Who Wants Stitches?

Who Wants Stitches?

Arthur puzzles me, but he does not baffle me. It is easy enough to see that HIS contradictions a-

rise more from an uneasy Conscience than from a pro-

found paradox; his own anti-

pathy towards contradiction, which he treats as though it were hypocrisy, should serve as evidence for his own.

Personally I do not care if he thinks that the exist-

ence of gangs is justified self-defense? I worry much more about the trail of brutal killing left by the MS-

Thirteen than by the Los Angeles Police. I would even authorize the police to use brutality in its attempts to eradicate that mob, if it actually had a plan for doing so. Yet the eradication of a gang would depend on more than the police and more than the government.

It is truly re-markable that a young man that supports a Law that essentially bans public photo-graphy, by legitimating Law-suits Be-

Tween Civilians, supports gang life as an anti-

hegemonic structure. This is typical of some one with a (literally) religious dis-

dain for existentialism:

No accountability what ever. By supporting the institution of the Law one implicitly legitimates the institution of the Police;

it does not MATTER if you can sue me if no one can arrest me if I refuse to show up in court. You would be reduced to theft, and in the absence of law enforcement, what difference would a law make then? You could and would steal from me any way. You would call it (anarcho-)capitalism!

The police exist for a reason. If one does not like corruption, the answer is simple: Do not pay them. The volunteers who would put their lives on the line are probably not going to abuse their power, and of the bunch of them the relatively pure of heart could easily weed the ass-holes out.

Of course, this would depend up on an other two things:

1.       Your police can survive without money.

2.       The ass-holes do not sue the police, or threaten to.

Now one sees why I could never be a capitalist.

One does wonder whether there is a sadistic impulse in the young adult male that LIKES The Thoughts of women being captured, raped by a number of men (

Particularly of other colour, just to complete the fantasy by legitimizing it as ‘ethnic justice’), and then murdered or, better yet, watching people she loves murdered. I wish that I might be able to pro-

cure a formal account of such an instance. But in a so-called ‘culture’(really a SUB – culture, in the same sense as we mean ‘sub-

human’) where in ‘snitches get stitches’, every one will know that this has happened but no one will have evidence. The very fact (if it can be called a fact)that the Police are ‘corrupt’ is the reason that what-

ever records we receive (or do not, but are still kept) would be sketchy (no pun intended in relation to suspect sketches). This point of course does not legitimize the claim that ‘the police [here or there] are corrupt’ as a Broad Generalisation.

That can not be objectively determined; the point merely indicates the stupidity of the reasoning that a corrupt law force justifies an even more morally corrupt gang sub-culture. The former becomes Charybdis and the latter becomes Scylla.

The gang operates perpendicularly to the law.

The stronger They are, the more corruption there is, because they live as much below the law as above it.

Simply by virtue of Power they clearly would have little interest in Actual Legal re-

form.

While police officers may all so be violent and at times un-

reason able and megalo-

maniacal, they are definitionally to be preferred because they are at least Bound To the Law. They are like Hagrid in Harry Potter, and not simply because of their brawn. Hagrid was ex-spelled in his third year at Hogwarts, re-

presentingthe importance of Compassion; he stops his spiritual progress at the third chakra, as it were, just to be a ‘grounds-keeper’(KEEPING the Spiritual Seeker of whose body and Soul each major character is an archetypal part GROUNDED.) and police officer stops her moral development at the fourth of Kohlberg’s Stages, at least legally. This may seem tautological: Beyond the fourth stage legality becomes muddled and secondary (‘above the law’).

Yet for some one who has committed and risked one’s Life for the Law, and who is held constantly accountability by both her peers AND her society, to enter into the post-modern ambiguity of post-conventional moral reasoning is too great a risk, sadly.

We get the war that we deserve. If an officer of the law is corrupt, society is responsible. But who is responsible if a gang member is corrupt. Can he call his self a ‘victim of society’?

How often does a police officer claim to be a ‘victim of society’? How often does that fly in court?

Simply by operating as a violent power-structure that is Perpendicular to the Law the gangster is all ways corrupt.

Kierkegaard explains the three stages of moral development as the aesthetic, the ethical, and the Religious. Aesthetic may be conceived of as analogous to pre-

conventional morality (either ‘beneath the law’, or abiding simply by virtue of self-preservation).

Ethical is conventional; he even employs a Judge as protagonist to under-

score this situation, if one might not use the word ‘predicament’)which would not give credit to the pro-

found sense of Responsibility adopted to get to here,) But when the conventional morals of Society (the Mass) to[sic. I mean ‘do’] not add up, some times the Judge has to go Rogue. We see this romanticized in film all the time.

The Chief of Police dis-

Possesses the hero cop of his badge, but the hero goes and finds the murdering scum-bag any way. This is what is called a Teleological Suspension of the Ethical: He has entered in to the Religious Stage. THIS is post-conventional reasoning. THIS is living Above the Law.

How does one live above the law if one all ways lived beside ( or perpendicular to) it? Kierkegaard warns us that the people who think that one can attain the Religious Stage by BY-PASSING the ethical stage will only remain upon the aesthetic stage, deluded. Must I ‘warrant’ this? I suppose it seems appropriate. Theologically, to have Love for God or for some Higher Cause one must Love Man first; the authority here is Scripture. But in our secular issue here the argument is simply sociological.

One who lives perpendicularly to the Law has a vendetta against it that must be prioritized over one’s fellows even (when the Law itself operates in the best interest OF those fellows, and justly). This is why gangs say ‘Snitches get stitches’.

Not only do they refuse to negotiate a Better law, taking responsibility for the society they blame.

The authority of the police is totally off-bounds, and this dogma becomes Absolute.

One cannot be a post-

conventional reasoner, sensitive to the subtleties of every unique situation, if one is an Absolutist.

By saying ‘snitches get stitches’ we say that transparency, societal accountability, and free-

dom do not matter. We say it is morally permissible for innocent victims to suffer violence based on what is deemed to be their colour or gender in the hands of a power structure that will prioritise its vendetta against the Law over any situation where-in the Law can be used to human(e) purposes. We justify this by the invisible hand of racism, so I might as well call these hands ‘black hands’ and that would be morally consistent, right? Obviously not, but the moment one claims to be more justified in essentially Absurd rhetoric than an other we have a situation of intellectual hypocrisy and not civility.

We get the war that we deserve. By legitimizing gangs we actually implicitly (and practically) legitimate brutality in the police force, evil in the work-place, and cruelty in economic (and) military relations.

Have you noticed? It is easier to hold a trial for a police officer than for a gangster?

Why is that?

Well, I do not know. Go catch a gangster WITHOUT A POLICE OFFICER’S HELP. Then tell me.

It worries me that our cultures [sic] glorifies gangsters. Yes, Ford Coppolla was a brilliant director, and Tupac had some good poetry, but really, kids? Really?

What worries me is not so much even how the power structures of gangs in this country operate with even less transparency than the Federal Government, all the while waving their flag of intransparency –

‘snitches get stitches’ –

in our face. Guess what?

Guess who else get stitches?

Women who are victims of gang-rape. Innocent by-

standers. The MS-

Thirteen has murder as a rite of passage.

Why, even their own kind!

But that does not worry me so much. What worries me is this idle question, if you will humour me:

What happens when the Federal Government and the Gangs of America GET TO GETHER?

It is apparent that Arming the police with Military Equipment was not enough. The media engine had to put their toy in to action in Ferguson and Baltimore. Now the Police have been Otherised, so we FEAR THEM MORE because we do not Trust them. And they are more prone thus to corruption simply by virtue of dis-confirmation. To simplify a bit: The corrupt ones stay corrupt. The innocent ones that risk their tails to save Your hide…

well. Now they get a little shaky every time they hear the word ‘pigs’.

In case you were wondering how this corruption thing works, in many cases.

So now the police are the ‘bad guys’ and the gangsters go good.

Brilliant. The Government has all ready Militarised the Police Force. Why not Ally with the Gangs? It is so easy. The gangs are social deviants. They only respond to money, territory, drugs, and power. Even the ‘noble ideals’ they espouse of what ever skewed conception of Justice they have is secondary to their vendetta against the Law. So bribe them.

Offer them territory.

Arm them. Drug them.

Give them power. They do not care. They have all ready accepted sub-

humanity, blaming ‘racism’ for putting them there.

Now you have a pack of wild animals to do your bidding.

And of course, since you control the captors of those animals, the Police, who answet to your Law, both parties sheperded [sic] by the money from YOUR Federal Reserve like so many of Pavlov’s Dogs, you can continue to stage this war betwixt both parties so that you can mae use of both hands so long as they periodically crack each others’ knuckles.

Why, you could even broad-

Cast it using YOUR media!

I thought of a title for this on-going show: Bi-partisan By-stander Bi-Standards.

Get my drift?

I wonder if we can get the kids to side with us on this one, Mister President.

dm.A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WlorPypVj4