|American cranium and brain changes|
This series primarily deals with an increase in violence across the land as well as the source of that violence.
The killing of children and adults by a young gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary last week is yet another episode in the ongoing "American social evolution."
In this context by "evolution" I mean social change within the nation.
The type of social change where the characteristics traditionally attributed to Americans by the other nations, and even by our own citizens themselves, noticeably changes over time.
We are not talking about more roads, cars, planes, cell phones, computers, or things of that sort, no, we are talking about change of heart, change of mind, and change in civility of a sort that characterizes a nation.
One simple example might be a movie in this Christmas season that glorifies torture (Zero Dark Thirty) compared to a traditional American Christmas season movie (It's a Wonderful Life).
The national debate at the moment, by pundits and advocates alike, is divided into groups of those who think gun control will and will not solve the problem of the mass murder of innocents.
That focus is misplaced, because the problem is with the direction in which our nation has been going, from a kinder, gentler society into a bullying society where the stronger among us oppress the weaker among us.
This has spilled over into our foreign policy where a cascade of invasions and occupations of weaker nations has been ongoing.
Our national attitude is not looked upon with the favor that it once was in the world community, evidenced by a recent case handed down the day before the Sandy Hook massacre:
A European court issued a landmark ruling Thursday that condemned the CIA’s so-called extraordinary renditions programs and bolstered those who say they were illegally kidnapped and tortured as part of an overzealous war on terrorism.(“Heroine” Outed, see also this and this). Another court within the nation indicated "an overzealous war on terrorism" that has evolved in the wake of 9/11 to cloud our national mind as it were:
By proceeding on the terrorism theory, the People were able to introduce evidence about numerous alleged criminal acts committed by members of the SJB gang over the course of three years. Without the aura of terrorism looming over the case, the activities of defendant's associates in other contexts would have been largely, if not entirely, inadmissible. Based on the record, it is apparent that the volume of proof regarding unrelated assaults, murders and other offenses created a reasonable possibility that the jury's findings were prejudicially influenced. Hence, the spillover effect requires reversal and a new trial on the underlying offenses.(People v Morales). What one lawyer sees happening is an evolution in our social concept of justice:
What the court is admitting here is amazing. It is saying that when someone is accused of terrorism, the rules governing trials and law completely change. All sorts of things that the state is normally barred from doing on the grounds that it is unjust suddenly become permissible when someone faces terrorism charges. Indeed, so "prejudicial" are these special rules of "justice" for terrorism cases that anyone convicted under these rules is, by definition, treated unfairly if terrorism is inapplicable.(Glenn Greenwald). The truth is getting to be "extraordinary" as our society evolves from one personality into another.
But if these special rules for terrorism cases are prejudicial and unfair when applied to murder defenders, then they are unfair for everyone. It means these rules are inherently unfair. But that's what has happened in the post-9/11 era: a whole new system of "justice", with all new rules designed to ensure convictions and long prison terms, have been invented exclusively for those facing "terrorism" charges. And since the term "terrorism" has no discernible meaning other than "acts of violence committed by Arabs and/or Muslims against westerners", this illustrates why New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal was exactly right when, under the headline "Liberty and Justice for non-Muslims", he wrote:
[I]t's rarely acknowledged that the [9/11] attacks have also led to what's essentially a separate justice system for Muslims. In this system, the principle of due process is twisted and selectively applied, if it is applied at all."It's a separate system of justice so intrinsically unjust and unfair - designed to ensure that Muslims accused of "terrorism" have basically no chance of acquittal - that any trial that proceeds under its warped rules for non-terrorist defendants must be thrown out in its entirety, said the New York Court of Appeals. That's extraordinary.
Traditionally the U.S. was fair to other religions, even making that tradition the supreme law of the land by putting freedom of religion in the U.S. Constitution.
When a Muslim, following his election to the U.S. Congress, took the oath of office on a Koran, which was once owned by President Thomas Jefferson, it outraged some people who have evolved in a direction away from traditional values.
Regular readers know that Dredd Blog places blame on propagandists who have engineered this evolution from left to right.
The problem is more serious than you might think, because what is evolving is the physical brains of the populace, which cannot be remedied by mere elections or statutes.
The previous post in this series is here.