The very items included in a list of anti-discrimination acknowledgments (race, religion, gender, age, political affiliation, etc...), can be used as effective tools in analyzing a particular circumstance. The following table is but one instance thereof:
For example, when FBI Director Comey says his assessment was made without the assistance of others or as a complicity to a political circumstance, he may well believe this is true, and become angry if someone suggests he had "help" in reaching his decision... much like many a writer, artist, or musician claiming their work is original; but influences need not necessarily be recognized. For example, in a culture of criminality... criminals can use deliberate or "suggestive" codes which imply a given act should take place, and thus be safe-guarded against the overall situation being framed under the heading of a conspiracy. Likewise, if a man and woman want to have sex without explicitly saying so, they use cues and clues that a particular person identifies as being suggestive.
Obama, Loretta Lynch, Comey, and the Clintons engage in the usage of coded expressions and behavior when interacting. They don't need to speak in direct terms, they can use inferences, innuendoes and multiple other expressions in conveying their ideas in order to conceal any deals or similar exchanges have taken place, and are therefore able to undermine laws which are written as tools for discerning common means of communication. The laws do not deal effectively with illuminating the coded language of those whose knowledge of the law gives them the means by which they can avoid engaging in activity that would be readily recognized as a direct expression covered by laws that are written with numerous loopholes that can be taken advantage of by those whose position and knowledge influence the perceptions of reviewers. Did the aforementioned group engage in deliberate efforts to undermine the law by providing a "creative accounting" methodology in interpretation... even though a standardized legal referencing says otherwise? They surely did and do.
The people have got to view the aforementioned group, if not the whole of the government through the lens of prejudice... because this is the only effective tool which will enable the truth to be known and told. Their positions, race, gender and overall life-style must be discriminated against because they are using such criteria to carry out nefarious deeds against the public. For someone like Comey to state that there was no evil intent and then use this expression to define innocence, is rather absurd. He has joined the ranks of the aforementioned others who also can not be trusted. For example, a person killing another does not have to be evil nor exhibit an "evil intent" to kill someone... if they think the other person is evil and must therefore be sacrificed for the good of others. While observers may call the situation an act of evil, the person themselves may have acted on a reference to a subscribed goodness, charity and personalized god-directed instruction. So very many acts of killing in wartime are filled with rationalized definitions of evil, as a means of committing yet other acts of killing by those who view themselves as acting in accord with some assumed standard of righteousness, goodness, civility, and propriety.
To define Hillary as the criminal actor she and Bill are, is to likewise define Obama, Lynch and Comey in the same frame of reference. And thus to do so, provides the public with the realization of how very corrupt the culture of government is, when such a group of people are given an opportunity to interact with one another. The circumstance of their social positions invites "living" expressions of underlying... of otherwise dormant inclinations towards the criminality of self-servance. When the government breaks its own laws because of a practicing double-standard frequently engage in, the "breaking" is painted over by being defined in terms of whether someone got hurt or if the event(s) took place by some "evil intent" criteria. Such a reference thus becomes the standard of law the circumstance is to be judged by, though it does not become written into law, because its application is specifically tailored to the given instance. If the law does not provide for the correct wording in which the law can be undermined, a different interpretation of the law is then used. However, if this is not good enough, then a new value system is incorporated for the given instance. The choice to do so is left in the hands of those who want to engage in a practice of prejudicial application in order to effect the interpretation of evidence that would otherwise be viewed as an indication of criminality.
Obama, Lynch, the Clintons and Comey are engaging in a prejudicial form of law practice. In their positions, they control the law. And it is rather pathetic and absurd for Congress to ask the FBI to look into whether or not Hillary lied to Congress, when it will surely use the situation as a means of buttressing Comey's claim that there is no recommendation for charges to be rendered. When those in charge of the system are asked to police themselves, the public is confronted with an hypocrisy. The public can't even trust the Supreme Court because it is answerable to the government and not to the people. The FBI has shown itself to be untrustworthy, particularly when it is recognized that it does not routinely record the conversations of those being interviewed in a criminal case, and what transpired is simply recorded by way of truncated notes... after the fact.
The Federal government engages in the practice of not recording conversations in order to be enabled to lie or "forget" or "misplace" the information about what transpired during an investigative interview. Instead, guilt and innocence are arrived at by interpretations for which there is no written evidence for. If a person confesses to a crime and then later says they are innocent, the court simply takes the word of a Law enforcement body that has shown itself to be untrustworthy... particularly when it doesn't do what thousands of others law enforcement agencies do... and that is to keep an electronic record of what an alleged criminal says or doesn't say during an interrogation. Because the FBI engages in a ridiculous legalized standard of hearsay, it must be held in suspect for any and all of its recommendations. Taking the word of those who don't even practice a simply legal standard of recording information should be regarded as a criminal act itself... carried out against the public whose guilt or innocence is determined by those afraid to record an accurate accountability, though this is what takes place even in simple civil cases such as for workplace injury compensation. The system, particularly the Federal system, is truly rigged against the people. It engages in the practice of a severe standard of prejudice as a means of manipulating the laws for its own ends... and let the people be damned if they don't like it.
It is rather stupid that civilian authorities are asking for federal agencies to investigate situations because civilian authorities are not being trusted by the public. Yet, the comments by Comey about Hillary clearly indicates the FBI can not be trusted. The U.S. Marshals are already seen as being untrustworthy because of its actions which killed innocent children at the Branch Davidian Complex. The FBI can not be trusted to render an impartial verdict, and it especially can not be trusted to police itself. The Congress would be stupid to ask the FBI to investigate anything involving a previous determination by the FBI. Of course the FBI is going to render an interpretation to coincide with any and all previous perspectives. It would be stupid for it to render a verdict which contradicts a view... particularly if that view was made by the head of the FBI. They are not going to say or do anything to cut their own throats.
If the Republican dominant Congress had not stalemated so many of Obama's efforts, we may not now be in the fiasco involving Hillary. She may well already be in prison where her and Bill both belong... and not some luxurious "country club" model of prison either. Obama is using Hillary's situation as a means of getting back at the Republican dominant Congress because both of them are Democrats... not to mention both are rather jealous that the Republican party's nominee for President Donald Trump, had received more votes than either of them when they ran for President. They want to not only use the situation with Hillary to get back at him and them, but show they too have manipulative government power... and let the public be damned if it doesn't like it. Those in the government are playing against each other in a game that effects everyone, yet could care less how much their activities undermine laws that the rest of us are expected to abide by and with. It truly is a government with its own cultural hierarchy that excludes considerations for the rest of us... just so individual players in the government culture can effect changes for their own inclinations. The people truly need a new form of government... a Cenocracy.
Whereas the foregoing might be readily agreed with by many readers in and of itself, but if we provide an example that may be more closely tied to one's own personal situation, they may then come to disagree with the example. For example, if we now claim that minorities all engage in their own personalized form of prejudice, the word "prejudice" is thus defined differently. While it is easy for one to claim prejudice in others, it is not so easy to use the same word or the same definition of the same word in the same way. In some instances, the word "prejudice" is thus seen as a dirty word and should be excluded from one's vocabulary, as if in altering one's vocabulary all prejudice will somehow vanish into oblivion. For example, if you exclude the word "nigger" from your vocabulary, this doesn't mean the associated prejudice becomes excluded from being practiced. Practicing prejudice doesn't need to have a verbal language, since the dimension of non-verbal language is quite rich in expression. Simply using a different word that doesn't give the impression of a customary definition or interpretation of prejudice doesn't mean there isn't any prejudice. Prejudice is alive and well and variously practiced in numerous ways. For example, different races engage in the prejudicial practice of attending church for their particular race in mind. Even religion itself is the practice of prejudice called "belief".
If we include the LGBTQ orientation as the label of a prejudice, such a statement might be viewed as an offense by some, while others come to readily agree. Whereas the LGBTQ community says its seeks equality, it does not also say it wants the establishment of equality to be rendered by the Will of the entire nation. It wants its own collective interpretation of equality to be enforced and accepted without letting the entire Nation practice in an equalized form of Democracy. The same goes for the Black Community. Whereas some Blacks advocate a form of Black Nationalism, it doesn't want this perspective to be an interpretation of its efforts. In other words, minorities very often want to practice a prejudice, but not be interpreted as practicing such. They want their practice to be defined in socially accepted terms... just like Comey, Obama, Lynch, and the Clintons want to effect their brand of Democratic Party prejudice against the Republican Party, and the rest of the populace is simply to accept whatever is the adopted conclusion. In other words, the majority is excluded except to participate in accepting the practiced prejudice as if it were non-prejudicial.
For all the anti-discrimination legislation and laws, prejudicial practices are wide-spread. Even if the entire nation were Black, White, Red, Yellow, Brown, or of a given sexual, religious, etc., orientation; prejudice would be seen in tribal, gender conflicts involving interpretation, definition, language or some other criteria... such as what side of an egg is to be broken— as an example cited in the old "Gulliver's Travels" story. When we have a condition in which greed is a prejudice, and is frequently imposed on the public by a government that only practices a pretend formula of democracy... wherein multiple instances of Socialism and Communism abound, how is humanity to practice a truly viable form of self-governance when various practiced versions thereof are the result of word, but not actual deed? And if we overlook the changes in government throughout history as indications of global environmental deterioration humanity is trying to find stability in through biological methods called adaptation... and yet define such a situation as progress... how can we possibly improve the conditions of humanity if we delude ourselves to the reality of practiced prejudices?
But to simply say we are all prejudice, does not change the circumstances of prejudice being practiced. Nor is claiming one or another behavior is an expression of non-prejudice. For example, inter-racial marriage or mating is not an expression of being non-prejudicial... since it is a prejudice against a particular interpretation of prejudice. Such a couple remains prejudicial... though their prejudice is practiced in what they interpret to mean is an expression of non-prejudice. They've simply changed one type of prejudice for another, and do not recognize prejudice as a survival mechanism while living in an environment that is deteriorating, and there is nothing humanity can do about it. Whereas the once-practice survival mechanism of prejudice may have been confined to a given race, religion, gender, etc., there are now "mated" versions involving multiple races, genders, and ideologies. For example, Blacks and Whites can interact to combat one form of prejudice by engaging in yet another formula involving multiple races. Likewise for the LGBTQ community. It is a conglomeration (a "mating") of different non-traditionally defined orientations involving sexual activity. It is an orientation of obsession like so many prejudicial orientations... such as we frequently find when Republicans and Democrats pit themselves against one another and do not let the majority be involved in finding a resolution to a given problem. Minorities like to exclude the majority in order to better effect a control of a prejudice they want to be incorporated into acceptance.
The "Black Lives Matter" orientation is yet another brand of prejudice that doesn't want to be interpreted as a prejudice, yet does not seek to permit the whole of the public to vote on the definition thereof. Those involved with this particular brand of prejudice, just like any White, Asian, Native American, Hispanic/Latino/Mexican, or Pacific island -specific orientation, do not publicly push for an actual change in the practice of government. They simply strive for some ridiculous amendment to be added to a Constitution which clearly needs to be re-written according to the practice of a new type of government. Though all the minorities may claim they want a public... if even a National discussion to take place related to their particularly defined interests, they do not similarly call for the establishment of a public or National Referendum. Not only do minorities, like the Obama, Lynch, Comey and Clinton's (OLCC) group want to define a given perspective, they want everyone to agree with their perspective instead of having a National vote. If the public could vote on whether it thinks one or all of the OLCC group are guilty of a crime... a prejudice against the public, both Hillary and Bill... if not the rest, would be in prison or at the very least, removed from public office.
None of the aforementioned groups want the public to practice a New Government (a Cenocracy), in terms of letting the majority discuss and render a collective vote that would then become a law. All such prejudicial orientations are against the practice of an Actual Democracy... which would entail acknowledging that Democracy is the practice of both Socialist (Social) and Communist (Communal) orientations. Such groups want to live in the delusion that they are somehow special and unique, and that the type of Democracy they practice is a reflection of themselves. To acknowledge that the present Democracy is merely a fabricated pretension, would be to likewise acknowledge they are not so special themselves. The "Black Lives Matter" group would not want to be confronted with the idea that in the larger realm of the Universe, they may actually be insignificant, just like all life on Earth may be.
But we do not allow ourselves to used prejudice against ourselves as an analytical
tool. To do so very often creates a mood of disparagement that may evolve into
depression, if not self-immolation, self-destruction or variations projected onto
others that can create conflict, ambush, setting someone up for self-defeat, or war.
In the case of Obama, Lynch, Comey and Clintons (OLCC gang of
five), their usage of prejudice against the Republican party is having a deteriorating
effect on the Nation because it gives a direct indication of how untrustworthy the
overall government can be when internal cultures engage in prejudicial conflicts.
The design of the government truly is rigged against the public, particularly noted
because the public is excluded from exhibiting its own collective vote by way of a
Referendum. When such a referendum practice does not even take place in a general
election involving the President (much less the selectivity of Supreme Courts Justices)...
in that the election is carried out state-by-state and then subjected to a process
involving "super delegates" like a comic book narrative with certain people having
some sort of super power of voting ability; the very practice of the present governing
formula is one of various prejudicial practices of discrimination that are hidden
by different cultural values evincing overlooked discrimination. The only way to
combat this is by instituting a New Government... a Cenocracy.