Trump Launches Campaign With Announcement He Will Expand The Death Penalty And Bring Back Firing Squads And The Guillotine-- Where Do We Think This Leads?
.jpeg)
Trump Launches Campaign With Announcement He Will Expand The Death Penalty And Bring Back Firing Squads And The Guillotine-- Where Do We Think This Leads?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/donald-trump-guillotines-firing-squads-executions
Intro--
Many people have repeated the long expressed popular belief that the two subjects one should avoid discussing in polite company are politics and religion. The thinking (or lack thereof) behind this oft-stated shiboleth is that these are personal beliefs of sovereign individuals, which no one but the holder of these beliefs has the moral right to question, challenge or refute, and to do so is a violation of privacy and personal freedoms. Therefore better to avoid both subjects in order to avoid conflicts or risk offending someone needlessly.
I must admit that I tried once about 50 years ago to not discuss politics or religion, and felt like I was channeling the character of J. Alfred Prufrock from T.S. Elliot's famous ballad by that name, the first stanza of which is here:
Let us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherized upon a table;
Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,
The muttering retreats
Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels
And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:
Streets that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question ...
Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”
Let us go and make our visit....
"A patient etherized upon a table".... a perfect metaphor for a life without intellectual challenges or controversy, which regards change and critical thinking as a corrupting poisonous substance introduced by a satanic dissembler, out to disrupt our safe hiding places in the timeless, changeless, vanilla boredom of conventional thinking. In fact, a life which is absent much of the joy of living, cognitively speaking. So, many years ago I gave up not talking about important things in order to do what I'm doing now, which is why I'm causing trouble by writing this. Maybe I have a syndrome which causes me to enjoy being offensive.
Many of you think that the issue of the death penalty is a social or legal issue which extends into politics, and therefore that conflicting views on the matter are normal and acceptable, that this is just "healthy debate." It is not healthy, rather is a marker, a symptom of endemic mass psychosis under conditions of social upheaval.
The death penalty is only tangentially social, legal and political, but in actuality is the product of religious insanity. It is historically expanded and used by theocratic autocracies, and imposed under the authority of a synthetic deity which flows from the psychopathology of a twisted immoral sadist who has assumed the "god-given" right to commit murder. Such individuals in history have used religion to dominate politics, to write laws which are self-serving, to control society, and rule through a reign of terror. Only ex post facto do they develop various sophisticated legal arguments and theories of "deterring crime and preserving order" ad hoc, belying an intent to codify their bloodthirsty personality disorders. But the bottom line is that those Trump followers who advocate for this are mostly religious nuts (or pander to them) and at best are soft on fascism.
Now, don't you wish you had laid that trip on your old Uncle Cletus at the last family Christmas dinner? Didn't think so.
Part 2-- Trump Only Following "Tradition"...That Of Empires
Trump says he is a "Patriot," which also happens to be the claim of the members of his violent mob which he called forth to storm the Capitol, who believed themselves justified in attempting to both hang Mike Pence, and to conduct a mock trial and summary execution of Nancy Pelosi on January 6th. Their crime? Counting Joe Biden's vote, an act of treason deserving of justice they said.
There has been lots of this in our history, with the Witch burnings in Europe and in the American colonies, the mass executions of Mexican indigenous peoples by the Spanish Inquisition, which as we know also executed Jews, Muslims and other "heretics" in Spain in vast numbers. When murdering Jews one at a time became too labor intensive, they just loaded them on boats and set them afire with great efficiency.
And lest we forget, the mass guillotining of all members of the "ancien regime" by the French Revolution's Jacobins, who made sure to arrest and execute everyone wearing eyeglasses, since they were educated, could read, and were therefore part of the oppressive aristocracy. All of these examples were technically "legal."
And of course we have more recently the examples of KKK lynchings as extra-judicial murders which had legal protection if not the force of law in the Jim Crow States, which were inspired by their Old Testament "fire and brimstone" ministers preaching the gospel of the Confederacy's Lost Cause, and white supremacy. "Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord, so get out there and string 'em up in my name, hallelujah."
And last but not least, today we see the shining examples of social stability in the "Kingdom" of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the Islamic Republic of Iran under so-called Sharia Law, whose concept of clinical psychology for treatment of neurosis is decapitation. "No head, no neurosis" they might argue. Isn't it odd how all of these freedom loving American patriots are so enamored of oppressive monarchs or autocrats such as Putin or MBS who rule as a despots in an oligarchical system? That would have been another good question for good old Uncle Cletus over Christmas, or a history teacher at a Christian school in Florida. Oh well, maybe next time.
Part 3-- MAGA "Patriots" Would Have Sided With King George III
How many of these so-called Trump/MAGA "patriots" are aware that capital punishment was a leading issue in the American Revolution against King George III and his Imperial system, and that they are on entirely the wrong side? Not many, and in fact likely zero.
Under the laws imposed by the famously insane George III, there were approximately 220 different categories of offenses which carried the death penalty.
According to an exhibit in the Museum of London--
["By the late 18th century the English legal system, often referred to as the ‘Bloody Code’, established over 220 crimes in Britain that could attract a death sentence, including cutting down a tree, stealing from a rabbit warren and being out at night with a blackened face. The purpose of such harsh punishments was often to protect the property of the wealthy (who also made the law) and the gruesome methods of execution, often carried out in public, were aimed to deter and terrorise the populace into obedience."]
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/long-fight-executions-and-death-penalty-reforms-england
The Crown made no distinction between adults and children. Kids as young as 6 years old were arrested and hanged for stealing food, or pickpocketing. Often they would remain alive hanging for long periods because they had so little body weight. Pickpockets were also frequently hung, by the way, all of which was done publicly for entertainment purposes, as well as terrorizing people. Ironically, the pickpockets still at large would work the crowds assembled to watch their fellow pickpockets hanged, and did quite a lucrative business until they were caught. So much for the theory that the Death Penalty deters crime.
When you look at the American Revolution's founding documents, why would anyone today think that the concept of "right to life" only applies to abortion, a virtually unknown and rarely attempted procedure in the 1780's? It was written in regard to the horrific injustices perpetrated by the British King through his large scale and arbitrary application of the death penalty as an instrument of tyranny, as well as the psychotic eruptions of violent mass hysteria in the mostly Puritan states of New England, a legacy of old Europe..
Our Constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process, and protections from various forms of "cruel and unusual punishment" were central to the outlook of those framers like Franklin and Hamilton who sought a clean break from the British Empire system, including its despotic legal code. Washington as commander of our Revolutionary Army had deserters and spies executed, and was therefore conflicted on the matter. However, the early influence of the anti-slavery Quakers was a mitigating influence at the time, and execution was relatively limited in much of the North.
So, those so-called "patriots" who defend the expansion of capital punishment, who stand with the murderous Putin-backed puppet Donald Trump, would have stood side by side with our nation's enemies 247 years ago, just as they do today on this and many other issues.
Part 4-- "Vengence Is For Everyone" Sayeth The Lord. Get In Line To Throw The First Stone--
One might also give some thought to the psychology of the mob, historically speaking, from the Roman Coliseum, to the 20th Century attendees at public executions in Kentucky which had the festive environment of county fairs, to the hundreds of cheering spectators who regularly show up at executions today with Champagne and party favors, waiting to watch the death row prison lights flick on and off to begin their celebrations.
But most thinking persons know exactly what this is. It is something which is a reflection of the shattered psyches of enraged, frightened and ignorant people, whose sense of self-worth is so degraded that they need a scapegoat to blame for their misery, and nothing feels better for such folks than the feeling of power and superiority they derive from the fantasy of pulling the lever or switch on these "criminals" themselves. (This was how the Roman Emperors controlled the mob of their day,, by taking in effect a poll, and counting the thumbs down, giving the populi the thrill of having power over life and death) Finally, they would have validation that there is some poor wretch lower than them in the social order. Or, as in most cases today it is just about getting revenge, satisfying the psychological need to inflict pain and suffering on another as if that will alleviate their loss. "An eye for an eye" they might say, grasping for a moral justification for taking a life, innocent or not.
There are a number of socially acceptable arguments one can bring out at Christmas dinner, like the statistics which prove that the death penalty doesn't actually deter crime, (true) and that many many people legally executed have had credible claims to innocence which were never heard because of lack of due process, or the resources to get their convictions appealed. (Also true) Additionally, there are countless stories of convicted killers who had extenuating circumstances, who also found redemption in prison by doing good works for others, who had they been executed would never have been given a chance. And finally, there is overwhelming proof that the death penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color or who are otherwise disadvantaged economically or marginalized socially. The white supremacist rejoinder to this fact is their claim that dysfunctional black families raise a higher percentage of criminals, a common "conservative" argument not surprisingly unsupported by facts.
These are each powerful and truthful arguments, which conventional thinking says it is acceptable to make. Unfortunately, as with most factual attempts to refute MAGA enthusiasts, it will bounce off of them like a Nerf ball. As we were taught when growing up to not discuss religion and politics, it's considered impolite to discuss the moral sickness of those people who demand executions. That could cause problems in the family, or at work, or God forbid at church. So, better to play it safe and keep all of this under wraps. Just stick to facts and statistics, and avoid anything subjective, right?
Part 5, Conclusion-- Trump's Campaign Playbook, Mein Kampf--
That is, until those occasions, under circumstances of extreme social convulsion due to wars, pandemics, and economic collapse, some wise guy populist or megalomaniac comes along to give the people the scapegoats that they demand, "those criminals." They'll run for office on a campaign promise to get rid of them. "Get out there and vote for me, vote for the death penalty, go in that booth and PULL THAT LEVER and we'll get rid of them together."
This has happened before, just in case some are unaware. In the 1920's there was a Party whose leader campaigned for "law and order." He promised to execute "The November Criminals" who betrayed his country by surrendering in "The Great War," and said that if he came to power, "heads will roll." He promised to restore order, and make his country great again. And his Party, which was a small minority at first that was ridiculed but also feared because of their street violence, campaigned for their elections by calling for the restoration of the death penalty, because it had been previously banned.
The country was Germany, and the Party were the Nazis. They used the single issue of restoring and expanding the death penalty to win votes from a beaten, hungry, war weary, angry and demoralized people, who themselves were looking for a scapegoat. And they were given theirs by none other than the leading death penalty advocate at the time, Adolf Hitler.
Here is the story, in an article written by me in 1989, now on my blog. It is a bit outdated, but for damned sure still relevant. Have at it. And feel free to break some rules about discussing religion and politics when you are finished.
https://therosenreport.blogspot.com/2020/07/how-nazis-campaigned-for-restoring.html
Addendum--
The above is the edited blog version of yesterday's Facebook piece on Trump and the death penalty, posted on "The Rosen Report" and now Twitter.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to share it, but aside from that I believe more is needed, and sooner. Most of us here have already accepted the idea that MAGA is a fascist movement, and can see the parallels based on our study of history and current events. Even Joe Biden has characterized it as "semi-fascist," a formulation which for some was exasperating, but was actually a step in the right direction.
But here is our problem. We are living a sort of contradiction, which is that we don't want to believe what we already know to be true. Some would call this "denial," but it is actually worse. It is a form of paralysis born of abject fear. It is the same metaphorically as a parent who enters a teenagers room and sees on the dresser a syringe, a spoon, and tubing, and simply turns around, shuts the door, and pretends they never saw it. Rather than face the pain, consequence and responsibility of addressing this, a part of the mind simply shuts down. And it is what we might describe as the essence of personal tragedy, the inability or refusal to respond to a crisis in real time.
Everyday, in a variety of ways we re-enact this type of paralysis in the political sphere when we simply stop reading the news on our devices to put on a mindless video or TV show as a diversion. We know something is true, but we don't want to believe it because that means absorbing the pain, facing the consequences and taking responsibility, not just for our loved ones but for millions of strangers whose faces are to us a blur. Unfortunately, too many of us wait for tragedy to strike personally to respond in real time. Only then do we hit the political call button for 911.
We want to believe we are doing what we can, doing our best, and are sincere in our beliefs. But the question I ask myself everyday is "is my best good enough?" After all, I'm here in Mexico, retired, not on the frontlines as I used to be, relegated to the role of "keyboard warrior."
So yes, we are fighting fascism, of the full-blown variety, with nothing "semi" about it. However, If we truly believed that as well as knowing it analytically, we would likely be doing something different. We would be mobilizing like someone with their hair on fire, as the expression goes, to build a real anti-fascist movement, not the one that shows up on their skateboards at public demos wearing bandanas who throw water balloons at Cops.
Are we really building an anti-fascist resistance on Facebook and Twitter? My wife Martha and I debate this question frequently, but for now it is the forum we have available to us given our circumstances.
So, I'm seriously asking if there is more we can do with Facebook to be more effective, and I am open to any and all proposals. But I think the first priority is taking the step into reality which comes with believing the things we wish were not true, but which our intellect is telling us are true. it is toward that end that the above article was written, to help those who are struggling with their own feelings of "disbelief" to overcome it. It is time to explore "the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns" talked about in Hamlet's most famous soliloquy:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
Now, of all times, let's not play Hamlet in real life, and instead let him be in the books and remain a stage character.
