911 and 77 (21)
We have all heard this one, haven't we, and it should be plain and simple, should be but is it. On the face of it this is plain and simple, but just maybe too simple or incomplete. The problem with incomplete rules and this one seems incomplete to me, is that those who want to break them will conjure up a twist to make it seem as though their interpretation is valid when in fact it is actually invalid and in opposition to it. Allow me to elaborate.
For justice to be done it must be open so that it can easily be seen to be done, and more, it must be open so that it can be seen that any injustice, deliberate or inadvertant, can also be seen to be what it is, but we have people in power now, as always is the trend, that have managed to pervert this ideal in order to circumvent such intention so that being able to victimise someone, by inflicting a deliberate injustice, can always be perpetrated even if that person is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and even if those who wish to perpetrate such a crime know it full well.
So just how do they do it?
The phrase or saying:
"Justice must be seen to be done"
seems not to have any qualifiers, but even if they exist are not referred to, so the phrase can be given a twisted-mind corollary that runs like this:
"Injustice must always be kept hidden from view."
The second injuction can be seen as a natural corollary of the first injuction. Indeed, it could be asserted in that same twisted mind-set atmosphere or culture, you cannot abide by the first if you do not enforce the second. How, after all, can you possibly ensure that only justice is seen to be done unless you categorically ensure that all injustices are kept hidden?
Now, I know you will explain to me somewhat insistently, as if I don't already realize it already, that the intention of the first injuction MUST necessitate the bringing out into the open any and all such injustices and putting them right thus ensuring that justice prevails, and is seen to prevail, ultimately. But this is just an agreed idea that stands in opposion - if indeed it were to ever dare to stand up at all - to that more aggressive and insane idea that, on the contrary, to ensure that only justice is seen to be done is a clear, if not explicit, instruction that all injustices must be concealed - after all does anyone really expect that there will never be injustices? The mere fact that there are always going to be injustices - name a year when some haven't been exposed at a much later date - means that if you were to expose them then that would mean that the injustices would be seen to be done which is the opposite of the primary injunction. Thus they should never be exposed.
Bear in mind when I argue this insane case that the truth about the JFK murder is kept secret as if the second injunction were far more important than the first or that it was absolutely necessary to ensure the first. Either way the secrecy wins out, the injustice is kept hidden - by rights, by laid down priniciples, not directly stated as such but indirectly enough to be taken as rock solid.
Those who maintain the secrecy of state crimes such as JFK do so in a very twisted sense and culture of right and wrong. Whether this example is part of that I have no idea but I do not believe that decades of state crime, Inside Jobs like JFK and 9/11, have to have some twisted philosophy to back up and justify the policy.
You may well say that this is insane, twisted thinking, I agree but as long as a legal expert could manage to wrestle it before a judge then it is useful piece of insanity and, more important perhaps, if a group of people can be led to believe that it is just as valid as the more accepted version albeit that it is never uttered necessarily but is a tacit principle, then that is enough to conceal injustice which is a widespread and ever persistent problem that is embraced by those who well know the first statement, it's meaning and importance yet subborn it to that imaginary corollary. But even here I am giving a benefit of doubt to the proposer of the second injunction, that he knows that he is wrong but does it anyway and, frankly, I think that may be an early stage of acceptance but that it soon goes beyond that so that a self-blinding effect takes place.
Of course you will say I am wrong. In that case why do so many people in the legal profession and the justice system, certainly in the US and, I know from personal experience in the UK too, behave in such a way that effectively rubbishes the ideal of the primary rule whilst at the same time upholding the secondary one?
They convince themselves that as long as they do their own job within a boundary that doesn't encroach on anyone else's boundary then they are behaving properly. But the reality is that unless we all watch over neighbouring boundaries - not necessarily trespassing - then the second, unwritten, unspoken rule might just as well be the one that has the headline as it is the one that frequently gets the priority by such people.
When opinion, such as this one, differs so that there are two opposing views, as in this case, then the one that wins the day depends on the culture of the day. The new culture, already upon us, seems to me to be an insipid form of nazism. No stomping goose march, no swastikas, and the concentration camps not yet opened for business (although showing signs of imminent occupation). But the mentality is in place very firmly and the lack of opposition to it is also established too.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
3 May 2007
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
