I'm not going to find the links/YouTubulae... You can google these if you haven't yet...
We've all seen the U2b clips of girls fighting, (and boys skateboarding into quarries), mainly for the attention and instant infamy. That's a phenomenon. We say it's their fault. We sometimes ask, "Where are the parents?!"
Latest video is of girls pummeling some other girl in a Seattle mall, while three security guards stand there watching. (For some reasome, a lot of this kind of crap comes out Washington state. Which, I said long ago, is essentially fascist).
The security guards stated that they had no obligation to help the girl who was being beaten up, because they were, (told by their employer), ONLY THERE TO OBSERVE AND REPORT problems. Three of them, sitting around, not doing anything resembling their ADVERTISED BUSINESS of MAKING ANYONE SECURE. Just sitting there, basically doing the job of a surveillance camera. Woe - awesome, privileged work, huh?! Nice JOB! Reminds me of Blackwater or Congress. Getting paid to demonstrate what an ass your corporation is.
Yet, there are plenty of examples of security guards and police taking activist measures, and beating or tazing someone because they won't leave a store BEFORE CLOSING TIME, or because they scoff at an officer. Then these guards and officers and MURDERERS end up getting off SCOTT FREE by a stacked jury system full of god-fearing closet fascists.
Similarly, a girl in London was trapped in a submerged car for 97 MINUTES, as police looked on, because the police were, "Not trained to rescue people in water." And meanwhile, there are dozens of unemployed people flipping out at military bases, malls, schools, etc., shooting people out of a generalised rage at the system. The reaction is more dumbfoundedness and more spending on anti-terrorism. More cops and prisons. More permanent war economy to suck away more jobs.
What is going on here? It kinda looks like Western Civilisation ain't worth its water anymore. Once again, we hear so-called AUTHORITIES stepping up to the mike and saying really stupid things. "I don't know that that happened. Or that that HAS happened. Or WILL happen..." "We did our job and called 911." In other words, officiating and obfuscating in order to deny responsibility, maintain the status quo, and bolster the CORPORATION/GOVERNMENT's position of POWER... "It can't happen here..."
Well, here we have examples of all the things I have been talking about. We have people all helter skelter, (or a few making things worse for the many), with moral paralysis requiring AUTHORITY to step in and run everyone's lives. In this case, the security guards were suspended and an actual police officer was installed at the post. More laws and cameras shall be installed. Martial laws based on PROPERTY, mainly. Because of the static chaos, the government steps in once again to make the trains run on time.
We have the security guards standing around bean-counting. "But we were told by our BOSSES only to call 911 when bad things happen! We followed the rules and regulations! We were only doing OUR JOBS! We want to keep our jobs! What if our company was sued?! And there were only THREE of us! We're only SECURITY GUARDS!" Hey! Wait a minute! SHUT THE FUCK UP!
As I said, start by counting beans, end by persecuting Jews. "It wasn't MY fault!" "I was only FOLLOWING ORDERS!" "If I didn't allow the death then someone else would!" "I'm not a JUDGE!" And yet you do, actively or by omission, perform the executions. When all is said and done... When it gets down to REALITY... The JUDGMENT IS MADE WHERE THE SUBJECT IS PUNISHED. Where the subject is OBJECTIFIED.
"They came for my neighbour, and I did nothing... And then they came for me." See, the security guards, even by the greatest corporate or economic duress, and even by strictest or loosest requirements of the law, simply failed to follow a COMMAND that had nothing to do with being a security guard - nothing to do with the corporation or property - nothing to do with the cold hand of the law: They failed to defend HUMANITY - against the creeping decline called fascism. By omission, they defended the rule of "BLAME THE VICTIM" as being some kind of first principle.
They failed where the parents, or where society, is said to have failed. Even where children counting beans, or throwing beans, or seeking attention above decency or ethics, failed. The kids themselves failed, and social authority took up their failure as it's own cause.
Well, we all know that if you get involved with a fight like that, trying to defend someone, there may be a GIANT chance that you might get hurt, attacked, or even sent to jail and/or sued. And if you have kids or others depending on you, they will also suffer. In this economy.
I know from experience that when you get involved, people come rushing at you like zombies on crack - (for want of anything else decisive in their lives) - and that's not good for someone who has an illness that is highly reactive to stress.
I have had to claim victim status and simply try to close myself off from this kind of crap in my neighbourhood. Because there was a time there when parents would basically encourage their kids to be borderline trespassers, vandals and provocateurs, only for the parent's chance to step in, yell down your throat, call the police, and ESTABLISH THEIR DOMINANCE. Their kids were like little passive-aggressive colonisers, out to add more pissing territory for their parents. And when I tried to help kids and others in my neighbourhood, my life was threatened, etc.
So, it's not like I don't understand Not STEPPING IN. But most everyone agrees that, AT LEAST IN THEORY, it shouldn't be happening: we SHOULD be stepping in! "Except when NIMBY!" And I have some respect for the otherwise ignorant South, in its appreciation of A CODE OF HONOUR. But I'm going to set aside this difficult personal question for a bit and discuss the whole ethical set-up behind it. AFTER I have a baked potato...
We've all "know" that "property is 9/10th of the law!" (Meaning, "He who has the gold," wherever HE can subvert the Constitution and Morality). Well, that is a truism that isn't true in spirit. All that truism was meant to explain was that the law has to draw the line somewhere, so it tend to draw the lines at PROPERTY. But that doesn't at all mean that laws applying to, changing, and contradicting property might not be created. For example, that should not be taken to mean, absolutely, that someone who OWNS A MALL also OWNS FREEDOM OF SPEECH at that mall. (Unfortunately, past years have redefined it in that direction).
The whole point of the American Revolution was to proclaim this very FIRST principle: That we have INALIENABLE RIGHTS which TRANSCEND property - and BY EXTENSION, our own private property may NOT be seized unfairly by any authority who may profess to legally or morally OWN IT, or the right to seize it. That extension is NOT a permission of greater landlords to abuse private citizens. And yet we are giving ourselves over to it, at the expense of FIRST PRINCIPLES.
For example, the government is required to protect illegal military occupation of one's home, illegal search and seizure, and illegal abuse of renters' rights. In the latter, by lease contract, the landlord must give at least 1 day's notice before stopping in FOR REASONABLE REPAIRS and such. But it isn't the contract that rules - it is the SPIRIT - sometimes a paper contract is irrelevant. And, concerning the validity of RENT by contract, which supposedly defines the legitimacy of the former "1-day's notice" right, even THAT - a paper lease concerning MONEY exchange as rent - should not be the basis of decisions, and IS NOT always the basis.
Rather, it is the SPIRIT of the lease contract which is of authority. For example, you may have, rather than a monthly sum of $500 paid as rent by written contract; labour, chores, repairs, even security or attention paid to the landlord should also be accepted by law as valid forms of rent - even if only by verbal or assumed contract. Likewise, a mere familial relationship also has validity as a form of rental arrangement - contract by blood - which must not violate the rights of parties involved. Property is NOT the overriding principle of ethics, morality, and neither of law. SPIRIT IS. The right and will to self-determination is the essence of this spirit. It includes privacy, speech, safety, life and health fgs!
Unfortunately, this is not the direction the law or politics or economics has been taking in past decades. It is moving back to the arrangement against which we first rebelled - when Monarchs and Capitalists ruled the world, and charged us for occupying their land. Land they owed through power, privilege, and exploitation of we the renting class - i.e., the taxed class.
The Colonies of Britain in America were essentially assumed to be owned by the Crown, and were chartered to Corporations, such as the East India Corp., to exploit resources and make both the Corporations and the Crown wealthier. Most people who first settled there were there to cash in on the fun, and likewise to live INDEPENDENTLY. The Puritans came over for Religious independence from the Crown and other governments. Over time, the Crown assumed more and more strongly that it owned the land (through its companies), whereas the settlers insisted more and more strongly that they DIDN'T. Instead, the new settlers, in sympathy with the Native Americans ethic, insisted that THEY OWNED THE LAND BY A SPIRITUAL CONTRACT WITH NATURE. An ORIGINAL contract - a new Patriotism.
The global forces supporting the SPIRIT OF INDEPENDENCE won - after British Boston rebelled against being overly TAXED by East India COMPANY, which was putting THEIR mom-&-pop tea shops OUT OF BUSINESS. They were being taxed, via THE CROWN, essentially for being ON THE CROWN'S PROPERTY - and a CORPORATE MONOPOLY WAS BENEFITING FROM IT. The mergence of corporate and state interest, through belligerent rule, IS THE DEFINITION OF FASCISM. We were fighting FASCISM: The installation of PROPERTY RULE over SPIRITUAL RIGHTS, such as free speech, free thought, free movement - self-determination.
In those days, property was becoming 100% of the law. And this legal arrogance was greatly CONTINUED, by the Federalists, AFTER the Revolution - (maybe more like 85% of the law) - (mainly because it's an easier way to do legal accounting). Only a handful were allowed to vote: rich white male property owners - i.e., slave-owners. SLAVES were considered their PROPERTY. Slaves were PROPERTY working on THEIR PROPERTY - (basically, you could kill them and that's fine cuz they're property).
A lot of people saw that this was absurdly evil. Even if property fascism didn't apply to them, they resolved TO STEP FORTH AND GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT. They were not fearing the property ethic... But, for a while, it became a bean-counting ethic... The whole "90%" sort-of attitude was applied to slaves: "OK: We'll consider you 1/3 a person, or 1/5th a person," or whatever it was. See how insane? Bean-counting? And it lead to Civil War.
Dread Scott was the end of describing ANY HUMAN BEING AS BEING PROPERTY. The war was won, and economies pushed forward in this new era of increased freedom. Railroad corporations expanded and bought away Lincoln's Republican Party. Further success after 1960's Civil Rights legislation, when the Corporate Republican Party sopped up all the Southern Racist Democrats: Ergo the days of Ronald Reagan and George Bush: GOP/ Corporations pushing and pushing to again expand PROPERTY OWNERSHIP RULE as far as they could - but coming up against laws protecting speech and so forth. But even free speech, in malls, in gated communities, was falling. And finally, what is the end of this BIG WAVE? The property REAL ESTATE BUBBLE BURSTS! Time for a whole new game...
The new game is not simply to own property and money - and slaves, or indentured employees, (such as security guards), as if they were property. The new game is not simply to push your legal right TO TAKE property as far as it will go...
THE NEW GAME IS TO TURN FREE SPEECH INTO PROPERTY - AND TO TAX AND TRADE AND OWN AND CONTROL AND ENFORCE THAT! The new game is plain-as-day corporate-governmental FASCISM. Putting SPIRIT into shackles, or mincing it through a meat-grinder if it pleases the corporation. Seeking to own the very spirit that once burst through property as a divine right. THAT. THAT is why people SHUT UP when they should be GETTING INVOLVED. BECAUSE THEY SENSE IT'S TRUE. Any of our actions can be REDEFINED to hang us, by the money and now political "free speech" of any corporation "who" wishes to play against us - through the auspices of the government, and now, the legal system.
A topic that should be included here, but will be discussed in some future post, is the idea of "THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG". (I'll insert a link to it here then). I'm feeling the need to rest.
No - I'll have to conclude this post later. Topics to be covered:
Right to be wrong.
black president obama as maxwell's demon.
new info-(ownership) paradigm shift: rifkin vs. fascism
"leave me alone"? getting involved?
anarcho-fascism vs. today's libertaric-fascism.
poor security guards?
who decides the issues? where does the sin lie?
middle class / revolution?