0040 What is a candidate for the alternate illusion (C’) that Jones thwarts?

Here is a scenario.  As soon as a heinous crime occurs, members of the corporate media arrive on the scene.  Rather than questioning the nature of the crime, they focus on one particular aspect of the event.  A gun is present.  A gun should not be present!

A is the heinous crime, a mind-independent being.

B’ is the presence of a firearm, a mind-dependent being.

0041 How does an automatic rifle serve as a mind-dependent being?

Media mavens have no knowledge of a firearm as a mind-independent being.  A gun has heft.  A gun is a tool with particular mechanical operations.  A gun is a weapon and a thing that must be handled with a degree of caution

Media mavens have knowledge that a gun is taboo.  The taboo transforms the gun into a mind-dependent being.  The gun is a forbidden thing.  Guns are banned on campus.  Guns are the locus of a fixation.  Guns are scary, deranged and capable of murder.

0042 Speaking against the presence of a forbidden thing (B’) is the illusion that the gun accounts for the crime (C’).  Here, the mind-independent being is the heinous crime (A) that is now regarded as mind-dependent (C’) because of the gun’s dangerous capacities.  The real event (A) is accounted for by the magical malevolence of the gun (C’), rather than the psychological conditions of the perpetrator (C).

The fact that the perpetrator of the heinous crime is not sentenced to death indicates that the members of the legal systemdo not consider the criminal actor responsible (C).  The weapon,  a forbidden thing (B’), is responsible (C’).  If the forbidden thing was not present, the crime would not have occurred.

Contrasting with the illusion (C’), the delusion (D’) regards a mind-dependent being (the gun is taboo) in terms of a mind-independent being (permitted by the law).   The fact that the second amendment of the American Constitution permits guns accounts for the gun breaking corporate media’s taboos against carrying firearms.  The law permits a taboo to be broken.

0043 So, here is a picture of the corporate media’s campaign to exploit the heinous crime in order to advance their political agenda.

0044 This is the act of persuasion that Jones thwarts.

Perhaps, the lost opportunity cost is equivalent to Jones’s incredible fine.

0046 What does this imply?

Whatever is going on in the legal tribulation of Alex Jones, the Greimas square seems to work as a way to express the semiotic flow of an act of persuasion.  This act of persuasion starts with a mind-independent being (A) and ends with a delusion (D’), where a mind-dependent being is regarded as mind-independent.

For the trials of Jones, the delusion (D) is that Jones’s questioning is the cause of psychological distress for those effected by a heinous crime.  Jones’s questioning is B and mind-dependent.  In a delusion (D), a mind-dependent being becomes a mind-independent being.  Jones’s questioning (B) is regarded as a mind-independent cause of psychological distress (D).

For corporate media’s exploitation of a heinous crime, the delusion (D’) says that a heinous crime (A) is caused by a feature of our legal system (a mind-independent being and the target of the act of persuasion).  The gun is taboo and is present at the crime (B’).  The forbidden thing is responsible for the crime (C’).  The second amendment of the American Constitution is responsible for the presence of the forbidden thing (D’).

Yes, the Greimas square expresses the semiotic flow of an act of persuasion.

0047 What next?

Let me open the book by Alex Jones.