly considered to be harming the existing type of society.
But then, a few years ago, something totally autonomous and practically unnoticed happened, which gives very much hope that in this aspect something completely new and enlightening is developing. In Iceland and all by themselves, with no outside prodding, young people became bored of war games, found out Porn and became addicted to love games.
Pornography is fully prohibited in Iceland. There are heavy fines on it, but the Internet doesn’t give any details on how the youngsters came to discover such a heavily criticized and persecuted area of entertainment. Most feminists attack it and are heavily supported by religion as well as government, using the most amazing contentions, such as accusing pornography of doing serious harm to children and women. The at that time Minister of Interior of Iceland wanted to extend the ban to online Porn so as “to protect children from such deep immorality”, and, thus, lead them back to healthy mass killings, life-giving terrorism, blood-spending dungeons of torture and further such life enhancing deeds. But can Porn, i.e. love games, be equalized to all this incivility?
This life is the only we will ever have, and that’s that, but there are many people who want others – not they themselves – to die ahead of their time. After all, so the saying goes, doesn’t it?: The sooner you die, the longer you’re dead.
The Minister of Interior’s plan was finally stalled – as Wikipedia informs – for there was a change of government in 2013. The general ban on Porn remained but, at least, no further changes were proposed.
Still, the fact that youngsters decided to change from war games to love games gives much hope, for it points out, in its own way, that the expansion of the new type of society, stressing the right of the individual to his own life, private property and the further features of Capitalism, is, fortunately, far more advanced than the usual leftwing media would like us to suppose.
There’s a little and up to now almost unnoticed aspect of Porn that must be stressed: its actual aspect as a Peacemaker, it’s accent on proving that it underscores the fact that there’s a new kind of individual, the one that definitively sides with human progress in an environment of fructiferous deeds, peacefulness and productivity, as Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, continuously advocates. This line of development must be permanently promoted and enhanced. On it depends the future survival of mankind. Porn itself is becoming an additional tool to attain it. -.-.-.-.-
(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 7/27, 10:44pm)
(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 7/27, 11:04pm)