Every army is criminal.

Although the Military Institution in itself wouldn't be interested in turning its personnel into criminals - a specific ritual (cult) pattern, manufactured by public voluntary connivance, an approach for the purpose of making from a clay of cultural potential a (golem) serviceman; the exceptionally unique system of apologetic justification through separate estimate judgments on the positions of (individual) separate parts of the body in relation to individual (separate) events and facts that accompany, fuel and in countless ways recommend the aforementioned justification to remain apologetic. A system called at the daring suggestion of deceptive dissidents a "human[e] choice".

Any group or concept makes a nation, seeking services of any Institute or Union of both military and 'national' qualities - in the same way criminal.

Yet "crime" [in context of 'national armies'] is not a phenomenon that meant to violate any 'national laws' - it allows its verminous structural elements ('poor' soldiers they are, generals, officers, captains, sergeants, majors, chaplains, volunteers, donateers, journalists, a cruelly truly poor soldiers they are, exploited proletarians, selfishly carrying out their orders) to review, revise[, rethink even] the Rights, which have always had an accounted advantage over anything temporarily occupied by 'nationality' and 'labour' (bones and sinews of 'human resources').

Unphenomenal crime of society forced to act as a military corporation is not the crime against the trademark of humanity, like armed conflicts ["for the Dead"] or political parties ["of the Dead"] are.

Crime of nation is always a crime against ontological (imaginary) roots of all the nation could embody or epitomize - crime against basic hypothesis of any further and ulterior existence of criminal mind, which would like to be never realized otherwise than in a crime [against the realization of own debunked existence].

Commitment of crime (certain "perpetration"^*) is much less worse (thus deleterious^* "for the children"), than a commitment to crime - which has a baddest habit of systematically being cladded in heroic garb, producing whole-hearted idiosyncrasies of societal overconfidence. But if [any]one have to begin a discourse - any[one] should try to build on a thing non-existent, like a covetous womb (a-random-child-or-concept-free) called Etymology^*:

:word (not the term or formula) of a crime has Latin origin (one can certainly conclude, that "Latin" less seldom means "absent", than "dead")

:Latin origin feels obliged to reign indicated by [asless]sumption of one or more examples, in the context of crime (but still not all the criminal things covetous reader can imagine) which can be delivered by both noun (Crimen) and verb (Cernere)

:Crimen, regardless of certain Damsels, is stubborn enough to withhold [self]judgement and ubiquitously protracted archeological excavations by choosing the thousand-years tradition of mutual inculpations, denunciations, accusations, charges, impeachments, all those wondrous phenomena anyone would prefer to demeaning restraint (as long as it contradicts philanthropy)

:Cernere, in [her] genuine (sieved) Proto-Indo-Europeanity, according to tabloids, accumulated not enough of will yet to decide, which roots need to be distinguished and what supposed to exist as [temporarily] discriminated.

Thoughtful Butler, while features of the profession wouldn't allow to Judith butler's self, doesn't need to act as if [he] was reminded about obvious - each crime is preceded by a decision to commit it. In the wastelands of the Shame of Irresponsibility (which is war) this formula must act as if it was paraphrased: every order is preceded by decision not to follow any other way.

On top of Sacks' hat, any self-expecting polyglot (linguophage or languamp) acquires with these words the Right to Act as If somewhere in the above.txt someone must have left a disguised prompt: Latin vocabulary ensures the [non]existence of several terms, which can be used by [unpopular, although resourceful, cunning even] poets [and other adherents of idle zealotry] as synonyms for what Highly Unforgiving Essayists define as a "crime" [in short]:

sceleritas;

nefas;

malefactum;

facinus

- yet especially aforementioned self-expectant's attention and curiosity may be captured by certain "Admissum". Does any soul need a Why's background?

Why would an occasional human being seek an admission by choosing self-commitment to destruction or death of another human being [having found identity in the same choice, just like all the West material and cultural values conceivably were made in the East] - moreover, admission to what kind of society assumes a crime as a mandatory condition?

Now, you shouldn't [be forced to] regard an army as "a force", for such reading [and explication] distorts [and alchemically sophisticates] the entity of the structure designed to distort (through talentless try of sophistication) the nature of anything not admitted to this structure. Simplest reason to quit a habit of regarding (reviewing) as a 'force' else your usual liberal legally organized crime syndicates is speculative (spiritual) matter of latter.

A force is presumably positive in [Her] course. Widely-spoken (written-even-wilder) destructiveness, though inherent activity of the [Speculative Maturity of the] Universe is not quality of a force, but a method of manifestation [or exemplification*] of a method itself. Military is the method of self-justification for those, who lost all rights to ground themselves as a being - and nothing can be more duly than a loss of Seasonably Granted Right.

Inevitable is the trend (in post-colonial societies, like United Swingdom, la Marseillaise, Deutschland, il Canto, Rußland, Ukraine*, Rzeczpospolita, Japan, Sour African Republic, United Spades of Americas and let it be Greenland) of humanistic care about 'convenience veterans', spreading throughout national globes short after Regular Armed Unpleasantness cease to accumulate profit, which always (wars, vets and funds) cause an everyday Concern of involved parties to touch the very Schopenhauerian and even Lovecraftian Depth [of sentimentality approved by both WHO and IMF]. Inevitable, you recognize and diagnose it, doesn't mean justified (justified isn't adequate, adequate isn't wise, wise isn't inevitable - and arguing is both healthy and unhealthy as a principle or whim). [Outherian] Truth or a fact [of preference] remains:

"..victimization secures replay of all stages in becoming a victim among those, who define and motivate themselves through compassion and empathy.."

- and you know, why i must let it look like a sentence taken out of context.

Empathy among [socially, thus politically active] humans is a pop-scientified honour among thieves. One can reserve the right of belief in the relevance of 'findings' and revelations of said (empathy-thievery correlation) kind during the times of war or alleged and fancied Post-Totalitarian Discourse only; still 'the Right' has a weight of a human pupil separated from a ball - in the eyes of self-proclaimed democrats and revolutionaires of the Land of Opportunities.

Certainly, all democrats are either self-proclaimed or they are not democrats, but this is not the point of this deformed and pointillistic essay (kitchen wit calls it appointment, thus witcher's forced to laugh again). Since all the points in use nowadays by both porn and heroic arcade ("Clash of Sibylizations"), weeping willows and juggling essayists will make an effort to not get lost in the audience. Because the audience is the only reason for persistency and unproductive continuance of each war (at least since November 29th 1947):

:Unproductive (Infecundus) - for 'a war' in itself is a commodity (a state and an act, like 'a sex', when one seemingly participates in one and only intercourse)

:Persistent (Mulinus) - since a commodity been produced has infinite urge to find itself consumed (dissolved and recycled, freeing space for rapening fruits of perpetual production)

Every war has an audience.

Every crime has a lawyer.

The audience of war organizes criminal activity of military. Society is easier discredited by preventive militarization, than by subsequent tautology of 'war crimes'. The so called strategic approach is perverted simplification: "You can not lead the war without committing a crime" transmutes into "You should commit a crime, since all involved parties need their pitiful right recognized - the Right of Watch you waging, fueling, mongering your degrading war now".

The war is humiliating, ignominious, degrading.

The war is the blessing and sanctification of morons.

Agreed by everyone, no?

The delusional problem emerges when heavy-vegan bejesus-chitterlings, irresistible damsels and everies of the One begin to feel the distress for termination or prevention of the conflict, which presumably (preferably) lost its diplomatic (psychotropic) potential and suffers a significant decline in market value. The war brings joy in the lives of donateers and volunteers, even if they grasped that now and then they have to increase the Dosage:

go and ask them, by what means the dosage of war can be increased?

Everyone, as you say, agrees on mortifying, azoic, degenerative entity of war.

But when time comes to take your stand on resources (considering yourselves resources too), suddenly you keep wiki-leaking previous courage on the legal formation of the Circle of the Lamb for the sake of the Great Lodge of Stigma.

Overnight you have no guts to call a gerneric soldier "an HDD" (honoured and distinguished degenerate) - out of the blue you trade the unempathetic-yet-vital reality of another replaceable pestilent mercenary on the residential pathos of assorted Capitalism, Exploitation, Class and unfathomably personal heartache of the Imperialistic Martyrocracy.

Casus Pacis is often measured on two [or arbitrarily larger number of] scales:

:pseudo-y - soldiers are our children (or people - though mind that soldiers aren't our neighbours, even if they soldiers of neighbouring state)

:pseudo-x - soldiers are human beings (systematically living also - again mind that soldiers can appear mechanized 'in terms of artistic plane only' - sciliset soldiers surely are not just our average guinea pigs)

Again, the main [theoretical] problem of any publicly acceptable, seemingly apoliticized human[itarian]ism: its servants and masters, promoters and trainees are unscrupulous in their choice of means by which the Prodigious Programme of Worldwide Mutual Understanding and (attention!) Admission is being structured and organized. Humanists are more Machiavellian than those whom they are accustomed to using as a counterweight of their Codex.

So what is the main function of any type of counterweight?

Whose weight counters a weight, used by Humanity [countering itself], since we have no tangible evidence of the existence of Extraterrestrial Civilizations?

Inasmuch as we have [countless and even more than] physical proofs of the existence of Interdimensional Dementia, whose weight counters a weight of Plucked Rationality?

Every army has the only responsibility - to defend both objects and subjects of ID (imminent destruction). Accordingly defense of the process of decay is peculiar to Civilization. The latter has no reason to use armies for defense purposes. Defense of destruction is counterintuitive to the defense of decay. Both destruction and decay are unsalvageable for they constitute Continuum.

Yet not armies wipe out civilizations, but civilizations endowed with full right to exterminate what's military left in their chamber pots, prefer to maintain appearance of their own annihilation, so that it'll be easier for civilized beings to influence the culture and education, which shape bloodthirsty specimen.

The military is a product of clinically dead, though even posthumously more intellectual and moral [than researchers of their legacy] elites.

Do you like it, if unknown, unidentified, unsearchable [being dead] remains [lethally] smarter and [savoury] kinder than your sons and daughters?

If you do, then this your war, which leads to the death of all, who won't follow your footsteps.

^{^VU}₀₀₀₀^{UV^}

*per (completely) patrare (carry out) patres eorum AUT ET AC petere (strive, even seek) liberis suos - XVIcent phantasms of English and French diasporas

*dēlēisthai (hurt) ious (state) of non-Indo-European XVIIcent Science-Fiction

*Since Etymon has brought us the literal meaning of a word according to origin, what is the literal meaning of Etymon as a word, whose origin nobody evidently accords today?

Don't you dare refer to the veracity of Etymos!

*All the 'tion' and no 'ay' makes Michel a bald boy

*Interactive Paradox of Europa Universalis 25 years ago