Hardworking Ethan Bronner of the NY Times, whom we bash alot around here, had an important piece out of Bi’lin’s weekly protest the other day. Here. It is significant for a couple of reasons. First, even piecemeal Times coverage of the nonviolent protests offers the hope that the movement against Israeli Jim Crow will work its way into the liberal American conscience as the civil rights movement once did (and smash the idolatry of PEP (I’m Progressive, Except Palestine!) to the ground). Every time human rights advocate Emily Schaeffer gets mentioned in our press, a drop of water smashes down into the stone. Then there’s this:
Ms. Schaeffer was explaining the case to the visitors, who go by the name The Elders. The group was founded two years ago by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa and is paid for by donors, including Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, and Jeff Skoll, founding president of eBay. Its goal is to “support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.”
Both Mr. Branson and Mr. Skoll were on the visit to Bilin, as were Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland; Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil; and Ela Bhatt, an Indian advocate for the poor and women’s rights.
Readers of this site know that I grasp at straws. It’s my nature. But I think this is huge. Richard Branson is a marketer nonpareil. And Jeff Skoll may just be the ball game. Skoll, a founder of ebay, runs Participant Media, which produces films for causes not money. He lately started a project that will look into Middle East peace, led by cosmic genius Larry Brilliant, who eradicated smallpox and is thoroughly left coast. Skoll is left coast too. And maybe most important, Skoll is said to be Jewish.
American Jewish identity is not a distraction. When we get Jews of conscience on this cause, freeing Israel/Palestine from the grip of the mostly-east-coast Israel lobby, that’s the game changer. I often say that non-Zionism is the new Zionism. And it is. Zionism struggled against all odds for 40, 50 years. Herzl bashed his head against the doors of all the rich Jews in Paris and London, seeking their support. They were against him. His own newspaper was against him. He raged against the media just as this site rages against the media. Still he built his following, and warned those Parisian and Viennese Jews that they too would be hurt when there was "a change in the weather." Herzl was prescient.
Today we tell the Establishment Jews that the weather has changed again, and Israel cannot continue destroying human rights in our name. (hat tip to Scott McConnell).
I can just see Richard Witty, back in the day, sniping at Herzl and loving it; after all , there was no TV back then.
I think you might be doing that here.
When it comes to Richard Branson e.g., he may well have his heart in the right place but I hardly expect him to take a stand that might result in angry Zionists calling for a boycott of Virgin companies…
Speaking about having one’s heart in the right place, did you know under Israeli law
you can take organs from an arguably dead body without the family’s consent?
If Obama care passes, perhaps one day too we can be as altruistic?
link to counterpunch.org
Needless to say the question here is not did they get permission to harvest the dead body, but was the person killed (Palestinian) in order to get the organ – or was it taken from them when they were still living and as a result did they die. Is a poor person in a hospital allowed to pass away so that the rich, or well insured, might get that organ? Indeed, what is going on? Or, as in the Huffington Post article the big question is –
“Aftonbladet Editor Jan Helin said, “The article poses a question – why has this body been autopsied when the cause of death is obvious? There I think Israeli authorities owe us an answer.”"
WHY THE AUTOPSY?
Good point, V
In either case, Israel’s track record and legal stance as detailed in the url I gave
is frightening, and it reminds me of Obamacare–there’s a lot of slippery slopes
in all three bills sitting in congress now. Not to mention, what are we doing supporting this kind of Israel?
But how often is it done? The reports I’ve seen say that Israel has one of the lowest rates of organ donation because people refuse “for religious reasons.”
Imagine the scenes in the streets if doctors took organs from one of the Haredim w/o consent, which is not likely to be forthcoming.
Zionists would never boycott. Witty says it’s demeaning.
If Branson were to continue to engage this issue, it would be very interesting about whether threat of a “boycott” would, in fact, be intimidating. In an issue like this, the purity of the cause counts for much–and this is certainly not a case of defending the right to publish nonsense (i.e that Swedish paper and organ theft, or Henry Ford’s Dearborn Indpendent) but a position that Branson, his peers, and his children would be proud to see defended. A boycott against Virgin would thus likely be self-defeating, and attract attention to the issue in a way that ultimately redounds to the Palestinians’ benefit.
Wow! The “game” is over. Jeff Skoll, Richard Branson showed up in Bi’lin. Too bad Robert Novak isn’t around anymore, he could have gone to Bi’lin with Pat Buchanon, Scott McConnell and Alison Weir and really put the pressure on.
link to gone-hollywood.com
I see you don’t respond to the details Weir has put forth regarding Israel’s stance on
affirmative organ “donation.”
Can you prove that the organ theft story is nonsense? Dr. Kevin MacDonald (no stranger to TAC) considers it “a powerful circumstantial case” that “warrants an international investigation.”
link to theoccidentalobserver.net
Powerful case? There is no case. According to the article, Israel needs organs. (Sweden doesn’t need organs?) There was illegal organ buying and selling in New York, therefore Israel is taking organs from Palestinians? Israel is an open society. If they were taking organs from live Palestinians (organs from dead people are useless), many people in the Israeli medical establishment would have screamed about it. Israel is not an Arab dictatorship where people fear for their lives to talk.
Swedes don’t have a seething hatred for all non-Swedes and a belief that non-Swedes were put on earth to serve Swedes.
I think in seeking to shift American Jewish consciousness from Zionism to non-Zionism rather than from expansionist Zionism to humane Zionism, he is out to lunch.
As nice as it sounds to him, as much as it seems like an intersection between his family and far left friends.
Non-Zionism may be an attitude that he has, but Israelis won’t adopt that. Israelis are Zionists predominately, and rationally so.
Yes, Israelis are Zionists and predominately so, and rationally so by their own lights–the Nazis were rationally so by their own lights too, as were the apartheid South Africans. In the end it did not matter what their attitudes were and that they wouldn’t budge–that’s coming down the pike for Israel too. Israel is not an island any more than
Nazi German or apartheid S Africa. So what’s your point, Witty? Are you threatening
the Golem, Israel’s nukes, will decide the issue in the long run? The Samson Option?
So be it. Most of the world is not Zionist.
The issue was decided 60 years ago. When the Palestinians realize 2 states doesn’t mean a Palestinian state and another Palestinian state, they will get a state in Gaza and most of the West Bank.
Israelis are Zionists because they would otherwise have to recognize that they are thieves. It is a form of psychological self-preservation, a form of denial in the face of the truth.
The issue was decided by the Western Zionist puppet regimes. As the West is now changing its mind (due again to your very open contempt for the rest of the world) the issue will be decided correctly this time. Get used to it.
Dissent either supports reform, resistance or revolution.
Reform is my vote.
Not the status quo, but not anti.
Reform into what? A binary world view is just that.
Ethan Bronner deserves bashing, his decided pro-Israel bent is obvious, there’s a lot to criticize even in that one article, – for example implying Palestinians need a model and giving the Israeli army an unchallenged opportunity to act like the 170 stubbed toes their army suffered while chasing Palestinian kids are serious injuries due to Palestinian violence. I too grasp at straws, & I hope Skoll & Branson don’t fall for the usual pap spouted by the Israeli propaganda machine and like you say PEP.
There is an uncomfortable hidden aspect to Skoll, Branson, and other credible leaders adopting any anti-Israeli positions, or even opposition to oppression.
That is that there is some judgement, “this is too far”. Which then begs the question, “if this degree of limitations and treatment is too far, is there a lesser degree that is justified?”
And, where would that be?
EVERY dissenter, every human being, has that question playing in their political judgements and actions.
Phil has it. I have it.
“Israel is an open society. If they were taking organs from live Palestinians (organs from dead people are useless), many people in the Israeli medical establishment would have screamed about it. Israel is not an Arab dictatorship where people fear for their lives to talk. ”
LOLOL
Again “progressive” on Israel/Palestine is reform, not militancy.
Militancy is right-wing and oppressive relative to a sincerely dedicated consciousness raising effort, of mutually humanizing the other.
Again Witty –
Reform works in non-extreme conditions when there is malleability, this is not the case in Israel. The use of the word “militant” is a classic form of discrediting any act of resistance, just like “terrorism” is used to blur self-defense by those in power. So how were your classes at CAMERA, did they have some CIA visitors giving lectures?
My comments are relative to “your” choices. That I contest that the militant approach is lazy and vain compared to the more committed effort of developing materials designed to persuade, so that militancy is not necessary.
The rise of the right-wing in Israel is a response (to terror and to militancy on the part of Hamas and others, actual warring), as much as the rise of Hezbollah is a response, or the appeal of vague and punitive forms of boycott.
Perhaps we can elaborate on the word ‘terrorism’ and just apply this to the use of the word militancy, you use the language of oppression. the only people who find your verbiage attractive are those dead from the neck up –
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorizing them was the purpose.
Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.
“It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.”
V. can you provide a source, support, for the view that “the powerful … make the rules.”
Do others have suggestions for synopses on the origin of common law?
It seems to me that the powerful agree to limitation of their power when forced to do so by those who themselves derive power from their unified mass numbers.
Nice reply Margaret, but you should not lift what was said out of context – “insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.” That is the context to that statement.
Within that context, I do not think it is necessary to prove what is obvious to everyone – people protested, as an example, the Iraq war everywhere, did that stop it from happening?
I certainly do not disagree with you on the people deriving power from their unified masses – when have they last been a unified mass that has turned the tide?
Here is another point – the powerful do not work within the framework of the law, they ignore law, there is no rule of law. There is no rule of law because if it does not apply to all than there is no common rule, and the powerful do what they please. The “rule of law” in reality is the “law of rule,” the rule of law was propped up after the “divine right of kings” fell out of favor. It is the same powerful crew that now stands behind a so-called “rule of law.” Don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of law for you and I, but it is unevenly applied – it is just the ones who rule that have no law.
However you protest, you say we must have the rule of law in order to have “law and order.” Actually that phrase is backward, it should really be “order and rule.” Now “order” is not order in the sense of if we do not have order we will have chaos, the order is really what place everyone possesses. You have a ruling elite (moneyed elite, etc.) at the top that is preserved at all costs, than you have the system which maintains that order of their rule, and than you have the people who are ddivided by their various distinctions of class, race, and religion that makes them an ineffective whole.
I hope that was not to traumatic for everyone, unfortunately this is reality. What are you going to do to change it?
V. – You state “It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules…”. I don’t see how continuing on to discuss what use is made of rules by those whom you assert make them changes the meaning of the assertion – nor do I consider it to support the assertion.
“…people protested, as an example, the Iraq war everywhere, did that stop it from happening?” I don’t see how that example serves as an illustration of the powerful making the rules. Nor is it an example of the powerful ignoring “the law” because laws regarding warfare are specific to actions, and don’t prohibit war.
“Just war” is a theoretical framework used to argue that war is good and necessary. The Geneva Conventions are international agreements signed by various nations that set limitations on the way war is waged. The Bush administration waved a rhetorical wand and said the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply to non-state actors. They didn’t ignore “the law”, they disputed that areas of international agreement applied to “terrorism”. The Supreme Court disagreed in certain respects. The controversy continues.
Just War theory is a doctrine of military ethics of Roman philosophical and Catholic origin studied by moral theologians, ethicists and international policy… (wiki)
“Just war doctrine is meant to be of use to Americans evaluating conflicts in the war on terrorism…” from catholic(dot)(slash) library link
“Some of those who have attempted to justify war include Aquinas, Grotius, and Pufendorf.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
“…you say we must have the rule of law in order to have “law and order.” “You”? I don’t recall saying that – if you attribute words to me, please quote my exact words, or provide a reference to what you think you are paraphrasing.
“Law and order,” as used by the television show, refers to the investigation of a crime, alleged or enacted, to develop evidence for the subsequent trial of those alleged to have committed the crime. In that I consider it more purposeful to indict specific individuals for crimes, demonstrate by evidence both the crime and guilt and, if there is a determination of guilt, then exact punishment, it does reflect what I consider more appropriate action than punishment of a class for perceived guilt, with attendant punishment of society by the revolutionary action required to accomplish that purpose. But it’s not a phrase I customarily use. – because as a “short hand” reference, it leads where you ended up.
About where you went? baby, bathwater;
…and seadragons.
“Actually that phrase (law and order) is backward, it should really be “order and rule.”
No, if backward, it would be “order and law.”
As a practical matter, much civil legislation is coherced and written, or at least heavily influenced by the most powerful special interest lobbies. In that sense,
“the powerful …make the rules.” Actually, the elected officials often merely
rubber stamp the most powerful special interests’ wishes, usually with a fig
leaf concession by those special interests for cover. Two examples that come to mind immediately these days are Big Pharma and Big Insurance, both of whom
will make tons of money off Obamacare, as they do now without Obamacare. Why can’t people buy drugs cheaper from Canada or Europe? Why won’t Obamacare
use the leverage of the masses to allow negotiation with Big Pharma on pricing (as is allowed by the Federal employees’ insurance program, or the VA)? Why is
the insurance industry exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? Why did the insurance industry get their own special statute which delegates insurance regulations to the states; hence to fifty state insurance commissions, all appointee
members, and all in bed with the insurance companies?
Both criminal and civil legislation is interpreted by judges who are political appointees or elected by people who have very little useful information on the candidate judges. The judges interpret the applicable law. There is often much discretion there, especially in civil law. In criminal law practice, prosecutors have much discretion–and they are political appointees.
Yes there are laws, presumeably applicable to all. If you joined the Army for four years you’d be stuck with it. If you joined the Reserves, you’d be stuck there–for multiple terms these days. The more money and influence you have, the more
elasticity will be found in even the most hard rock legal words, rules, etc.
Law is what it is. It’s not King’s fiat, but it’s made and bent constantly by the powerful; we happen to live in a de facto plutocracy, and it shows. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy. It would help a lot if a way was found to publically
finance all candidates for elected political office and give all candidates the same air and press time.
I use “terrorism” in a descriptive mode. Perhaps you are reacting to what you see in the mass media, and think that that is me. Its not.
Terrorism is the intention to use terror on civilians to motivate or in the case of Hamas partially, to distinguish their party for internal political legitimacy.
When Hamas blows up school buses, cafes, solely civilian hotels, or shells civilian cities, it is pursuing a strategy of ONLY terror. Its undeniable, descriptive, not normative.
It is possible to describe many IDF actions as terror as well, but to deny that Hamas or Hezbollah (blowing up hotels, and shelling Haifa as “resistance”) engage(d) in terror is really naive to the point of gross negligence.
Constructing at least a cycle.
The use of force is itself designed to coerce, to eliminate free choice. Not to persuade, not even to warn. If democracy and progressivism is characterized by freedom, then to coerce is not left wing, but right wing. Even BDS, especially if there is ANY overtone of anti-semitism, or denial of others’ form of self-governance.
You’d have to state the racist concept that “there is no Jewish people” to accomplish that. Its a ludicrous assertion.
It is possible to dissent against segregation and something like Jim Crow in Israel, and against continuing expansion of Israeli settlements, without adopting a militant, punitive approach.
And, I contest that it would be many times more effective, and that your choice of militancy is a choice to delay Palestinian liberation and improvement.
I don’t know that Hamas does any of the above but those actions could be seen as a desperate attempt to humanize Jews. We always see the hysterically crying Jewish mother on TV grieving the death of her kids. But she wasn’t worried a bit when the Palestinian mothers were mourning the deaths of their kids (never on TV), by the many thousands. Not to mention that most diaspora Jews could care less about the human toll of the Israeli genocide they support. If Jews are uniquely exempted from the tragedy they cause others, how will they ever find common humanity with the rest of the world?
If is a small word with a big meaning. History shows the right wing does not have a monopoly on coercion.
Interesting that you blame dissent for the 60 year delay in Palestinian liberation and improvement; it would seem reasonable to blame the lack of dissent.
The statement that law is only ignored by power is also ludicrous. Law is constructed so that those in power have rules that they adopt and live by, to continue the framing of property rights.
Law is only useful if consistently applied, even for the purpose of retaining power. You as a dissenter should know that, and not indulge in comic book definitions of “radical thought”.
The principles of law remain, even after abused and make sense, including as guidelines for the future.
It makes the world coherent, rather than “anarchic”.
Law, especially the spirit of Law, is more often than not cirumvented by power, while the powerless are given the full crushing impact of it. Despite being inconsistently applied, Law is nevertheless useful as otherwise there is chaos. Yes the principles of law remain even after abused and yes they do often make sense (but not always by any means), as guides.
Merely because Law makes the world coherent, rather than “anarchic,” is a weak
justification for it because, after all, the Nazi regime had laws, as does Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Witty:
In the eyes of boycotted Israel there will always be ‘overtones of anti-semitism’, it’s what the Zionist crowd (e.g. in Britain) are constantly screaming about: ‘Pogroms! It’s Weimar all over again! They’re boycotting Jewish businesses (like back then Jewish shops)!’ Nonsense…
Yes, it is but who is making that assertion the BDS context? No one. Please explain.
As regards that it’s better to use ‘persuasion’ than ‘coercion’ (a bit of a false dichotomy to start with), on MARS perhaps, on Earth it doesn’t work that way. Israel has for over 40 years disregarded (and is bracing herself to try and continue doing the same for some more) any attempts at ‘persuading’ to change its behaviour in the OTs. The result is a country that behaves like the spoiled kid on the block: with complete impunity and disbelieving that any other kid will seriously oppose it.
In the end, if Israel really doesn’t want to ‘listen’ and assuming the US is serious about its stated intentions, Israel will have to ‘feel’ (i.e. suffer, be coerced).
gmeyers (similar name to a cousin),
The question isn’t only how the BDS is perceived, and then dismissed by you, but what it is (and then how it is rationally perceived).
The earth very much works that way. Maybe your part of the earth doesn’t. Israel was persuaded to change its approach, but then was persuaded again by terror and the dissent of those that somehow ignored that terror occurred.
When was Israel persuaded to change its approach to settlement expansion since 1967? What planet do you live on?
Oh, surprise surprise, Witty is using “terror” now just like I have said elsewhere, as the excuse for colonial expansion. Just like the use of the word “militant” to describe all viable activity to stop the course of this process. Nothing is new, Witty you are a supporter of Israel in anything it does, plain and simple – and you use the same hackneyed arguments that were earlier demolished – give it up. Go to some Zionist site, that is where you belong.
“Settlement expansion”. Thats a new element to this thread. You playing bait and switch.
Following the first intifada, Israelis were shocked to realize that Palestinians desired not integration, but self-government. So, they proceeded to begin to reconcile with the PLO, in Madrid, Oslo, and multiple times subsequently. They CHANGED.
Following the Hamas terror campaigns, and then the second intifida, Israelis were shocked to realize that Palestinians desired not self-government, but either integration or forced removal of Israelis.
The reality was that Palestinians were divided. Some wanted full civil rights in a single state. Some wanted a separate national state. Some wanted Israel gone.
So, now noone knows. Phil doesn’t know. You don’t know. I don’t know.
The PA wants a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.
To be frank I could have given a few more explanations, so -
People need to understand that the law is inherently political – this is expressed in many ways, when we say that congress is corrupt, or that legislation is for the benefit of some and not others. The laws that we live under are the product of political forces, not the embodiment of ideal justice. However, there is this type of double-think that takes place (to use and Orwell phrase), because at the same time people believe that the law is impartial – a set of politically neutral rules, and that they are applied to all citizens who have the moral obligation to obey.
So consequently a great number of people are shocked when they find out that a court has allowed political consideration to influence it’s decisions(s). This “shock,” along with a few choice outcry’s of “judicial activism” or “social engineering,” shows that the public believes that the law is a set of neutral principles – and that the judge is supposed to apply matters objectively, free of influence from his/her political or moral beliefs and is not supposed to consider who is in the dock.
We are constantly aware of the political nature of the law and yet also believe it is the embodiment of justice – this is why the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ABLE TO EXERT CONTROL OVER A PEOPLE THAT CALL THEMSELVES FREE. THIS IS WHY WE ALLOW THE STEADY EROSION OF OUR FREEDOMS – THE DECEPTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOCIETY THAT HAS NEUTRAL LAWS THAT ARE APPLIED BY JUDGES! THIS IS A DEVIOUS, POWERFUL CONCEPT, AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
The power of this deception comes from it’s emotional appeal (the rule of law). It implies the absence of tyranny, that there is nothing arbitrary about it. “AMERICA IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAW AND NOT PEOPLE…” – SAYING THAT IT IS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, NOT SUBJECT TO HUMAN WHIM.
It is supposed to win the allegiance and affection of the people. Why, anyone would chose the rule of law over arbitrary rule, wouldn’t they? This is the danger of the deception, people who believe there are rules in this fashion ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE STATE AS IT TAKES AWAY THEIR FREEDOMS.
If there were a rule of law, first and foremost it would be the application of that law to EVERYONE. No one above that law – is that what you see going on? Is the rule of law the fruit of breaking every established law by the executive branch and the complicity of the rest? I mean, are we living on the same planet here or not? Now I am not saying there is no law, there is plenty of law for you and I, just none for a moneyed, propertied, and ruling elite.
Really people, there is NO SUCH THING as a government of law and not people – it is belief in this myth that supports the ruling elite which are the societies power structure, A TRULY FREE PEOPLE REQUIRES THAT WE THROW OUT THE DECEPTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. There is nothing impersonal about the disposition of people making law, it is meant to benefit them and not the people.
The concept of the rule of law operates in the same fashion as the divine right of kings. People used to control themselves when they believed that the decree of the king was ordained by god. In the same way people control themselves because they believe the law is neutral , sort of like a natural law, when it is not (two different and opposing rulings can come from the same case).
Just like the king was supposed to be part of god’s plan in the world and not an ordinary human being who used brute force, so the public bowed to his authority. However, when the doctrine of the divine right of kings was thrown out IT NEEDED A REPLACEMENT – TO SHIELD THOSE WHO EXERCISE PUBLIC POWER FROM THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE – THE RULE OF LAW.
The deception of the rule of law makes people submissive to State authority – it makes people accomplices in the exercise of power. People who would ordinarily think that the actions of this current administration are wrong, depriving people of their rights and oppressing them, respond with patriotic fervor when they think they are upholding the rule of law.
The reason why this deception of the rule of law has stood so long is that it is a valuable tool of the elite. The lie of an impersonal government is the most effective means of social control available to the powers that be.
The reason why some see the so-called rule of law disintegrating before their eyes is because there isn’t any! It has always been a tool of the elite, and now that is becoming apparent by this rogue administration, and the rest of the “powers” just meander along with it.
The rule of law is the means whereby a illegitimate and oppressive capitalistic system enslaves it’s own people, and spreads death and destruction around the world under the banner of “democracy.” The law will ALWAYS reflect the moral and political values of those who render political decision.
In regard to law and order –
We hear the phrase all the time “Law and Order,” but what does it mean? I submit that it is deceptively reversed, it should not be called law and order, but instead “Order and Law.” So even the appearance of the phrase, how the words are positioned, is meant to deceive.
The word “order” in the phrase has classically been present as “order as opposed to chaos,” that is, keeping things under control. However, this is not the true meaning of the word “order” in the phrase, “order” = the way society is structured. The word “law” is meant to mean some neutral standard or set of rules applied to all. However, even a cursory perusal of the law (see the previous post on the rule of law) means a legal system set up to the benefit of the few, which hide behind the phrase the “rule of law” in order to work their will with impunity.
This brings us to the specifics of how society is structured, that is how the United States has in the past and presently functions. We not only have a paternalistic order, but a hierarchical order, one that is separated by a moneyed and propertied class which uses the so-called law to preserve this present order. It is an order which uses all of societies instruments, both forensic and implied, by education which deeply influences definitions, giving it a color of authenticity – legitimacy.
As I have said in many other postings, one of the most pervasive legal instruments used to maintain the “order” is the corporation, which has been given person-hood (by stealing the use of the 14th Amendment, through the “law”). In fact, I think that most would agree that corporations have risen above the status of mere person-hood – they are super-persons.
They have been given power, opportunity, and the sovereignty that should only be the province of organic persons. In fact, organic people are on their way out, corporations are the new “we the people.”
Corporations are merely the housing and protection unit of the elite propertied and moneyed class, which has become the predominant means of employing the people so that we are mired in a conflict of interest, how can we fight that which has been made our master? It is so twisted that we endow a good portion of destructive corporations with the success which will ensure our own demise.
We are forced to participate in this corporate monstrosity, that legally preserves the present order, and we suffer from a lack of resources, which are equally withheld by embedded financial institutions in the service of this same elite order.
The law is merely the whore which is at the beck and call of the established elite order. This is why the enforcers of the law, police action, in any confrontation between people and the corporation is ALWAYS used to suppress the people. The present order could not exist without the jackbooted thugs (it has been that way even before police forces), and the sell-out of the legal structure. Essentially police and other various agencies are here to preserve the present “order,” and the legal system serves the present order from top to bottom.
The present order, and the law which preserves it , cannot co-exist with democracy – they are mutually exclusive. It is failure to understand this that causes untold frustration and grief for the people. You cannot merely ADJUST the present order, because the moneyed and propertied elite will never step down – it will only INCREASE and spread all over the world, as is presently taking place. The global agenda that is occurring now is nothing but the extension of this same order reproducing itself all over the world.
Yep. I am a licensed lawyer in two urbane states, and a former practicing lawyer in both civil and criminal law; as well, I worked in legal publishing, both supplementing legal books and writing new text.. . I know the theory of law and the actual practice of it too.
All situations contain conflicts with the romantic “power of the people” (which itself is a dynamic conflict).
“The law is merely the whore at the beck and call of the established elite order”.
Whores are pure souls and corrupted souls each at the same time. As are radicals.
And Palestinians, and Zionists.
Justice is a current effort, not a confident nap.
Well, actual whores have self-esteem problems, and prostitutes are just trying to
make a living, either literally, or to make the most money fast if they happen to be born sexually attractive, the latter , simply capitalist of their own physical body, or the pimps of same. Witty, your similie is ignorant. The similie of how the law is enacted and interpreted by power elites is accurate.
Does anyone know from where your current police departments originate (of course some know, most do not)? My recommendation is that you re-examine you institutions of power-force authority (so-called), it is the failure to understand your institutions and their origins that cause gross ignorance –
ORIGINS
I want you to remember this when you see who the authorities come to the rescue for when there are corporate employee disputes that turn into some form of union effort; also when you see who is incarcerated in this system which has a majority of people of color in the preison-industrial complex (also when you examine the imbalance of judgments in a racial sense) .
V, you do a good job of presenting many of the problems we have and face now. You fail to convince that the aftermath of your revolution would be better, or that it is possible to solve our problems through a revolution.
Socialists in the UK are engaged in directed action against specific issues – against the war in Afghanistan, against the BNP (a political party), in support of BDS, etc.
National unity in the US – of those, of whatever ideology, who agree that people are more important than monetary value – must be built through unification of diverse groups within a huge area of terrain. That’s a challenge not faced by the socialists of the UK.
It’s been a while since I first became aware of Israel’s activities, and began to question what was going on. Now it seems clear that others, perhaps including Richard Witty, are determined that their intentions will prevail. The response to Israel’s actions is not because of any one’s intention; it arose spontaneously within individuals of diverse interests, and of international locale.
The people who seem most ready to launch a revolution in the US appear to be those interests that back Israel. Big guns and small are directed back against the diverse opposition to Israel. Efforts such as yours to promote a revolution against “the elites”, apparently “from the left”, do not appear to be ready to launch, while they serve to splinter opposition to Israel and divert attention, rather than focusing attention on specific actions that can be taken without a revolution.
I would suggest that there is more purpose to effort directed toward important issues, rather than in an attempt to raise a revolution.
link to socialistunity.com