Punishment for S* crimes
PUNISHMENT
I. New Principles of Justice Required
New Criminality:
-manipulating the process mediated by events-news-dynamic of reactions governed by control of communications to support Israeli-centric political agendae.
New Justice Paradigm
The new kind of criminality calls for rethinking the concept of justice applied to it, and a new order of punishment. For instance, since the comission of a crime need not be proven for individuals, since the criminality is in what is clear and dictinctly evident, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty", only questions of degree of complicity in the perpetration.
No "investigation" or "conspiracy trial" is in order. Judgment of criminality is based on responsibility for what is openly witnessed, on record, proceeding without challenge, at points where, by review, if not in real-time, some deliberate manipulation can be seen to occur that should have been stopped (Ex.: Bush's "Jesus is my favorite philosopher"; "faith based initiative"; "Russian aggression in Georgia")
These instances (imagine a omni-present TVo edit) are docketed as criminality is sign-use: the same meaning, or sense, is simultaneously given and erased; meanwhile, predicating on "it" as if true or false statements could be made and sanctioned. In effect, not just interrogating whether a guy about whether he had quit beating his wife, but letting him know denying the question wasn't an option. "Are you a Jew?" comes close. The result of such a practice becoming systemic is violation of personal space (private tokenspace) by demanding compliance-on-the-spot with assumptions built into the situation so that saying anything at all, in agreement or disagreement, places oneself between the polarity of psychological opposites which were drawn by someone else; then, threatened with harm if compliance is refused. The pattern could be called "Nazi Interrogation ." Either non-cooperation or disapprobative alignment disadvantages the responder.
It is this form of criminality in sign-use that 'the Jews' endured in Hitler's Germany, whenever they were required to respond to 'Judenhass' wrangling. "Never again" was headed up by the drive to prohibit terms of collective abuse from becoming institutionalized in America. Big Entertainers Mel Gibson, Don Imus and Michael Richards have felt the sting of the wrath of the PC police. And, as survivors of the holocaust and sympathizers must surely attest, a civil society must remain free of self-serving hate-tinged designators for common collective use.
However, when Political Correctness as a justified enforceable constraint is A. mixed with religious terminology, bringing the (dis-)approbative sanctions under somebody's God's thumb; and B. the electorate is addressed under the going assumptions of "identity politics" -- bloc votes by non-AmericaFirst self-referencers -- ...then the constraint of Political Correctness becomes a barrier to correcting the total situation it is part of. Under these conditions,
the PC that was supposed to function as a safeguard against becomes a meta-level reinforcement of the Nazi Interrogation discourse regime, this time substituting whoever is called President for Die Fuhrer, Republicrats for Nazi's, and Homeland Security + Defense Tzar Negroponte for the SS, and the 52 Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations, the Libby Lobby and neocons in general doing the work of Goebbels. Those who respond to polls flashed on the TV screen on a daily basis, accept classifications and categories framed in the psychological opposites these substitutions posit. This acceptance expresses tacit consent to be conscripted into the military framed under the substitute terms. To speak as common American citizens as "we" with them, as part of the ongoing democratic political process, is to tacitly consent to sanctions for refusing to be conscripted into an army pledged to someone else's God. This cannot be willed as a rational principle. (following Kant: "Let me be tricked by sign-use into dying for someone else's God" cannot be consistently willed as a maxim; its denial, :"Let me not tricked/be tricked ...etc." holds categorically for the rational (moral) will. This is the moral basis for the new justice paradigm. It is faced with the task of framing punishment for aggravated, sustained, impervious-to-criticism substitution of signs used in common discourse that have led to systemic violation of the categorical imperative in the name of 'doing good'. Americans have been so tricked by the mass mediated discourse sold as "we", "unity", "our" ('war on terror' etc.) that even to raise the question of its morality elicits the charge of "immorality".
That is the group process situation America has arrived at. The moral split is ultimate. Tricked conscription into the army of someone else's God is backed up with reversal of the rational moral condemnation of the trickery. (Various strategies are used: it is "extemist", 'mad', "dangerous", "unpatriotic", up to and including "unG-dly".)
The form of this criticism of the ongoing process will be applied to several instances to the same effect. Use of a sign whose import was originally positive, used for that reason, is pushed over the line into negating that possibility. And systemic challenge to that use is sanctioned with penalties.
This is the form of the criminality in sign-use illustrated by the instances below.
**** summary
-The criminality is in the manipulation of a common process in violation of the unstated but undeniable recognized conditions of public trust in providing news services.
The text of 'good' words is so misused that the tokens are driven into the ground and are used to reproduce the opposite of that which they originally communicated. (cf. The boy who cried "wolf" until it didn't mean anything anymore: that is the situation of "democracy" "al Queda threat")
II. Illustrations
A. "Democracy" - Now used in the '08 election campaign to continue a process that blocks what it originally communicated: a regime in which the common voice and will of the people on major issues is effectively expressed without prejudice.
This has been violated at the interface of the public and official government discourse where the media of mass communication has installed gatekeepers of PC, and other rules of programming, that block challenges to fundamental assumptions the official discourse makes.
Ex.: Ex.: linkage of U.S. - Israel foreign policy interests. A fundamental challenge to the assumption that these are closely aligned, if not identical, is never presented as a sustained position. Elected representatives never address it, but are invariably seen "wooing the Jewish vote", publicly kow towing to Jewish individuals (e.g., Schumer, Lieberman), talking of "bipartisanship", "faith", Western values, religion perhaps even "God" ("G-d" for the rigorously observant); "monotheism", if pressed. And "democracy". "America's only democratic ally in the region," the PR went. (Although Georgia counts.)
tbc.
I. New Principles of Justice Required
New Criminality:
-manipulating the process mediated by events-news-dynamic of reactions governed by control of communications to support Israeli-centric political agendae.
New Justice Paradigm
The new kind of criminality calls for rethinking the concept of justice applied to it, and a new order of punishment. For instance, since the comission of a crime need not be proven for individuals, since the criminality is in what is clear and dictinctly evident, there is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty", only questions of degree of complicity in the perpetration.
No "investigation" or "conspiracy trial" is in order. Judgment of criminality is based on responsibility for what is openly witnessed, on record, proceeding without challenge, at points where, by review, if not in real-time, some deliberate manipulation can be seen to occur that should have been stopped (Ex.: Bush's "Jesus is my favorite philosopher"; "faith based initiative"; "Russian aggression in Georgia")
These instances (imagine a omni-present TVo edit) are docketed as criminality is sign-use: the same meaning, or sense, is simultaneously given and erased; meanwhile, predicating on "it" as if true or false statements could be made and sanctioned. In effect, not just interrogating whether a guy about whether he had quit beating his wife, but letting him know denying the question wasn't an option. "Are you a Jew?" comes close. The result of such a practice becoming systemic is violation of personal space (private tokenspace) by demanding compliance-on-the-spot with assumptions built into the situation so that saying anything at all, in agreement or disagreement, places oneself between the polarity of psychological opposites which were drawn by someone else; then, threatened with harm if compliance is refused. The pattern could be called "Nazi Interrogation ." Either non-cooperation or disapprobative alignment disadvantages the responder.
It is this form of criminality in sign-use that 'the Jews' endured in Hitler's Germany, whenever they were required to respond to 'Judenhass' wrangling. "Never again" was headed up by the drive to prohibit terms of collective abuse from becoming institutionalized in America. Big Entertainers Mel Gibson, Don Imus and Michael Richards have felt the sting of the wrath of the PC police. And, as survivors of the holocaust and sympathizers must surely attest, a civil society must remain free of self-serving hate-tinged designators for common collective use.
However, when Political Correctness as a justified enforceable constraint is A. mixed with religious terminology, bringing the (dis-)approbative sanctions under somebody's God's thumb; and B. the electorate is addressed under the going assumptions of "identity politics" -- bloc votes by non-AmericaFirst self-referencers -- ...then the constraint of Political Correctness becomes a barrier to correcting the total situation it is part of. Under these conditions,
the PC that was supposed to function as a safeguard against becomes a meta-level reinforcement of the Nazi Interrogation discourse regime, this time substituting whoever is called President for Die Fuhrer, Republicrats for Nazi's, and Homeland Security + Defense Tzar Negroponte for the SS, and the 52 Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations, the Libby Lobby and neocons in general doing the work of Goebbels. Those who respond to polls flashed on the TV screen on a daily basis, accept classifications and categories framed in the psychological opposites these substitutions posit. This acceptance expresses tacit consent to be conscripted into the military framed under the substitute terms. To speak as common American citizens as "we" with them, as part of the ongoing democratic political process, is to tacitly consent to sanctions for refusing to be conscripted into an army pledged to someone else's God. This cannot be willed as a rational principle. (following Kant: "Let me be tricked by sign-use into dying for someone else's God" cannot be consistently willed as a maxim; its denial, :"Let me not tricked/be tricked ...etc." holds categorically for the rational (moral) will. This is the moral basis for the new justice paradigm. It is faced with the task of framing punishment for aggravated, sustained, impervious-to-criticism substitution of signs used in common discourse that have led to systemic violation of the categorical imperative in the name of 'doing good'. Americans have been so tricked by the mass mediated discourse sold as "we", "unity", "our" ('war on terror' etc.) that even to raise the question of its morality elicits the charge of "immorality".
That is the group process situation America has arrived at. The moral split is ultimate. Tricked conscription into the army of someone else's God is backed up with reversal of the rational moral condemnation of the trickery. (Various strategies are used: it is "extemist", 'mad', "dangerous", "unpatriotic", up to and including "unG-dly".)
The form of this criticism of the ongoing process will be applied to several instances to the same effect. Use of a sign whose import was originally positive, used for that reason, is pushed over the line into negating that possibility. And systemic challenge to that use is sanctioned with penalties.
This is the form of the criminality in sign-use illustrated by the instances below.
**** summary
-The criminality is in the manipulation of a common process in violation of the unstated but undeniable recognized conditions of public trust in providing news services.
The text of 'good' words is so misused that the tokens are driven into the ground and are used to reproduce the opposite of that which they originally communicated. (cf. The boy who cried "wolf" until it didn't mean anything anymore: that is the situation of "democracy" "al Queda threat")
II. Illustrations
A. "Democracy" - Now used in the '08 election campaign to continue a process that blocks what it originally communicated: a regime in which the common voice and will of the people on major issues is effectively expressed without prejudice.
This has been violated at the interface of the public and official government discourse where the media of mass communication has installed gatekeepers of PC, and other rules of programming, that block challenges to fundamental assumptions the official discourse makes.
Ex.: Ex.: linkage of U.S. - Israel foreign policy interests. A fundamental challenge to the assumption that these are closely aligned, if not identical, is never presented as a sustained position. Elected representatives never address it, but are invariably seen "wooing the Jewish vote", publicly kow towing to Jewish individuals (e.g., Schumer, Lieberman), talking of "bipartisanship", "faith", Western values, religion perhaps even "God" ("G-d" for the rigorously observant); "monotheism", if pressed. And "democracy". "America's only democratic ally in the region," the PR went. (Although Georgia counts.)
tbc.
posted by Sid Thomas | 12:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home