~gez~ the law sucks dudes . i cant stand it and i wish more than anything that i could kill the person who invented rules and laws , especially the laws of gravity . it would be like being on a constant high *stoned out* 020808
anotherblatherer justice is spelled j-u-s-t-i-c-e
i had no idea whatsoever what to say about justice so how bout spelling it
Sam Vaknin The public outcry against executive pay and compensation followed disclosures of insider trading, double dealing, and outright fraud. But even honest and productive entrepreneurs often earn more money in one year than Albert Einstein did in his entire life. This strikes many - especially academics - as unfair. Surely Einstein's contributions to human knowledge and welfare far exceed anything ever accomplished by sundry businessmen? Fortunately, this discrepancy is cause for constructive jealousy, emulation, and imitation. It can, however, lead to an orgy of destructive and self-ruinous envy.

Entrepreneurs recombine natural and human resources in novel ways. They do so to respond to forecasts of future needs, or to observations of failures and shortcomings of current products or services. Entrepreneurs are professional - though usually intuitive - futurologists. This is a valuable service and it is financed by systematic risk takers, such as venture capitalists. Surely they all deserve compensation for their efforts and the hazards they assume?

Exclusive ownership is the most ancient type of such remuneration. First movers, entrepreneurs, risk takers, owners of the wealth they generated, exploiters of resources - are allowed to exclude others from owning or exploiting the same things. Mineral concessions, patents, copyright, trademarks - are all forms of monopoly ownership. What moral right to exclude others is gained from being the first?

Nozick advanced Locke's Proviso. An exclusive ownership of property is just only if "enough and as good is left in common for others". If it does not worsen other people's lot, exclusivity is morally permissible. It can be argued, though, that all modes of exclusive ownership aggravate other people's situation. As far as everyone, bar the entrepreneur, are concerned, exclusivity also prevents a more advantageous distribution of income and wealth.

Exclusive ownership reflects real-life irreversibility. A first mover has the advantage of excess information and of irreversibly invested work, time, and effort. Economic enterprise is subject to information asymmetry: we know nothing about the future and everything about the past. This asymmetry is known as "investment risk". Society compensates the entrepreneur with one type of asymmetry - exclusive ownership - for assuming another, the investment risk.

One way of looking at it is that all others are worse off by the amount of profits and rents accruing to owner-entrepreneurs. Profits and rents reflect an intrinsic inefficiency. Another is to recall that ownership is the result of adding value to the world. It is only reasonable to expect it to yield to the entrepreneur at least this value added now and in the future.

In a "Theory of Justice" (published 1971, p. 302), John Rawls described an ideal society thus:

"(1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. (2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity."

It all harks back to scarcity of resources - land, money, raw materials, manpower, creative brains. Those who can afford to do so, hoard resources to offset anxiety regarding future uncertainty. Others wallow in paucity. The distribution of means is thus skewed. "Distributive justice" deals with the just allocation of scarce resources.

Yet, even the basic terminology is somewhat fuzzy. What constitutes a resource? what is meant by allocation? Who should allocate resources - Adam Smith's "invisible hand", the government, the consumer, or business? Should it reflect differences in power, in intelligence, in knowledge, or in heredity? Should resource allocation be subject to a principle of entitlement? Is it reasonable to demand that it be just - or merely efficient? Are justice and efficiency antonyms?

Justice is concerned with equal access to opportunities. Equal access does not guarantee equal outcomes, invariably determined by idiosyncrasies and differences between people. Access leveraged by the application of natural or acquired capacities - translates into accrued wealth. Disparities in these capacities lead to discrepancies in accrued wealth.

The doctrine of equal access is founded on the equivalence of Men. That all men are created equal and deserve the same respect and, therefore, equal treatment is not self evident. European aristocracy well into this century would have probably found this notion abhorrent. Jose Ortega Y Gasset, writing in the 1930's, preached that access to educational and economic opportunities should be premised on one's lineage, up bringing, wealth, and social responsibilities.

A succession of societies and cultures discriminated against the ignorant, criminals, atheists, females, homosexuals, members of ethnic, religious, or racial groups, the old, the immigrant, and the poor. Communism - ostensibly a strict egalitarian idea - foundered because it failed to reconcile strict equality with economic and psychological realities within an impatient timetable.

Philosophers tried to specify a "bundle" or "package" of goods, services, and intangibles (like information, or skills, or knowledge). Justice - though not necessarily happiness - is when everyone possesses an identical bundle. Happiness - though not necessarily justice - is when each one of us possesses a "bundle" which reflects his or her preferences, priorities, and predilections. None of us will be too happy with a standardized bundle, selected by a committee of philosophers - or bureaucrats, as was the case under communism.

The market allows for the exchange of goods and services between holders of identical bundles. If I seek books, but detest oranges - I can swap them with someone in return for his books. That way both of us are rendered better off than under the strict egalitarian version.

Still, there is no guarantee that I will find my exact match - a person who is interested in swapping his books for my oranges. Illiquid, small, or imperfect markets thus inhibit the scope of these exchanges. Additionally, exchange participants have to agree on an index: how many books for how many oranges? This is the price of oranges in terms of books.

Money - the obvious "index" - does not solve this problem, merely simplifies it and facilitates exchanges. It does not eliminate the necessity to negotiate an "exchange rate". It does not prevent market failures. In other words: money is not an index. It is merely a medium of exchange and a store of value. The index - as expressed in terms of money - is the underlying agreement regarding the values of resources in terms of other resources (i.e., their relative values).

The market - and the price mechanism - increase happiness and welfare by allowing people to alter the composition of their bundles. The invisible hand is just and benevolent. But money is imperfect. The aforementioned Rawles demonstrated (1971), that we need to combine money with other measures in order to place a value on intangibles.

The prevailing market theories postulate that everyone has the same resources at some initial point (the "starting gate"). It is up to them to deploy these endowments and, thus, to ravage or increase their wealth. While the initial distribution is equal - the end distribution depends on how wisely - or imprudently - the initial distribution was used.

Egalitarian thinkers proposed to equate everyone's income in each time frame (e.g., annually). But identical incomes do not automatically yield the same accrued wealth. The latter depends on how the income is used - saved, invested, or squandered. Relative disparities of wealth are bound to emerge, regardless of the nature of income distribution.

Some say that excess wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. Progressive taxation and the welfare state aim to secure this outcome. Redistributive mechanisms reset the "wealth clock" periodically (at the end of every month, or fiscal year). In many countries, the law dictates which portion of one's income must be saved and, by implication, how much can be consumed. This conflicts with basic rights like the freedom to make economic choices.

The legalized expropriation of income (i.e., taxes) is morally dubious. Anti-tax movements have sprung all over the world and their philosophy permeates the ideology of political parties in many countries, not least the USA. Taxes are punitive: they penalize enterprise, success, entrepreneurship, foresight, and risk assumption. Welfare, on the other hand, rewards dependence and parasitism.

According to Rawles' Difference Principle, all tenets of justice are either redistributive or retributive. This ignores non-economic activities and human inherent variance. Moreover, conflict and inequality are the engines of growth and innovation - which mostly benefit the least advantaged in the long run. Experience shows that unmitigated equality results in atrophy, corruption and stagnation. Thermodynamics teaches us that life and motion are engendered by an irregular distribution of energy. Entropy - an even distribution of energy - equals death and stasis.

What about the disadvantaged and challenged - the mentally retarded, the mentally insane, the paralyzed, the chronically ill? For that matter, what about the less talented, less skilled, less daring? Dworkin (1981) proposed a compensation scheme. He suggested a model of fair distribution in which every person is given the same purchasing power and uses it to bid, in a fair auction, for resources that best fit that person's life plan, goals and preferences.

Having thus acquired these resources, we are then permitted to use them as we see fit. Obviously, we end up with disparate economic results. But we cannot complain - we were given the same purchasing power and the freedom to bid for a bundle of our choice.

Dworkin assumes that prior to the hypothetical auction, people are unaware of their own natural endowments but are willing and able to insure against being naturally disadvantaged. Their payments create an insurance pool to compensate the less fortunate for their misfortune.

This, of course, is highly unrealistic. We are usually very much aware of natural endowments and liabilities - both ours and others'. Therefore, the demand for such insurance is not universal, nor uniform. Some of us badly need and want it - others not at all. It is morally acceptable to let willing buyers and sellers to trade in such coverage (e.g., by offering charity or alms) - but may be immoral to make it compulsory.

Most of the modern welfare programs are involuntary Dworkin schemes. Worse yet, they often measure differences in natural endowments arbitrarily, compensate for lack of acquired skills, and discriminate between types of endowments in accordance with cultural biases and fads.

Libertarians limit themselves to ensuring a level playing field of just exchanges, where just actions always result in just outcomes. Justice is not dependent on a particular distribution pattern, whether as a starting point, or as an outcome. Robert Nozick "Entitlement Theory" proposed in 1974 is based on this approach.

That the market is wiser than any of its participants is a pillar of the philosophy of capitalism. In its pure form, the theory claims that markets yield patterns of merited distribution - i.e., reward and punish justly. Capitalism generate just deserts. Market failures - for instance, in the provision of public goods - should be tackled by governments. But a just distribution of income and wealth does not constitute a market failure and, therefore, should not be tampered with.
chrity there is no justice in this life 041217
-jess I have a dirty screen and some tweezers and you get me on a drug paraphernalia charge? I swear, cops have nothing to do. 050313
. What_is_justice 051014
In_Bloom "I saw something
Something in your eyes
I wanted it for myself"
amy nada just us, very confining. just us and them, matters of justice. justice is blind... justice wins. 100722
reue It took me years to realize that it wasn't a sense of justice I was practicing, but rather a sense of selfish revenge.

I was your friend and I was privy to the things you did, the people you hurt. I belived I was justified in my actions. I was so tired of caring about other people. So tired of being the one left out, the one off "doing what was right". Can I claim a momentary slip of ethics? Can I validate that over the years of pain I've caused?

I lost a sense of respect for you during that time. I guess it was easy for me to treat you in such an incompassionate way. Sadly, I lost respect for myself in the process.

I realize now I wasn't really in love with anyone but love itself. I wanted so desparately to find something... someone. I did and still do care. Both of you.

I've made too many mistakes in my life and I continue to do so. I'm still rather messed up. Though, I realize now that its okay. Being messed up is part of life.

With all my heart, I do wish you both love and happiness.
Darin Stevenson The Department of Corrections Departments
As a child I had a strong and persistent negative reaction to the ideas that popularly comprise our models of law, ‘justice’, and prosecution. The reason was simple: it was obvious to me even then that these were fictions, and that the modes of concept and description that empowered these fictions were poisonous. They lie to us about the nature of humanity, action, value, meaning, force, and identity. They lie about the nature of truth, justice, and fairnessand the nature of these lies is explosively and consistently self-inflating. The resources used to accomplish and sustain that inflation come directly out of our own minds, lives, hopes, ecologies, families, work, and history. And when those run dry, they are stolen from the future of our species and life on Earth.

And these lies, existing as passive cultures of agreement or deflated dissent, instruct our minds. They can, under the right conditions, produce minds in their likeness.

In simple terms: our lives, minds and work—our families, education, health and futureour planet and her ecologies… all of these get co-opted in an ever-expanding effort to torture people in ways that expand into far beyond those who are supposedly beingpunished’. Somehow, to befreein the United States has come to mean, bluntly, to be directly involved in torturing people. People we do not know, and many of whom are completely innocent of any sort of crime that could possiblydeservethe horrific treatment that we subject them to all day, every day, for years. Even if such treatment was »an answer, which it is not, it would still be the »wrong answer.

We are born into servitude and fealty to false collectives and authorities whose powers crush our humanity and intelligence. Like poisons in the air and food, they are already present in unimaginable force and unthinkable number — and their agents are our own people. The power of these false collectives to dictate the nature of reality, relation, ‘intelligenceor society to us often pre-empts the establishment or exploration of anything authentically resembling the obvious meanings of such terms.

These armies of prosecution, empowered by cultural and linguistic fictions too bold to otherwise imagine, nurture, comprise and sustain nearly endless factories of lethal religions and their myriad armies of enaction and enforcement. Andwe’ (a we that does not really exist because our unity is entirely theoretical), as individuals and collectives, must pay every possible price to sustain them instead of our own relationships and communal health.

Their promise is the diametric opposite of their actual purposes, activities and effects, and this was obvious to me by the time I was five years old, even though it was nearly impossible for me to speak clearly about what I could easily intuit.

Ordinary persons’ (this includes all human children), ecologies, living places, authentic human collectives and families are now forced to compete against these unopposably gargantuan forces for survival, resources, attention and freedom — for the possibility of intelligence — and we are abjectly unequipped to do so or even survive the costs of such an attempt. Yet in nearly every case our humanity, minds, lives and future depend intimately on precisely thisimpossiblenecessity.

We have to put an end to these fictional processes and collectives forever, and we have to do it now.

Well, personally, I think we should just put a bullet in that nigger right now. Never mind court cases. Let’s just save the effort. Damn nigger ain’t worth a dollar anyway. If it was up to me? .”
— Stockton, California Police Officer (male), speaking to the author, March, 1983, in reference to the 26 year-old male suspect in a strongarm robbery that netted the defendant $1.50. The defendant was sentenced to two years in prison due to prior convictions.
Why would we allow something as deadly and stupid as this to stand in executive authority over our lives, cultures and minds — let alone support or celebrate it? Answers are near at hand. An ever-expanding array of historically successful fear-and-greed-based seductions are involved, and, like tried and true confidence tricks, these can be relatively skillfully arranged to enhance and leverage fictions into positions otherwise filled by human mutuality. Such fictions must, of necessity, obscure their true purposes and activities.

There is a standard of verity for human persons. There is no standard of anything for fictional collectives. Except, perhaps, survival, dominance, and contagion.

The single most important precursor to this con is the careful establishment and grooming of cultures and collectives that lack purposive, ecological and relational intimacy. These are soon rendered into isolation chambers that damage our minds and lives. This deprives them of agency.

The result? Fear and anxiety. Passivity. Helplessness. That’s the magic elixer of prosecutorial power. When people who belong to no authentic collective suspect that they are being treated as prey or are likely to be victimized — and they have been denied the opportunities for intelligent remedy and defense that would otherwise ordinarily exist in common culture, they can be had for a dollar. In fact, they will line up to pay you to prosecute… almost anyonefor almost anything.

Upon careful examination, the conceptual models involved in these deceptions are found to be largely comprised of estranged borrowings from half-baked philosophical and social constructs that are ‘customized’ for each epoch upon which they are to be foisted.

A few of these are easily recognized. The first is that an individual isresponsiblefor all actions and events that proceed from their existence or intention and the second is that ‘justice’ is a bizarre kind of accounting game with plainly absurd suppositions — for example that remediation of a problem or wrong requires someone topayfor actions in the past. The basic ideas is poisonous: vengeance.

In this game we must become, embody and pursue thought and behavior as though we, ourselves, had been rendered into fictions of person, value, meaning, ‘righteousnessand declaration. In short: we enforce and actively sustain falsified identities and roles in order to make this nightmare seem not only necessary but desirable.

Actual ‘Justice’ has never and cannot truly evince either of those qualities. Especially not in the grossly malpurposed forms we currently enact with ever-more deadly and costly consequence.

The concept of Justice inflects all other concepts of identity and value in human semantic lexicons. It is a root concept that is vulnerable to distortion and reprojection. The results of this are catastrophic, because they directly inform and affect all other semantic and relational concepts… including the other roots upon which human intelligence and cohesion are founded.
Many books could be written about how confused the ideas we enact and support as institutions presently are. Simply stated, however, defendant is not precisely the same person thatcommitted a crimeunless we freeze the moment and person in stone forever in order to prosecute them at any or all future moments. In other words, the idea that a person who steals somethingisa thief, is actually wrong. They may be a thief during the commission of the act. What and who they are after the fact is a whole other storyunless wetake a snapshot of the person and moment of commissionand then demand that this is forever happening and true in the future. Frankly, that is insane. Because we have a role in that future, and to declare that their role is that of an indicted criminal and establish fictionally putative mutual judgement with the intent to punish is to discard billions of other roles, nearly »all of which are more human, successful, and intelligent.

Instead of those? We have one. Pay every price to persecute, torture, and further deprive everyone involved of their potentials, futures, intelligence and humanity.

Wrong fucking move.

This is Not My Beautiful Prison-Mind
Superficially, these absurdtraditions’, with their accompanying institutions, suppositions, declarations, records and practices promise the managed oversight of a mutual developmental environment where equality of person, group, and collective are sustained and protected from abuse byharmful invaders’, predators, and individuals or groups who behave aggressively, violently, or egregiously.

On the surface, it sounds interesting—perhaps even necessary. Underneath is is a lethal business that organizes the torture of human beings for cash and power. In order to see beyond the advertisements we have to examine the actual purposes and outcomes of these ridiculous ideas.

Let us begin here: any intelligently relational culture will, by nature, require little in the way of enforcement and regulation. The reason is that intelligent cultures fill the developmental spaces of their relational ecologies with symbionts, rather than competitors, parasites, mimics, or predators.

Theprotectionis generated not by threat of punishment, but by the intimately active intelligences of mutual and ecological development, relation, discovery, andcorrection. Since the unique niche-opportunities of the socium are filled with mostly beneficial and mutually purposed elements, they cannot be easily compromised and do not produce the symptoms we associate their opposite. Their opposite is a culture of shattered members of complaint-as/or-fashion subcultures. Actually isolated people whose collectivity is represented by abstract fictions, arguments, orpositionson issues they have no actual agency in.

These cultures become something that looks psychotic. They are internally shattered by the lack of authentic paradigms of unity and membership.

Ersatz cultures that are badly or intentionally misguided will, by nature, generate inhuman regimes that persecute, prosecute and torture their own citizens. This will require the complicit support of those citizens, and that, in turn will breed terror propaganda. The goal is the occupation of the relational and ecological spaces that would otherwise have the potential to become the seeds of a cure: and those seeds would look like relationally intelligent developmental unities.

George Orwell’s 1984 was a cautionary tale about the necessities of a culture founded upon the politics of surveillance and prosecution by fictional collectives and falsified organs of institutional authority. Such organs are, by their nature and necessity inhuman and catastrophically malpurposive.
The basic idea of our legal institutions is to establish a system of oversight that provides for theprotectionof the rights, sovereignty, safety or health of a possible plaintif against a possible defendant or perpetrator. This pre-supposes a culture in which this is both necessary and intelligent.

No such culture can ever exist except as a standing fiction.

The result is a modification to formal public identity: this makes everyone into a possible plaintiff, judge, jury, enforcer or defendant (ppjjed) in their minds and activities—an idea so lethal that our intelligence cannot survive it unscathed. This concept is generative of culture and technology in reflection of its driving purposes and suppositions.

And they are abjectly wrong.

This intrusion into our culture of such an incredibly lethal array of process-breeding confusions actually reinstructs our intelligence to mimic its contexts and functions in and as our own minds, and we often simulate various roles in such absurdities. By the time they are 30, many people will have spent vast amounts of time and anxiety playing out imaginary ‘cases’ against themselves and others. This is a severe cause of anxiety, sociopathy and insanity. Our minds and souls are damaged when forced to ceaselessly simulate and compare ourselves to fictionalized prosecutors and defendants.

Problematically, the fictional persons and groups have vastly more power, sway, and resources than real people, environments, families… or authentic human collectives organized around actual rather than fictitious concerns. There is no real standard of behavior for a fictional collective. The standard is, simply, whatever is possible. They have absolutely zero concern about human lives, and none at all for nature.

Worse still, they are almost neverpunished’, tortured or destroyed. Fictional defendants simply pay (usually modest quantities of) cash for poorly computed abstract evaluations of harm inflicted. And these abstractions of harm done are invariably so grossly deflated as to be at once comical and insulting.

For example, if you burn down a rainforest which is worth billions of dollars per square foot per year in a way that grows as our ability to abstract intelligence and value from its transentient prodigy growsand you pay $10.00 for that, well, as anyone can see, that is, colloquially ‘a steal’. It is also an unconscionable atrocity that in many ways grossly exceeds any possible murder. But it looks likebusiness as usury’ (in the moral sense of the word) to any corpse-or-ration capable of pulling it off.

What is the difference between a fictitious collective of concern and an authentic one? Usually it is purposive and relational. An authentic human collective might take up the preservation of a living ecology as an organizing concern and find ways to produce value and profit from these preservations or restorations. The active and intentional obliteration of that ecology for profit or data is a the purpose of many fictional collectives. When fictive collectives ‘win’, we die. And not just now; in all future momentsin ways and aspects that multiply over time, often logarithmically.

We all know how this nightmarefunctions’. Should some event occur such that a possible plaintiff’s ‘losses or harmcannot be reasonably restored or soothed after injury, we preserve the state of victimization (and perpetration) and begin a process of prosecution, the goals of which areat best, confused.

We shall organize and enact fictional institutions in order topunishthe ‘perpetrators’ and recognize, reward, or make restoration to thevictim’. This reward takes a variety of forms including recognition, financial restitution, and vengeance—as temporally extensive torturing of individuals and whole constellations of persons (or places) related to or connected with them.

In other words, we will all become false human beings, and take on roles and activities dictated by deadly fictions. We, deprived of agency, will reaquire it as the lethal projection of actually ridiculous ideas.

In order to actualize and accomplish these actually bizarreideals’, swarming myriads of toxic systems, authorities, enforcers, weapons, machines and ‘prosecutorial observers’ are invented, funded, sustained, and championed.

The results are lethal in every possible domain from economics, culture and human relation to the activities and anatomies of our minds and families. They are wiping us out, along with nature, humanity, intelligence and hope. Rather than justice they breed atrocity. Rather than protection they establish the most fatuously malpurposed institutions which then compete against our own lives, minds, ecologies and future in order to deepen the disgusting stain they impose not only on our humanity and history, but upon all life on Earth.

In short our systems of ‘Justice’ anddefenseare lethal parasites whose power, resource needs, and scope expand explosively. In our the modern United States, more than it is impossible to even do the accounting. We spend trillions of dollars to ‘prosecute’ conflicts which, apparently are not only often fictitious, invented, or staged—they produce little or no result except the exacerbation of the conditions that triggered them. And this has become both a business and a psychological trauma for every citizen of our nation.

Consider that the United Statesgovernmentwill gladly spend any amount of money to prosecute any person or group. Any. With or without appropriate evidence of a crime or even the necessity of reply. $500,000.00 is routinely spent on nothing more than a series of court engagements that produce either nothing or an ongoing prison sentence where the ‘defendant’ is permanently branded as an ‘offender’, a process which costs incredible amounts of money, tortures all of us, and produces the likely result of permanence of these conditions or even their exacerbation.

Meanwhile, we have no health care, our hospitals are horror stories, our lives are surveillance targets and even our children are constantly being harassed and ‘instructed’ by militaristic and legalistic monsters. Our social and relational infrastructure are taking on the likenesses and functions of prisons as if under their own guidance. Our nation has been repurposed. And so to, the fiction of our collectivity and intelligence.

What would I have to do to get my government to spend one million dollars on me? Not much if it was or appeared to beor could be made to appear to be a crime. But to get even one one thousandth of that for any positive or helpful purpose would be well-nigh impossible. I know this because I have had to try. And that was just to receive what I had already paid for myself: disability payments when I was catastrophically disabled. I was denied. And while disabled, I had to keep making the insurance payments for the insurance benefits I was being denied. This was not the first time, either, and both times cost me… essentially, everything.

It is a simple matter to imagine a child who, unable to get any attention at all from its parents, begins to choose the methods that result in attention, even if they are negative. Our nation is a mad hyperbole of that scenario: we get absolutely nothing of value and our social, ecological and relational infrastructures are being torn apart wholesale whilst we are being punished and charged for thisgreat privilegein every possible way.

Until we are suspected of some infraction—in which case no price is too absurd or unthinkable. None. Our state and local governments will pay any imaginable amount to punish someone who, frankly, could never generate that much harm in their entire lifetime, let alone some single event of wrongdoing.

When did we stop doing the math here? Did we ever? Who is managing this and how the hell did we become this gullible, vulnerable and confused?

We are going to take you out into a field and make you disappear, and there is nothing you or anyone else you know can do about it.”
Immediate declaration of lead San Francisco Police Officer Elaine Economous (badge 283) to the author, after having been dispatched by an unknown party tocheck on my well-being’, March 12th, 2001, 3:30 p.m.
In fact and in general the organs of detection, tracking, recording and enforcement empowered for these purposes simply become what they claim to protect us from, and then convert our own work, loss, fear and pain into assets they can use to strengthen their death-grip on our lives, minds, families and cultures.

In the process, we become actively complicit in endless arrays of invisible atrocities. This is not uncommon; nearly all organs of collective authority are want to morph into their opposites and this process is accelerated when they can directly manipulate their constituents according to fictions, whether they be of fear, prosperity, righteousness or unity.

It comes down to simple facts. In lieu of an authentic mutual culture, we are going to get psychosis. A lot of it. In all kinds of unique and unpredictable embodiments. And violence. And crime. And addiction. These are signals about the context we are engaged in sustaining and articulating. We need these signals; to attack them is insane. Perhaps their most crucial aspect of function and meaning is as a vehicle that conveys the necessary intelligence to understand its sources. It is a signal toward developmental intelligence and insight, unless we choose another purpose, and insisit upon it.

We cannotcorrecta fictional culture. There is no way tofixlaw enforcement in the United States, because the nation and false culture are fictions based upon the ongoing perpetuation of atrocity and the disenfranchisement of both the individual and the possibility or power of authentically comprised human collectives. What we have at present, is an explosion of tiny little interlocking fictions, each projecting its own necessities upon persons, intelligence, and the possibility of mutually beneficial intelligence.

The overarching paradigms cannot be pretended away. In our culture, they are money and power, accorded to individuals and small, elite groups. Regardless of what is being said, these are the actual imperatives that stand over our collectivity, our world, and possibility of mutually intelligent cultureand of anything even vaguely resembling ‘Justice’ which, it is obvious, must be a state of relational development that is everywhere ambientand not, the exacerbating reaction to the gross and purposeful misinterpretation of events that have their causes in the missing integrity of our mutuality.

Locating these causes in individuals and ‘punishing’ them for itdemands that all other aspects of our thought and culture lock-step with this insanity. When we allow or choose this path, we are all amongst the condemned.

I am insatiably curious about the nature of living beings, intelligence, language, and nearly everything else. I hope my work may contribute to our ability to assemble the authentic sources of what our modern cultures are but the broken remnants and falsified costumes of. Together. With and for each other and our world.

dafremen see also: the_reality_check_bounced 141209
Lia well thought, well written
and the most important subject
of our time.
what's it to you?
who go