Entitled to your Opinion?
I Don't Think So.
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
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:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide Approved and proposed for signature and ratification
or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December
1948 entry into force 12 January 1951, in accordance with article
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
I'm sorry to say, but no one is off the hook. Now that it's
been said, everyone is committing genocide as long as they're
not fighting actively against it. Moreover, no one is entitled
to their opinion about this issue. You are either committing genocide
or you're actively opposing it. There's no in between. Which are
you doing? And why aren't you actively opposing it? You know,
don't you, that your not entitled to your opinion, right? Not