On Hillary Clinton’s hair DNA sequence as the barometer of freedom of speech

Hillary Clinton has become everything to us.

I wholeheartedly supported her during the elections, but I’m nobody’s “hardcore follower”. Every leader of every era has had hardcore followers, the type that accept them no matter what. I meant that opening line with another meaning.

This is not about her per se, though; it’s about that tenuous concept of ‘freedom of speech’. Is about how a man’s business ‘practice’, figuring out DNA sequence to create pharmaceutical products, became not only his downfall, but also the test for the limits of freedom of speech.

And yet! Hillary Clinton has actually become ‘everything to us’. Every time she shows her face in public there’s mass convulsion. She is the perennial she-devil that half the nation needed to block from access to the most powerful political seat in the world because they were sure she was intent on seeking the presidency to, in her evil way of thinking, destroy the world (for fun, mind you) by causing the third World War. That’s worse than being a ‘bitch’. That’s a witch.

Martin Shkreli felt compelled out of his arduous business of making life-saving drugs by her merely showing her face in public…to sell some books.

Possible humane background for Martin Shkreli need for Clinton’s DNA sequencing

Since distant times, the witches’ own hair have been used by heroes to paralyze them. Heroes of  very far away times, well, of mythology, used to cross the planet trying to pull a lock of hair from a witch’s head to make a potion with which to kill her, or to cut her head off, which always proved easier to do. Medusa comes to mind. Medusa, a man-eater. That’s the danger these witches pose to ‘mankind’.

Fast forward to the most modern and advanced millennium in (organized) human history: the 21 first’s.

Medusa, er, Clinton is the embodiment of that mythological man-eater. And Martin Shkreli is the (anti) hero in search of Clinton’s head. Except that he doesn’t carry a sword but a sack of money to pay, as he advertised on FB, any fool who dares grab her by the (head) hair and bring him the evidence of success. He is more like SALOME in that respect, isn’t he?

He can afford to pay $5 grands per hair strand because he is in the pharma business of making people pay with their blood for one vial of life-saving medication. He is a blood-sucker, i.e., a (male) vampire going after a witch. That’s rich, isn’t? He wanted to create a modern potion with her hair, figuring her DNA sequence to make the ‘antidote’ to kill her. Literally.

Well, the case is that he is now, supposedly, in a Maximum security prison for “solicitation to assault in exchange for money that is not protected by the First Amendment,” the judge said. To which Shkreli’s lawyer responded:

“Indeed, in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm,” Brafman wrote. “There is a difference, however, between comments that are intended to threaten or harass and comments — albeit offensive ones — that are intended as political satire or strained humor.”

This is where my opinion on the issue starts.

The discussion of the political issue of Freedom of speech has become as mindbogglingly ridiculous as those laws passed mostly in the western states of the US prohibiting the collection of rain water, even the rain falling on a citizen’s house roof.

In this latest case of ridiculously mind boggling use of freedom of speech it is MONEY the trigger for the dispute. Had Shkreli just asked for a few strands of Mrs. Clinton’s hair, he would still be a free vampire, um, man, but his crime was in offering monetary payment, in engaging in a business transaction, the type that has made him a billionaire, to wit, figuring out “DNA sequence” of things that would make him richer beyond our imagination. He claims now that it was all just in jest.

He got himself a direct ‘go to jail’ for offering payment, not for the many instances of abuse of freedom of speech in which he has engaged, mostly against women.

His lawyer has a point when he says that “in the current political climate, dissent has unfortunately often taken the form of political satire, hyperbole, parody or sarcasm”. I propose that this satirizing of dissent is a sign of the times, a sign of the political powerlessness of the citizens of this nation.

There has been so many instances of clear abuse of freedom of speech in the past years sanctioned by the SCOTUS and by politicians that We The People are left only with “satire” to fight it off. A corporation is a person. Mind boggling, isn’t it?

Up to the last 20 years of the last century most of us  had a good idea of what abuse of freedom of speech meant, we could hear it and read it when expressed. After 9/11 that clarity has become a fog. But more than anything it is globalism which has muddled our minds with its insistence in conflating freedom of speech and freedom of doing business.

Doing business requires advertising the products created through advertisement, and the advertisement industry has  desensitized the public to their playful use of freedom of speech to sell the business’ ware with ads portraying ‘bad’ as cool. Shkreli himself prided, not anymore, on being that bad boy of social media.

We live in a world that is politically and economically disturbed. Billionaires feel that they are exempt from moral rules, just as the feudal lords of the 1800s saw themselves. Bad is good, good is bad. War is good, peace is a sign of weakness, according to the elite’s bible. And freedom of speech will continue to be mediated by how much freedom we need to take from corporations to be able  to live in a moral social agreement.

The limits of freedom of speech will be tested by how far the likes of billionaires like Shkreli can push immorality,  not by ‘DNA testing’.

That is farther down the line.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Trump’s Afghanistan war strategy: Perpetual war

Trump’s teleprompter speech to Americans on his ‘strategy’ on the continued undeclared war in Afghanistan was about, well, he’ll do things his way. “No time limit”, just when the “conditions” change, then the war ends. Good luck with that.

First, the war party continues. Of course, being in the Oval office ‘changes’ everything for him. What he means is that the war industry, government and private, found another excuse to continue the war: to kill terrorists. Is not about democracy any more.

He is a “problem solver”, and the Afghanistan ‘problem’ will be solved, one way or another.How?

Second, it will be a SECRETIVE undeclared war. He will not tell terrorists, nor the American public, of course, about how many American citizens will be sacrificed to continue funding the war mongering corporations. So we don’t know how he will solve the ‘problem’, except…

Third, more BILLIONS of dollars to arm soldiers here and there. That’s music to Grumman and the Pentagon ears.

Fourth, he will let somebody, maybe the generals and the Pentagon but probably Prince, run the war. He can’t be bothered with it.

Because the war will be a secretive war, the fact that he announced that BILLIONS of dollars will be spent in the undeclared war, and that he will let ‘others’ run the war, leads to the reasonable conclusion that he signed Prince into a private war, giving him what he asked: 10 billions a year to run the war.

Yeap. In so few words, that’s what the greedy amoral man in the WH has just told you. Permanent and private war. You don’t need to know ANYTHING else about it. Put the war off your mind. 

So there you have it.

Go fight and put your life in danger for this greedy immoral corrupt amoral man occupying the White House.

 

U.S. Senator Cotton’s doppelganger is Norman Bates

To the left is Senator Cotton, to the right is Anthony Perkins, aka Norman Bates. Mr. Cotton loves the movies. I’m sure he is a fan of Mr. Bates.

The missing ‘peace’

It’s been a long time since I don’t hear or see the word peace anywhere.

The last time that word was trending was in the 60s, you know, when the stoned-headed hippies were tripping with it. It gave them a bad reputation, that and the acid they were consuming, courtesy of the CIA.

 

The First World War was “the war to end all wars”. That was the first and last time humanity actually fought for peace itself. The newly minted working-class (product of the new kid in the block, heavy industry and capitalism) took their masters to task. In Germany, there were actually legislation demanding “peace without annexation”, and international solidarity among the workers (male and female). There were uprising of soldiers and sailors against the war.

New Yorkers carry a peace banner down Fifth Avenue in a protest against the First World War.

Text supplied by the German Federal Archive: “With the rebellion of the sailors and workers on 3 November 1918 in Kiel the November revolution starts. On 6 November the revolutionary movement reaches Wilhelmshaven. Our picture shows the soldiers’ council of the Prinzregent Luitpold.”

Those were the days. Well, those were the days of open warfare between the working class and the capitalists; that’s what it was really all about, that and colonialism for stealing the wealth of weak nations for the industrialists’ profit.

Today…well, today we still go to war to take the wealth of other nations; we still cover the truth with words like “for freedom”, “to save people from their dictators” by bombing said people.

What can be said about today’s working class? They don’t have that spirit of the past; they are merely trying to survive in their own nations. They are so poor, they are willing to sell themselves as soldiers-of-fortune. They can’t even elect people willing to pass a resolution against any war. And don’t tell me it’s because the “democratic party is the party of Wall Street”; that’s a cop-out. The only thing people do here is vote and call their ‘representatives’. That was fine for a while, can’t you see it’s not working anymore?

The word peace has become permanent collateral damage of our permanent wars ever since…”The only thing to fear is fear itself”, said Roosevelt to walk Americans towards war, and we have marched towards war ever since. We haven’t been without wars since then. Then the new millennium started with Bush’s invasion of Iraq after 9/11; now it seems we are marching towards another atomic conflagration, another hecatomb, this time in North Korea. Our crazy president may have to nuke the people of that nation to save them from their own crazy leader.

I tell you, war is ‘so cheap’; people buy it wholesale for $0.50, the cost of the newspapers they read filled with pro-war propaganda they accept mindlessly. That word, mindlessly, reminded me of The Buddha.

The Buddha had an interesting message: The Doctrine of the Mind. He said that

Whatsoever  there is of evil, connected with evil, belonging to evil – all issues from the mind.

Whatsoever there is of good, connected with good, belonging to good – all issues from the mind.

He then taught:

  1. to know the mind – that is so near to us, and yet is so unknown;
  2. to shape the mind – that is so unwieldy and obstinate, and yet may turn so pliant;
  3. to free the mind – that is in bondage all over, and yet may win freedom here and now.

But I’m done with humans. I have come to accept that the human race is incorrigible. They believe Trump and admire warmongering billionaires like Tillerson, but mock The Buddha. They care not about another atomic hecatomb, this time in North Korea.

So I will go on reminding people about the word ‘peace’. It is in our minds if we want it to be. Don’t put conditions on peace; if you want peace, then it can’t be “after Assad is removed from power”, or “after we get rid of Isil”.

It has to be NOW, PERIOD.  Demand a NEGOTIATED PEACE without bombing for it.

 

Michael Hudson on Identity Politics: to strengthen the working class, dump women and ‘colored’ people

Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest in having to work for a living.
Michael Hudson

Only racist people can shame you for fighting racism, misogyny and xenophobia.
crazyuspresidentialelections

The specter of stealthy racism and misogyny rises again in the progressive movement, this time from the pen of famous leftist economist Michael Hudson (is he leftist?) in his recent article Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party? at Counter Punch magazine. I have to ask “is he leftist?” because Counter Punch is the preferred site of alt-right third-way conservatives who speak, without an accent, the leftist lingo to better contaminate with their racism and misogyny the minds of unsuspecting progressives. Paul Craig Robertson is one of those alt-right and openly conservatives whose right-wing ideology is often published there under the guise of ‘leftist’ opinion; that good they are at impersonating leftist’s ‘thinking’.

But that’s a different story. I’m here to talk about Mr. Hudson’s, and the alt-right’s,  anti-women and racist ideology passed on in his article as criticism of “identity politics” (IdPol)

The enemy within: Identity Politics as anti-labor politics

Mr. Hudson opens the discussion of Identity Politics defining in  the heading IdPol as “anti-labor”. It’s the only definition  he offers of it to the reader, passing then to wrongly describe what IdPol does. By defining it as “anti” labor, he clears up the battlefield for the confrontation between the two enemies: the ‘labor movement’  vs everybody else.

You see, if you happen to believe that there are other forms of institutionalized oppression, in addition to labor, with roots both in culture and economic politics, then Mr. Hudson will cast you on the side of the enemy of the white male “working class”: you are “everybody else”; and if you ARE a unionized working person, then you must be the enemy within.  Let’s be honest, today, the intellectual leftists are more preoccupied with the suffering of the white male working class “abandoned and insulted by Clinton and the democratic party” than with that of  women and children,  be it as workers (child labor) or sex-slaves; not even interested with the economical well-being of ‘colored’ laborers. So when the intellectual leftists, Mr. Hudson and the alt-right use the term “working class”, white male working class is what they mean. And they mean race and gender are the enemies of that particular segment of the working class.

The article does not  mention the  unemployed women and ‘colored people’ demands for jobs, whether historically or in the present. The non-whites’ struggle for jobs is not part of the author’s idea of ‘working class’.   That’s why Mr. Hudson implies that the reason these people ‘practice’ IdPol is because they don’t want to work for a living, as he says in the article:

Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest in terms of having to work for a living.”

Mind you, not even the ‘labor movement’ itself adopts Mr. Hudson’s extreme stereotyping definition of IdPol, for they continue to support  with actions the demands of so-called ‘identity’ groups: women, immigrants, people of color, LGBT. But with his anti-IdPol, Mr. Hudson and the extreme GOP alt-right can light up in what remains of the labor movement the fire of hatred of women, with the leftist intellectuals fanning that fire in their leftist media.

Answer this quickly: When have you seen a racist/white supremacist/GOP/conservative calling for an end to  racism and misogyny? That’s why only “labor politics” matters to Mr. Hudson and the leftists intellectuals.

The Black Panthers: enemies of labor?

He starts the discussion of Idpol by saying that the term ‘identity politics’ is a “new term introduced to the English language“; that’s it, period. He forgets to state ‘when’ or ‘who’ “introduced” it. It matters, ‘who’.

According to some writers (e.g., Howard J. Wiarda in “Political Culture, Political Science, and Identity Politics: An Uneasy Alliance”), the term has been in use since at least the 1960-70s; that doesn’t make it “new”, or does it? The revolutionary movement of that time used the term to inform the public about oppression by capitalism in all spheres of human relations, including the personal. Groups like Black Panthers and feminists used it, you know, the people who, according to Mr. Hudson’s definition of IdPol,  you should condemn today  for using ‘identity politics’. But we don’t want to condemn them, do we?, at least not consciously.

That’s why Mr. Hudson’s assertion about the origin of the term IdPol  is purposely superficial, because it surreptitiously leads to the condemnation of the recent history of the people’ struggles against all forms of capitalist/conservative oppression. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander: if we accept that it was necessary for those people in the 60s and 70s to fight against the racism and misogyny that comes intertwined with economic oppression, so it is today.

Culture and the culture of oppression

Mr. Hudson’s and the alt-right’s racist ideology stands on the believe that the oligarchy, globalists, and conservative elites of all flavors don’t use culture to oppress the rest of humanity; that only our 9 to 5 work-life interest them, but not controlling what happens in our ‘cultural space’ after hours. Believe that ideology on your own peril.

Were concentration camp ‘Jews’ anti-labor?

But IdPol have been in use since MANY years before the 7os. Mr.Hudson  forgets to mention that the legs on which Hitler’s Nazism stood was precisely identity politics: German ‘racial superiority’, the ‘inferiority’ of Jews, Blacks, women, homosexuals, the mentally ill; and of non-German ‘ethnic nationals’…all of whom were so ‘inferior’ as to deserve been incinerated in concentration camps. Consider this: If you were a non-mentally ill/not physically disabled white ‘Aryan’ male in Nazi Germany, would you have feared Hitler’s RACIAL policies? What if you were a ‘Jew’, would you have feared his racial policies? Would you have said, in those days, ‘let’s not talk about Hitler’s identity politics of persecuting me because of my Jewishness/Blackness; let’s concentrate on Hitler’s union-busting practices?’

Yep, identity politics never existed before until Hillary introduced it.

Only RACIST people don’t fear racist policies and politics. Only racist people can shame you for fighting against racism, misogyny and xenophobia. Only racists can tell you that you should worry ONLY about wages, that you should NOT support anyone who stands to defend you against racism…Only Mr. Hudson, a white male who has done nothing for “the working class”  can define for you your priorities: racism and misogyny are NOT the priorities of the white male labor ‘movement’, so they can’t be yours either.

Yep, healthy-looking, happy nothing-to-fear white boy. I should trust you when you tell me not to fight against racism and misogyny because?

Woman, where were you on Trump’s inauguration day?
(The “52% of white women who voted for Trump”)

Mr. Hudson wouldn’t be worthy of being called a white elitist man if he didn’t attack women in his piece. He blamed. literally, the women’s march on D.C. for the absence of the left and unions on Trump’s inauguration day. Was he there that day? I didn’t see him.

I went to the inauguration, and my first observation was ‘Where are the unions, where are the leftists, where is everybody?’ There were less than 3K people where I was. Mr. Hudson answered the question for me: it was the women, stupid! Somehow those evil pro-Clinton women bewitched the leftists, the anti-war ‘movement’ and the unions members on January 20 to stay at home that day. Sounds to me like Mr. Hudson suffers from typical men’s primordial fear of women.

Maybe he should talk to Paul Craig Robertson who wrote an article about the demise of the American left. Paul is right, the American left is dead, and the alt-right has taken its place, that’s why they didn’t show up. But also because they are supporting Trump dreaming that he is the new revolutionary of peace because of his love for Putin. Everybody knows that the union movement have been decimated too, but not by the women’s movement. There were no leftists, unions or anti-war marchers in the millions at Trump’s inauguration because those movements have been destroyed: by the conservatives, GOP, globalists, and SOME in the Democratic party.

Also, Mr. Hudson states that “52% of white women voted for Trump”. I tell him  98% of BLACK women voted for Hillary Clinton. These are women who, with good reasons, are afraid of Trump’s racism; white women are not afraid of his racism. I congratulate Black women for being the ONLY group on which the media propaganda (left and right) failed completely to manipulate voters into voting for Trump.  They may not all be feminists (must of them aren’t) but they sure knew that, in terms of national policies, Trump is the enemy. They know that the killing of their Black children will continue under Trump, but their boys bought the misogynistic fear of a woman running the nation and decided to stay home; they voted in that way against their own interests and their mothers.

Mr. Hudson says that the media “informed” us that white women didn’t feel welcome at the march. The media has ignored women’s activities, and when they mention them, it is ALWAYS to denigrate the women or to create division. The march in D.C. was very white indeed. Propaganda, what do you expect from  our mainstream media?

The question is Where were those people who Saturday? Did they come to show support to working women, to victims of violence, to children, to disabled people; to stand against Trump’s upcoming wars, which we knew were around the corner? So much for ‘anti-war movement’.

The women’s march was open for everybody who knew that the struggle continues with Trump. But our intellectual leftists have filled the minds of some men and women with the idea that we must wait and give Trump a chance to prove that he is the “revolutionary” they have made him to be in their puny imaginations. These ‘leftists’ would rather stick a fork in their eyes than get caught marching with women!

Mr. Hudson didn’t show up there, actually, he doesn’t show up ANYWHERE, because he is a conservative. He considers women’s issues to be “non-issues, non-threatening to the donor class”; in other words, women are ‘wimps’. He and the intellectual leftists lament that women were marching against Trump. I’m sure that after Trump’s bombing of Syria, they will not recognize that women were correct in marching against him. As long as women don’t do as men tell them, men will be angry at them.

Women’s Strike for Peace-And Equality, Women’s Strike for Equality, Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, August 26, 1970. (Photo by Eugene Gordon/The New York Historical Society/Getty Images)

Mr. Hudson misses ‘the simplicity of the past’
(typical of conservatives)

According to the author, identity pol.

used to be about three major categories: workers and unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim Crow laws. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party.”

When you put it like that, the people’ struggle against all kind of oppression seem less cumbersome, for we can now see what it is NOT about. The following is an incomplete list of non-issues derived from Mr. Hudson’ statement above:

  • The fight against capitalism and for control of the means of production (only union-issues matter)
  • Fight against institutionalized racism
  • Fight for climate and environmental issues (poisoning of water resources…)
  • Fight against institutionalized misogyny and oppression of women (gender pay gap, sexual harassment everywhere and in the job (not a problem of male workers),  physical violence against women on a daily basis…)
  • Globalists exploiting child-labor is a non-issue
  • Keeping an army of unemployed humanity to serve as regulator of the cost of labor (if you are not working, you are a non-issue and Mr. Hudson will put you in the ‘enemy of the working class’ side)

Interestingly enough, these are all economic issues that affect the elite conservative businesses and the globalists, which is why they oppose the people fighting to achieve them. Fighting “Jim Crow” was OK, but not fighting against the institutionalized racism that Mr. King fought, the one from which white conservatives profited; and Black women are not in the image we get in our minds when we talk about racism. By mentioning only Jim Crow, Mr. Hudson shows us his true colors.

If we had focused only on those three issues, the following would have never  happened, but they did:

  • there would have been no disability movement to stop the atrocities committed in psychiatric hospitals,
  • no removal of environmental barriers to help people with physical disabilities navigate the outdoors,
  • no child protections laws, against child labor and child abuse in general,
  • no attention to the problem of sex-slavery of women and children,
  • no changes to the justice system that oppresses Blacks and minorities…

We take for granted many of the rights we ‘enjoy’ today, but they were all won with blood. Only conservatives and globalists want us to ignore those issues, mainly because they created and benefit from them.

Put the blame on Mame boys

That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party.

Not only Mr. Hudson and the alt-right don’t blame the GOP for the ending of “these movements”,  you will NOT find the leftist intellectuals blaming them either. All the blame for the loss of workers rights goes to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, as if the persistent attacks on labor didn’t start in the 1900s with the advent of the new capitalism. Don’t socialists agree in that capitalism can’t exist without the proletarians and is perpetually fighting against them? Is it possible that the GOP is not the representative of  capitalists? Why attack the party with the most working class in it and leave the white supremacists’ party untouched?

You must ask yourselves why these people deflect attention from the GOP, who benefits from it and from destroying the democratic party; who benefits from leaving the GOP as the only party in the nation?

Propaganda is a fun when you know how to do it

In describing how IdPols ‘works’, Mr. Hudson says:

“Its aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women, LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.

Well…that quote is so offensive I don’t even know where to start. OK. I will start with the propaganda in it.

Many people accept that there is such a thing as “propaganda”, but most refuse to accept the examples of how it manifests, so you may not see propaganda in that quote. The phrase “and New Cold War”, in caps and all, is an emotionally negative message repeated over and over, and associated with the names of each group representing a political issue. This IS one technique of propaganda. “New Cold War”, that was the bogeyman used against the democratic party, not against the GOP.

Mr. Hudson expertly associates the fights against misogyny, racism and other forms of oppression by conservatives and globalists, with the hatred inculcated in some progressives against the democratic party. We LGBT, women, Blacks…we are all for “the Cold War” the dems are planning, according to Mr. Hudson. Hate them! (“1984”)

Of course, typical of a smear campaign, Mr. Hudson provides no evidence that there were “groups of women for Wall Street…” nor that there is a “billionaire” behind “each identity cohort”. Mr. Hudson, you are a liar, and your opinion drips with disdain for anyone who is not a white male like you.

But that doesn’t matter for those who believe in the “evil witch”; the attacks don’t have to be proven. The accusations themselves have become the ‘evidence’: just say it, it will become true by the magic of pronunciation.

Conclusion: Divide and conquer

Mr. Hudson’s article is an effort at dividing the progressive movement, just as the conservative white racists divided the labor movement by pitting Blacks and whites against each other. Here they are doing it again.

I know it’s too late to bring attention to how the alt-right has invaded  the progressives’ consciousness with their racism and misogyny via the ‘leftists’ media: it’s fait-accompli (we saw it in the results of the elections). I lack the skills to make a sound argument, let alone writing skills. But this I can tell you: The alt-right wants us to forget history, ours and theirs. They shame us for fighting against the many forms in which we are oppressed daily. They portray us  in the same way Nazis portrayed everyone who was not a white Aryan man: corrupt, lazy and ignorant. If they are planning concentration camps with ‘the wall’, we all are going to be shoved there.

For you out there who see what I see (am not alone), please, don’t stay quiet. Denounce these people, denounce Counter Punch magazine for passing alt-right propaganda as ‘leftist’ to progressives.

Attack on Russians: We the People must stand in solidarity with Russian civilians

Whatever misgivings we may have against Putin and his government (and I have some), the American civilians must stand with the Russian civilians.

Political acts of violence by the right or the left against civilians are acts against humanity by a handful of terrorists in governments, or power seeking groupuscules in the midst of human nations. Direct your political anger and violence at the head of states, if you must act; leave the civilians out of your hatred.

Violence engenders violence. I know it sounds preposterous, but The Buddha supposedly said “love everything, so you may not wish to kill anything”. I may not get to love everything, but I certainly love humanity enough to not want to kill other humans for any ideology. Violence is easy; peace seems ‘unnatural’ to human efforts and unreachable Let’s not fall for the easy. Peace, people, peace. Make it natural for humans to aim at it.