Read Part 1: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 1: Education & Capitalism
Read Part 2: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 2: Governing Thought & Political Acts
Read Part 4: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 4: Brandished Logic
Introduction
(as prophesized in the Testaments)
The key to saving the soul of a nation (through point analysis) is the same as saving the soul of a single individual: identify your faults, repent, and lean toward a salvation grace.
Seasonal Sense:
Spring – study whilst passing through its initial phases … prospects still ahead
Summer – study during its heyday … engrossed in favors and suspected faults
Fall – study whilst moving into decline … problems and odds of transformation
Winter – study during its wane and death throes … reclamation or dissolution
MARKING THE ILLEGAL
E(1) Farbeit for you to know what ‘goodness’ is, or what becomes of its quintessential trait; what good does it do to stigmatize the immoral? What future good does spanking a child? What restitution does imprisoning a criminal? Oh, but when it comes to matters like collaborative ethics and civil rights, uplifted human wages, or mandatory inclusion of lions among the innocent baby lambs, you are pre-possessed of a divine measure and a wisdom that is God-like, and with weapons to bear. Because of your evil eyes, you would not see harm within anything provincially laid in sexual recline (decline), done at home, behind closed doors, that which you favor. The case of whose interested truth is finally served … is best set by whose interesting table is finely being served … such that you delight in the light of darkness; for “what children are ye” be simply a matter of which path you hot-bloodedly trail and about whom you scent an easy kill.
E(2) Whenever one asks oneself the difference between criminal behavior and aberrant (sick) behavior, a personal rule of thumb should logically proceed resting on the premise of what seems beyond yourself doing – given sufficient desire or provocation, dire need, or exceptionally trying circumstances. A person might reasonably kill in self-defense or start stealing in order to feed his starving family. He may even fall sway to the temptations of extortion, bribery, and blackmail. On the other hand, if that person can never ‘see’ himself committing cold-blooded murder, rape, child molestation, or other serious crimes, then by this person’s own standard of relative definition, he has identified “sickness” as that which he would not ordinarily do or otherwise would only be compelled to do under extraordinary circumstances (granted honest human standards of self-awareness).
As for personal versus collective sin, the only naturally-inspired cause for breaking the law must relate to those basic human needs required for survival or as deserving by committal or in desert thereof the actions and promises of a social group (society) giving guarantee of its service and personal protection. Specifically, the laws that Nature (God) have declared for us suffices in the armature complex of living and in the mechanistic framework of physically-limiting standards. Though to the extent that society has neglected to teach or enforce general rules of behavior, some generous leeway must be granted for the faithful, back-turned and made spiritually twisted like the criminal in default. Notice that in either instance, the respondent is not relieved of his guilt; merely a second guilty party has been identified. [Reference to police who technically break the law.]
Regarding the cause of crime, some acts of lawlessness may be the result of (hidden) incitement held in repression awaiting (relieving) aggression. If this repression and subsequent aggression is socially related and not personally-originating, then there is plenty of guilt to go around, without necessarily alleviating the wrongdoer of guilt in wrongful exercise or fulfillment. As in the Bible, obedience to misleading parents is not in honor of the mother-father commandment. Many infractions, however, especially small ones, are committed out of arrogance, apathy, and foolishness. Excessive speeding, being one, or failing to stop at a red light.
The question now becomes, what should be the appropriate penalty in cases involving such delusional and actual disdain? Rather than assess what you have thoughtlessly or vengefully done in your life and somehow managed to get away with, ask yourself, what you have not done. Some time ago you church-swore a wedding commitment to someone; and now you both have agreed to a mutually-satisfying no-blame/guilt divorce. Was not your contract of marriage, then, an errant instance of seeming disingenuousness — or intentional foolishness — a human fault in God’s eyes, worthy of punishment: failing as you did to address in the laying of the foundations of that contract the staked decorum, proper duty, and purposed heart that should have rightly strung verity around the magnitude of such a life effect? Appearance, wealth, status, personality, and temperament may form the bases for the attraction (contraction), even the physical cancelation of love; but they do not constitute the grounds for the disavowal of a marriage, deliberately performed and sanctioned in the presence to the Lord. A child born into society signs an unwitting virtual contract in provision of his activities and functionality. If he could have perceived then and fathomed this concept (his conception) down the road – that he was biologically, chronologically, or chronically unable to commit himself in meritorious standing of life, he might have chosen not to be born. The guilt of birth, like a physical handicap, is a real guilt, as the Ancient Israelites professed, which can only be exonerated by a forced salvation in realization of vain self, and the swearing of a new contract in the Savior’s name.
E(3) The occasional psychological thought that criminals, especially those who kill with compunction, have a “mental disease” is tempting. Occasionally, it may be re-centered (confused) around a compulsion, like that of a member of a Family Mob, abiding in accordance with strict rules and a beguiling respect for criminal hierarchy. It may be difficult to distinguish in this analytical play between the professional gangster and the psychotic killer. Maybe they are just both primitive (caveman) actors, at any present moment thinking too little or maybe nothing at all about the parameters of killing, even after locally dispensing of a long-time friend and neighbor; then nonchalantly coming home to enjoy hugs and kisses from his (highly suspicious but ignoring) family. To them, the slayings of these mob hitmen may be perceived as no more irregular than outdoorsmen who hunt game for food or sport, perhaps on a daily basis. Like brave hunters, no different from the dangerous wolf these men hunt or contest with as meat-eating competition, they pridefully bring the spoils home for the children to feast upon. Casuistically, they are unmenaced by the shame of next giving scraps to their beloved dog (i.e., the not-so-distant cousin of the wolf he just shared in triumph over).
E(4) Shall a murderer be allowed to kill at will or should he be stopped? How about a roving gang of pirate cutthroats? The Ku Klux Klan infesting an entire countryside or state, burning crosses, persecuting black people innocent and untried? A national socialist association of Nazis rounding up, removing, torturing, and ultimately gassing Jews to death? Then were not the Spanish conquistadores acting under moral burden and in responsibility (greed aside) by seeking to disarm or level the Aztec civilization, which upon visitation beheld thousands of live victims being sliced open and their still-beating hearts ripped out, afterward, their skulls impaled on poles? (Cartwright, 2018) The Spanish themselves were often held captive, then cannibalized. Any threat to local Man makes common threat to all Humanity, customizing itself to liability of widespread insurrection and destruction. More personally, within every infectious inflammation comes the historic recommendation for burnt incision and earliest extraction.
E(5) Having read the story of the troublesome purchase of land destined to become Shenandoah National Park, I wonder if such a sequestration could happen today under similar circumstances and an era of political correctness (at least for the elite) and the presses’ penchant for exploiting tragedies. Up until that time, Congress had a policy of only creating national parks out of free (open) land or from land donated for that purpose. Landowner resistance mounted, however, as the takeover became more politically imminent, so the Commonwealth of Virginia issued a blanket condemnation law (National Park Service, 2022). Residents were bitterly stripped of their property rights and physically forced off their homeland, while watching their family homes being torn down and incinerated before their eyes. I stand in reprimand of most modern writers taking the contrasting socialist tact of being liberally amused, even praising the enforcement of the law, warranting the removal of these “squatters”, these capitalist pigs “hogging the land”. Revisionists today feel, they didn’t deserve their long-held property anyway, which should elsewise be given now in retribution of past slavery (guilty or not). Were this land not taken, what would we have here today in the name of current picnickers and other elitist day-tripping sightseers? [The question of “primal ownership” will be discussed in a future article.] America has always had a problem with snobbish shortsightedness. We dare not punish murderous criminals, lest the violence thus enacted creep back on us (in order to enforce it). Execution for even a vicious homicide is now virtually unthinkable. Compromised punishment is no compensation for an eye-for-an eye victim.
E(6) Into numerous movie scenes comes the sight of many falling victims being literally wasted — enough dupes to satisfy even the quota of blood-lusting liberals and their promise of human sacrifices apocalyptically to come. Easy prey … does press the storied debits of the justice system printing out their story uncredited. They (outside the living) ignore all the obfuscation, the investigation of malfeasance, the entrapment — playing fast and loose with the laws. The criminal — just as much outside the ‘thinking of the law’ — does not seem to comprehend the harm in bribery, in stealing, in killing others for the sake of baubles. When the only ache is personal, no one else’s hurt matters.
E(7) I’m glad the news people finally put capital punishment into perspective. So now the enactment of urgent execution (in some areas) will only be activated by a specified list of aggravating incidents. That’s good news if you’re a cop, a celebrity figure, or a national politician (whom the law contracts to act upon); not so much for the rest of us unless (we pray that) we fall prey to an attacker of multiple vengeance; and if it so happens, we are among a huge crowd of desolate fellow victims. I wonder how many lives of plain and ordinary citizens add up to one plain-clothes police officer’s life. Or if the assault does happen in the ‘dead’ of night, if the murderer will be sadistic enough and stupid enough to (a) disentangle America’s newly found sensitivity to capital punishment, and (b) be foolish enough to leave the right amount of contaminating and incriminating evidence behind.
America is nought good at evaluating other people’s lives. The poor, as a victim-class, come cheaply on the market, especially for the well-off judges, inured by the constant hassle, and the courts stuck with the processing bill. The famous and the infamous always shine greater than the un-famous. Teenagers and old folks count less than the middle-aged; children, the deformed, and the mentally disabled count even less. Cheapest of all are new-born babies a day shy of leaving their mother’s time-swept evacuation womb.
E(8) To go along with their thinking, “no law shall be enforced or punishment pursued against a person, though it clearly be described as a crime or illegal act; or otherwise, if committed on an individual (i.e., individually recognized) basis, given that statistics show that an overwhelming majority of such like committers are of a particular natural or social ethnic background (protected species or class)”. The reasoning here is, that crime and punishment in law is based upon “individual” responsibility and most often understood by intent to commit the act. This quaint medieval notion is somewhat compromised, so it is claimed, if a whole group of such identifiable people are detained and held susceptible to such temptations of sin, whilst another group of people (more privileged or naturally blessed) can be shown to be nearly or wholly immune.
For this purpose, a numerical definition must be drawn around an “overwhelming majority”, letting it be about 80%. “Natural” refers to what may be found in nature, preferable in the higher order of mammals (as it might concern the young, the old, the male, female, whatever). “Social” refers to a socio-political group distinguished by a long tradition of culture, economic standing, or geographic condition (e.g., African, European, rich, poor, Catholic, Jew, etc.), not to some (I would add) artificial creation of generic favor (e.g., Democrat, Nazi, Klansman, freemason, homosexual, etc.). Once identified, it follows that society bears at least a major responsibility for turning away, refraining, rehabilitating such committers, not just throwing them into prisons, and as usual, leaving uncompensated their many victims begging to be made whole again.
There speaking, might it, then, there be standoffishly overlooked, in abeyance, the requisitioned ‘draft’ of basic necessities (food, clothing, etc.) if committed mostly by the poor. Were it not to come next, sexual harassment, the rape of women, pedophilia, and so forth, acknowledged as being primarily male-committed crimes. To say nothing of child abuse (mostly by women).
E(9) A man who raped a girl (initially when she was six years old) over a multiple-year period was handed only a two months sentence, taking it on progressive faith and psychological testament that he was a “sick” man who didn’t get the proper treatment for his illness (O’Reilly, 2015). Isn’t anyone who commits a serious crime ‘sick’ in this regard? What normal person would risk arrest, the loss of his job, family, and security, plus imprisonment of many years just to procure small material compensation or maybe a few moments of carnal pleasure? Indeed, as I have written before in Paradox formally, this is a slippery slope that Jesus Christ has put us on. There is no sin or blame, only sickness, and the need for adequate treatment, or perhaps Pentecostal-forgiving grace. Many states have long since legalized sodomy and homosexuality, moving next to approve polygamy, incest, and no doubt bestiality very soon. Another inevitable slippery slope. Isn’t it idiosyncratic how so many liberal activists resist security laws (against the wealthy and the power-hungry) because it gives inertia to a Big Brother land (rights) grab or paves the way for absolute government control; yet won’t even lift a healing hand for a battered child — their handlers spotted at a tourist resort vacantly sunning themselves, totally unconcerned about capture, or the seashore’s acclimation to ebbing tides of punishable sin.
E(10) Is drug abuse curable (at some point) through social disfavor, coordinated with spiritual antagonism or moral support, or as conditioned through more substantial legal authority? Should (criminal) alcoholic behavior and its associations be accounted as constituting an involuntary psychological disease? Precisely, there was a choice — a first choice (intent) involved, like a First Mover in philosophy. Should unwanted pregnancy, also having first choice of dating, be adjusted afterward as an involuntary physical ailment [no doubt brought about by an unknown invading germ (sperm)]? Turn this around in fertile thought. Pregnancy is like an alcoholic disease because they both start from a conscious decision to freely partake of the forbidden fruit (drink or sex).
E(11) Continuing with alcoholism, while it does become a sickness once it affects the body and more or less permanently hampers the workings of the mind, the liver, and other organs, no one contracts this disease except by choice; that is, the deliberate undertaking of (numerous) repeated drinks, sometimes over a period of years, like an island resident does leprosy — to that end his conscious will (to imbibe or not) is itself overtaken. There is an almost mythic legend of a man who believed carrots were the perfect food and all anyone needed to survive on; whereupon he proceeded to eat carrots exclusively day in and day out until his skin turned orange and he finally died. With every (negative) selection in life comes a culminating state of temporal (ill)-suitedness, brought about by his own choice.
“But don’t you think there are those (people) born prone to drink, not just susceptible to its attractive (detracting) collateral effects?” In terms of evolution, the chemical alcohol is a relatively modern concoction and therefore should not yet be programmed into a human’s genetic predisposition (a vulnerability to its wistful un-sobering effects maybe). Once tasted, however, it may in some people quickly act in substitution transference of another chemical need, such that they are compelled to drink further (beyond the first choice). “But doesn’t society often compel that first drink and afterward accelerate its use by urging youngsters to appear grown up, or maybe in time to escape the many (academic) problems children face nowadays?”
If society compels, then it also dispels — informing us constantly of the dangers of smoking, for example, of drinking, especially driving and drinking. True … the pressure for it may be greater than the pressure against it; insofar as youngsters are willing to listen more to friends and peers than to scientists and adults; but balancing the scale somewhat are all the other diversions (athletics, internet) in modern society, pulling them away from a wasteful life of drinking.
In the subject of ‘disease’, a distinction must be made between ‘drinking’ and ‘alcoholism’ – the former merely designating the act versus the latter which has become a bodily condition caused by taking in too much alcohol, even to the point of physical damage or uncontrollable mental cravings. Commercials which bid the population not to drink irresponsibly appeal to our conscious sense of respect for ourselves and others (assuming the person is still capable of making a rational choice). Appealing to someone who no longer has control over his appetite for drink makes no sense at all. Realizing, however, that people may still have some conscious power over drinking, they are liable for the consequences of its use. When recognizing individuals still at this stage, society has the right to judge them as regarding their conduct, or their irresponsibility towards it.
Biologically, the medical profession should regard ‘drinking’ like it does ‘smoking’ (the major difference primarily being one of health effects over extended use). Taking a puff or an infinite number of puffs is an act of personal defiance of the spirit. Continually smoking until a shortness of breath, a wheezing, or some other associated sign of ailment pushes the affliction into what we may call a “disease”. Similarly, permanent liver damage and mental loss, among other symptoms, determine the point when alcoholism has become an acknowledged disease. Any prolonged abuse leading to discomfort could also transform a person of vulnerability into a weathered, unwilling victim.
E(12) One excuse for alcohol as a disease seeks to compare it to a brain tumor. Another offers a better comparison, that of diabetes, such as when an individual refuses to maintain (in the old days) a proper restricted diet. This sounds more likely a comparison worth debating — and so be it admitted, society does not punish the diabetic for eating sugar on occasion. A better society would attempt to offer treatment in the diabetic’s time of weakness. Might I say in controversy to this, society does not punish diabetics outrightly and harshly because diabetes is generally assumed to be a metabolic disorder, and socially speaking, diabetics are not commonly known to seek ‘intoxication’ or deliberate weakness (dizziness) via unwise consumption; then get behind the wheel of a car, after having too much, and drive crazily down our highways, endangering everyone around them, causing numerous deaths and injuries each year. Confirmed diabetics don’t go out of their way to habitually spend all of their money on sweets or other foods which might exacerbate their condition. Diabetics are not prone to “partying it up”, then coming home and maybe beating their wives and children in a fit of diabetic rage.
Perhaps much of the behavior associated with genuine alcoholics is involuntary and occasionally beyond their conscious control. Nevertheless, let us not look upon society’s relative tolerance of (errant) diabetics who won’t exercise or maintain a proper diet or take their prescribed medicine as a universal subscription to leniency and acquiesced failure, shirking all individual responsibility. By and large, society does not make a fuss over what it generally perceives as something self-harming only or benign to the rest of humanity. Reaction is almost forever in commiseration with that conduct which causes the least/most hazard. Alcoholism can be extremely dangerous to self and others — on line to becoming a mental infirmity and on tap to becoming a debilitating bodily disease. A (once upon a time) organization that referred to “Alcohol Abuse” or “Alcoholism” by definition made causal connection to “abuse” or inordinate behavior. “Abuse” denotes a kind of misuse, but one cannot mis-use a pathophysiological disease or any other real disease, inherent or infectious.
E(13) If only life was as simple as children and psychiatrists believe. In recommending the release of an attempted presidential assassin, John Hinckley, numerous times from St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, officials seem to live in a mythical world of straightforward solutions where ‘the Law is the Law’, justice is never blind, psychological treatment always works, and science is never fallible (Jacewicz, 2016). Grace, once given, should never be forsaken or brought into revoke. While I believe personally in the principle, “innocent by reason of insanity”, in the similar sense of a man with a gun at his back may be expropriated to commit a crime not of his doing (by choice), hence innocence by reason of un-willfulness; I do not regard actual insanity, much less the determination thereof, to be within the current ability of competent observation, judicial decision, or medical resolution. If psychiatry often finds itself at odds to distinguish all the different psychoses of the disturbed human mind, beyond which looms insurmountable recovery and repentance, how shall laymen parole-board members, legalistic judges, and a detached jury (beforehand) ever make a trial determination? There are also the everchanging attitudes and the varying social mores which are used to enlarge or delimit the meaning of ‘normalcy’. What was once considered abnormal and perverse is now accepted as merely eccentric or radical or even purely appeasing. When a science (hence society) holds contrarian views of a foot fetish as an actual disease, but sodomy is not, there can never be any true revelation of non-hypocritical truth.
Leaving aside the relative judgement scale, the degrees of mental imbalance are seldom brought into measure. According to law, either a person is guilty or not guilty (nominally made in reference to insanity). But how he allows his thinking to run away with him is also key to pertinent strength of character. A person who routinely indulgences in morbid fantasies (e.g., about raping a child) is like a dog constantly chasing cars. Someday it will be the car that catches up to him, ending his boot-licking, tiresome dreams. At disagreement with the law is (a) its application and (b) the way it tries to gauge all insanity as an act of Nature (God) — inexorable — a strickening of the soul, thereby absolving his actions, and now posted beyond wanton guilt. Can not a person’s own lifestyle and resignation to sin surveil his predisposition and willingness to commit evil? At the very least, it makes him susceptible to misdeed by dint of wrong-headedness and the encouraging of future error? And should not a culture which cannot even adequately describe the nature of “wellness”, much less distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, be better moved to defer all judgement to those more profound historic articles of philosophic and religious origins until such a time as rigorous scientific standards can be more developed? It is not the murder or attempted assassin that is depraved here; it is the society whose understanding of truth is lacking, that is professionally deprived.
Philosophically speaking, therefore, whether an unreflective society judges a man like John Hinckley as either sane or peculiarly insane, actually guilty, subliminally guilty, or completely innocent, it remains a legitimate duty of officials to logistically confront and handle the citizens’ serious fears, worries, and apprehensiveness about such a person. If it were truly manifested, and then assessed by the judges to bargain him “innocent by reason of insanity”, then the corollary must follow that he should be set free ad hoc in accordance with that decision — not deferred or mishandled by other means. Rather, in this no man’s land of insanity diagnosis, the captured is held encaged in a zoo unable to be treated, more strenuously held in complete isolation, until such a time as (1) the nature of the insanity is understood and its treatment made practical, or (2) the judicial system admits its mistakes in the prior determination of acquittal and re-tries the case [regardless the double jeopardy statute since this person(s) are two different people being now adjudicated: the insane (overtaken) person and the sane (under control) person]. Fascinatingly, no one will ever fathom the full depths of Hinckley’s unstable mind, least of all Hinckley himself, in the duplicitousness or ingenuity of his actions. The principle matter under consideration here is, can it ever be understood where-for a man, being driven by insanity, is travel-bound, or in arriving there, has visit to? “He is what he is,” the scientists tell us, and little more with any certainty, toward a certain place that our system of medicine understands or for which our system of justice can bring satisfactory discharge.
E(14) A mass killer is someone who murders more than one person in an egregious and deliberate manner. That person is suspect to receive, and usually does, a heftier sentence than an accidental killer, or even a one-off maniac killer. ‘Quantity’ (en masse) in this regard trumps quality (cold-bloodedness). By execution of judgement, however, wherein the state recognizes only “a life for life”, then the difference may seem moot. Meantime, the families of those who died in the mass killing may feel that their particular loved one’s death was not avenged fully, having had the measure of vengeance spread out over various bodies, funeral ceremonies, and burial sites.
Logically, moreover, there is a precedence worth remarking here. Somehow, some way, in some rectifying manner, the punishment of all crime, not just some, should be in proportion to the number of people hurt, disenfranchised, or touched by desolation. Is not a Hitler, per example, deserving of a greater Hell than even a John Wilkes Booth?
America has numerous historic homes; but compared to Europe, or simply to the United Kingdom, we are relative houseguests to age and placement. The National Trust (UK) keeps management over hundreds of mansions, manors, and other places, some of them many centuries old. When fossil-fuel protestors poured soup on a Van Gogh painting in London last year, threw mashed potatoes at a Monet, or tried to glue themselves to a Da Vinci, those were not simply crimes against national treasures or social relics, they were crimes against humanity (Betz, 2022). Likewise, if some radical tries to blow up or maybe does serious damage to one of those places in National Trust, then that is a crime against every one who contributed or has held “Trust” in that organization. Would it not follow that punishment should be meted out in magnitude of the people hurt, not simply quick bail (paid by the radical organization) or maybe a short stint in jail? Thousands of British citizens have millions of pounds invested in the historic preservation of these buildings, hence are vested in the loss. Mass defilers, much like mass killers, who mar, damage, or destroy publicly-owned mansions, museums, memorials, statues, and other locations, should be punished as though in desecration of the multitude; i.e., as though harm came by way of a bomb distributed over an entire blast area. With so many people affected or diminished, there can be no preset amount of bail or designated time in jail (virtually indefinite); and afterward, no chance of parole or grace of forgiveness.
E(15) Some eccentric models of civic responsibility and legal licensing already exist. Sports athletes, during their usually short playing careers, know enough to contribute to their own special pension or retirement plans; concerned actors strive to restore and protect old deteriorating films simply for posterity’s sake. Individually, most citizens contribute to their own ‘preservation’ and retirement by participating in FICA (Social Security and Medicare) through the paycheck program. While there is acknowledged great waste in federal government, some of our taxes honorably go to sustain the military and to provide disaster relief. Locally, a large portion of our property taxes go toward the police and the public-school system — mostly considered worthwhile projects, if demented sometimes.
Other praiseworthy conservation techniques tend to go unnoticed, such as hunting licenses and special permits which assist in saving species or protecting wildlife areas. Imagine an expansion of this idea: asking medical doctors and psychiatrists whose professional livelihoods depend in no small measure on the existence or proliferation of illness (both observed or unobserved) ranging from physical injuries to mental neuroses. It could be argued that they are in default of the cures or stand in cross signaling of the moral obligation to heal. Shall asking dentists to contribute to a research center intended to eliminate all gum disease and tooth decay amount to a kind of professional suicide, or a charitable form of philanthropy designed to benefit millions of poor people who can’t afford their services? Mechanics benefitting from auto makers’ questionably-manufactured vehicles with thin windshields, poor paint jobs, shoddy upholstery, easily penetrated tires, etc. “owe” a sponsorship effort to humanity and to the world’s resources to render all those products more safe, less defective, and more efficient, even if as a result of this gallant effort, they risk putting themselves (partially) out of a job. To some extent, when the auto manufacturers sought to abandon making cars with the internal combustion engines (their cash cow) in favor of electric vehicles, they were moving in a self-sacrificing, environmentally convulsive direction. Is it to no one’s surprise that drivers who purchase only self-driving cars, by concession of delivery, make themselves archaic and useless? Human engineers who fancy the expansion of A.I. infinitely, and intend to produce robots that will replace all human labor, no doubt have the awareness that they are creating their own pending obsolescence.
OUTSTANDING ILLEGAL ANOMALIES
F(1) The Constitution does not begin to take effect until one pledges allegiance to America: until the free-thinking proponent of democracy pledges fidelity to the system as founded and as respectfully designed. Only then does the document grant the freedom of exercise not to pledge, and thereafter choose defiance of the law at one’s own risk.
F(2) Over the years the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment concept of “eminent domain”, or the taking of private property at government hands, has been expanded to encompass much more than ‘mandatory acquisition’ in the name of bringing courteous and comprehensive utility to the public, such as for new roads, bridges, airports, etc. The government can apply the kingly privilege of eminent domain during wartime for purposes of defense. Any local ‘need’ for water, power, gas, schools, recreational parks, and so forth may qualify. A 2005 Supreme Court ruling further extended the ‘public use’ context to include any property whose purchase by government could boost neighborhood economic development (Cornell Law School, 2022). At first glance, this merely enabled local government to accelerate the takeover and refurbishing of mostly vacant, clearly blighted, run-down, and criminally- trafficked areas of the city – for the public good, with favorable collateral of perhaps increasing property values and increasing the tax base. Ultimately, however, it opened the door for rich real estate developers to use the government as a proxy for taking away (poor) people’s property, for building high-rises and condos, and for getting even richer, as a get-around of what they probably couldn’t do otherwise without the use of force or bad public relations. Combined capitalism-government cronyism is nothing new. Before and during the CoVid crisis, the drug companies, Pfizer and Moderna, wily connived with the FDA to make themselves immune from vaccine lawsuits, while also pushing for the government to compel people to take booster shots forever into the future on a regular basis, thereby assuring continuous company profits (Greene, 2021). In effect, they flipped the switch on the concept of a democratic republic in service to the public voters into a pitiful block of people in submissive compliance to an autocratic and despotic government. Failure to comply could mean arrest, interrogation, loss of job, property confiscation, and imprisonment. Together with the CDC, drug companies deceitfully hushed up news of the vaccines’ dangerous side-effects. In a turnabout intrigue, the government has long gotten around the Constitution’s First Amendment (not to repress the exercise of free speech) by intimidating social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook to do their bidding (banning) for them (Weaver, 2022).
F(3) As highlighted in the article on Governing Thought, a fault-line in any supposedly democratic foundation is exposed whenever ‘those who set the rules don’t have to follow them’. And like dictators in socialist countries, nothing can stop them from then bearing down on any group they dislike or who won’t abide by their commands. Another legal irony associated with free and open courts in a republic is that, while judges are allowed to digress themselves into sympathizing and proffer the hearing of cases that knowingly defy precedence and established judicial law, they are under no obligation to accept or expedite cases which in a broader scheme reference mass de-sensitivity or abatement of human appeal. Steps taken outside this line might end indigent suffering and might bring novel clarification to what the Constitution really meant by fairness to all.
F(4) The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act achieved Congressional passing in large part based on the promises of Senator Edward Kennedy, President Johnson, and others that it would not “flood our cities with immigrants”, “will not upset the ethnic mix of our society”, “will not relax the standards of admission”, and “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs”. All this was a camouflage for the restructuring of the American ethnic culture and the transformation of a great capitalistic society into a morally-deficient third-world country. Prior to its passage, 84 percent of U.S. immigrants were born in Europe or Canada, with less than 10% coming from Central or South America. By 2017, more than half of all new immigrants were from Mexico or Latin America. Another 28% came from Asian countries (Kennedy, 2019).
F(5) The annual cost of illegal immigration on just one state, California, is almost $22 billion (World Population Review, 2023). This figure represents a taxpayer burden of about $1800 on each legally-present household in the state; although these numbers should be viewed with skepticism (having unchanged for many years despite increased immigration), and since no one really knows exactly how much it accumulates (and wastes) in overall medical, welfare, and other government services; plus education and related justice system expenses. Each year, the Sanctuary State adds new benefits, including health care in 2022 and the issuance of state IDs (Beam & Thompson, 2022). Much of California’s workforce consists of undocumented illegal immigrants, even though it is illegal for employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Employers are required to ask for documentation of citizenship when hiring in order to be safely within the bounds of Immigration Laws, but cannot single out a particular group of workers (potential new-hires) for inspection of (fake) IDs or other suspicions of legal clearance (United States Citizenship, 2020). Ironically, undocumented (illegal) immigrants may have the right to sue an employer under certain conditions who may be just following the prescriptions of the law. Additional circumventions of the law involve California police authorities refusing to honor ICE detainers for rape and other serious crimes. Local District Attorneys, supported by George Soros, also don’t pursue conviction of illegals for selling fentanyl and other illegal drugs (Arthur, 2022). Citizen rights don’t really count in regard to illegal immigration since illegals crossing over the border continually violate property land rights and often threaten residents living there, who may be charged for just defending themselves. As part of Biden’s transformation-of-America plan, illegals are bussed or air-lifted all over the country for distribution even into communities which don’t want them but have no say (vote) in rejecting them or enough resources to handle the influx (Smith, 2022).
F(6) Federal budgets, if they ever get passed, are as much a deceit on the public as they are a mystery to the politicians who vote to pass them. Funding seldom goes where it is designated to go, whether that be for defense or infrastructure improvement (Pollack, 2020). Elected officials are supposed to be the “representatives of the people”, but usually exempt themselves from many of the enacted law’s civil and deleterious effects (Lovely, 2010). They tend to ignore what the “people” actually want and support; instead, drawing their cues and monetary backing from insidious lobbyists hell-bent on disrupting proper distribution of services toward their own benefit. Payoffs and progressive bias guide agencies like the FBI, the IRS, and others, as to who they should investigate, who they should decimate, and from whom they should confiscate rights and property (Kittle, 2019). Executive officials and elected politicians have this much in common: when they depart office, they both tend to leave the department, the country, but not themselves, in worse shape than when they first entered.
F(7) Special-interest agencies such as the EEOC, Civil Rights Commission, the Labor Board, etc. are almost exclusively controlled and run by (democratic) women, minorities, union lobbyists, and the like; meaning, as missionary organizations, they are wholly dedicated to partisan installment and process intrusiveness, often acting only to cripple efforts of fair mediation between opposing elements, whose interests would be best served in impartial legal contest. Particular groups, such as non-union workers and white males, are regularly set up to be discriminated against. Biased rules are established, forcing men, for example, (and initially only men) to take harassment training; likewise chastising only whites primarily with charges of racial discrimination. Human resources departments accordingly decide who is entitled to receive Food Stamps (SNAP) and who is not eligible; what patient gets a free trip to the hospital and who doesn’t; who gets the needed but expensive medication, also homeless housing, work-clothes relief, and transportation assistance. Health officials decide whose store or restaurant gets thoroughly inspected and fined or merely spat upon (passed over) like the food itself. Innocent office conversation and disputed ‘offenses’ are predictably arbitrated from the angle of the victim’s (i.e., woman’s) perspective. No reference to what ‘what other men do’ or ‘he has experienced himself’ has any bearing. This is especially frustrating when it comes to questions of religion. Society does not permit moral training in schools, but glorifies pornography everywhere, even places with heedless child access. Conjunctively, horrible music, with all its gangsta’ rap, its ‘bitches’ and ‘hos’, same sex making out, naked dancing, and the rest, are allowed everywhere, even at entertainment ceremonies. As a less-than-sufficient sign of even perfunctory evidence, nowhere in the law is the person that has brought a claim of being offended … next, by explicit corroboration, required to demonstrate the consequences of hurt or mental scars derived therefrom, or by what sanctioned demarcation or violated lines of personal posting did the warned and unwelcomed behavior occur. No unbiased conditioning of circumstances has been standardized to set the minimum bounds of social comfort and operational comity for everyone, or a beckoning that all hurt be fully registered before the employer’s formal hearing, whereby intervening conversations of mitigation and compromise by “reasonable adults” should proceed first, and not held in exclusive isolated contact, else the plaintiff runs off outside the company to a private lawyer.
Once a complaint has been openly made or vicariously enveloped, it becomes extremely difficult for either the alleged suspect or the complainant herself to have the case dismissed without inviting a probing automatic investigation and quite probably (unseen) work-effort repercussions (Guerin, 2023).
As preordained, therefore, the ‘equality’ of peoples to press or not to press charges has been unequally treated. Subjective intent on the part of the (supposed) harasser (i.e., how he felt and assumed his own innocence) does not (in theory) affect the employer’s court of public opinion. Since the employer was not there to witness the incident, all that really matters is the subjective impact on the (supposed) victim (i.e., her perceived feelings of hurt) that counts. As suggested above, nothing “objective” is called for or demanded as proof (a violation of constitutional right). Employees in training exercises or actual run-throughs are precautioned to always “think about their words and actions preemptively since they might be inferred as offensive, intentionally or not”. That’s quite a loose standard. On the other hand, the potential victim is seldom precautioned to think about her own actions, whether they might be perceived as misleading, intimidating, blusterous, enticing, or somewhat exhibitionist. A peculiarity of “experiential truth” associated mostly with harassment cases implies that the law may be satisfied by the “reasonable woman” standard — in jettison of the more intellectual “reasonable man” standard, or even the average “reasonable adult” (Cahn, 1992). This lack of objectivity, alone, clearly makes all cases of sexual harassment biased. Furthermore, at no time during the entire process — afterward the filing of the incident through the submitting of the claim for official remedy — is the alleged victim entreated to calibrate the possibility, even the humanity, of giving the alleged offender the benefit of a doubt (from his perspective), and, with this consideration undertaken, consign the whole incident to just a (mutual) misunderstanding. Would a woman doing the same thing be admonished as likely? Is it only illegal for men to talk vulgar, act handsy, or push themselves so far forward as to make a woman feel harassed? What about other workers walking around in dirty, offensive clothing, or maybe coughing and hacking, with a strong stench of drug smoke, or drenched in too much perfume and irritating sprays? Not holding these exceptions to the fire likewise smells and sounds like selective outrage. Several other stupefying assumptions have been disembodied: (a) that the woman or the group to which she belongs may have falsified testimony of the incident or contrived the conditions of occurrence pursuant to ethnic (sexist) cleansing, and (b) the employer was prejudiced in its analysis by assuming only women, as a gender, could be offended similarly, contracted as it is to training its employees that all men are potential threats — reflecting the bigoted outlook in many women that all men are animals, undeserving of fair treatment, in the manner of the Justice Kavanaugh hearings alone. The process has started, and guilt has already been decided, beyond which not even ‘grace’ can be offered. The law treats people differently. A discriminative law must be fore-sworn not to treat different people discriminately. A shy man who doesn’t make eye contact often with a woman because of his downcast view (of himself) could, in liken of beauty shop exodus, be misunderstood as unseemly gawking at her body (the manner of his voice, his words, his gestures notwithstanding). Psychologically, people in general are prone to overlook the faults and trying pains of those they like; but make harsh judgement and unkind criticism of persons they don’t like (but must contend with occasionally) — even moreover of those for whom they carry a natural antipathy (like men). Shrugged off without notice are female athletes patting each other on the back and even tapping each other’s butts; contrasted with women who may be offended by even the gesture of a smile or gentle offer of handshake from a man whose look she doesn’t admire or who she feels is unworthy of notice. And let us not forget, lastly, that under the law, even a third-party observer (bystander) may bring charges of felt-offensiveness on her own behalf, which violates the normal parameters of a two-party contract breach (Rikleen, 2019).
F(8) The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, despite its name, rarely gives equal protection to unfavored classes of people under similar circumstances. Protected status is often granted elected officials to bypass certain restrictions and qualifications. Degraded or unprotected status is generally accorded ‘males’ involved in harassment cases (above) or in divorce cases. Since the anti-discrimination laws were initially issued on behalf of minorities, to carry forth the analogy, lawsuits involving reverse discrimination cases (against whites) have not the same urgency or compulsion, hence are responded to with less fairness and consideration by the courts (Celler, 2022). Advertisements appear every day for job openings, special events, program mandates, and set asides that specifically preclude white applicants. Generally speaking, whenever an issue or a member of the majority is sued by a minority, an automatic assumption of illegal complicity is postulated against the majority member until demonstrated otherwise (i.e., guilty until proven innocent). A residency requirement for public employees in a predominately white locality, to use an illustration, has evoked charges of prejudice and discrimination lawsuits if the neighboring suburbs are primarily minority (Romano, 1991), but not if the situation were reversed.
F(9) Under the law, minors do not have the general capacity to contract, or the agency to enjoin in principal, or are ofttimes age-restricted (for strenuous adroitness or education purposes) from working full time. However, most states do grant minors at 16 the right to drive, at 18 the right to vote and join the military, at 21 the right to drink. Repeated attempts have subversively been undertaken to grant them exemption from going to jail even for serious crimes like (felony) murder up until the age of 25 — just because some lame-brain psychiatrists and politicians have theorized a not-yet-fully-developed moral mental core, hence are incapable of making ‘good’ (or ‘bad’) judgements about what they do (Hill, 2023). Nevertheless, advocates of the LGBTQ+ community and other sexual deviants presume to give kindergarteners in schools the mental cognizance to conduct any discretionary act of indecency, and therefore the right to perform any sexual act or undergo any bodily self-mutilation that they choose. Their own mental character is so bent that they don’t even recognize the hypocrisy of what they believe. For that matter, neither do lawyers who think that minors should have their criminal records sealed or expunged with time; thus, making disingenuous and curiously cynical the whole concept of “first-time offender” later in life when similar or more offensive acts of crime are committed, and juries are forced to consider all relevant evidence.
F10) Two seemingly benign misapprehensions are peddled by the forces of customary jurisprudence:
- Ignorance of the law excuses no one (applies to taxpayers and citizen-servants, but not to the IRS which often ignores the law in order to investigate unpopular political groups or to charge hardship cases with the utmost selective penalty) (Kittle, 2019).
- Verbal argument, no matter how provocative, does not give license to consequential violence (applies to henpecked husbands who might get angry with their wives or children, but not to women in office settings regarding men who say something mildly offensive or sexist by their standards – see above).
Fascist violent groups like Antifa have based their whole organizational motive on the grounds that any speech they don’t like is “hate” speech; and Hate Speech is violence (deserving a like response).
F(11) Legal associations, like the ACLU, are specious about sheltering the rights of rioters, arsonists, murderers, and other criminal or fascist individuals, but take a scant and cataract view at the average, law-abiding person in need of impoverished assistance or court appeal. For thousands of years, the European royalty and the American upper class have manipulated the economy, created artificial shortages, drove millions of people into starvation and death, forced hard, unjust labor upon the masses, and conscripted indigents and unwilling civilians to fight and die in their elite-oriented, self-benefitting, and devastating international conflicts. No law firm of any stature or conscious integrity has ever stood to defend the ordinary legal rights of these historically-victimized human beings.
Arthur, A. (2022, June 7). San Francisco DA degrades immigration enforcement. Center for
Immigration Studies. Retrieved from https://cis.org/Arthur/San-Francisco-DA-Degrades-Immigration-Enforcement
Beam, A. & Thompson, D. (2022, June 30). California first to cover health care for all
immigrants. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/health-california-immigration-gavin-newsom-medicaid-b09edcb2b89ab041b520f43f8aab4b6
Betz, B. (2022, October 26). Radical climate activists target priceless art but experts warn
vandals only hurting their cause. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/world/radical-climate-activists-target-priceless-art-experts-warn-vandals-only-hurting-cause
Cahn, N. R. (1992, September). Looseness of legal language: the reasonable woman standard in
theory and in practice. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3574&context=clr
Cartwright, M. (2018, May 03). Aztec Sacrifice. World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from
https://www.worldhistory.org/Aztec_Sacrifice/
Celler, R. (2022. November 16). Are white employees protected against race discrimination
even though they are not a minority? Retrieved from www.floridaovertimelawyer.com/white-employees-protected-against-race-discrimination-even-though-they-are-not-a-minority/
Cornell Law School. (2022). Eminent domain. Retrieved from
www.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain
Greene, S. (2021, January 19). Fact check: Are pharmaceutical companies immune from COVID-
19 vaccine lawsuits? Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-companies-immune-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuits-1562793
Guerin, L. (2023). Suing for harassment or discrimination. Retrieved from
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-harassment-discrimination.html/
Hill, V. (2023, March 5). Proposed bill would prevent anyone under 25 from being charged with
felony murder. Retrieved from www.foxbaltimore.com/news/local/proposed-bill-would-prevent-anyone-under-25-with-being-charged-with-felony-murder
Jacewicz, N. (2016, July 28). After Hinckley, states tightened use of the insanity plea. Retrieved
Kennedy, L. (2019, August 12). How the Immigration Act of 1965 changed the face of America.
Retrieved from www.history.com/news/immigration-act-1965-changes
Kittle, M. D. (2019, January 11). Conservative groups targeted in Lois Lerner’s IRS
scandal receive settlement checks. Retrieved from www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/11/conservative-groups-targeted-in-lois-lerners-irs-scandal-receive-settlement-checks/
Lovely, E. (2010, July 16). Congress exempt from Civil Rights Act. Retrieved from
www.politico.com/story/2010/07/congress-exempt-from-civil-rights-act-039831
National Park Service. (2022). Shenandoah National Park: From Idea to Reality. Retrieved from
https://www.nps.gov/articles/shenandoah-national-park-idea-to-reality.htm
O’Reilly, B. (2015, May 19). Villains surface in the Vermont child rape case. Retrieved from
www.foxnews.com/story/villains-surface-in-the-Vermont-child-rape-case
Pollack, J. (2020, July 20). Fact check: Joe Biden repeats false claim about shovel-
ready jobs. Retrieved from www.breibart.com/2020-election/07/21/fact-check-joe-biden-repeats-false-claim-about-shovel-ready-jobs/
Rikleen, L. S. (2019, June 6). How bystanders can stand up to sexual harassment in the law
office. Retrieved from www.abajouurnal.com/voice/article/how-bystanders-can-take-a-stand-against-sexual-harassment
Romano, J. (1991, August 25). Challenging residency as job requirement. Retrieved from
www.nytimes.com/1991/08/25/nyregion/challenging-residency-as-job-requirement.html
Smith, M. (2022, December 29). ‘We’re at our breaking point’: Denver ‘not able to sustain’
arriving immigrants much longer, city officials say. Retrieved from www.denver7.com/news/front-range/denver/were-at-our-breaking-point-denver-not-able-to-sustain-arriving-immigrants-much-longer-city-officials-say
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2020, July 10). Penalties – ISCIS. Retrieved
from www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/legal-requirements-and-enforcement/penalties
Weaver, M. R. (2022, December 21). The FBI colluded with Twitter to suppress free speech.
Where is the outrage? Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/fbi-colluded-twitter-suppress-free-speech-where-outrage-opinion-1768801
World Population Review. (2023). Cost of illegal immigration by state 2023. Retrieved from
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/cost-of-illegal-immigration-by-state
