Tag Archives: Terrorism

On criminals, terrorists, and crazy men Part2


Yesterday I opened a post about my views on mental illness and dissent in the USA.Today I look into how this connection was continually been made for us in TV programs.

The entertaining ‘terrorists’

Springer, Geraldo’s crazy politics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until 9/11, it was an imperative for the government, and the big financial interests it represents, to paint a picture of the USA as a happy nation, the spectator of a world in chaos, but not touched by it. The USA was above all that racket. We don’t have coup d’état in the USA, Kennedy’s assassination was the act of one and one man alone, no conspiracy was found there. It was a ‘common crime’. Neither did we have here racism a la South Africa.

Likewise, it was unwise to tag McVeigh as a ‘terrorist’; it would have messed with the idyllic vision of the US as a happy united people. There were NO TERRORISTS in the USA, land of the free; only crazy power-thirsty cultists, Nazis, Puerto Rican and Black separatists (meaning PRican liberation movement and Nation of Islam) fanatic sympathizers existed in our midst.

In the 1990s, TV shows like Geraldo, Ophra, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer helped paint the idea that these political groups and their views were laughable abnormalities, inconsequential and entertaining, not to be taken seriously. They could even be helped with therapy and kumbaya, as Ophra tried, because, after all, you have to be ‘crazy’ to be in one of these groups. Except that, what was crazy here was not the person but the political ideas of these people, the idea that the US government’s policies could be considered so oppressive by groups of people that they would choose to separate from it. (I’m not siding nor supporting any group here.); the idea that racism was coming only from the KKK and Black racists.

Political dissent in the USA was unofficially diagnosed FOR the public opinion through these programs as a crazy act, an irrational act. Officially it was diagnosed as ‘oppositional defiant behavior’ in the DSM bible. We were allowed to think that the root of these people’s problem was ‘social’: bad parents, poverty (usually the ‘white trash’ and ghetto members were the invitees), etc but never was the US politics and policies considered as factors. Are you crazy? Hell no! There was seldom serious discussions about these problems.

All these TV programs, my friend, represent the corporate art of ideological propaganda’.

Then came 9/11, the game changer.

“Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; “against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Tomorrow I will discuss this new definition of ‘terrorism’ and compare it to the old one (in the earlier post for you to do the comparing on your own) and get into the scapegoating of mentally ill people as terrorist. It’s right there, in the highlighted part. Can you see it coming?

On criminals, terrorists, and mad men.


Before 9/11, a person who went out on a ‘killing rampage’ was viewed by the public as one who “went postal’, a ‘bomber without a cause’ or a ‘serial killer’. In other words, it was considered the act of a ‘common criminal’, not a political or act of war.  After 9/11, that same person committing the same act is considered ‘a war terrorist’ and ‘a crazy person’, to boot.

When and how did we decide to re-classify our definition of ‘common crime’ as ‘an act of war and terrorism’, and to link it to mental illness? Who helped shape our collective ‘perception’ of ‘imminent’ danger?

I will share my views about how mental illness has been scapegoat, after 9/11, as terrorism in a veiled effort to control political and social dissent in our nation, which our current president has declared to be in “a permanent state of war”.

Parts of this post will go under the headings:

The politics of crime: crime in the US before 9/11

Our a-political perception of crime

Mental illness to the rescue

THE POLITICS OF CRIME: Crime in the US before 9/11

Before 9/11, mental illness was seldom considered the sole culprit of acts of violence in our society. Acts of violence by ‘civilians’ (killing co-workers or loved ones) was seen by the public mostly as something done by someone who ‘lost it’ or who ‘went postal’. Implied in these descriptions is some sort of collective understanding that the person committing the crime was under the pressures of work, finance, love betrayal, or other social problems; the public was able to point to a ‘social context’ behind the act of violence. Because of this awareness of a social context behind crimes, the citizens of a town, city or state could look for a social solution to the problem of violence, not for a ‘war’ policy or armaments solution.

Also, pre-9/11 there was an unspoken social ‘agreement’ on the distinction between a ‘common criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist was a foreigner ‘at war’ against us but not here in the USA, and home-grown violence (by civilians) was just ‘regular crimes’. Thus, terrorism = act of war.

In other words, before 9/11 there seemed to be no ‘political’ crimes in the USA, acts of violence to advance political beliefs.  Seldom did the media or law enforcement agencies (at least publicly) tagged as ‘terrorism’ crimes that were clearly political in nature. Not even Timothy McVeigh, member of a separatist militia movement, was tagged as a terrorist, not until way after 9/11. The killing of a US President was NOT considered a political or even as terrorist act either. It was tagged as the act of a fanatical ‘lone-wolf’, who probably had been manipulated by the commies, a fact which would have made the crime a political one and a conspiracy. (But we never really went there, did we?) The ‘unabomber’ was a ‘rebel without a cause’, even a ‘mad genius’ but not a terrorist, certainly not a ‘political crusader’ for the animal rights movement, a fact many people don’t know about. And, finally, incarcerated political dissidents before 9/11, like imprisoned Puerto Rican liberation movement members, considered themselves ‘political prisoners’ (not terrorists) but the federal government had perennially refused to accept them as such, tagging them instead as ‘criminals’, until recently.

All of these examples of reluctance by the government to use the ‘t’ word, ‘terrorism’, fly despite the fact that it (FBI) had, before 9/11,  a clear definition of terrorism:

“the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals,against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is a political definition of terrorism, based on power struggle between the government and other groups of people to “furtherance of political or social objectives”. It required a “group” (“two or more”), and purposeful coordination of acts was implied. But we hardly knew about this definition, didn’t we? Why? This is in part because of the “two or more” requirement, given that our criminals were almost always portrayed as ‘lone-wolves’.

OUR POLITICAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

The one thing the government (federal and state) must protect above anything else is…no, it’s not ‘the nation’.  It is the public trust in the government’s institutions. No trust in government = dissent, polarization, and power struggles for change in the way the government leaders run the nation, be it through peaceful civil disobedience or violence.

The public’s perception of ‘crime’ is shaped by the government’s criminal and justice systems policies and politics, among others. (It’s interesting to me that the first American group to be labeled as  ‘terrorist’ was the animals rights movement in The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, something unrelated to war or Al Qaeda.)

So, it is conceivable that, to protect the public’s perception that the majority of the people are satisfied with the government’s policies, that there is no significant dissent within the society, the actions of dissenting groups are described as ‘regular crime’ and ‘crazy’ to devoid them of its political statement against the government policies. It reeks to Nazism, doesn’t it?

So, in a nation engaged in a ‘permanent war against terrorism’ and in enacting political, economic and repressive policies (police and surveillance state), which attack the middle class (leaving de-facto only two classes, the elite and the poor), how is the government going to label the natural political acts of dissent and resistance of those affected by its unfair policies and the impact it has on the social fabric?

Tomorrow: the pre and post 9/11 perception on crime, and mental illness to the rescue.

Fighting terrorism: governments brand citizens as terrorists.


See this week’s news headlines:

“Thousands fill German streets to protest Berlin’s NSA spying involvement”

“EU’s response to NSA? Drones, spy satellites could fly over Europe”

“Kiwis on the march: Thousands turn out against new spy powers in New Zealand”

“Fracktivists: At least 15 arrests at anti-fracking rally outside London”

“US approves drones for civilian use”

“FBI admits to flying drones over US without warrants”

The point? Governments have stopped functioning for the people and have become the toys of the big corporations. What the people want is totally IRRELEVANT to our ‘leaders’. The representatives of corporations in governments have branded their citizens as ‘terrorists’ that need to be spied-on 24/7.

That’s why in the USA,  NY State Office of Mental Health has turned the names of all people in the mental health system to the FBI.

It’s all related, it’s not COINCIDENCE.

New York Times article equates mentally ill with Middle Eastern Terrorists


“What drives suicidal mass killers”

“For years, the conventional wisdom has been that suicide terrorists are rational political actors, while suicidal rampage shooters are mentally disturbed loners. But the two groups have far more in common than has been recognized.”  By ADAM LANKFORD

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?hp

Why would the editor of the NY Times publish that article? It can’t be because he is ignorant about what constitute a stereotype. That just can’t be the reason; don’t try to convince me that there is a possibility for that to be the case, you won’t succeed.

I bet you anything that if I were to opine in the paper’s comment section (which, by the way, the editor doesn’t allow comments on that article) that white law professors in Alabama are racists ignorant fools because they attack anyone who is not white and ‘normal’ as evidenced by the article ‘What Drives Suicidal Mass Murderes’, the editor would recognize it as racist and stereotyping opinion and would refuse to publish it.

So, it’s not ignorance about what constitute a stereotype. So what could it be? What mysterious force

mysterious force

mysterious force

could have prompted that good man to publish such a troubling stereotyping article where people with emotional problems HERE are equated with terrorists from over THERE.

Hmm, lemme guess..could it be that the NY Times wants to scare you into supporting the upcoming legislations to control guns?

bloomy

Be afraid, be very afraid of this man. He took your big soda away from you. What is he planning now?

We know that the MSM is a tool for politicians when the two are in agreement. The laws being discussed by our ‘lawmakers’  must be so draconian that the Times  is using its favorite tool, fear, to sway your support to whatever our fine ‘leaders’ are concocting.

CONCOCTING

Expect laws hinting that people with mental illness will be subjected to surveillance, their movements limited in our society and other abuses.

Look, you CANNOT CONTROL GUNS WITHOUT AN EXCUSE.

We, those in the mental health system ARE THE EXCUSE that our ‘leaders’ will use to pass legislation for gun controls.

The secret to success is knowing who to blame.

 

They need to portray you as the worse of the worst to justify what is coming.

LOOK HERE AGAIN: Gun control is the least, THE LEASTof their desire! They don’t care! They don’t care if you go shooting everybody when you find yourself in front of the sheriff who is evicting you so that the bank can keep your home and money. THEY DON’T CARE!!!

THEY  –   JUST  –  DON’T  –  CARE!

They feed off the NRA!!

THEY ARE GOING TO USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO CONTROL YOU!!!!!

Not only the MENTALLY ILL, but YOU who may get angry when in the year 2013 you will be shaken down to give your blood to the bankers!!!!!

THE LAW PROFESSOR VENTURES INTO CLINICAL DIAGNOSING

“Over the last three years, I have examined interviews, case studies, suicide notes, martyrdom videos and witness statements and found that suicide terrorists are indeed suicidal in the clinical sense…”

MY GOD! HAVE YOU NO SHAME IN YOU!? I’m just laughing, what else can I do? He is a law PROFESSOR!…Not even a SOCIAL WORKER or a PSYCHIATRIC NURSE!!!!  What the heck is he doing making clinical diagnosis?!

FEAR THE LAW

“In fact, we should think of many rampage shooters as nonideological suicide terrorists.”

Now, if this guy has taught lawyers and judges in Alabama, just imagine what treatment the mentally ill and anyone with non-mainstream ideas receive in those courts.

I could go through the whole article, but I’m going to assume that you can see clearly that that article is the product of a sick, obsessed mind, a terrorist without guns who has the power to hurt people without shooting a single bullet.

Ok. I over did it there. I’m sure you get my drift.