*** INSERT AFTER TRANSFORMATIVE PROTOTYPE
TOPAZ (***@HITLER'S FELCH MONGER) @ 1022 HOURS ON 18 DECEMBER, 2016:
"'Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon the
rubbish heap.
Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal.' -
Benito Mussolini
In 1923 Mussolini was asked by an Italian encyclopaedia person to define
and explain the word 'Fascism' for their new edition. He said the key
concepts of fascism were overt nationalism, and repudiation of liberalism
in all its forms."
DOLF: "You ought to know that your inhumane as neo-fascist conduct and the
harm directed towards me last night amounts to a pyscho-sexual prejudice
constituting torture as war crimes and is therefore *crimes* *against*
*humanity*. And it is now the substantial cause for my seeking a ferocious
recourse to justice, for which I will exercise a sovereign prerogative to
an authority made under Section 9A - TREASON of the Crimes Act (1958)
Victoria those being found guilty of such indictment to then be Summarily
Executed.
I’ll be happy to receive a heart felt you apology for your contempt
undertaken by in person and at an agreeable time, before I similarly make
the same consideration against your right to existence within the
Federation of the COMMONWEALTH as well.
Having now taken punitive and the necessary corrective action in relation
to the deliberate spurious and perverse parodying as the nature of some the
many 175 CRAIGSLIST adverts which I have eliminated by their reporting as
prohibited for various reasons.
And that whilst many of those adverts, would in my view exhibit more
appealing elements to your own sensualist sensibility in never having had
any male-to-male sexual experience prior and yet driven by such impassioned
as horny want.
For some reason, you felt compelled to joyously solicit me in a most
determined manner for this first sexual opportunity with a consummate as
purposed intent, but inexplicably and without any justifiable cause, didn't
possess sufficient will of this continued exuberant intention of purpose,
so as to make the sexual dynamic any real opportunity at all.
Furthermore when, given an opportunity to convey your change of mind as
your knowing unwillingness or inability by some circumstance unknown to me
but real to you, you read the message of my asking for your caring advice
but you have remained silent ever since.
That there is an ethereal absence of any virtue in the such manner as the
distinct lack of concordance between your spoken words and the choices you
then made in relation to your conduct which was inexplicably discordant.
Whether this is a habitual course of your life and the grounds to claim
that you are deficient in character of youth within your civil obligations
and duty towards the preservation of the dignity and humanity of others, is
certainly one observation that one could make.
But more importantly, is the dreadful neo-fascist accusation as an
impugning which can be levelled against you by the parallel and empathetic
conduct of others that is impressed upon your motive for the immediacy of
the private sexual act which was negotiated only between ourselves due
entirely to your insistence.
The implication is ,that your actions were a delinquent harm and a
calculated disrespect made against my humanity, life principles and values
as being of no consequence.
Given the uncovering, as to this now public exposure of these
conspiratorial wilful public acts by others, which occurred in defiant
contempt and despite of my earnest warnings as the explicit concern for the
grievous and severe consequences: "IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER MALCONTENT OR AN
ESCALATION AS MALEFICENCE FROM [YOU] DUE TO MY KINDNESS TOWARDS YOU.
SUCH BESTOWAL WILL BE RESCINDED AND THE CONSEQUENCE WILL BE FIERCE."
In my view, the determined retribution made against me publicly constitutes
a wilful and malicious detriment as to be the calculated assailing of a
person by the abnormal and repetitive imposition of futility as
disproportionate angst and the cause for psychological distress as to
constitute by a morphological impunity of planned, word, action, silence
and its denial as incomprehensibility of any wrongs and it's accountability
as to be entirely due an apparent mental deficiency of mine as the
unreasonable imposition upon me of psycho-sexual and racial prejudice.
My view is that the deceptive, deliberate and malicious conduct of others
who have wantonly engaged within such actions, has now escalated to being
the very unlawful conduct which I have previously DESCRIBED AS PURSUING
INTERNET RELIGIOUS VALUES BASED FALSE DEFAMATORY HATE SPEECH SUCH AS YOUR
SLANDER WHICH CONSTITUTES AS TORTURE IN BEING A WAR CRIME AND IS THEREFORE
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
My blanket dispersal of some 175 emails to all such persons which I
considered might have some circumstantial relativity to this proposition
within their situation context, thus giving me some sort of objective
measure associated to their self-justification.
The responses fall into two distinct classes:
1) A denial of knowing of what is happening and this followed with an
apology over any unintentional wrong doing of theirs and not mine.
And a retraction of any intent to have caused offence in any way possible.
And followed this by a further rationalism conveying a plausible and
acceptable justification of all their relative actions and an
accountability for their desire.
They then deleted any offending message from the public sphere.
2) However those who I feel are accountable for the commission of a serious
crime as an indictable offence, responded in an all together different
mode:
They responded with epithets rather than making any considered
ratiocination and then sought further opportunity to obfuscate and cast
impunity upon me:
- Huh?
- Speak English so that I know what you are talking about.
There has been a subsequent silence and a failure to make any attempt to
remove any offending material from the public sphere.
So that one could then assume, there was an absence of sapient (as
thoughtful) activity and therefore a lack of any ethereal virtue to their
conduct.
In that, they have no civil reality of any accountability towards ever
acting inhumanely in the acknowledgement of a duty towards the preservation
as to the dignity of others.
And silence then, is the declaration of an absolute contempt being a
barbarous sensualism, in the indulgence of their unlawful conduct as a
successful pillory and the bestowal upon themselves of a self entitlement
in the satisfaction of a deed well done.
Therefore your frivolity, with no intention for an accountability over any
consequential detriment is now a disease to you, and which has by the
malicious vexation of others as the spread the maleficence is now by your
silence an impunity made of you--AS TO BE SO GRIEVOUS THAT ITS CONSEQUENCE
MAY BE LIFE IMPRISONMENT.
The only way that you can extricate yourself from the dire consequences
which others have now imposed upon you, is to provide me with a heart felt
apology for your contempt and this ought to undertaken by you in person and
at an agreeable time.
Otherwise, there will similarly be, a consideration made against your right
to existence within the Federation of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA as
well.
DO NOT IGNORE MY ADVICE TO YOU BOY.
THAT I AM CLAIMING IN RELATION TO MY MATHEMATICAL THEORETICAL NOUMENON AS
BE CONSTITUTING AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE SUBSTANTIATION OF A NATURAL
/ COMMON LAW STATEMENT ASSERTING AN EGALITARIAN RIGHT TO 'BEING' AND
'EXISTENCE" IN SO DEFINING RATIONALITY, REASONING AND WHICH IS INTRINSIC TO
HOMO[IOS] SAPIEN[TAL] CONSCIOUSNESS.
AS TO THEN HAVE RECOURSE TO THE UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION PREROGATIVE AS THE
MEANS OF PURSUING WAR CRIMES AS BEING SPECIFICALLY *CRIMES* *AGAINST*
*HUMANITY* WHICH IS TO BE BROUGHT AGAINST VARIOUS AMERICAN INTERNET
SERVICE/APPLICATION PROVIDERS AND VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE
RELIGIOUS/NON-RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED FALSE DEFAMATORY SPEECH AS IRRATIONAL
INCITEMENT TO HATRED AS TORTURE:
- SUBSTANTIATING SLANDER THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS BY:
1) GRINDR:
- Joel Simkhai, founder and CEO
GRINDR SUPPORT (HELP) @ 0956 HOURS ON 19 DECEMBER, 2016: "Hey,
Your request (#<a dir="ltr" href="tel:1307047"
x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone"
x-apple-data-detectors-result="0">1307047</a>) is now @ 1456 HOURS (PST) ON
18 DECEMBER, 2016 with the GRINDR support team, they will reply very soon!
Please note that our hours of operations are Monday to Friday 9-6 PST.
You can also check GRINDR's Help Center (http://help.GRINDR.com/hc/en-us)
for answers to our most frequently asked questions.
Regards,
GRINDR Support"
2) SCRUFF:
- The company was founded in 2010 by Johnny Skandros and Eric Silverberg,
now its CEO. Founding partner Jason Marchant is the company's Chief
Product Officer. Joey Dubé is the company's Vice President of Marketing,
Media, and Events.
SCRUFF SUPOPRT (HELP) @ 1005 HOURS ON 19 DECEMBER, 2016: "Thank you for
contacting SCRUFF Support. We strive to answer all support requests within
48 hours.
You can review your request [(#584232) is now @ 1805 HOURS (EST) ON 18
DECEMBER, 2016 with SCRUFF Support] summary below or add a comment by
replying to this email.
WOOF!
SCRUFF Team"
OUR INTERVENTION following the presiding Judge Hendrik Steenhuis of the
Dutch court on 9 December, 2016, who in our consideration improperly
convicted anti-Islamic Dutch MP Geert Wilders, of hate speech so as 'to
protect rights, freedoms of others' which he branded a politically
motivated '*CHARADE*' that actually endangered freedom of speech:
ODE TO GEERT {Germanic words 'ger' (*SPEAR*) and 'hard' (strong or brave)
meaning 'Strong or Brave with the *SPEAR*'. The name's common female
equivalent is 'Geertje' as my mother's name}
PARDON MY BEING A STICKYBEAK,
SCRUFF & GRINDR ARE NOW OBLIQUE.
HEARD YOUR CLARION FROM AFAR.
THE *WATCHERS* THAT WE ARE.
WHETHER YOUR FOOTLE IS TO BE
OR THRASONICAL FOR US MAY SEE
THE MEASURE OF YOUR SOUL.
WE KNOW, WE *KNOW* *IT* *ALL*.
WHEN JUSTICE IS SO VAIN,
IN WANT, LOSS AND DISDAIN.
THIS FESTSCHRIFT IS TO YOU,
ALSTUBLIEFT AND ADIEU.
STICKYBEAK:
- (noun) Australian Slang for a busybody; meddler.
CLARION:
- (adjective) Clear and shrill: the clarion call of a battle trump.
- (noun) An ancient trumpet with a curved shape.
FOOTLE:
- (verb) to act or talk in a foolish or silly way.
- (noun) nonsense; foolishness; silliness.
THRASONICAL:
- (adjective) boastful; vainglorious.
FESTSCHRIFT:
- (noun) A volume of articles, essays, etc., contributed by many authors in
honour of a colleague, usually published on the occasion of retirement, an
important anniversary, or the like.
[Courtesy: Words of Day for 8 to 12 December, 2016; www.dictionary.com]
SCRUFF SUPPORT (HELP) @ 0258 HOURS ON 21 DECEMBER, 2016: "1058 HOURS (EST)
ON 20 DECEMBER, 2016: We apologize for any inconvenience, however, we will
need additional details to better understand the issue you report. Could
you please explain in more detail what occurs when you attempt to use
SCRUFF? Are you receiving an error message?
If applicable, please provide screenshots of the issue so that we may
investigate further. Screenshots can be attached in a new email and sent to
support+***@scruff.zendesk.com
Please reply to this message so we can resolve your issue and you can
continue to enjoy SCRUFF!
Sara SCRUFF | SCRUFF Team"
DOLF: "As a WOMAN you don’t possess sufficient empathy nor contrition to be
capable of any meaningful "apology for any inconvenience" as an Americanism
and humbuggery (pretense, sham; Courtesy: Word of the Day for 20 December,
2016; www.dictionary.com) that is purposely and with malice directed
towards another human being, so as to deal honestly and with any
accountability for SCRUFF's past unlawful administrative conduct which
substantiated the maleficence of others as MALES (with masculinity to a
varying degree) and that has now escalated to my preparation of an
indictment for WAR CRIMES AS BEING SPECIFICALLY *CRIMES* *AGAINST*
*HUMANITY* WHICH IS TO BE BROUGHT AGAINST VARIOUS AMERICAN INTERNET
SERVICE/APPLICATION PROVIDERS AND VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE
RELIGIOUS/NON-RELIGIOUS MOTIVATED FALSE DEFAMATORY SPEECH AS IRRATIONAL
INCITEMENT TO HATRED AS TORTUROUS DE-HUMANIZING.
Thank-you for at the very least you could do was in acknowledging my
advising you of having recourse to the universal jurisdiction prerogative
as a lawful authority which over-rides any derogation that you may
otherwise unreasonable impose upon any persons as conditions of ‘terms of
service’.
You are now pleading ignorance in relation previous matters of complaint
(Your ref: #569198) which is unashamed as a brazen attempt to further
disparage me as being either mentally deficient or psychiatrically
disturbed so to be incapable of sufficient acuity to be even able to convey
the matter of a serious complaint as made to yourself.
It may be more appropriately construed as relegating and dehumanising
conduct in which yourselves habitually engage as the depraved culture of
your organisation and as a perverse attempt (ie. if the MENS REA as the
mind is not guilty then there is no ACTUS REA as guilty act) to evade, by
whatever means whether unlawful or not, any legal culpability for your past
unreasonably and unlawful censoring actions which you even now refuse to
acknowledge as the action of an improper sanctimonious divestiture to any
responsibility made in an absolute contempt of the clear light as contrary
reality which was placed before you of my prerogative jurisdictional as a
sovereign authority and which unconditional demands that you capitulate
towards a more appropriate and humane conduct, which one would intuitively
know as being helpful and not otherwise.
The above nominated persons from your organisation will now be imputed a
legal accountability for the criminal conduct of others and the
jurisdiction as the laws of the State of Victoria and the Commonwealth of
Australia will apply.
In regard to yourself not being a fit and proper person which is capable
in deal appropriately with any semblance (not as much as a stench) of
goodwill, integrity and honestly as the recognition of any civil duty
towards the gravitas as the reasonable and prudent complaint which has been
made to you. And the matter has now escalated above any capability and
merit that you innately possess and would I suggest to you as the only
thing within your capability is to clearly and unambiguous convey towards
others, that any further correspondence from you is given a proper
consideration of a discharge to any and all lawful accountabilities and
given a proper dignity and respect by only those persons which will be
nominated within the indictment and I have now conveyed.
The reason being is simply that your actions heretofore exhibit the
characteristic of a false hope which is ignorantly misplaced. In that the
prudent and fair exercise of justice in it's undertaking, whilst is
gradual, determined and purposed. It will nevertheless, be pursued in an
ethical manner as is entirely permissible by law and it is not therefore
not capable of being misconstrue as unkind, but is most certainly
intentioned upon an annihilation as the well-earned and justified recourse
to any sufficient penalty for my inconvenience.
4TH JULY: A SLAVE MENTALITY
TIPS FOR PAY.
TO THIS DAY,
SO I SAY,
POVERTY PREYS.
No disrespect is intended by my truthful statements and which can then the
substantiating grounds for you to conclude otherwise, is merely a selfish
characteristic of an improper bestowal as a haughty claim to a
self-entitlement as justification for the wanton hedonism which is evident
of a cultural derivation as paucity of any semblance to human decency.
Have a good day now."
SCRUFF SUPPORT (HELP) @ 0600 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "1359 HOURS (EST)
ON 21 DECEMBER, 2016: We apologize for any inconvenience you may be
experiencing.
If you are experiencing login issues, please provide specific details
pertaining to your issue so we can investigate. You can submit screenshots
by attaching them in a new email and sending it to
support+***@scruff.zendesk.com
Awaiting your reply with the requested details,
Jourdan Scruff | SCRUFF Team"
DOLF: "I believe there was a cabal of persons who were engaged conduct
against my person, dignity and reputation.
I've now put together a 164 pages (more to come) of briefing notes with a
clear intention of making an indictment of crimes against humanity as war
crimes by persons who may be regarded as fascist.
My want is for their annihilation and it is within capability to do so.
I will make no other statement to you, other than to direct you towards
that detailed document."
SCRUFF SUPPORT (HELP) @ 0708 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "1508 HOURS (EST)
ON 21 DECEMBER, 2016: If you are being harassed by another member, please
report them by tapping the Ø icon in the top-right corner while viewing
their profile.
We encourage you to flag any profiles you feel are in violation of our
guidelines. We request, however, that you submit a ticket only to report
serious infractions (e.g. underage users, threats or harassment,
impersonators, scam artists).
Please let us know if you have any other questions. Thank you for being a
member of SCRUFF!
Jourdan Scruff | SCRUFF Team"
DOLF: "Your questioning is stupid and continuing [as] disrespectful in
clearly having not read the document you were directed towards for your
edification.
The prudent and fair exercise of justice in it's undertaking against
yourselves made in relation to "harassment by another member(s)" which you
have caused by your impertinent and improper regard [for] our SOVEREIGNTY
AND THE LAWS OF OUR COMMONWEALTH were unlawfully undertaken and for which
you refuse any culpability of accountability.
Whilst is gradual, determined and purposed. It will nevertheless, be
pursued in an ethical manner as is entirely permissible by law and it is
not therefore not capable of being misconstrue as unkind, but is most
certainly intentioned upon an annihilation as the well-earned and justified
recourse to any sufficient penalty for my inconvenience.
Given your obstinate as deliberate unhelpfulness, there seems to be no
further response from me necessary until that determined process occurs.
Have a good day now."
SCRUFF SUPPORT (HELP) @ 0809 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "1659 HOURS (EST)
ON 21 DECEMBER, 2016:We do not open any documents submitted unless they are
images attached in the support request.
If you require any further assistance, let us know. Thanks for being a
member of SCRUFF!
Your support request (#584232) has been deemed solved. You can review your
request summary below.
Issue not resolved? You may add a comment and reopen your request by
replying to this email.
WOOF!
Jourdan Scruff | SCRUFF Team"
DOLF: "That statement of refusal which you make, is insufficient grounds
for your organisation’s wilful ignorance as contempt.
It is noted that apart [from] making conjectural as misdirected, evasive
and false statements such as [we] "apologize for any inconvenience you may
be experiencing" you have continually evaded obligations and failed to even
acknowledge any accountability [for] the depravations (detailed within the
PDF resource on GOOGLE Drive provided to [you] as courtesy [only]) which
have been consequential to your organisation's unethical and unlawful
administrative process as being prejudiced.
I now caution you, that any further statements which you care to make as
justifications for your past and continuing [mis]conduct, will be produced
in legal proceedings occurring in [a] court of law within the SOVEREIGN
jurisdiction of the Federation of the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
And included within this document."
3) DR. PETER STERNHELL, SAINT VINCENTS HOSPTIAL, DARLINGHURST, Prejudiced
and non-infactural diagnosis
4) DR. (A/PROF) MARK BLOCH, HOLDSWORTH HOUSE, DARLINGHURST, Prejudiced and
non-factual diagnosis
- BY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS AS UNTRUTHFUL RELIGIOUS VALUES PSYCHO-SEXUAL
PREJUDICE FROM:
1) DUKE EARL (CATHOLIC) WEBER: <***@cox.net>
2) ROD (CATHOLIC) EASTMAN <***@gmail.com>
3) PATRICK (CATHOLIC) BARKER <***@woh.rr.com>
4) ATHANASIUS (EGYPTIAN COPTIC), ANZAC Day arrest on 25 April, 2006
5) TESLA STINKER <***@truecarpentry.org>
6) CAROL of "TRIPLE F CAFE"
7) OTHERS TO BE NAMED FROM GOOGLE ARCHIVES WHICH WILL BE RETROSPECTIVELY
DATA MINED
- BY SPECIFIC STATEMENTS AS UNTRUTHFUL NON-RELIGIOUS VALUES PSYCH-SEXUAL
PREJUDICE FROM:
1) KAREN LAWSON, Facebook "Gippsland Gays" Group (536 members)
2) POLLYANNA GIBSON, Facebook "I Do Support Same Sex Marriage In Gippsland"
Group (1,987 Likes)
3) BRENDAN LLOYD, Facebook "Australians For Separation Of Church &
State Group" Group (4,468 Members)
4) PETER BOWDITCH (President Skeptics Society), Quintessence of the Loon:
http://www.ratbags.com/loon/
5) PAUL DERBYSHIRE (Canada) <***@gmail.com>, alt.usenet.kooks
Hitler aggrandising awards
6) KENSI <***@gmail.com>, alt.usenet.kooks Hitler
aggrandising awards
7) NADEGDA <***@gmail.com>, alt.usenet.kooks Hitler
aggrandising awards
8) BARRY OGRADY (Atheist), Publicly reproducing private court matters as
the cause for psycho-sexual abuses
9) PETZL <***@gmail.com>, aus.politics, reproducing VCAT private
matters so to dehumanise and stigmatise
- COLONEL EDMUND (ATHIEST/BUDDHIST/VIETNAM VETERAN)
<***@t-girls.com>, Irrational public psycho-sexual abuse
- ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI Alexander Kalinowski
<***@hmamail.com>, Irrational public psycho-sexual
abuse
- FRAN SNORTILUS <***@ITSAHOOT.COM>, Irrational public psycho-sexual
abuse (aus.politics)
- KADAITCHA MAN <***@gmail.com>, Irrational public
psycho-sexual abuse (alt.usenet.kooks, alt.atheism)
MATTB @ 1609 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "THE POPE IDENTIFIES TROLLS FOR
WHAT THEY ARE:
Duke and Patrick show the worse of what Hardline Catholics are like. They
will defend evil if done by R[oman] C[atholic] C[hurch] and each other.
What I find disgusting is other Catholics don't correct them showing the
R[oman] C[atholic] C[hurch] in general is wrong."
FRAN SNORTILUS @ 1425 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "Duke and Patrick are
both evil bottom feeders. Perhaps most Catholics have put them both in the
kill file and so don't have to see the drivel they write.
You and Dechucka are soiling yourselves by having anything to do with those
evil creatures."
DOLF: "AT LAST A REDEMPTIVE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND VALUES FROM FRAN
SNORTILUS:
Note that both of those Roman Catholic individuals are to be enjoined
within the material details of this complaint..."
FRAN SNORTILUS @ 1641 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "Fran Snortilus didn't
write the barking mad comments."
DOLF: "That was ALL the GOOD GRACE AS THE LAST that will be accorded you.
I hereby demand from you an immediate retraction and public apology of this
maleficence as knowingly false defamatory as slanderous [psycho-sexualism
as] statement:
"*the* *barking* *mad* *comments*"
If this does not occur within 24hrs (regardless) you will be enjoined
within that same document and a legal claim (as racial, religious and
sexual vilification by a fascist) will eventually be made against you
bodily."
KADAITCHA MAN @ 2258 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "Fran Snortilus, beg that
thou may have leave to hang thyself. Ye artless devilish knave, ye
brown-nosed: > <BITCHSLAP>
Fuck off and die, aDolf."
DOLF: "*YOU* *TOO* *AS* *A* *FASCIST* *WILL* *BE* *ENJOINED* *TO* *THE*
*SAME* *MATERIAL* *DETAILS* *WHICH* *WILL* *COMPRISE* *THE* *INDICTMENT* if
you keep engaging within such anal extrusion exhibiting an infantile
psychosexual developmental stage in which thinking and language is nothing
more than an act of defecation as the major source of sensuous pleasure
where the anus forms the *CENTRE* of self-awareness.
That is a jingoistic epithet which may be properly construed as a
racialism, which by it's compliance as association with multiple
meta-elements (ie. but not all of the following) which comprises my
understanding of a conceptual and practical definition of 'fascist' as
category of understanding:
a) xenophobic, racial or disease prejudice,
b) psycho-sexualism,
c) vehement anti-religiosity except your own belief, non-belief or
disbelief
d) fascist characterizations (eg. this can be as simplistic as an
improper orthography of my name, by its depiction as Adolf)
e) deification of narcissistic ignorance (eg. this can be as simplistic as
an improper orthography of my name, by its depiction as dolt)
That this quintessential characteristic of racialism, psycho-sexualism and
implied hymenealism (ie. marriage as an institutionalized values based
religious belief, disbelief or non-belief), it is alleged is then the cause
of an utmost contempt for the autonomy of self identity of others,
sovereign authority, nature, law and order as justice."
KADAITCHA MAN @ 2326 HOURS ON 22 DECEMBER, 2016: "Kadaitcha Man, thou soul
of a goose that bears the shape of a man. Thou art a mad-bred beetle-head,
a scab-laden dismal wretch, a mangled spanish-pouch, a dog-hearted
brazen-face, ye hooted:
Go and fuck yourself up the arse with a hot-running chainsaw, aDolf."
DOLF: "Your inherently ruthless sedition and relentless treasonable pursuit
as to the systematic violent extermination of another's disposition as a
national and common law entitlement to a healthy, esteemed, proud and
dignified possession a self identity as a formula of autonomy which is
distinct from yours as being an egalitarian right.
You ignorantly declare such a principled life of mine, lived mindfully,
with prudent self-constraint in moderation, possessing an ethereal
integrity, and in the absence of any caveat upon its existence as a
pre-requisite detriment, being an adverse consequence which is imposed upon
the self-entitlement of another’s existence, as then being intrinsically
incomprehensible as an irrationality.
Unprincipled, and an aberration which is dispossessed of fundamentally what
life itself is. As then being, the substantiating evidence of a deformed
mind, with no possibility of ever having on it’s own a self-sufficiency,
without the deliberate and urgent intervention of others or some immediate
action as claimed benevolence .
Within the historical Natural/Common law understanding as perspective given
of the SOVEREIGN/MARRIAGE dynamic, the binary gender and spermatic
bifurcated male/female entities as the focused intention of such a Marriage
imperative by a CANON OF TRANSPOSITION which is a logical fallacy being
proposed by the PYTHAGORAS's MICROCOSM with the sophistic opinion as
HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER, actually consists of a FORMULA OF PROGRESSION OF
INDIVIDUAL PHENOMENA AS MYRIAD OF THINGS that is affected upon the SELF
IDENTITY - FORMULA OF AUTONOMY and which has it's basis within the
understanding of the SYSTEM'S COSMOLOGY AS EARTH - FORMULA OF HUMANITY as
more properly and equitably defined by its free, pre-existent and
unencumbered attribution within the HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER.
That I have a Natural / Common Law entitlement as an egalitarian HUMAN
RIGHT right to hold a religious belief about a self-identity as formula of
autonomy which is unshackled from the lustful impropriety of wanton
institutional impunity made against the individual right. Which has
historically occurred within Australian due to the Equal Opportunity and
Human Rights Commission’s deplorable past investiture it as a prerogative
for the basis of an Institutional Religious ethos of life, which is nothing
more than by a pious pretense made of copulation and the bestowal by
haughty contrivance of marriage as being a self bestowed naked dignity to
cover a shame.
In that, my virtuous victory in the possession of a mathematical
theoretical noumenon as an Intellectual Property which is tangibly made on
behalf of the GLBTI COMMUNITY and obtained by some 20 years of informal
research within the field of metempirical (ie. the branch of philosophy
that deals with things existing beyond the realm of experience) philosophy
as the perennialist school of thought and the metaphysical theological to
define as an element of MATERIA PRIMA the attribution of AUTONOMY OF WILL
as being intrinsic to the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES expressed by Queen
Victoria’s within her gracious gift as the instrumentation known as the
LETTERS PATENT to FEDERATION of the AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH as being
defined by a mathematical theoretical noumenon as an intellectual property
which is then the substantial basis for a declaration of the GLBTI
COMMUNITY’S HUMAN RIGHT which is unambiguously and clearly sustained by a
dual universal statement as an undiminished tangibility of faith being a
robust belief (rather than non-belief or disbelief), in being firstly
encapsulated by the knowledge of a HOMOIOS rather than HETEROS THEORY OF
NUMBER consideration, and then secondarily as re-enforced by a universal
statement which is a singularity compliant with a DIVINE FIAT and
potentiality as the cosmological / language consideration of the
chronological circumscribing given to the 10 commandments as then defining
human consciousness by a cosmological anthropic principle.
This fascist reliance upon a mind, body and soul encapsulation by a
relentless submission to the PYTHAGOREAN HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER is then
the cause for your anti-socialism as a habitual nihilistic disrespect (ie.
made against the very principle of life itself as human nature) shown
towards the permissibility of any AUTONOMY OF WILL as the authentic
instantiation of self-identity being then formulative of autonomy which is
intrinsic to the existentialism of human existence as the conscious reality
of the homo[ios] sapien[t] that is substantiated, not as a reality which is
primarily focused upon needs of immediacy, self preservation and desire as
the fount of opinion, that is driven by an animal nature as absent of any
higher reasoning faculty, but which is instantiated within the temporal
reality as then the cause for reasoning and rationality.
I take note of the exemplary conduct of Simon Wiesenthal, the Nazi hunter
who as a private individual tracked down and gathered information on
alleged former Nazis, SS members, and Nazi collaborators involved in the
holocaust, typically for use at trial on charges of war crimes and crimes
against humanity.
I consider in light of your triumphant self righteousness, over the human
wretchedness of others wrought by HIV/AIDS, due to a monkey diseased state,
that has an accountability in becoming a human global holocaust as the
consequence of some heterosexual just like you, who was as a dumb as
bush-meat ('what the ***@ck') and had shit for brains, that your habitual
Internet based psycho-sexual prejudiced misconduct, similarly constitutes
'crimes against humanity' and 'war crimes' against NATURE as elemental of
the MATERIA PRIMA within the attribution of AUTONOMY OF WILL as being
intrinsic to the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES which are prohibited under the
auspices of Section 9A - TREASON of the Crimes Act (1958) Victoria and for
which an UNIVERSAL JURISDICTIONAL authority to pursue you is claimed.
I have here CONSTITUTED, ORDERED, AND DECLARED PUBLICLY what is reasonably
and prudently considered an ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT directed against the MATERIA
PRIMA as the SOVEREIGN PRINCIPLES encapsulation the cause, means, vitality
and continuity to our FEDERATION AS THE COMMONWEALTH of AUSTRALIA and
itself constitutes a barbarous characteristic of a verminous, feral and
proto-human ignorant state that is publicly exhibiting and parading a
lifestyle of perversity, depravity as debauchery which is an undignified
conduct that is directed towards me and my factual basis to an articulation
of a Natural and Common law matter of fact and an egalitarian right
conveyed by a mathematical Intellectual Property as theoretical noumenon. I
find this your last statement to be of such a magnitude of wanton
recklessness as a tsunamis of disregard made against the person, name and
dignity of another, without any consciousness of an accountability for the
consequence of hate speech as a habitual predilection of your debauched
life, as so lived indulgently to the expense and in the uncaring, indolent
manner as a detriment made of others.
The reason for your bravado is simply that your actions heretofore exhibit
the characteristic of a false hope as the presumption in being outside the
reaches of law, order and justice and which in my view is ignorantly
misplaced. In that the prudent and fair exercise of justice in it's
undertaking to now pursue you on charges of crimes against humanity and of
war crimes (the costs of which are to be born by the STATE as the
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA), whilst is gradual, determined and purposed. It
will nevertheless, be pursued in an ethical manner as is entirely
permissible by law and it is not therefore not capable of being misconstrue
as unkind, but is most certainly intentioned upon an annihilation as the
well-earned and justified recourse to any sufficient penalty for my
inconvenience.
THIS THEN IS A NOTICE AS A SOVEREIGN DEMAND for you to imputed with a legal
accountability for the such criminal conduct made in concert with others
and the jurisdiction as the laws of the State of Victoria and the
Commonwealth of Australia will apply. This document of complaint will be
directed to the relevant police jurisdictions for their investigation of
all such persons and a determination made of whether such statements or any
actions are unlawful as prejudiced, stigmatising and persecutory and
remedied by the undertaking of criminal indictments against all such
persons.
THAT THERE IS A FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY TO THE CROWN, THE DEMAND MADE FOR A
PUBLIC REMORSE, RESTITUTED ACTIONS AND THE AUTHORITY TO EITHER SUMMARILY
EXECUTE OR EXPEL SUCH PERSONS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA WHICH IS A
PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF AN INDICTMENT FOR TREASON MADE UNDER
THE AUSPICES SECTION 9A OF THE CRIMES ACT OF VICTORIA (1958).
AND ITS JUSTIFICATION IS PROPERLY, MODERATELY AND ORDERLY AS REASONABLY
MADE UPON A PREROGATIVE TO AN EX-JUDICATORY AUTHORITY AS THE RIGHT TO A
CONSIDERATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE SOVEREIGN IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
OF THE LAND AS STATE OR COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PROVISIONS PREVIOUSLY
ENACTED BY OUR PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA AND GIVEN ROYAL ASSENT.
*TAKE* *NOTE* *OF* *THIS* *WARNING*:
THIS NOTICE AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENT MAY BE MODIFIED AT ANY TIME, EVEN AFTER
ITS SERVICE AND THE CONVEYING OF A SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY MAKING AN EFFECTUAL
DEMAND AS A DUTY OF COMPLIANCE (‘EVENT’) PLACED UPON ANY NOMINATED PARTIES
(WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFIED).
SUCH AMENDMENTS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED THEREAFTER THE SAID EVENT, WILL BE
CONSTRUED AS A DEMAND BEING PLACED UPON ANY NOMINATED PARTIES AT THE TIME
OF SAID EVENT AND NOT THEREAFTER.
ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO IMMUTABILITY OF ANY PENALTY SOUGHT AND WHICH MAY
ARBITRARILY AND SUBSEQUENTLY IMPOSED AS EXIGENCY DEMAND IN BEING CONSTRUED
AS A LIABILITY WHICH IS PLACED UPON THE ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO A DUTY OF
ANY PRINCIPLE AS A DEMAND OF COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH ANY NOMINATED PARTIES
MUST BE AWARE.
THIS IS TO AVOID ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY HINDRANCE, OBSTRUCTION AND
FRUSTRATION OF THE PREROGATIVE AS SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY. THUS IF A PROVISION
IS INEFFECTUAL AND AN ATTEMPT MADE TO CONTRAVENE AND MITIGATE THE CLEAR
DUTY OF ANY PROVISION OF COMPLIANCE.
IT WILL BE MODIFIED AND INCLUDED HEREIN UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS NOTICE,
AND CONSTRUED AS KNOWLEDGE TO A DUTY OF ANY PRINCIPLE AS A DEMAND OF
COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH ANY NOMINATED PARTIES MUST BE AWARE."
I have defined the complexities of this opposition from the perspective, as
being a composite lack of any sapient thought to any real depth, conduct as
repetitive use of idioms as mantras of opposition fixed by symbolic
associations to obsolete mathematical paradigms of *MIND* and the
re-packaging as thoughts of others which is then traditionally
characteristic of a skepticism, and narcissism as nihilism, in having only
a sensual consequence as its own defied claim to any reality.
In that, they deploy language as denial and which has its throne within the
basal realm of consciousness relating to the seat of its impulsive desire,
action as a lack of motion towards freedom from any accountability.
A habitual action of anal extrusion exhibiting an infantile psychosexual
developmental stage in which thinking and language is nothing more than an
act of defecation as the major source of sensuous pleasure where the anus
forms the *CENTRE* of self-awareness.
4) OTHERS TO BE NAMED FROM GOOGLE ARCHIVES WHICH WILL BE RETROSPECTIVELY
DATA MINED
UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: allows states or international organizations to
claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the
alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality,
country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity.
Crimes prosecuted under *universal* *jurisdiction* are considered crimes
against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.
The concept of *universal* *jurisdiction* is therefore closely linked to
the idea that some international norms are *erga* *omnes*, or owed to the
entire world community, as well as the concept of *jus* *cogens* – that
certain international law obligations are binding on all states.
ERGA OMNES: is a Latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards
everyone". In legal terminology, *erga* *omnes* rights or obligations are
owed toward all. For instance a property right is an *erga* *omnes*
entitlement, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that
right. An *erga* *omnes* right (a statutory right) can here be
distinguished from a right based on contract, unenforceable except against
the contracting party.
In international law it has been used as a legal term describing
obligations owed by states towards the community of states as a whole. An
*erga* *omnes* obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable
interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of
their breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a
breach. Examples of *erga* *omnes* norms include piracy and genocide. The
concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in
the Barcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970
3 at paragraph 33]:
"… an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a
State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising
vis-à-vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their
very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of the
importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal
interest in their protection; they are obligations *erga* *omnes*. [at 34]
Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law,
from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the
principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person,
including protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the
corresponding rights of protection have entered into the body of general
international law . . . others are conferred by international instruments
of a universal or quasi-universal character."
EXAMPLES OF EGA OMNES
In its opinion of 9 July 2004 the International Court of Justice found "the
right of peoples to self-determination" to be a right *erga* *omnes*. The
finding referred to article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erga_omnes
A PEREMPTORY NORM (also called *jus* *cogens* or ius cogens /ˌdʒʌs
ˈkoʊdʒɛnz/ or /ˌjʌs/; Latin for "compelling law") is a fundamental
principle of international law that is accepted by the international
community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
DEROGATION: is the partial suppression of a law, as opposed to
abrogation—total abolition of a law by explicit repeal—and obrogation—the
partial or total modification or repeal of a law by the imposition of a
later and contrary one. The term is used in canon law, civil law, and
common law. It is sometimes used, loosely, to mean abrogation, as in the
legal maxim: Lex posterior derogat priori, i.e. a subsequent law imparts
the abolition of a previous one.
Derogation differs from dispensation in that it applies to the law, where
dispensation applies to specific people affected by the law.
In terms of European Union legislation, a derogation can also imply that a
member state delays the implementation of an element of an EU Regulation
(etc.) into their legal system over a given timescale,such as five years;
or that a member state has opted not to enforce a specific provision in a
treaty due to internal circumstances (typically a state of emergency).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derogation
There is no universal agreement regarding precisely which norms are *jus*
*cogens* nor how a norm reaches that status, but it is generally accepted
that *jus* *cogens* includes the prohibition of genocide, maritime piracy,
slaving in general (to include slavery as well as the slave trade),
torture, refoulement and wars of aggression and territorial aggrandizement.
Recent scholarship has also proposed the idea of regional *jus* *cogens*.
STATUS OF PEREMPTORY NORMS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Unlike ordinary customary law, which has traditionally required consent and
allows the alteration of its obligations between states through treaties,
peremptory norms cannot be violated by any state "through international
treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not
endowed with the same normative force".
Discussions of the necessity of such norms could be traced as far as 1758
(Emmerich de Vattel, Droit des gens) and 1764 (Christian Wolff, Jus
Gentium), clearly rooting from principles of natural law.
But it was the judgments of the Permanent Court of International Justice
that indicate the existence of such a peremptory norm. In the Wimbledon
Case in 1923, not mentioning peremptory norms explicitly but stating how
state sovereignty is not inalienable.
Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any
treaty that conflicts with a peremptory norm is void. The treaty allows for
the emergence of new peremptory norms,[8] but does not specify any
peremptory norms. It does mention the prohibition on the threat of use of
force and on the use of coercion to conclude an agreement:
"A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a
peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the
present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a
norm accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a
whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the
same character."
The number of peremptory norms is considered limited but not exclusively
catalogued. They are not listed or defined by any authoritative body, but
arise out of case law and changing social and political attitudes.
Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, *crimes*
*against* *humanity*, war crimes, maritime piracy, genocide, apartheid,
slavery, torture. As an example, international tribunals have held that it
is impermissible for a state to acquire territory through war.
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: are certain acts that are deliberately committed
as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population or an identifiable part of a population. The first prosecution
for *Crimes* *against* *humanity* took place at the Nuremberg trials.
*Crimes* *against* *humanity* have since been prosecuted by other
international courts – such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court, as well as in
domestic prosecutions. The law of *Crimes* *against* *humanity* has
primarily developed through the evolution of customary international law.
*Crimes* *against* *humanity* are not codified in an international
convention, although there is currently an international effort to
establish such a treaty, led by the *Crimes* *against* *humanity*
Initiative.
Unlike war crimes, *Crimes* *against* *humanity* can be committed during
peace or war. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part
either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify
themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated
or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder, massacres,
*dehumanization*, extermination, human experimentation, extrajudicial
punishments, death squads, forced disappearances, military use of children,
kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, slavery, cannibalism, torture, rape, and
political or racial repression may reach the threshold of *Crimes*
*against* *humanity* if they are part of a widespread or systematic
practice.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
DEHUMANIZATION: or an act thereof can describe a behavior or process that
undermines individuality of and in others. Behaviorally, *dehumanization*
describes a disposition towards others that debases the others'
individuality as either an "individual" species or an "individual" object,
e.g. someone who acts inhumanely towards humans. As a process, it may be
understood as the opposite of personification, a figure of speech in which
inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities;
*dehumanization* then is the disendowment of these same qualities or a
reduction to abstraction. e.g. Technology revolutions cause the
*dehumanization* of labor markets to the point of antiquation.
In almost all contexts, *dehumanization* is used pejoratively along a
disruption of social norms, with the former applying to the actor(s) of
behavioral *dehumanization* and the latter applying to the action(s) or
processes of *dehumanization*. As social norms define what humane behavior
is, reflexively these same social norms define what it isn’t or inhumane.
*Dehumanization* differs from inhumane behaviors or processes in its
breadth to include the emergence of new competing social norms. This
emergence then is the action of *dehumanization* until the old norms lose
out to the competing new norms, which will then redefine the action of
*dehumanization*. If the new norms lose acceptance then the action remains
one of *dehumanization* and its severity is comparative to past examples
throughout history. However, *dehumanization's* definition remains in a
reflexive state of a type-token ambiguity relative to both scales
individual and societal.
Biologically, *dehumanization* can be describe as an introduced species
marginalizing the human species or an introduced person/process that
debases other persons inhumanely.
In political science and jurisprudence, the act of *dehumanization* is the
inferential alienation of human rights or denaturalization of natural
rights, a definition contingent upon presiding international law rather
than social norms limited by human geography. In this context, specialty
within species need not apply to constitute global citizenship or its
inalienable rights; these both are inherit by human genome.
It is theorized to take on two forms: animalistic *dehumanization*, which
is employed on a largely intergroup basis, and mechanistic
*dehumanization*, which is employed on a largely interpersonal basis.
*Dehumanization* can occur discursively (e.g., idiomatic language that
likens certain human beings to non-human animals, verbal abuse, erasing
one's voice from discourse), symbolically (e.g., imagery), or physically
(e.g., chattel slavery, physical abuse, refusing eye contact).
*Dehumanization* often ignores the target's individuality (i.e., the
creative and interesting aspects of their personality) and can hinder one
from feeling empathy or properly understanding a stigmatized group of
people.
DEHUMANIZATION may be carried out by a social institution (such as a state,
school, or family), interpersonally, or even within the self.
*Dehumanization* can be unintentional, especially on the part of
individuals, as with some types of de facto racism. State-organized
*dehumanization* has historically been directed against perceived
political, racial, ethnic, national, or religious minority groups. Other
minoritized and marginalized individuals and groups (based on sexual
orientation, gender, disability, class, or some other organizing principle)
are also susceptible to various forms of *dehumanization*. The concept of
*dehumanization* has received empirical attention in the psychological
literature. It is conceptually related to infrahumanization,
delegitimization, moral exclusion, and objectification.
*Dehumanization* occurs across several domains; is facilitated by status,
power, and social connection; and results in behaviors like exclusion,
violence, and support for violence against others.
“Dehumanisation is viewed as a central component to intergroup violence
because it is frequently the most important precursor to moral exclusion,
the process by which stigmatized groups are placed outside the boundary in
which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply.”
David Livingstone Smith, director and founder of The Human Nature Project
at the University of New England, argues that historically, human beings
have been dehumanizing one another for thousands of years.
HUMANNESS
In Herbert Kelman's work on *dehumanization*, humanness has two features:
"identity" (i.e., a perception of the person "as an individual, independent
and distinguishable from others, capable of making choices") and
"community" (i.e., a perception of the person as "part of an interconnected
network of individuals who care for each other"). When a target's agency
and community embeddedness are denied, they no longer elicit compassion or
other moral responses, and may suffer violence as a result.
ANIMALISTIC VERSUS MECHANISTIC
In Nick Haslam's review of *dehumanization*, he differentiates between
uniquely human (UH) characteristics, which distinguish humans from other
animals, and human nature (HN), characteristics that are typical of or
central to human beings. His model suggests that different types of
*dehumanization* arise from the denial of one sense of humanness or the
other. Language, higher order cognition, refined emotions, civility, and
morality are uniquely human characteristics (i.e., traits humans have that
non-human animals do not). Cognitive flexibility, emotionality, vital
agency, and warmth are central to human nature. Characteristics of human
nature are perceived to be widely shared among groups (i.e., every human
has these traits), while uniquely human characteristics (e.g., civility,
morality) are thought to vary between groups.
According to Haslam, the animalistic form of *dehumanization* occurs when
uniquely human characteristics (e.g., refinement, moral sensibility) are
denied to an outgroup. People that suffer animalistic *dehumanization* are
seen as amoral, unintelligent, and lacking self-control, and they are
likened to animals. This has happened to Jewish people during The
Holocaust, and the Tutsi ethnic group during the Rwandan Genocide. While
usually employed on an intergroup basis, animalistic *dehumanization* can
occur on an interpersonal basis as well.
The mechanistic form occurs when features of human nature (e.g., cognitive
flexibility, warmth, agency) are denied to targets. Targets of mechanistic
*dehumanization* are seen as cold, rigid, interchangeable, lacking agency,
and likened to machines or objects. Mechanistic *dehumanization* is usually
employed on an interpersonal basis (e.g., when a person is seen as a means
to another's end).
RELATED PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Several lines of psychological research relate to the concept of
dehumanization. Infrahumanization suggests that individuals think of and
treat outgroup members as "less human" and more like animals;[4] while
Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeld uses the term pseudo-speciation, a term that he
borrowed from the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson, to imply that the dehumanized
person or persons are being regarded as not members of the human
species.[11] Specifically, individuals associate secondary emotions (which
are seen as uniquely human) more with the ingroup than with the outgroup.
Primary emotions (those that are experienced by all sentient beings, both
humans and other animals) and are found to be more associated with the
outgroup. Dehumanization is intrinsically connected with violence. Often,
one cannot do serious injury to another without first dehumanizing him or
her in one's mind (as a form of rationalization.) Military training is,
among other things, a systematic desensitization and dehumanization of the
enemy, and servicemen and women may find it psychologically necessary to
refer to the enemy as animal or other non-human beings. Lt. Col. Dave
Grossman has shown that without such desensitization it would be difficult,
if not impossible for someone to kill another human, even in combat or
under threat to their own lives.
Delegitimization is the "categorization of groups into extreme negative
social categories which are excluded from human groups that are considered
as acting within the limits of acceptable norms and/or values."
Moral exclusion occurs when outgroups are subject to a different set of
moral values, rules, and fairness than are used in social relations with
ingroup members. When individuals dehumanize others, they no longer
experience distress when they treat them poorly. Moral exclusion is used to
explain extreme behaviors like genocide, harsh immigration policies, and
eugenics, but can also happen on a more regular, everyday discriminatory
level. In laboratory studies, people who are portrayed as lacking human
qualities have been found to be treated in a particularly harsh and violent
manner.
Martha Nussbaum (1999) identified seven components of objectification:
"instrumentality", "ownership", "denial of autonomy", "inertness",
"fungibility", "violability", and "denial of subjectivity".
In Psychology higher-order cognitive processes like social cognition may
occur between a human and human, or human and non-human, human and object.
The assigning that occurs in social cognition suggests a non-human target
can have projected internal life, or conscious emotional and cognitive
experiences. Mental states projected onto objects and non-human forms of
life can occur without intention. Studies by Heberlein, Adolphs, Tranel
& Damasio, Heberlein AS, Adolphs R, Tranel D, Damasio H. Cortical
regions for judgments of emotions and personality traits from point-light
walkers explore the constants of biological motion perception within areas
of the human brain, where participants would infer intent among objects
which do not have any emotion or cognitions. It is also possible for
subjects to anthropomorphize a spectrum of inanimate objects and non-human
life forms. In children there is a common pattern of projecting the
imaginary other, both humanlike and not, and a child is able to interact
with the imaginary other without much effort as if the projected other
exists. With the ease of anthropomorphic projection, children's lack of
social cognition unto human counterparts is surprising. Dehumanized
perception often means a cognitive bias experienced through lack of
consideration for thoughts, feelings, and general mental contents of a
social target's cognition. This dehumanized perception can occur when the
target has elicited disgust or further negative responses when in contact
with the dehumanizing subject. Humans seen as having certain lower social
standings such as people suffering from addictions and homeless persons are
often perceived as being low in cognitive warmth and low in social
competency reliability. This often elicits more frequent disgust compared
to certain higher social standings when projected cognitions by the
dehumanizing subject. Humans can suddenly consider the mental cognitions
of those persons who experience emotions of a social variety, linking
in-groups of positive social figures to pride, connecting in-groups of
wealthy and the upper class feelings of envy, and experiencing pity towards
in-groups of the disabled and the elderly. Through a study by Fiske, Cuddy,
& Glick in 2007, a stereotype content model showed that social targets
such as the elderly and wealthy were trustworthy, friendly, and of capable
ability due to perceived competence and warmth. However, in-groups of the
disabled, poor, persons with addictions, and immigrants were recorded as
disgust-inducing due to projected low warmth and incompetence.
Dehumanized perception has been indicated to occur when a subject
experiences low frequencies of activation within their social cognition
neural network. This includes areas of neural networking such as the
superior temporal sulcus and the medial prefrontal cortex. A study by Frith
& Frith in 2001 suggests the criticality of social interaction within a
neural network has tendencies for subjects to dehumanize those seen as
disgust-inducing leading to social disengagement. Tasks involving social
cognition typically activate the neural network responsible for subjective
projections of disgust-inducing perceptions and patterns of dehumanization.
"Besides manipulations of target persons, manipulations of social goals
validate this prediction: Inferring preference, a mental-state inference,
significantly increases MPFC and STS activity to these otherwise
dehumanized targets." A 2007 study by Harris, McClure, van den Bos, Cohen
& Fiske suggest a subject's mental reliability towards dehumanizing
social cognition due to the decrease of neural activity towards the
projected target, replicating across stimuli and contexts.
FACILITATING FACTORS
While social distance from the outgroup target is a necessary condition for
dehumanization, some research suggests that it is not sufficient.
Psychological research has identified high status, power, and social
connection as additional factors that influence whether dehumanization will
occur. If being an outgroup member was all that was required to be
dehumanized, dehumanization would be far more prevalent. However, only
members of high status groups associate humanity more with ingroup than the
outgroup. Members of low status groups exhibit no differences in
associations with humanity. Having high status makes one more likely to
dehumanize others. Low status groups are more associated with human nature
traits (warmth, emotionality) than uniquely human traits, implying that
they are closer to animals than humans because these traits are typical of
humans but can be seen in other species. In addition, another line of work
found that individuals in a position of power were more likely to objectify
their subordinates, treating them as a means to one's own end rather than
focusing on their essentially human qualities. Finally, social connection,
thinking about a close other or being in the actual presence of a close
other, enables dehumanization by reducing attribution of human mental
states, increasing support for treating targets like animals, and
increasing willingness to endorse harsh interrogation tactics. This is
surprising because social connection has documented benefits for personal
health and well-being but appears to impair intergroup relations.
Neuroimaging studies have discovered that the medial prefrontal cortex—a
brain region distinctively involved in attributing mental states to
others—shows diminished activation to extremely dehumanized targets (i.e.,
those rated, according to the stereotype content model, as low-warmth and
low-competence, such as drug addicts or homeless people).
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Dehumanization often occurs as a result of conflict in an intergroup
context. Ethnic and racial others are often represented as animals in
popular culture and scholarship. There is evidence that this representation
persists in the American context with African Americans implicitly
associated with apes. To the extent that an individual has this
dehumanizing implicit association, they are more likely to support violence
against African Americans (e.g., jury decisions to execute defendants).
Historically, dehumanization is frequently connected to genocidal conflicts
in that ideologies before and during the conflict link victims to
rodents/vermin. Immigrants are also dehumanized in this manner. In the
1900s, the Australian Constitution and British Government partook in an Act
to federate the Australian states. Section 51 (xxvi) and 127 were two
provisions that dehumanised Aboriginals. 51. The Parliament shall, subject
to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and
good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xxvi) The people of
any race, other than the Aboriginal people in any state, for whom it is
deemed necessary to make special laws. 127. In reckoning the numbers of the
people of the Commonwealth, or of a state or other part of the
Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
In 1902 the Commonwealth Franchise Act was passed, this categorically
denied Aboriginals from the right to vote. Indigenous Australians were not
allowed social security benefits e.g. Aged pensions and maternity
allowances. However, these benefits were provided to other non-Indigenous
Australians by the Commonwealth Government. Aboriginals in rural areas were
discriminated and controlled as to where and how they could marry, work,
live, and their movements were restricted.
OBJECTIFICATION
Fredrickson and Roberts argued that the sexual objectification of women
extends beyond pornography (which emphasizes women's bodies over their
uniquely human mental and emotional characteristics) to society generally.
There is a normative emphasis on female appearance that causes women to
take a third-person perspective on their bodies. The psychological distance
women may feel from their bodies might cause them to dehumanize themselves.
Some research has indicated that women and men exhibit a "sexual body part
recognition bias", in which women's sexual body parts are better recognized
when presented in isolation than in the context of their entire bodies,
whereas men's sexual body parts are better recognized in the context of
their entire bodies than in isolation. Men who dehumanize women as either
animals or objects are more liable to rape and sexually harass women and
display more negative attitudes toward female rape victims.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization
Despite the seemingly clear weight of condemnation of such practices, some
critics disagree with the division of international legal norms into a
hierarchy. There is also disagreement over how such norms are recognized or
established. The relatively new concept of peremptory norms seems to be at
odds with the traditionally consensual nature of international law
considered necessary to state sovereignty.
SOVEREIGNTY: is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of
a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside
sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term
designating supreme authority over some polity. It is a basic principle
underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.
Derived from Latin through French souveraineté, its attainment and
retention, in both Chinese and Western culture, has traditionally been
associated with certain moral imperatives upon any claimant.
Different approaches[edit]
The concept of sovereignty has been discussed throughout history, and is
still actively debated[3][4] It has changed in its definition, concept, and
application throughout, especially during the Age of Enlightenment. The
current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects consisting of
territory, population, authority and recognition. According to Stephen D.
Krasner, the term could also be understood in four different ways:
- domestic sovereignty – actual control over a state exercised by an
authority organized within this state,
- interdependence sovereignty – actual control of movement across state's
borders, assuming the borders exist,
- international legal sovereignty – formal recognition by other sovereign
states,
- Westphalian sovereignty – lack of other authority over state other than
the domestic authority (examples of such other authorities could be a
non-domestic church, a non-domestic political organization, or any other
external agent).
Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily
the case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical
examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the same
time being sovereign in another of these aspects. According to Immanuel
Wallerstein, another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that it is a
claim that must be recognised by others if it is to have any meaning:
"Sovereignty is more than anything else a matter of legitimacy [...that]
requires reciprocal recognition. Sovereignty is a hypothetical trade, in
which two potentially conflicting sides, respecting de facto realities of
power, exchange such recognitions as their least costly strategy."
HISTORY - CLASSICAL
The Roman jurist Ulpian observed that:
- The imperium of the people is transferred to the Emperor.
- The Emperor is not bound by the law.
- The Emperor's word is law. Emperor is the law making and abiding force.
Ulpian was expressing the idea that the Emperor exercised a rather absolute
form of sovereignty, although he did not use the term expressly.
*DEFINITION* *AND* *TYPES*
ABSOLUTENESS
An important factor of sovereignty is its degree of absoluteness. A
sovereign power has absolute sovereignty when it is not restricted by a
constitution, by the laws of its predecessors, or by custom, and no areas
of law or policy are reserved as being outside its control. International
law; policies and actions of neighboring states; cooperation and respect of
the populace; means of enforcement; and resources to enact policy are
factors that might limit sovereignty. For example, parents are not
guaranteed the right to decide some matters in the upbringing of their
children independent of societal regulation, and municipalities do not have
unlimited jurisdiction in local matters, thus neither parents nor
municipalities have absolute sovereignty. Theorists have diverged over the
desirability of increased absoluteness.
EXCLUSIVITY
A key element of sovereignty in a legalistic sense is that of exclusivity
of jurisdiction. Specifically, the degree to which decisions made by a
sovereign entity might be contradicted by another authority. Along these
lines, the German sociologist Max Weber proposed that sovereignty is a
community's monopoly on the legitimate use of force; and thus any group
claiming the same right must either be brought under the yoke of the
sovereign, proven illegitimate, or otherwise contested and defeated for
sovereignty to be genuine.[15] International law, competing branches of
government, and authorities reserved for subordinate entities (such as
federated states or republics) represent legal infringements on
exclusivity. Social institutions such as religious bodies, corporations,
and competing political parties might represent de facto infringements on
exclusivity.
DE JURE AND DE FACTO
De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally
recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual,
sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation
and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an
area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various
functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When
control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is
considered coercive sovereignty.
ACQUISITION
A number of modes of acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have
historically been recognised by international law as lawful methods by
which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory. The classification of
these modes originally derived from Roman property law and from the 15th
and 16th century with the development of international law. The modes
are:[32]
- Cession is the transfer of territory from one state to another usually by
means of treaty;
- Occupation is the acquisition of territory that belongs to no state, or
terra nullius;
- Prescription is the effective control of territory of another acquiescing
state;
- Operations of nature is the acquisition of territory through natural
processes like river accretion or volcanism;
- Creation is the process by which new land is reclaimed from the sea such
as in the Netherlands.
- Adjudication and
-Conquest
JUSTIFICATIONS
There exist vastly differing views on the moral basis of sovereignty. A
fundamental polarity is between theories that assert that sovereignty is
vested directly in the sovereign by divine or natural right and theories
that assert it originates from the people. In the latter case there is a
further division into those that assert that the people transfer their
sovereignty to the sovereign (Hobbes), and those that assert that the
people retain their sovereignty (Rousseau).
During the brief period of absolute monarchies in Europe, the divine right
of kings was an important competing justification for the exercise of
sovereignty. The Mandate of Heaven had some similar implications in China.
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant
portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and where offices
of state are not granted through heritage.[33][34] A common modern
definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not
a monarch.[35][36]
Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct
democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy.
Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty
from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some
combination of legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative
democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum,
initiative, and recall.
Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the
parliament is ultimately sovereign and not the executive power nor the
judiciary.
VIEWS
- Classical liberals such as Stuart Mill consider every individual as
sovereign on oneself.
- Realists view sovereignty as being untouchable and as guaranteed to
legitimate nation-states.
- Rationalists see sovereignty similarly to realists. However, rationalism
states that the sovereignty of a nation-state may be violated in extreme
circumstances, such as human rights abuses.
- Internationalists believe that sovereignty is outdated and an unnecessary
obstacle to achieving peace, in line with their belief of a 'global
community'. In the light of the abuse of power by sovereign states such as
Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union, they argue that human beings are
not necessarily protected by the state whose citizens they are, and that
the respect for state sovereignty on which the UN Charter is founded is an
obstacle to humanitarian intervention.
- Anarchists and some libertarians deny the sovereignty of states and
governments. Anarchists often argue for a specific individual kind of
sovereignty, such as the Anarch as a sovereign individual. Salvador Dalí,
for instance, talked of "anarcho-monarchist" (as usual for him, tongue in
cheek); Antonin Artaud of Heliogabalus: Or, The Crowned Anarchist; Max
Stirner of The Ego and Its Own; Georges Bataille and Jacques Derrida of a
kind of "antisovereignty". Therefore, anarchists join a classical
conception of the individual as sovereign of himself, which forms the basis
of political consciousness. The unified consciousness is sovereignty over
one's own body, as Nietzsche demonstrated (see also Pierre Klossowski's
book on Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle). See also sovereignty of the
individual and self-ownership.
- Imperialists hold a view of sovereignty where power rightfully exists
with those states that hold the greatest ability to impose the will of said
state, by force or threat of force, over the populace or other states with
weaker military or political will. They effectively deny the sovereignty of
the individual in deference to either the 'good' of the whole, or to divine
right.
According to Matteo Laruffa "sovereignty resides in every public action and
policy as the exercise of executive powers by institutions open to the
participation of citizens to the decision-making processes"
RELATION TO RULE OF LAW
Another topic is whether the law is held to be sovereign, that is, whether
it is above political or other interference. Sovereign law constitutes a
true state of law, meaning the letter of the law (if constitutionally
correct) is applicable and enforceable, even when against the political
will of the nation, as long as not formally changed following the
constitutional procedure. Strictly speaking, any deviation from this
principle constitutes a revolution or a coup d'état, regardless of the
intentions.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty
Some peremptory norms define criminal offences considered to be enforceable
against not only states but also individuals. That has been increasingly
accepted since the Nuremberg Trials (the first enforcement in world history
of international norms upon individuals) and now might be considered
uncontroversial. However, the language of peremptory norms was not used in
connection with these trials, rather the basis of criminalisation and
punishment of Nazi atrocities, was that civilisation could not tolerate
their being ignored because it could not survive their being repeated.
There are often disagreements over whether a particular case violates a
peremptory norm. As in other areas of law, states generally reserve the
right to interpret the concept for themselves.
Many large states have accepted this concept. Some of them have ratified
the Vienna Convention, while others have stated in their official
statements that they accept the Vienna Convention as "codificatory". Some
have applied the concept in their dealings with international organizations
and other States.
TORTURE
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated in
Prosecutor v. Furundžija that there is a *jus* *cogens* for the prohibition
against torture. It also stated that every State is entitled "to
investigate, prosecute and punish or extradite individuals accused of
torture, who are present in a territory under its jurisdiction." Therefore,
there is *universal* *jurisdiction* over torture. The rationale for this is
that "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before
him, *hostis* *humani* *generis*, an enemy of all mankind."
HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS (Latin for "enemy of mankind") is a legal term of art
that originates in admiralty law. Before the adoption of public
international law, pirates and slavers were already held to be beyond legal
protection and so could be dealt with by any nation, even one that had not
been directly attacked.
A comparison can be made between this concept and the common law "writ of
outlawry", which declared a person outside the King's law, a literal
out-law, subject to the violence of anyone. The ancient Roman civil law
concept of proscription, and the status of *homo* *sacer* conveyed by
proscription may also be similar.
HOMO SACER (Latin for "the sacred man" or "the accursed man") is a figure
of Roman law: a person who is banned and may be killed by anybody, but may
not be sacrificed in a religious ritual.
The meaning of the term sacer in Ancient Roman religion is not fully
congruent with the meaning it took after Christianization, and which was
adopted into English as sacred. In early Roman religion sacer, much like
the Hebrew קָדוֹש qadoš, denotes anything "set apart" from common society
and encompasses both the sense of "hallowed" and that of "cursed". This
concept of the sacred is more in line with the Islamic notion of haram. The
homo sacer could thus also simply mean a person expunged from society and
deprived of all rights and all functions in civil religion. Homo sacer is
defined in legal terms as someone who can be killed without the killer
being regarded as a murderer; and a person who cannot be sacrificed. The
sacred human may thus be understood as someone outside the law, or beyond
it. In the case of certain monarchs in western legal traditions, the
sovereign and the Homo Sacer have conflated.
The status of homo sacer could fall upon one as a consequence of
oath-breaking. An oath in antiquity was essentially a conditional
self-cursing, i.e. invoking one or several deities and asking for their
punishment in the event of breaking the oath. An oathbreaker was
consequently considered the property of the gods whom he had invoked and
then deceived. If the oathbreaker was killed, this was understood as the
revenge of the gods into whose power he had given himself. Since the
oathbreaker was already the property of the oath deity, he could no longer
belong to human society, or be consecrated to another deity.
A direct reference to this status is found in the Twelve Tables (8.21),
laws of the early Roman Republic written in the 5th century BC. The
paragraph states that a patron who deceives his clients is to be regarded
as sacer.
The idea of the status of an outlaw, a criminal who is declared as
unprotected by the law and can consequently be killed by anyone with
impunity, persists throughout the Middle Ages, medieval perception
condemning the entire human intrinsic moral worth of the condemned outlaw,
*dehumanizing* the outlaw literally as a "wolf" or "wolf's-head" (in an era
where hunting of wolves existed strongly, including a commercial element)
and is first revoked only by the English Habeas Corpus act of 1679 which
declares that any criminal must be judged by a tribunal before being
punished.
Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes the concept as the starting point
of his main work Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998).
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sacer
BACKGROUND:
Since the time of the Ancient Romans, pirates have been held to be
individuals waging private warfare, a private campaign of sack and pillage,
against not only their victims, but against all nations, and thus, pirates
hold the peculiar status of being regarded as "*hostis* *humani*
*generis*", the enemies of humanity.
THEORIZED EXTENDED USAGES OF THE TERM
The land and airborne analogues of pirates, bandits and hijackers are not
subject to *universal* *jurisdiction* in the same way as piracy; this is
despite arguments that they should be. Instead these crimes, along with
terrorism, torture, crimes against internationally protected persons[3] and
the financing of terrorism are subject to the aut dedere aut judicare
principle (meaning prosecute or extradite). In the current global climate
of international terrorism some commentators have called for terrorists of
all sorts to be treated *hostis* *humani* *generis*.
Other commentators, such as John Yoo and various U.S. Federal court, have
called for the extension of this hypothetical connection of "*hostis*
*humani* *generis*" from pirates to hijackers to terrorists all the way to
that of "unlawful enemy combatants". Unlawful enemy combatants, or persons
captured in war who do not fight on behalf of a recognized sovereign state,
have become an increasingly common phenomenon in contemporary wars, such as
War in Afghanistan, Iraq War, and First Chechen War; nevertheless,
"unlawful enemy combatants" have also fought in wars of historical
interest, including the American Revolutionary War. These
commentators[who?] opine that because unlawful enemy combatants do not
fight for a recognized sovereign state they are therefore "*hostis*
*humani* *generis*", and can be put on trial using a military commission
and subjected to capital punishment for engaging in hostilities typically
associated with warfare, such as throwing a grenade at soldiers in a battle
or killing a soldier in a firefight.
ACTUAL EXTENDED USAGES OF THE TERM
The only actual extension of "*hostis* *humani* *generis*" blessed by
courts of law has been its extension to torturers. This has been done by
decisions of U.S. and international courts; specifically, in a case tried
in the United States in 1980, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, the
United States 2nd Circuit Court ruled that it could exercise jurisdiction
over agents of the Government of Paraguay (in their individual capacity)
who were found to have committed the crime of torture against a Paraguayan
citizen, using its jurisdiction under the Offenses Clause of the
Constitution of the United States, the Alien Tort Claims Act, and customary
international law. In deciding this, the court famously stated that
"Indeed, for purposes of civil liability, the torturer has become like the
pirate and slave trader before him *hostis* *humani* *generis*, an enemy of
all mankind." This usage of the term *hostis* *humani* *generis* has been
reinforced by the ruling of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia in the conviction of a torturer in Prosecutor v.
Furundžija, marking its acceptance as a peremptory norm, part of the
customary international law, held as *jus* *cogens*, applying *erga*
*omnes*, upon any and every state and human individual without exception or
reservation whatsoever.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis
PROSCRIPTION (Latin: proscriptio) is, in current usage, a "decree of
condemnation to death or banishment" (OED) and can be used in a political
context to refer to state-approved murder or banishment. The term
originated in Ancient Rome, where it included public identification and
official condemnation of declared enemies of the state. It has been used
broadly since to describe similar governmental and political actions, with
varying degrees of nuance, including the en masse suppression of ideologies
and elimination of political rivals or personal enemies. In addition to its
recurrences during the various phases of the Roman Republic, it has become
a standard term to label:
- the suppression of Royalists after Oliver Cromwell's decisive defeat of
Charles II at the Battle of Worcester in 1651
- curbing of Western religion in early 18th-century China
- the banning of Highland dress following the Jacobite rising of 1745 in
Scotland
- atrocities that occurred during the Reign of Terror (1793-1794) phase of
the French Revolution
- the mass deportations of English and French workers from Russia in
mid-19th century, with the onset of the Crimean War
- in the 20th century, such things as the efforts of the Labour Party in
England to prevent "Communist entryism" through blacklisting propagandizing
persons and organisations
- the broad prohibitions of Jewish cultural institutions and activities in
the Soviet Union after the birth of the state of Israel in 1948 and the
onset of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War
PROSCRIPTION IN ANCIENT ROME - LATIN ORIGIN
Proscription (latin proscriptio, plural proscriptiones) in the context of
the Roman Empire originated from the latin proscriptio, initially meaning
public advertisements or notices signifying property or goods for sale.
During the dictatorial reign of Sulla, it took on a more sinister meaning.
In 82 or 81 B.C., Sulla instituted the process of proscription in order to
avenge the massacres of Gaius Marius and Gaius Marius’ son. He instituted a
notice for the sale of confiscated property belonging to those declared
public enemies of the state (modern historians estimate about 520 people
were proscribed as opposed to the ancient estimate of 4,700 people) and
therefore condemned to death those proscribed, called proscripti in Latin.
PROSCRIPTION AND TREASON
There were multiple reasons why the ancient Roman government may have
desired to proscribe or attribute multiple other forms of pain. One of the
most prevalent reasons for punishment are treason crimes, also known as lex
maiestatis. Treason crimes consisted of a very broad and large number of
regulations, and such crimes had a negative effect on the government. This
list includes, but is not limited to: assisting an enemy in anyway, Crimen
Laesae Majestasis, acts of subversion and usurpation, offense against the
peace of the state, offenses against the administration of justice, and
violating absolute duties. Overall, crimes in which the state, emperor, the
state’s tranquility, or offenses against the good of the people would be
considered treason, and, therefore, would constitute proscription. Some of
these regulations are understandable and comparable to safety laws within
the United States today; however, others, like violating absolute duties,
could very easily be accidents or circumstantial crises that would deserve
punishment regardless.
Punishments for treason were quite harsh for today’s standards and were
meant to highlight the seriousness and shamefulness of the treason crimes
committed. There were a variety of punishments for capital crimes,
including death, loss of a freedman’s status, loss of citizenship with a
loss of family rights, and a loss of family rights only. Death was a very
common punishment and was referred to as summum supplicium, or the “extreme
penalty.” The death sentence was often the punishment for all but the
mildest forms of treason. Julius Caesar was an influential framer on the
law on treason. The Interdiction from Water and Fire was a civil
excommunication resulting in ultimate exile, which included forfeiture of
citizenship and forfeiture of property. Those who were condemned would be
deported to an island. Emperor Augustus frequently utilized this method of
exile, as he desired to keep banished men from banding together in large
groups. Such punishment was only given for the mildest forms of treason, in
comparison for the death penalty served for most other treason crimes.
Augustus also created the prefect, whose powers included the ability to
banish, deport, or send to the mines. The prefect also heard appeals.
PROSCRIPTION OF SULLA IN 82 BCE
An early instance of mass proscription took place in 82 BC, when Lucius
Cornelius Sulla was appointed dictator rei publicae constituendae
("Dictator for the Reconstitution of the Republic"). Sulla proceeded to
have the Senate draw up a list of those he considered enemies of the state
and published the list in the Roman Forum. Any man whose name appeared on
the list was ipso facto stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all
protection under law; reward money was given to any informer who gave
information leading to the death of a proscribed man, and any person who
killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the
remainder went to the state). No person could inherit money or property
from proscribed men, nor could any woman married to a proscribed man
remarry after his death. Many victims of proscription were decapitated and
their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum.
Sulla used proscription to restore the depleted Roman Treasury (Aerarium),
which had been drained by costly civil and foreign wars in the preceding
decade, and to eliminate enemies (both real and potential) of his reformed
state and constitutions; the plutocratic knights of the Ordo Equester were
particularly hard-hit. Giving the procedure a particularly sinister
character in the public eye was the fact that many of the proscribed men,
escorted from their homes at night by groups of men all named "Lucius
Cornelius," never appeared again. (These men were all Sulla's freedmen.)
This gave rise to a general fear of being taken from one's home at night as
a consequence of any outwardly seditious behaviour.
Sulla's proscription was bureaucratically overseen, and the names of
informers and those who profited from killing proscribed men were entered
into the public record. Because Roman law could criminalise acts ex post
facto, many informers and profiteers were later prosecuted.
The proscription of 82 BC was overseen by Sulla's freedman steward Lucius
Cornelius Chrysogonus, and was rife with corruption.
The proscription lists created by Sulla led to mass terror in Rome. During
this time, “the cities of Italy became theaters of execution.” Citizens
were terrified to find their names on the lists.5 If they did find their
names on the list, they were ultimately sentenced to death. The executions
were brutal and led to beheadings. Often times, these heads were then put
on display for the city to see. The bodies of the condemned were often
mutilated and dragged before being thrown into the Tiber River.
Additionally, those who were condemned lost rights even after their brutal
death. Those killed were denied the right to a funeral, and all of their
possessions were auctioned off, often to the ones who killed them. Negative
consequences arose for anyone that chose to assist those on the list,
despite not being listed on the proscribed lists themselves. Anyone who was
found guilty of assisting the condemned was capitally punished.2 Families
were also punished as a result of being related to one of the proscribed.
It was forbidden to mourn the death of a proscribed person. According to
Plutarch, the greatest injustice of all the consequences was stripping the
rights of their children and grandchildren. While those proscribed and
their loved ones faced harsh consequences, the people who assisted the
government by killing any person on the proscription list were actually
rewarded.
PROSCRIPTION OF 43 BCE
The proscription of 43 B.C was the second major proscription. It began with
an agreement in November 43 between the triumvirs Octavian Caesar, Marcus
Antonius, and Marcus Lepidus after two long meetings. Their aim was to
avenge Julius Caesar’s assassination, eliminate political enemies, and
acquire their properties. The proscription was aimed at Julius Caesar’s
conspirators, such as Brutus and Cassius, and other individuals who had
taken part in the civil war, including wealthy people, senators, knights,
and republicans such as Sextus Pompey and Cicero. There were 2,000 names on
the list in total, and a handsome reward of 2,500 drachmae for bringing
back the head of a free person on the list (a slave's head was worth 1,000
drachmae); the same rewards were given to anyone who gave information on
where someone on the list was hiding. Anyone who tried to save people on
the list was included on the list. The material belongings of the dead
victims were to be confiscated. Some of the listed were stripped of their
property but protected from death by their relatives in the Triumvirate
(e.g., Lucius Julius Caesar and Lepidus' brother). Most, however, were
killed, in some cases gruesomely. Cicero, his younger brother Quintus
Tullius Cicero (one of Julius Caesar's legates) and Marcus Favonius were
all killed in the proscription. Cicero's head and hands were famously cut
off and fastened to the Rostra.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription
Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence by ship- or boat-borne
attackers upon another ship or a coastal area, typically with the goal of
stealing cargo and other valuable items or properties. Those who engage in
acts of piracy are called pirates.
A land-based parallel is the ambushing of travelers by bandits and
brigands in highways and mountain passes. Privateering uses similar
methods to piracy, but the captain acts under orders of the state
authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation,
making it a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors.
Piracy or pirating is the name of a specific crime under customary
international law and also the name of a number of crimes under the
municipal law of a number of states.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm
-----------
According to Amnesty International, a proponent of *universal*
*jurisdiction*, certain crimes pose so serious a threat to the
international community as a whole, that states have a logical and moral
duty to prosecute an individual responsible; therefore, no place should be
a safe haven for those who have committed genocide, *crimes* *against*
*humanity*, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture and forced
disappearances.
Opponents, such as Henry Kissinger, who was himself the subject of war
crimes charges in Spain, argue that *universal* *jurisdiction* is a breach
of each state's sovereignty: all states being equal in sovereignty, as
affirmed by the United Nations Charter, "[w]idespread agreement that human
rights violations and *Crimes* *against* *humanity* must be prosecuted has
hindered active consideration of the proper role of international courts.
*universal* *jurisdiction* risks creating universal tyranny – that of
judges." According to Kissinger, as a practical matter, since any number of
states could set up such *universal* *jurisdiction* tribunals, the process
could quickly degenerate into politically driven show trials to attempt to
place a quasi-judicial stamp on a state's enemies or opponents.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United
Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "Reaffirm[ed] the provisions of
paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding
the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic
cleansing and *crimes* *against* *humanity*" and commits the Security
Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_norm
THIS IS MY INTENTION TO PURSUE A LEGAL RECOURSE AGAINST PUBLIC AND INTERNET
BASED RELIGIOUS FALSE DEFAMATORY HATE SPEECH AS SLANDER AS CONSTITUTING
TORTURE AS A WAR CRIMES AND IS THEREFORE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND MY
CLAIMING AN UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION AS THE MEANS OF PURSUING A FEROCIOUS
JUSTICE.
DOLF: "On the contrary--I despise you with such vehement intensity...
I am at the time of writing this response to you, thinking of just how far
I can drag your prolapsed (dry old withered) intestines around the world
before they snap.
How graphic do you want me to be?"
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI @ 0236 HOURS 19 DECEMBER, 2016: "You do know that
keeping so many negative emotions inside you is harmful to your well being,
don't you?"
DOLF: "Not at all, I didn't keep any negative emotions inside me as they
were all compliant with my theoretical mathematical noumenon they were all
prudent, reasonable and consistent with explicit computed CATEGORIES OF
UNDERSTANDING:
I subsequently listened to the YOUTUBE: narrative of the Egyptian Pyramid
Text Of Unas
-
And the issue which was relative to this pyramid text of Unas, and I quote:
"He takes out for him their entrails, he is a messenger whom he (king Unis)
sends to punish."
"King Unis is nourished on satisfied organs, he is satisfied, living on
their hearts and their charms.
As exhibiting rationality, reasonableness and as consciousness--THUS THIS
CONSTITUTES A FACT AND SAID FACT WAS THEN ALSO CONFIRMED BY DIVINE
PROVIDENCE:
"Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave
testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be
done by their hands." [Acts 14:3 (KJV)]
*I* *DEMAND* *THAT* *YOU* *ALL* *NOW* *IMMEDIATELY* *APOLIGISE* *FOR*
*YOUR* *HABITUAL* *INHUMANE* *PSYCHO*-*SEXUAL* *HATE* *SPEECH* *AS* *BEING*
*NEO* *FASCIST* *AND* *CONSTITUTING* *A* *WAR* *CRIMES*
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "IS DOLF
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
A new type of mental illness? Sounds like it to me."
BILL JILLIANS: "You'll never hear the last of that."
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "That's ok, I always wear earplugs before coming to
a[lt].u[senet].kooks."
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "DO YOU REMEMBER THE GOOD OLD DAYS?
The Australian DORK has impersonated me, what a surprise!!! ;-)"
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HOMOSEXUAL AND A
HETEROSEXUAL:
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
is that the homo thinks with his small head, while the hetero thinks with
his big head.
ROTFLMAO!!!!"
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "INSTEAD OF CALLING THEM TRANSGENDER
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Would it be more accurate to call them what they really are:
TRANSTUPID?"
COLONEL EDMUND (ATHEIST/BUDDHIST/VIETNAM VET) BURKE: "From a vast future of
human ruin he returneth to the past to set straight the score and even his
burning revenge!
At a theater near you now."
ALEXANDER KALINOWSKI: "DOLF LEENDERT BORK
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
It must be a movie about the super crazy. Btw, his real name is DORK."
MAKING THE CLAIM FOR A UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
DOLF: "Any interest in guys?"
STR8 42YO: "No - that's why my ad was posted under m4ww not m4m - simple
when you think about it really."
DOLF: "Well that may be so, and I do request your indulgence in my reply.
THE PROPOSITION WHICH I MAKE IS THIS:
Thus since your world paradigm of being and existence has now collapsed,
would you then reconsider the therapeutic merit of having a gay guy as an
inclusion within your sexual dynamic sexual opportunism?
Think of it as a celebration of your masculinity which is in want of
reinforcement.
Any interest in guys?
The simply reality is that there is no universe of discourse amongst
STR8/BI men about their desire for any male to male sexual dynamics and
opportunism. This is because the disclosure of such sexual wants can be
threatening to the peace, comfort and existence of male dominated society.
They simply have no acceptable paradigm of mind (as HETEROS THEORY OF
NUMBER) whereby a male biological entity can have in varying degree a
feminine internal self identity dynamic associated to the formula of
autonomy. And similarly a female biological entity can have in varying
degree a masculine internal self identity dynamic associated to the formula
of autonomy.
This then results in the abrogation of the masculine self identity by a
modal sisification made against the formula of autonomy.
I do metaphysics and metempirical philosophy (perennialist school of
thought) and have an alternate gender identity and sexual dynamic paradigm
of MIND, BODY and SOUL captivation which is historically associated with
the HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER as an encapsulated microcosm dynamic
perpetuated against the psyche by a CANON OF TRANSPOSITION which is imposed
on the biological order which is HOMO[iOS] SAPIEN[T].
Within analytic philosophy, so-called 'univocalism' is the prevailing
interpretation of the meaning of terms such as 'being' or 'existence', ie.
the thesis that these terms have only one meaning (see Russell, White,
Quine, van Inwagen). But some analytical philosophers, inspired by
Aristotle, maintain that 'being' has many senses. Aristotle develops an
argument in favour of this last thesis, observing that 'being' and 'one'
cannot be a single genus, because they are predicated of their differences
(Metaph. B 3). But 'being' for Aristotle has also a unity, ie. 'focal
meaning', which coincides with substance (Metaph. 2), and substance has not
only an ontological priority, but also a logical priority.
The German Philosopher Martin Heidegger as the principle intellectual
impetus which gave to rise German fascism has similarly posited a question
on Being and Time (German: Sein und Zeit) in a 1927 book. In which
Heidegger seeks to analyse the concept of Being. This has fundamental
importance for philosophy, he thought, because since the time of the
Ancient Greeks, philosophy has avoided this question, turning instead to
the analysis of particular beings. Heidegger seeks a more fundamental
ontology through understanding being itself. He approaches this through
seeking understanding of beings to whom the question of being is important,
i.e. 'Dasein', or the human being in the abstract. Although written
quickly, and though Heidegger did not complete the project outlined in the
introduction, Being and Time remains his most important work.
In the history analytical philosophy the prevailing interpretation of the
meaning of the terms such as 'being' or 'existence' are as UNIVERSALS
usually defined by NUMBER and specifically the Pythagorean HETEROS THEORY
OF NUMBER and were affirmed with different meanings, respectively
equivalent to being in space and time (ie. MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY as a
universal statement which is a singularity compliant with a DIVINE FIAT and
potentiality as a cosmological / language consideration of the
chronological circumscribing given to the 10 commandments as then defining
human consciousness by a cosmological anthropic principle) and being not in
space and time (ie. MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY as encapsulated by the
knowledge of a HOMOIOS rather than HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER consideration).
WE CAN DECLARE YOU NEO-FASCIST WITHIN THE CHARACTER, MANNER AND ETHOS OF
YOUR CONDUCT AND THEREFORE AS ENEMIES TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA OF
1901, YOU HAVE FORFEITED ANY FURTHER ENTITLEMENT TO BE NEITHER HEARD IN
PUBLIC, NOR REMAIN WITHIN THIS LAND AND YOU ARE HENCEFORTH BESTOWED THE
INDIGNITY OF PERSONA NON GRATA."
--
#5 / #6: Say NO to anonymous fascist propaganda every time.
The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO[IOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."
That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[IOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE.
- http://www.grapple369.com
After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS."
