Don't you hear people say, "I'm entitled to my opinion," everyday? Or, maybe it's, "Your entitled to your opinion." Or, again, sometimes it's, "He/she's entitled to her/his opinion." Occasionally it's, "I have no opinion. I'm entitled not to have an opinion." Without thinking, everyone agrees with each of these statements. But, are they always correct? Are these people really entitled?

What's an opinion? - A belief, sentiment, persuasion, view, thought, preconception -- a personal belief that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Everyone seems to think they are entitled, and as far as they're concerned it's none of my damned business. But isn't it? Let's see.

Are people truly entitled to all their opinions? And in particular, are people entitled to their opinions about causes, treatments, recovery, and public policy about addictions? Are they entitled to their opinions on these topics when these addiction issues result in addict genocide? "Genocide?" you say. "What genocide? There's no genocide of addicts."

Here's a definition of genocide. "Genocide: the systematic killing of a whole people. The term was first applied to the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews during World War II. It has been applied more recently to the war in Bosnia, where the Serbs have been accused of practicing genocide against the Muslim population, and to ethnic conflict in Rwanda in 1994, which resulted in the killing of thousands of members of the Tutsi tribe by Hutus. Another example in history would be the killing of an estimated 600,000 Armenians by the Turks in 1915. See also Holocaust."

"There's no mention of addicts here," they say. There's no mention of slavery or the systematic destruction of north American indigenous people either. Quite a lot is left out, huh?

Here's another one: "Genocide: systematic destruction by a government of a racial, religious, or ethnic group." No mention of addicts again. Hmmm.

Let's see how the United Nations defined genocide and even passed international laws on it without realizing they're genocidal themselves. Be that as it may, their definition is pretty thorough:

The Contracting Parties, Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world, Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

Article 1: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3: The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.

There's no mention of addicts here either, but I assure you, if the UN knew that addicts were all related genetically, their definition would include them as a racial group. Ignorance of this is no excuse, especially when the facts concerning this reality are currently available but are being ignored. In other words, ignoring a genocide due to ignorance is complicity nonetheless. Otherwise, anyone can defend genocide by claiming ignorance, but ignorance about genocide can't be an excuse when the facts surrounding this genocide are available in this article and in my book, Hypoic's Handbook, even if people choose to ignore them. A fact is a fact. And, believe me, plenty of people have read my book and articles about addict genocide and ignore them. So, it's not that this issue is unknown. It is being actively ignored.

Now, I ask you again: Are you entitled to your opinions on addictions and addicts if those opinions promote hypoic genocide, especially while knowing about Hypoism and Hypoic's Handbook but you are choosing to ignore it? I say no! Emphatically, No!

Now, is it genocide when you believe that your behavior toward a particular group of people is justified? What genocide isn't believed to be justified by the perpetrators? That's the whole point, isn't it? The perpetrators of genocide never think for a second that what they're doing is genocide. Thus, the paradox of genocide. An outside party, such as the UN, must step into the maylay and define the behavior as genocide. Otherwise, the murderous behavior is justified by whatever reasons, and continues undeterred. An outside party is always necessary to intervene in genocides because the perpetrators believe what they're doing is correct and even necessary. But, there is no outside party intervening here because they're all complicit as well. In fact, everyone is complicit. I've said this many times before and have been ignored by the exact people who are complicit. Geez!

Let me be clear. Hypoic genocide is occurring right here and right now in America and is believed to be morally, ethically, religiously, and politically justified. What's more astonishing is that the UN doesn't realize it's promoting genocide despite it's specific definition of the word and while the United States government's behavior towards addicts and other hypoics is appropriately labeled genocide under the UN's definition. Oh, you might argue that our policy toward addicts isn't genocide, it's public safety. Isn't that always the argument? Wasn't that the argument of the Salem witch burners? The slave owners? The Indians fighters? Wasn't that Hitler's argument? Didn't the German people acquiesce and thus conspire to commit genocide? Aren't all Americans who know about hypoic genocide doing exactly the same thing? Of course. Do they admit to it? Of course not. LOL.

So, are these people entitled to their opinions about addictions that facilitate, condone, abet, aid, assist, help, encourage, enable, allow, or ignore hypoic genocide? Of course not. Are they equally guilty of genocide? Of course. Even when they don't know it? Of course. It's their duty as civilized people to learn about it.

What's the point of building twenty Holocaust museums while ignorantly committing genocide right in your own country? Is there a touch of hypocrisy here?

"But I don't agree with Hypoic's Handbook," they say. "But I don't want to read it. I don't like it. In my opinion, it's wrong."

I say, "You're not entitled to your opinion about Hypoism and hypoic genocide until you have read the book, studied it, and proved it wrong. Ignoring it because you don't agree with it or don't like it is no excuse. You are still conspiring to commit genocide through complicity even if it's through ignorance. Ignorance is still no excuse because you have consciously chosen to remain ignorant like Colonel Klink, "I see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." Sorry, you are still committing evil. You are not entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to that opinion.

So, to whom does this apply? Let me count the ways. In general, anyone who ignores Hypoics Handbook for whatever reason without proving it wrong and disagreeing with it without studying it and proving it wrong and without merit.

• Recovering addicts - Heads in the sand; fear of: loss of anonymity, societal disapproval, controversy, visibility, being punished by the higher power and other superstitious nonsense
• Addictionologists - Conflicts of interest, no integrity
• Politicians - Fear of losing elections if they interfere with genocide
• Governmental agencies involved in addictions in any way - Jobs depend on genocide continuing
• Addiction Advocacy groups - Bought and paid for by rehabilitation centers and jails which benefit from genocide
• Religious groups - Superstitious paradigm of addictions means more converts, paid off by believers and perpetrators of genocide, dead hypoics will be happy in heaven, right? What's new?
• United Nations - Bought and paid for by genocidal governments
• Anti-drug war policy groups - Don't care about the victims only their desire and freedom to use drugs
• Pundits and talking heads - Will say anything to stay in the public eye
• Media - They will believe and say whatever sells advertising and other conflicts of interest, no integrity
• Everyone else - "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil." Doesn't buck authority out of the principle of, "The experts will take care of it for me." And they do!