Following the path of enlightening some high corruption cases, mainly institutional, this second part of it is about technocratic language distortion aiming to accomodate the terms of debate to a cheated pattern. The case of gun’s control is appropriated here as senators rejected the project purportedly in respect for the sacro-saint second amendment of that other Bible : the Constitution. Once upon the time, Technocrats were those people owning the Truth and the entire tools in their hands to deal with sophisticated issues at a high level positions inside World Institutions and advanced countries’ Administrations. Their role was to Guide the World in paving the right ways and finding the right routes for Growth. They were our new Explorers. The People of the World trusted them blindly. Administrations alike. Some honest World Leaders too. Unfortunately, where is power, corruption is not at a distance and the greater the power gets, the closer the corruption comes to it. The fabrication and the evolution of the euro and the eurozone itself are a triumphant example of how technocratic language got corrupted with banks lobbyists from the very beginning and sometimes by their own dreamings. Over times, it gets worst and worst. Overplaying their hands, they have reached the stage of permanent Austerity’s condemnations and moanings, since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008, minimizing or ignoring that the effects are determined by the causes. In one word, technocratic language is corrupt whenever they tend to blame everything except them. It is also corrupt when technocrats are hidding behind comfortable theories, in total disregard for the real world today and the world to come tomorrow.
They denied both the Principle of reality and the principle of sustainability. Blaming austerity for every failure in returning to growth is a corrupt language.
This pattern is exemplified by those words reported by the Guardian – Barroso’s remarks were a rare admission from Brussels that its policy prescriptions, mainly crafted by eurozone governments with Berlin in the driving seat, for dealing with the crisis of the past three years had either been flawed or were running out of steam. He added that in the quest to pull the eurozone back into growth, there was no point in piling up more debt. « Growth based on debt is unsustainable, artificial. That’s the biggest lesson of the crisis, » he said.
At the same time, you have the title of the article, stating the same Barroso’s words : « EU near austerity limit, says Barroso ». Knowing that alternative proposed by those against the so-called « Austerity » is more debt – they call it investments -, how do you understand the first stance : « Growth based on debt is unsustainable, artificial. That’s the biggest lesson of the crisis » ?
Another example of technocratic grosslanguage comforting itself and the inner circle is to find out in the FT « Bill Gross attacks UK and EU austerity ». (thanks to Mehdi’s Morning Memo from the Huffpost for the links).
Conclusion. We were supposed to reach the promise land’s coasts under their guidance, but those technocrats messed it and now we’ve landed at the shores of Hell.
Guns control and the principle of prevention
Now back to guns control, the issue of the moment, the same process is at work. They have argued the second amendment protects Freedom and private liberties. No one would say the opposite. Having said that, what about the principle of prevention, that other principle of Security and Guidance. Yes buying a gun is your right and liberty. No question for that. But if you buy one – according to the second amendment – and end up as the author of a shooting spree either because of mental disease or previous condemnations stemming from violent behavior, signs you are not in total control of your pulsions of death – we probably all have some each of us – then, it is no longer your freedom which is at play here, it becomes a matter of public security or security in public : schools and children are concerned, runners are too, at least everyone is or should be. The second amendment doesn’t hold up here any longer. Where the second amendment stops, the principle of prevention or precaution starts applying.
Your freedom stops were mine or another one begins. Senators vote was a huge political mistake, for protecting civil liberties must not come at the cost of exposing others to fool shooters or to the folly of a single man in total despair who has found one way to end his life : killing as many innocent people as he can to embark with him towards the other side of the mirror. Really shivering. The responsibility of lawmakers and any rulers is to render this horrible circle impossible or at least, to prevent it the strongest way possible.
Now, we have heard that should extended checkgrounds over gun’s control be enacted, this would probably have empeached Tsarnaev brothers to acquire arms illegaly. This stance shows us how the debate has gone down totally polluated by the crispation over the second amendment. The Tsarnaev brothers didn’t kill people with their arms, but with bombs. First. For that reason only, senators should have enhanced their indignation and be up to their public responsibility avoiding false equations between private life security and public security ; between the use of guns in privacy and bombs explosions on public stage ; and avoiding that great confusion between the second amendment and the principle of precaution : private security and public security again. Voting against, senators had made at least 3 gross confusions. Because they are intelligent, the explanation rests with corruption. Picture, Obama briefed by his Home Security adviser during the aftermath of Boston’s events.
It is worthy telling that, had the FBI been told about the willing of buying guns by those brothers apparently known by the intelligence, an alert would have been issue for more vigilance. It shows how the backflow of extending checks over gun’s control could be very helpful and profitable to prevent mass shootings. Principle of prevention again.
If a law is favored by 90 % of Democrats and 80 % of Republicans and the senate votes « No » , who are we here to represent ? Answer : Groups of pression financing our reelection. Democracy is flawed and has been lifted away from the people’s hands to who you know rightly. Some call it Oligarchies such as political parties, others name it lobbying or group of pression including Super Pacs ? In the National Memo, E.J. Dionne is asking that simple question : « Since when is 90 percent of the nation not “the Real America”? – « The way forward in guns ».
Developments of the story. In Global Research. BOSTON TRUTH : The « Chechen Connection », Al Qaeda and the Boston Marathon Bombings. Hot topic.