Tamir Rice Confirms the US Police State

29 Dec 2015

Almost everyone has heard about this case, although the final judgement regarding Tamir Rice was slipped into the week between Christmas and New Years; and in my opinion, not accidentally.

For years I have written about the slow transformation of America into a police state. While the transformation is probably the inevitable outcome of a failure of democracy, the inevitability was accelerated after Sept. 11, 2001. The case of Tamir Rice reveals the full extent of the transformation and shows how far we have traveled down this deeply disturbing road.

As noted in the hour long dramatic presentation by Cleveland prosecutors, the Grand Jury failed to indict either office involved in the fatal shooting. You can find a detailed description at this site.

The Grand Jury process involved a city or county prosecutor leading an inquiry into whether there is enough evidence to justify charging a person with a particular crime. There is no defense portion to this process. The person "of interest" is not allowed to present any evidence on their behalf. In that sense, a Grand Jury is a bit of a witch hunt in which a prosecutor can introduce any evidence and withhold any evidence they choose. In fact it is so easy to get an indictment from a Grand Jury, it gave rise to one of those humorous, if sad, sayings that "a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich." This hints at the rather unhealthy relationship that exists between prosecutors and a Grand Juries. Through winks and nods prosecutors gets indictments they want and fail to get the ones they don't want. This helps ensure that their win/loss record remains politically acceptable.

In the case of Tamir Rice, the two officers were the ones being considered by the Grand Jury for charges associated with the child's death. If ever there appeared to be a "ham sandwich" just waiting to be indicted it would have been these two officers. The video shown to the public, was more than damning enough to get an indictment. You have two officers racing into the scene, not unlike Starsky and Hutch, almost hitting Tamir with their patrol car. Two seconds later, Tamir was dead. That was the one and only item that needed to be shown to the Grand Jury. With a wink or a nod, an indictment would have been handed down. The Grand Jury would have done what Grand Juries do, they would have indicted the two officers.

Keep in mind that an indictment is not a finding of guilt. It simply says that there is evidence for the matter to go to trail where both the prosecutor and the defense can be heard and a jury then makes the final determination. More or less, what we think of when someone says the name Perry Mason.

Oddly, or perhaps not, in this case, as presented at a press conference by the prosecution on Dec. 28, 2015, the prosecutors office produced an exhaustive hour long defense of the two officers. In fact, if they had not stated that they were the prosecutors, a casual witness would have been justified in assuming that they were the defense attorneys hired by the two officers.

No stone was left unturned in finding and presenting evidence to exonerate the officers. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm saying that this is something that is very, rarely done and only seems to be done with the police are accused of crimes. The final result was a Grand Jury trail that would never be afforded to average citizens. It was a special Grand Jury process that was turned on its head to avoid a trail in the criminal courts, while at the same time offering only uncontested evidence to explain the lack of an indictment. In this case the prosecutor went beyond what was considered the Grand Jury farce in Ferguson, where the prosecutor announced that he had simply presented all evidence to the Grand Jury, instead of just the evidence against Officer Wilson. In Cleveland, the prosecution acted as the defense and presented only exonerating evidence. It appears that every piece of evidence offered to the Grand Jury was accompanied by a lengthy explanation as to way it supported the innocence of the officers.

The Cleveland Grand Jury was a kangaroo court, or more precisely a kangaroo Grand Jury. It is an essential step in the progression towards a police state. The police must have immunity from the law. Without immunity, there can be no guarantee that the police will be willing to enforce the increasingly draconian rules that govern society.

The first and greatest hurdle to a police state has been successfully overcome. The police, the courts and the prisons have become a single entity (the police/judicial/prison-industrial complex) and oversight by citizens is effectively gone. The police can now act without constraints and with almost complete impunity, because the systems intended to limit police abuses have been removed.

It may already be too late, but Law and Order, does not mean what you think it does.

Kim Davis -- We Reap what you Sow

Consider this: Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia.

Now suppose she had been put in jail for saying that she believed that all "men" were created equal and she defied the court and continued to issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples because that was what god wanted. Would we still cheer when they put her in jail? 

Issues of conscience are not as simple as the media would have you believe. Life just isn't that simple. It took the SUPREME COURT 81 years before they decided that interracial marriage was legal. That is, generations of the "best" legal minds agreed that it wasn't. In all fairness, we are entitled to ask, where they really our "best " legal minds? I think not, they were ordinary at best.

Also consider how long it took for this current court to say that gay marriage is legal. For all but the last 3 months of Kim's life, the Supreme Court had stood totally silent on gay marriage. President Obama, her choice for president, spent most of his presidency with his finger in the wind, staying noncommittal to the very end. Since the founding of America, the country itself has stood in outright opposition to gay marriage. Even after the court decision, doubts remained, because the court did not vote 9-0, or 8-1, instead it voted 5-4, once again indicating that our "best" legal minds maybe not be all that great after all. From Kim's perspective, 4 of the 9 unelected justices agreed with her.

The American collective I mentioned above includes not only millions of citizens, it also includes Presidents, Senators, Governors, House Members, etc. The American collective took hundreds of years to accept gay marriage, so, am I going to get my knickers in a twist because this not so bright member of our society needs a little bit longer? -- No. Can America hold it's head high by putting her in prison. Again, no. If anything, it's a sign of how far we still have to go. America claims that due process is the legal alter on which we worship, but there is no due process when being held in contempt of court. There is no process to question if the court has acted legally. She is in jail without ever having been charged or convicted of a crime. She is in jail because a judge said "do as I command or go to jail." To my ear, that's got a slightly fascist ring to it.

There is a reason we say you can't teach an old dog new tricks. America is socially backwards, and always has been, and likely will be for the foreseeable future. This years crop of Republican candidates is a pretty good indication that the future is not particularly bright. As long as we continue to plant carrots America is going to get carrots. Kim Davis is the fruit of America's carefully nurtured backwardness. It's a little too late to demand that she be an apple.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwVg3eViGWc

Baltimore Riots: Backlash to White Manifest Destiny?

Manifest Destiny and Modern White Supremacy

In his video (taking points, see link below) O'Reilly is espousing a type of manifest destiny for whites. It is a similar version of  manifest destiny that was applied to Native Americans. He seems to believe that whites have a god-given destiny that is different from the destiny of Blacks. He also seems to believe that (1) whites have superior virtues that are not shared by blacks, (2) that whites must continue to remake America in an effort to achieve the white American dream (destiny), and  (3) that this destiny is in many ways irresistible and must be accomplished as part of god's grand design for whites in America.

In other words, O'Reilly appears to have come out as a white supremacist, which goes far beyond the racism, of which he is frequently accused. As you may recall, manifest destiny was the foot in the door for the first American genocide, what O'Reilly appears to endorse is the foot in the door for  justification of the next American genocide.

The current GOP represents the dark, disgusting political and social forces needed for such a second genocide. I don't think it is to much of a stretch to say that these forces have been seen before, both in prewar Germany and in the apartheid movements of South African and today in Israel. In that sense O'Reilly is simply hooking his horse to a wagon that has a long history and is already rolling. While it appears that he is coming out of the closet as a white supremacist, I suspect that it is more that we are now starting to see the forest behind the trees.


http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/04/29/bill-oreilly-who-is-big-loser-in-baltimore-riots/


Keywords: O'Reilly, racism, white supremacy, supremacist, apartheid, genocide

Freedom From Religion; Freedom from Delusion

God's law vs. Democratic law

There is an old saying that "just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that people aren't out to get you." What if it turned out that biological evolution selected for a type of delusional thinking? A type of delusional thinking that was initially adaptive and brought about significant technological innovation and advancement. What would then happen if technological and intellectual evolution started taking place faster than natural selection could remove the increasingly maladaptive delusional thinking? In my opinion, it would result in the world you see around you today. A world in which we build particle accelerators to look at the beginnings of the universe 13 billion years ago while claiming that the universe is only 5000 years old.

We live in two worlds!

In one world we use our brains to push the limits of science, medicine and technology to create better conditions for humanity. In the other world we used the latest advances in technology to broadcast the murder of students trying to get an education, or people who believe in the "wrong" god.

At the moment humans are dividing along a profoundly disturbing continuum. At one end are those who seem to be largely free of the delusional thinking that was common and adaptive during our early evolution. At the other end are those who remain extremely susceptible to the early, though no longer particularly adaptive, delusional thinking of our earliest ancestors. In between are those who are not ruled, but also not entirely free of prehistoric delusional thinking patterns.

Delusional thinking manifesting as religion.

Of the 7 billion people on the planet, it is safe to say that of the adult population, over 85% still manifest the delusional thinking typical of our early human ancestors. Today, that delusional thinking can be called religious thinking. In its early forms it was pagan or polydiest thinking. In its more modern forms it is monotheistic, but with different gods for different people.

Religious thinking is delusional, almost by definition.

“A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior."

This definition, offered by the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM IV, conveniently excludes religious thinking as delusional (the green text), but that's to be expected since there is a very high probably that it was written by people who where directly or indirectly influenced by religion. I think this dates back to the idea that those who live in a glass house shouldn't throw stones.

Religious Thinking is Anti-Democratic

The modern idea of democracy is built on the idea that laws created by the rational mind of man are superior to god given laws. There superiority is axiomatic, since god is a delusion. Therefore, those who seek to govern America using god given laws are anti-democratic. The purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution was to prevent the imposition of religious laws over rational law. It is a clear statement that claims that in America, rational law supersedes god's law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religious thinking is a delusional state of mind, which I fully accept exists on a continuum. A continuum that ranges from the innocuous to the dangerous. At this time I am not concerned with explaining the mechanism, for the mechanism is extremely complex. However, I am concerned with its functional impact on society and democracy.

The Dangerous

My concern lies with the dangerous end of the spectrum. In a secular democracy, the rule of rational law is intended to supersede all irrational laws, i.e., god given laws. Currently, in America there are a large number of organized groups and a disturbingly large number of individuals who believe that the rational laws, freedoms and liberties set forth by the United States Constitution are secondary to the laws handed down via their particular god. In an effort to circumvent the secular nature of the US Constitution, in particular the part of the constitution intended to protect US citizens from the imposition of religious laws on their daily lives, these groups and individuals advocate using their numerical majority to take political control at the local, state and federal level, with the goal of undermining, the secular freedoms and protections established by the Constitution of the United States.

In an assault that requires almost daily documentation, state legislatures and the US Congress have begun to systemically roll-back protections from religion and replaces them with overt restrictions, stemming from biblical law, on personal freedoms and liberties. Religious laws, are in many cases, directly opposed to the values of a free society and the principles of democracy. To put a slightly finer point on it, imposition of religious laws is anti-democratic and contrary to the natural evolution of free, fair and just societies. One need look no further than any society, historical or otherwise, based on a theocracy to see the failures of enforced delusions.

Those on the dangerous end of the spectrum now openly advocate repellent views on important domestic and national policies. They are, not only supporting, but leading the way to the reemergence of homophobia (Indiana Religious Freedom Act), racism (New Jim Crow Laws), anti-intellectualism (Climate change deniers), misogyny (anti-abortion movements), narcissism (God favors the rich), and nationalism (God is an American) in America.

Conclusion

The currently accepted idea of religious tolerance must be reexamined. Instead we must consider it as delusional tolerance. Those who are most seriously affected by delusional religious thinking must be recognized for what they are, evolutionary throwbacks with a dangerous vestigial form of delusional thinking. Simply because they represent a sizable number of people doesn't mean we should accept their condition and let it ruin the future of America or the future of our species.

Most religious people are only slightly or mildly affected and have high level functionality. It doesn't mean we, as a society, shouldn't try to help them, but they are not the real and present danger.

The real threat comes from those who have other personality disorders that are compounded by archaic delusional thinking at the extreme end of the continuun. Those with natural sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies, when also burdened by deeply delusional thinking, represent a significant threat to the future of a secular, free America. Especially when there seems to be a natural tendency for those with these very specific personality disorders to be attracted to politics and positions of power.

If you look at the current contenders for the GOP nomination for president you should be both amazed and shocked. They, without exception, are opposed to the founding principles of a secular nation that is free from the imposition of a national religion or religious view point. They also fully embrace and support the reemergence of those most horrific anti-democratic values mentioned above.



I fear that America is losing the battle to remain free. When the Pence's, Huckabee's, Perry's, Cruz's, Robertson's, and Bush's of the world openly threaten to take away the democratic principles of freedom and liberty on which America was built, we had best take them at their word and believe that they will try. It's time we start to question the mental stability and soundness of those who would place the rational law found in the Constitution of the United States of America second to the non-existent laws of a god that arose as a delusional by-product in our pre-human ancestors.

Interesting YouTube videos addressing the delusion of religion.

• Discrimination
• First Amendment
• Homophobia
• Racism
• Racism
• Ban on rational thinking
• God's law over US law

Marty Stout and Glenn Ford

30 Years on Death Row

On March 30, 2015 The Times published an apology from the lead prosecutor in the 1984 Glenn Ford murder trail. As you may know, evidence was eventually produced that proved the Mr. Ford was innocent and he was released from prison on March 11, 2014. Glenn Ford had spent 30 years in prison for something he did not do. Probably because he was poor, Black and left handed. As of this writing, the state of Louisiana was fighting to avoid paying Mr. Ford any type of compensation. However, that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

This essay is not about the death penalty. Those who favor it represent the worst our species has to offer and I wouldn't waste one second of my time trying to convince them of their breathtaking stupidity. Instead this essay addresses two other issues. The first is the Louisiana prison system, and the second is the apology itself.

Louisiana Tortures Prisoners

This text is taken directly from Mr. Stout's letter.

Mr. Ford spent 30 years of his life in a small, dingy cell. His surroundings were dire. Lighting was poor, heating and cooling were almost non-existent, food bordered on the uneatable. Nobody wanted to be accused of "coddling" a death row inmate.

The idea that an influential member of the Louisiana justice system can casually acknowledge that humans were, and probably still are knowingly and routinely kept in conditions unsuitable for animals fills me with almost uncontrollable rage and disgust. The fact that I firmly believe that Louisiana is not an exception, only makes things worse. Mr. Ford was caged like an animal 20 years before Guantanamo was a sparkle in Dick Cheney's eye. Guantanamo did not appear as an abominable anomaly, it was born out of the depravity and sadism of the American Justice System. A system of such malice and cruelty that it is now the subject of Human Rights organizations.

In its World Report 2014, HRW singled out the U.S. criminal justice system as a major source of human rights violations, thanks to systemic problems that range from severe sentencing requirements to the misuse of solitary confinement. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. While the overall U.S. population has decreased over the past four years, some 1.6 million people were incarcerated in federal and state prisons at the end of 2012. An additional 700,000 were held in local jails.

I will not attempt to deal with the racism that is deeply entrenched or the prison for profit system that turns humans into slaves. These will be topics for other days, since there is little risk that they will disappear soon.

What Mr. Stout's letter tells us is that the United States of America is now part of the problem and  not even remotely part of the solution. Like so many other deeply flawed and repulsive governments that we commonly berate for being backward, America has a Criminal Injustice System and it seems very, very proud of it.

A Self-serving Apology

Mr. Stout appears to throw himself on the sword of public opinion. A sword known for its dullness and malleability. He describes himself and his role in the conviction of Mr. Ford as follows:

In 1984, I was 33 years old. I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning. To borrow a phrase from Al Pacino in the movie "And Justice for All," "Winning became everything."

After the death verdict in the Ford trial, I went out with others and celebrated with a few rounds of drinks. That's sick. I had been entrusted with the duty to seek the death of a fellow human being, a very solemn task that certainly did not warrant any "celebration."
In my rebuttal argument during the penalty phase of the trial, I mocked Mr. Ford, stating that this man wanted to stay alive so he could be given the opportunity to prove his innocence. I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict.

I have to say that I find Mr. Stout's 30 previous years of silence to be both odd and telling. For me there is little doubt that his apology is conveniently timed to get ahead of what will likely be a shit-storm of publicly, especially in light of the recent Texas case in which evidence withheld by a prosecutor likely resulted in the execution of an innocent man; not that Rick Perry would lose any sleep over such a barbaric act.

I don't believe that a self-confessed narcissist changes. Narcissism is life style as well as a psychological state of mind. Narcissist don't stop being narcissist any more than psychopaths stop being psychopaths. Maybe he has been actively involved in trying to get Mr. Ford released, however, such activity was conspicuously absent from his letter of Apology, which is way I think the apology is insincere, at best.

I think Mr. Stout knows that America loves it when someone apologizes. Americans love to forgive. It is perhaps one of the country's most noble characteristics. However, in this case, I suspect that Mr. Stout, as a good narcissist, has calculated the benefits and risks of an apology and found that a heart-felt apology would very much be in his own best interest.

I too like to forgive, and would love to have to change the ending of this essay. If you know of a kinder, gentler side of Mr. Stout, a side that suggests his soul is and has been as tortured as Mr. Ford was for the past 30 years, then send me the information and I will gladly rewrite the ending.

For those of you interested, The Young Turks did a nice video on this subject. It's worth watching. Their conclusions were much less cynical than mine.

Post Script

Above I mentioned that the state of Louisiana was fighting against providing any type of compensation to Ford. Despite the fact the Stout, the subject of this essay, came out strongly in favor of some type of restitution. The battle is now over and the state has successfully avoided having to pay any amount of compensation.  Mr. Ford has late stage lung cancer and is likely to die soon. I think it can be argued that had Ford been free for those 30 years, the diagnosis of cancer would have occurred earlier and it is reasonable to assume that his life might have gone on longer than it will. In essence Louisiana did successfully execute Mr. Ford. They just took 30 years to do it.

The judge in the case used Pre-Crime to say that the court thought Ford was somehow linked to the crime despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion. To the very end, the criminal justice system of Louisiana his going to stand tall with its boot on the neck of Mr. Ford, and they intend to keep it there until he draws his last breath. How proud they must be.

Are Fraternities Seperatist Organizations?

The video that showed Oklahoma frat boys singing openly racists songs fed into the national conversation on racism that has risen to its highest volume in years. Because it appears to be an isolated issue, its broader implication can be easily overlooked, just like it has been overlooked for the last 150 years. The fraternity system dates back to first universities in America; however, I'm in to position to speak about fraternal ethics in those early organizations.

Most Americans probably use images of Animal House as their intellectual guide to modern fraternities. In some ways, those memories from the film represent the best of what a fraternity can be. In reality, however, fraternities are much darker, sinister places.

The idea behind most fraternities is that by joining the fraternity you become part of a group that is better than those who do not belong to the fraternity. This group will then provide you with a life long advantage for your career and a multitude of social opportunities. However, for it to work it cannot be open to all. This off course is the basis for the selection process. A process that was nicely depicted in the film Network, as well as a number of other classic films. After selection, there is the initiation process. Finally there is the degradation of the hazing process. A process that is universally sexual, often perverted and always humiliating for those being hazed, while empowering for those doing the hazing. I find it strange that the torture pictures from Abu Ghraib resemble fairly standard fraternity hazing.

The philosophies of the fraternity are steeped in secretive ritual behaviors, many of which have quasi-religious or quasi-satanic elements. This is where I see the strongest connection with America's most infamous fraternal organization, the KKK. In cases where there are great similarities, I think it is safe to say the messages of elitism and the propagation of a separatist "us vs. them" mentally are also similar.

Separatism

Separatism is nothing more than a tool that can be used to shape a bigot or a racist. It is a blunt instrument and the resulting human is both crude and ugly. However, we tolerate separatist because we fail to see the product. However, I ask you to look at the pictures I've include. The ritual dehumanizing behaviors that join separatists into a fraternity are the same dehumanizing behaviors that can be directed towards those that are deemed "other." The only question is: Who is the "other" today?

I will also note that those within fraternities, are in my experience, better sheep than sheep dogs. It only takes one or two to start up a rousing chorus of "Let's Lynch Some Niggers" to get a whole bus full of, perhaps otherwise normal, people to join in the sing along. People who join fraternities are very often weak minded and desperate to be a part of something. If that something is wildly racist, well, too bad.

What About Sororities?

Are sororities also guilty of promoting separatism and racism? Yes, although, usually not in such overt ways as fraternities.

Does my critique apply to everyone who has ever joined a Greek organization? No, of course not; however, I think that has more to do with the quality of the individual's character than an the absence of separatist and racists ideologies in your run of the mill Frat or Sorority house.

When world leaders turn out to be psychopaths or sociopaths.

For your consideration, I offer Netanyahu.

Sometimes the best place to start an essay is with the relevant definitions.

• Psychopath: A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior, reduced empathy, and reduced inhibition.
• Sociopath: A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviors.
• Borderline personality disorder: A serious mental illness marked by unstable moods, behaviors and relationships.
• Narcissism: Excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s appearance, extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talent and a craving for admiration.

World leaders are no more immune from these conditions than anyone else. It can be argued that the nature of politics attracts those with at least mild manifestations of one or more of these personality disorders. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that if one is afflicted with one or more of these personality disorders, but to a moderate or severe degree, politics offers the perfect hiding place, assuming one has the wherewithal to fit it. Some have this ability, for example George Bush and Dick Cheney; while others do not, Muammar Gaddafi. 

Variation of these personality disorders have turned up repeatedly throughout history. We’ve seen them in world, regional, national and local leaders and policy makers. In most cases, the resulting mixture of authority, power and misguided mind produce devastating social effects. Charles Taylor, Ho Chi Minh, Benito Mussolini, Ante Pavelic, Yahya Khan, Idi Amin, Josip Tito, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Sung, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, and Mao Ze Dong; these names are deeply etched into history and are powerful examples of the human cost of dysfunctional minds completely out of control.

Consider the example of Saddam Hussein. For a period of time he had mastered his disguise to the point that he could blend in among other national leaders. He was a US alley for many years, and his unstable side was able to hide in plain sight. He was able to hide to the point that the US supplied him with considerable support and weapons. Later, these same weapons would be turned on the citizens of Iraq in one of his many psychotic outburst that lead directly to the deaths of 10s of thousands of people.

Netanyahu’s speech to the US congress on the 3^rd of March, 2015, as well as his earlier speeches at the UN in 2012 and to the US congress in 2003, as well as an amazing assortment of TV interviews make it very clear that, while not currently suitable for the list of names above, Netanyahu is nonetheless afflicted with a potent mixture of the personality disorders previously described. A mixture, which if unchecked, as with Saddam Hussein, could lead to a catastrophe. For the moment, it appears that he is functional enough to hide within the heard of those only mildly affected. His function side was revealed as he received 50 ovations in his recent speech to the US Congress. Although his ability to hide depends in large measure, on a willingness to look the other way and ignore his glaring personality defects. 

It is also worth noting that while Hussein did not have access to weapons of mass destruction, Netanyahu does.

While you might think the Netanyahu is the subject of this essay, it turns out he is not. The subject of the essay is the US Congress; and the question I seek to answer is, “why were the stewards of Capital Hill jumping up and down, like puppets on strings, applauding everything Netanyahu?” Please excuse my vulgar side note, but Netanyahu could have tipped himself slightly to the right and farted and gotten a rousing standing ovation, which would have made 51 ovations in all.

One possible explanation is that the collective political elite of Washington do not believe as I do when it comes to the shaky ground of Netanyahu’s mental status. I am willing to concede that this is probably true for at least a few. There are those who buy into Netanyahu’s narrative of the Middle East, however, I don’t think it represents more than a small fraction of those that attended his speech. Of the 500 plus that filled the chamber, I am convinced the vast majority did not, for one second, fail to recognize that the venom and hate they were applauding was coming from the mind of a borderline psychotic. So why did they applaud – again, and again and again?

They were encouraging and empowering Netanyahu because they too are afflicted. They were there offering their support because their careers, their prestige, their power, and their futures were tied to the money that Netanyahu represented. They were there because they are narcissists. Instead of turning their back on this increasingly dysfunctional world leader, they stood and applauded as he spelled out his plan to keep the Middle East and America in a state of war for the foreseeable future. The number of potential deaths and the degree of human suffering never came up, because, as a psychotic and sociopath those things are not important and therefore, are rarely mentioned, unless it is politically expedient.

I contend, that what we saw, which include democrats and republicans, was little different than the German parliament listening to their psychotic leader as he outlined his plans to cleanse the Europe of the Roma, Slavs and homosexuals. The Jews were an afterthought.

Were those parliamentarians complicit in the horrors that followed, of course they were. If Netanyahu interprets his rousing speech as congressional permission to lose the tenuous bonds that tether him to reality, and launches a preemptive strike, nuclear or otherwise, against Iran, will the members of Congress that danced and applauded like puppets be complicit? Of course! 

Will they care? Of course not! 

The line between madness and sanity is very fine, and historically it is crossed easily and it is often crossed before anyone realizes what has happened. Do not lose sight of the fact that many, many American cheered and applauded as Hitler started his conquest of Europe. By the time people realized that the line between a charismatic, strong leader and a madman had been crossed, the damage was already done.

The Republican Party: The evolution of hate.

In this essay, I would like to suggest a thought experiment. An experiment where there is no empirical data; however, there is data that come from experience, reason and the application of logic. It is an experiment that can be conducted by anyone. It is relatively easy and requires little time. Additionally, it is, perhaps, even more enlightening when performed in small groups. It is an experiment that I believe provides surprising insight into one of the two major political parties in America.

Introduction

According to Wikipedia: A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

To begin the experiment, we need to choose from five to ten well-known hate groups or organizations. I have chosen eight. My groups are composed of sympathizers and supporters of various, well-known, hate messages or hate ideologies. I have excluded supporters of extremely controversial social issues (such as abortion and immigration) but you may want to include them in your experiment. I have intentionally selected hate messages, or hate ideologies, with high name recognition and a message or ideology that is almost universally known and understood. That is to say, my list does not contain any obscure groups, although, obscure groups are just a meaningful and don't have to be excluded.

Hate list:

• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Ku Klux Klan
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Neo Nazis or the American Nazi Party
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the skin head movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the white supremacist movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the anti-gay or anti-LGBT movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Holocaust Denial movement
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Westboro Baptist Church
• ·        Sympathizers and supporters of the Aryan Nation

While there is some overlap among some of these groups, all are unique and have messages or ideologies that clearly differentiate them. Members of one group may sympathize with another, however, such sympathy is most likely based on the common denominator of hate. Nonetheless, when you conduct the experiment, you may want to choose groups that you feel to be more independent.

Methods

First, imagine that we have 100 randomly selected members from each of the 8 groups. One-hundred is chosen to make the percentages easier to determine. Almost any number over 10 would work just fine. The only stipulation is that they be old enough to fully understand what these groups represent. I suggest a minimum age of 21, but you might prefer another age.

Second, we will use the most recent national election cycle, i.e., that of 2014. We will assume that they were exposed to the election rhetoric of both the Democratic party and the Republican Party. In essence, we are saying that they were exposed to that which they were actually exposed to; nothing special, nothing different.

Normally, voting demographics are easy to come by, except in cases groups. Very few polls are conducted to determine how sympathizers and supporters of hate groups vote in an election. The goal of this experiment is to determine for ourselves, based on our knowledge of the message and ideologies of these hate groups, how the hate group sympathizers and supporters would vote.

The third and final step is to rerun the election and make our predictions.

When I ran the experiment, the outcomes were both ominous and very, very clear. In each and every case, I asked myself the following questions:

• In general, would voters feel most at home under the Republican tent or the Democratic  tent?
• During the campaign, would voters feel more aligned with the rhetoric of the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?
•  On specific issues of interest (i.e., hate issues) would voters identify more with the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate?
• With which party would voters feel the greatest affinity, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?

 Results

For every group, the 100 members voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Party. In my mind, while trying to be relatively conservative with my guesses, I was unable to imagine fewer than 60% of each group voting Republican and, for certain groups (e.g. the KKK, white nationalists and Westboro Baptist Church), I consider 80% to be much more likely.

Discussion

This very simple thought experiment, while not scientific, is very enlightening with regard to the Republican Party. The validity of the test increases with each additional experiment. The test can be carried out for any hate group or collection of hate groups; and while results may vary, I'm fairly certain that the alarming trend will not. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups) has an enormous, comprehensive list of hate groups. I encourage you to peruse the list and conduct this experiment again, and again and again. I think you will see that the outcome is consistently the same, hate groups favor the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. 

Conclusion

America has one national party that appears to consistently be the party of choice for almost every hate group and hate organization in America. Based on the Wikipedia definition used in the Introduction, the Republican Party can, without exaggeration, be considered a hate group. America can ill afford to have a national hate party. Its defenders will refute this claim, but the Republican Party now represents the dark side of almost every social issue that confronts America. It is now the "big tent" and preferred party for racism, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia. Just as Republicans demand that “good” Muslims take a stand and break away from the barbaric history of Islam, Republicans must now take a stand by denouncing and stepping away from the hatred that has become an integral part of the party.