Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- examples:crimes [2026/10/10 18:22] – admin
+++ examples:crimes [2026/10/10 18:39] (current) – admin
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 **Category IV.  Terrorism**
-Terror is generally defined as being an emotional state of panic or extreme fear. Therefore, Terror-ism is an ideology of terror, and as such, is not a crime in and of itself. A Terrorist Act when an actual base crime induces a public state of terror among the majority of civilians (non-combatants), whether intended or not. Such a consequence aggravates (exacerbates) the gravity of the actual base crime, and the corresponding penalties. The absence of a proven base crime nullifies any accusation of a Terrorist Act. In all cases, a perpetrator who doesn’t offer an opportunity to surrender (or stand aside), to State or civilian actors, is committing an Act of Terrorism.
+Terror is generally defined as "an emotional state of panic or extreme fear". Therefore, Terror-ism is an ideology of terror, and as such, is not a crime in and of itself. A "Terrorist Act" occurs when an actual base crime induces a public state of terror among the majority of civilians (non-combatants), whether intended or not. Such a consequence aggravates (exacerbates) the gravity of the actual base crime, and the corresponding penalties. The absence of a proven base crime nullifies any accusation of a Terrorist Act. In all cases, a perpetrator who doesn’t offer an opportunity to surrender (or stand aside), to State actors and civilian actors, is committing an Act of Terrorism.
 Perpetrators of Terrorist Acts may be State, Corporate, or Civilian actors. In this context, “Civilian” includes all non-combatant individuals and their social groups. The “State” includes all elected and appointed government officials, government bureaucrats, and government contractors (primaries) that provide material support for crimes of a State. Corporations are formal or informal organizations. Harms inflicted on State combatants or military/police infrastructure do not constitute a Terrorist Act unless they induce public terror among the relevant civilians. Similar offenses that are committed by domestic civilians (without external support), may constitute a legitimate political Rebellion (freedom fighting, insurgency, guerrilla warfare, etc.) against the State. So long as it doesn’t induce wide spread terror in the general public, it doesn’t constitute a Terrorist Act.
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 . Common Family Orientation [natural unit]
-A population in which any of these political affinities is not intact, is not a fully functional political community. The modern concept of an independent, technological “Nation”, refers to any political community that has a population of 200,000 or more families (natural). The following are summaries of the primary classes of non-fatal Community Subversion.
+A population in which any of these political affinities is not intact, is not a fully functional political community. The modern concept of an independent, technological “Nation”, refers to any political community that has a population of 200,000 or more natural families (approx. 800,000 people). The following are summaries of the primary classes of non-fatal Community Subversion.
 . Offenses within the context of “communications” (Communications Subversion) generally take the form of language coercion. This can be done through censoring of an existing language, or by allowing more than one official language in the public domain.
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 . Offenses within the context of “kinship” (Demographic Subversion) are multidimensional and therefore often obscure. The ideal case for a Host Nation is to maintain the most homogeneous genetic lineage (avoiding incest and cloning) that’s practical. A common enabler for this type of offense is toxic empathy amongst a Host demographic. The following table details the classes, base on perpetrator, victim, means (migration, reproduction), limits, and demographic consequences.
-Community Subversion
+{{ :examples:subversion.png?direct |}}
-Perpetrator
-(change agent)
-Migration
-(Host share < 80%)
-Reproduction (r/K)
-(Host share < 80%)
-Victim
-Host
-Host
-Intentional
-(malicious)
-Host
-Treachery
-Abandonment
-Others
-Invasion
-Replacement
-Unintentional
-(negligence)
-Host
-Dereliction
-Incompetence
-Others
-Infiltration
-Displacement
 Even Host communities with intact political affinities don’t seem able to tolerate more than a 20% proportion of Guests (non-nationals) within their society without risking Diversity Eugenics, social conflict or dissolution. A demographic reorganization will nearly always be an element of full compensation for such offenses, in order to secure a peaceful transition to a more sustainable arrangement for all parties involved.
@@ Line 127: / Line 100: @@
 Ideally, those who fill such roles must be assessed according to their systemic/issue relationship in order to identify which individuals (entities) have the highest qualifications to arbitrate. As can be seen in the following Arbitrator Legitimacy Spectrum, under no circumstances can a Participant in an Issue ever establish a legitimate standing to arbitrate that issue. In such cases, they should recuse themselves or else be barred from hearing the issue.
+{{ :examples:adjudication.png?direct |}}\\
 The “he who is without sin” principle provides simple guidance for selecting those who participate in prosecution of a Universal Crime. Any party that commits the same or similar offenses are unqualified to participate in the prosecution, whether they have previously been convicted or not.
 One of the greatest challenges for Justice occurs under conditions of systemic criminality (corruption) in which the most powerful players (and their Accessories) are also perpetrators. In such cases, it can be difficult to recruit an individual or group who is ready, willing, and able (sufficient Social Power) to uphold Justice in the case of powerful perpetrators.