Tag Archives: Warfare and Conflict

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’.


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.

Oh boy, the web the NYPD weaves to catch the “deranged”


Our leaders and good-intentioned(?)Big Sisters and Brothers are busy finding ways to protect you from each and every possible human being that harbors any type of dangerous thoughts. (Refer to ‘Minority Report’ for explanation of ‘dangerous thoughts’. The explanation given by our government is less credible.)

To that goal,

“Top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department”, [I’m not making this up] “examine ways to search the Internet to identify potential “deranged” gunmen before they strike, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.”

………………………..I’m still laughing!…………….Ok. Ya.

“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement. “The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

I bet you anything that the NYPD got the idea from ‘Minority Report’. We should ban, not only guns, but movies that give our police and Homeland Security agents ideas on how to ‘protect’ us.

“Mr. Kelly said the technique was similar to those being used to spot terrorists’ chatter online. The new searches would target “apolitical or deranged killers before they become active shooters,” he said. [Highlights by me]

As I mentioned in my previous post, the connection between the mentally ill and ‘terrorists’ is in full swing. We were psychologically conditioned via the mainstream media (MSM) to think of all Arabs as ‘terrorists’; now we are being conditioned to extend that same fear, born of political manipulations, to anyone who ‘thinks’ or ‘feels’ ‘differently’ from the norms that the cops will script for you.

Our language and idiosyncratic way of communicating will have to be adjusted. If you haven’t read ‘1984’, now is a good time to do it.

Mind you that our cops are so efficient in catching the “deranged” once they spot him threatening the public with a pen, shooting and hitting everyone far and near him.

There is really no need to delve into how ridiculous this ‘approach’ to catch “apolitical killers” and “or deranged killers” is. Enough to say that you will not be able to make reference precisely to what excuses the person had for the ‘killings’ because, in using them, the “technique” will tag you. I’m sure you have heard about people incorrectly placed in the ‘no-fly list’ and how impossible it is to get your name out of the list. That’s just a taste of what this implies for the ‘innocent’ writers.

But what about the ‘not innocent’, meaning the mentally ill now tagged as ‘deranged apolitical terrorist’? Will that be a new DSM-10 diagnosis?

Notice how they make a differentiation between political killers and apolitical killers. We never had that before, did we?  You think it doesn’t matter? We are being judged from a political frame, our lives and emotions have been politicized by our government (state and feds). It matters.

Anyone who commits a crime is now a ‘terrorist’, a “not political” terrorist. That means that everybody is a terrorist subject to surveillance. Anyone can be a ‘deranged’ terrorist, so, all of you need to be monitored.

Look, you can tag me as ‘conspiracy theorist’ if you want. Almost everything that ‘theorists’ say, comes to be. Remember the ‘conspiracy theory’ about Agent Orange in Vietnam? It was true, after all.

I had been saying since the mid 2000 that the drones (unmanned planes) will be used here at home against the civilians. I was bashed for saying that on my comments in news papers. This year Obama informed us that he expects over 30K drones flying our skies by the year 2020 (somewhere between 2015 and 2030, I need to check that again.) They are already been used to arrest people here for ‘minor’ crimes, like traffic infractions and ‘raw milk’ sellers criminals. LOL, raw milk criminals.Ja! Peddling raw milk is a crime in the USA.

Citizens have been rendered so afraid and passive that they accept ANYTHING that the government concocts to control them.

That’s the part that hurts the most. It’s not the abuses from the government; it’s the credulity and passivity of the citizens. In Nazi Germany, it was that same fear and passivity of the citizens that tacitly sanctioned the barbarities committed by the Nazis.

The mentally ill is the excuse to round you all up. What you define as ‘deranged’ will come to bite you.

Deranged kitty at risk of being tagged a 'terrorist' by the NYPD.

Deranged kitty at risk of being tagged a ‘terrorist’ by the NYPD.



You may be interested in this:

NYPD Commences Use Of Iris Scans Of Suspects

Department Spending $24,000 Per Unit; Will Have 21 Around City