America’s Tombstone

 America’s terminal in critical condition.

The grave disorder afflicting what was formerly known as the union has a terminal prognosis. The unthinkable is upon us, threatening to engulf and suffocate us with our arrogance, inequalities, and stubbornness constricted by clinging to the misgivings of history. Unfortunately, history often painfully repeats itself.

Have we not learned anything from history and the collapse of world powers before America. History is poetic in stating that the greatest threat to the republic would be from within its borders and domestic, not foreign. America may be too mighty for any other country to defeat but not mighty enough to resist a self-destructive implosion.

The nightmare of the house divided has become real, and this division is set on an irrevocable path of self-destruction if allowed to continue. The question is, at what price is the destruction of another worth your demise. The answer then becomes how much will you injure yourself to inflict injury upon another where neither survives if survival is the objective. 

Just as a house divided will not stand, a structure built on a faulty foundation is eventually doomed to collapse upon its weight, unable to support its faulty construction weakened by time. The realistic commentary is a perfect union is not attainable, but a more perfect union is possible. Let us not pretend that America is not without its blemishes, a utopia of perfection. It has much room for improvement despite its greatness and the freedoms afforded by it.

However, it will, without doubt, require the truth. So first, there must be an admission and recognition that there is a problem to be solved, identifying the problem accordingly with brutal honesty.  The majority of dissatisfaction on many topics reflects deep discontent on fundamental issues. This discontent needs resolving to instill a therapeutic response while rejecting the nostalgic imbalances of the past. Adherence to inflammatory practices and principles can only lead to the extinction of them and their practitioners.

Change, while often uncomfortable for some, is necessary for the evolution of life and progress. Consequently, unjust imbalances can not go on indefinitely. These masquerades and deceptions must end at some point exposed as bogus. Thus, the damage is no longer tolerable whether being either naively conditioned to believe or maliciously following errant agendas of deception. Either way, the reality is never pleasant when the outcome proves destructive.

Likewise, the creation of these diversions enables covert schemes to be executed while distracted and concealed by the bickering fractions.  The astute manipulation of the public’s sensitivities to produce a predictable outcome based on emotional ignorance accomplishes this agitation. Everyone must stay mad at someone at all times. 

Politicizing the intent and purpose of the Constitution and government authority underscores many vile exploitations of power. The collective will and good of the people was the original democratic design. But, unfortunately, it has been blatantly mangled in a power grab that threatens to bring civil war and financial collapse, enriching some while eroding other’s freedoms.

How can we destroy ourselves? Let me count the ways. Overall, we have civil discourse, protest, rioting, a Capitol siege, and the accompanying damages and cost. We have a denial of economic and human rights. A pandemic that was downplayed by 45 to avoid panic but not to prevent the spread. Both have occurred, panic and spread along with monumental loss of life and resources.

We have the disastrous stock market manipulation by a cocktail of quantitative easing, propping up of the bond and equity market corpse, and pending evictions and foreclosures of residential and commercial properties. The erosion of pension funds and retirements is happening again. Also looming is the eventual banking system recurring collapse, as evident by the repo market activity indicating insolvency again due to reckless operations and greed. 

The effects of many supply chain disruptions and shortages are emerging. In addition, inflation fears and labor force dissatisfaction are rampant.  Then there are the increasingly overwhelmed medical system and societal bickering concerning vaccines, income and gender inequality, gender and sexual preference intolerances, abortion rights disputes again, and racial disparities. 

Include immigration policies, denial of historical racial ramifications, the Confederacy resurgence, resistance to new law enforcement initiatives, and reluctant criminal justice system reform. Continuing with the bias political redistricting, voter suppression, unsubstantiated elections fraud claims, and you name it.

America has suffered more damage than any terrorist group could have ever deliberately inflicted simply by allowing the political deceptions guided by greed to run its unfettered course. The intoxication of power at any cost has undermined Democracy and Capitalism. Yet, at the same time, the public is intentionally distracted over trivial differences inattentive of the hardships imposed upon them.

It is a risky gamble for control of the political system, which affects all Americans. Red or blue, Republicans or Democrats, it is a gang turf war with the public as collateral damage. Separately these events create a volatile discord of dire circumstances. But, combined, what is the prognosis of America’s survival, if not terminal? 

Even more outrageous is the destructive ideology fueling a combination of the budget deadline and debt ceiling scabbles implicating hints of a national shutdown and default for political gain. But, can we risk the devaluation of the U.S. dollar and America’s status as the world’s default currency triggering a global financial collapse and ushering in digital currency controlled and monitored by the government?

To ensure that the wealthy pay a fair share for taxes, they must monitor our transactions for over six hundred dollars. Likewise, banks must report activity on our lowly accounts as if the wealthy cannot be otherwise identified by their bank accounts. Every time they crack down on someone else, the general public must bear the squeeze.

Fear and compliance are the tools of deceptions used to limit the public’s freedoms, and we are always eager to oblige. It reaks of predictable behavior manipulated and triggered by fear of terrorists, the Covid, tax cheats, race, religion, sexuality, and maybe our shadow next. Are we to believe information harvesting, artificial intelligence, digital or electronic banking, electronic surveillance, or thirst for power and greed is not a threat?

Furthermore, we have witnessed the attempted coercion of the 2020 Election to maintain power, an uprising against the seat of Democracy at the Capitol, and now fiscal roulette for political gain and power. The cannibalism of our Democracy has been intensifying while disguised by discord.

The second amendment right to bear arms gives citizens the right to oppose an authoritarian federal government. But, by definition, wouldn’t that be one overthrowing Democracy? An armed militia intimidating politicians, dissenters, and unarmed protesters by political gangsterism would qualify. A violent coup whose forceful imposition of views and governance upon their fellow citizens or denial of other’s rights, which they proudly claim without reservation, seemingly would also qualify.

Resorting to force against the practice of Democracy and the freedom to exercise civil liberties, no doubt, descends into opposition to Freedom? Ultimately, the force used against the Democratic structure is the same violent instrument used by the power mongers against the people. Attempting to implement a military authoritative state or dictatorship brought about by a coup, suppression of the people’s vote, and government takeover effectively eliminates Democracy. 

Dictators or monarchs are what this country was created to escape from, a king and his dynastic lineage by creating a separation of power and the democratic vote. At the core of Democracy is voting and for the duly elected to reflect the best interest of the majority, not party affiliations, much less individual interest.

Any effort, foreign or domestic, to hijack the democratic process is an assault on the very principles of Democracy. The country cannot exist as presently constituted without Democracy. You can not take over the Capitol, discard an election, and still have Democracy. Any attempt to circumvent the prescribed electoral process is a hostile takeover with fatal repercussions. 

Unfortunately, the mutiny against the Democratic majority and its sovereignty’s principles continues as the minority seeks to prevail and promote their agenda. Ironic how minority status is unbearable but should be fine for others but is not honoring the majority vote paramount to Democracy. Did you expect any less when you were not the minority?

Acceptance of this reality has always been the rule notwithstanding dissent but reflected or upheld in the next voting cycle as the majority’s will, disdaining mutiny against the foundational principles of our voting rights. Otherwise, the whole system and Democracy collapses. Divisiveness enforced by might and contentious rhetoric has proven inadvisable and unsustainable in this country. Instead, it leads to repetitive civil unrest and opposition, be it race, abortion, war, or what have you.

Integration of law enforcement and military by race and ideology would splinter efforts of a violent coup. Predictably, law enforcement and the military would have to first turn on their respective ranks, eliminating those not in agreement. These two groups are critical to enforcing radical distortion of the judicial process and free speech in any authoritative society. The true principles of Democracy rely on cooperation, not force. Force is no longer a viable option for all occasions.

America is at a tipping point. Remembering history may help prevent it from repeating itself, as seen in the rise of Nazi-Germany and its race-based utopia of superiority. It is tragically ironic that Hitler got his ideology from Jim Crow in addition to eugenics. The symbolism of white power is the Nazi flag and swastika, which should have been roundly denounced when soundly defeated. In America, the racist ideology at its core was the symptom manifested by greed, the illness.

All the above alluded to precarious events are at their roots based on racism, casteism (shudra), and power manipulations for wealth fueled by greed. As a result, America is on the brink of moral and fiscal bankruptcy, deprived of political and ideological solutions or compromise for mutual survival.

Even if the balance of power switches, nothing is resolved. It is just reversed without resolution, still about winning and accumulation by any means necessary. The objectivity of fairness and compassion are sacrificed as collateral for personal ambitions. 

 

 

To further complicate matters, this perfect storm of destruction brewed and calculated from the inception of this republic and exacerbated over time necessitates exploitations being expanded beyond the traditional groups to sustain itself. But, this expansion is camouflaged by race, immigration, and socialist accusations to deflect from the actual cause, greed.

Any titan of leadership understands that when proclaiming the buck stops with them, responsibility must begin with them. Deflecting any bitter occurrences is not a shared debacle when charged with leading. So, where has leadership led us, if not to the brink of destruction by divisiveness and selfish ambitions? But, change is still staunchly resisted continuing to perpetuate societal detriments.

It is a collective failure of leadership if only by constructive possession of the governance of Democracy. Heavy is the head of leadership and guidance, accepting both credit and blame. To claim otherwise is a self-indictment, a discredit to your position, and a disservice to the country. While the blame game is a favorite game of politicians, the general public is left to take responsibility for its contribution while also suffering from theirs.

As a result, we are allowed to struggle at the bottom suffering from the virtues of the very Capitalism that we fund. Consider the distractions of the last two years that have the public preoccupied while grand larceny is afoot. Democracy was born out of Capitalism in concept and practice. But, unfortunately, both have been perverted to elite set-asides and bailouts contrary to the principles of Capitalism.

How resilient can America be, and how tolerant will a disposable public remain before significant course corrections are too little too late. The power grab excludes the elite and politicians from suffering while willing to risk triggering a global financial crisis with the brunt of domestic suffering skipping them.

I suspect essential workers are expendable when exposed to heightened risk and hazardous conditions for similar compensation. Does your compensation reflect your value? During this Covid crisis, being bestowed the title of essential worker makes you an interchangeable clog that has suddenly become scarce and valuable.

It resembles indentured servitude but with a more palatable twist, making it a lot easier to accept. Duty or coercion are the tools of persuasion used to disguise and accomplish blind submission. It is capitalistic exploitation at its finest. This hybrid capitalism where supply, demand, and efficiency do not apply to all in the valuation of essential services or labor.

From an economic and governmental standpoint, providing protections with governmental subsidies for big companies, political cronies, and banking favorites should violate capitalism. However, these same protections are bemoaned and conditional when provided to the general public and labeled as socialism.

Rebellion against taxation without representation started this country. But, will little or no tax on big business or the wealthy end it? It is the weiner for the ham swindle to relinquish something of greater value for a lesser value or benefit. Could the founding fathers envision the ablest paying no taxes while the least able collectively pays the most taxes? The economic shell game will be played with diminishing returns; the more conditioned, mind-controlled, and hopeless you become.

It is not a condemnation of riches but an accurate assessment and indictment of some unjust methods of achieving it. Funny how the rules loosen and the opportunities expand with the more money or favor you possess. To suggest that all pay their fair share is unfair and outrageous, if not for sure downright extreme leftist and un-American, right? But, on the other hand, resisting exploitation is unpatriotic too.

A dog-eat-dog cannibalistic quest for prosperity at the bottom and a doctrine of exclusion or exploitation at the top preserve our economic imbalances. It is not by accident; it is by designed calculation and deception.

Capitalism needs a tune-up to run smoothly for all instead of just smoothly for the advantaged. Money is not the root of all evil, but greed and power can be argued as the roots of most of America’s problems. In this pursuit, the disregard for passing the sugar sours the essential workers’ expectations, ambitions, and opportunities.

America’s greatest resource is the people, but sustaining and preserving their well-being has become a casualty of this power grab restricting liberty and prosperity for the lower classes. A caste system is swelling with the increasing disappearance of the middle class. It creates a blight on the standard of living, which economic and political vampires are systematically draining.

What was planted has grown. The seeds of deceptions and inequality planted long ago have blossomed into a system in need of an overhaul if it is to survive. Democracy, The Constitution, and fiscal solvency will not survive the status quo as the pillars upon which a crumbling society will no longer support.

It is time to compromise and make alterations for the country’s survival as the challenges escalate without reprisal. Remember, when people take to the streets in overwhelming numbers to protest, that is usually the last warning that the level of dissatisfaction with the governing body or system has become no longer tolerable. History is undefeated in that regard.

However, the aftermath of not heeding the warning is undisputed as nations and civilizations must inevitably change or perish. They have always changed, or they have always perished. We can be certain that radical change always precedes avoidance of collapse or results from a disastrous outcome. We are at the crossroads of history where we choose a collective survival or fracturing destruction. But, we can no longer be unresponsive to the glaring warning signs.

America’s historical precondition of affliction did not just start in the last five years. It began with blatant exploitation and indifferences at inception. Now, the lies promoted and the promises unfulfilled to conceal those lies have swelled to the current national dysfunction.

It worked on an unsophisticated callous public, but the currently available information and knowledge have revealed the evil sorcery of these traditional policies and practices. Time has expired for reckoning, and change is the modifying salvation.

The naked truth and change is the final resort of reckoning for survival, or it was a good run. It was better for some than others, but the final obituary will read that we could not rest in national peace, so we perished in national discord. The jalopy has finally broken down, leaving us in need of new wheels.

There cannot be a return to America’s way tailored for white males and the economic elite strife with injustice and greed. Because of gains of women’s rights, changes in domestic violence laws, women employment opportunities and accomplishments, commonality of young people; same-sex, biracial, and inter-racial relationships, LBGTQ recognition, sensitivity to racial discrimination, a global economy, and similar evolutions, those days will not be returning.

Many now display a significant change in the sentiment and rejection of bigotry being only an interchangeable pronoun away from a persecuted or ostracized group. I would think more people are aligned with equal justice than ever before by more people being subjected to injustices and economic hardships. 

Furthermore, the economic expenditure and residual fallout from the civil unrest since late May 2020 and the Covid virus has amassed such an enormous total.  Likewise, scrutinizing motives for disregarding the massive impact from Chavin’s knee to 45’s Covid denial, will contextualize their explosive impact on the ensuing mayhem, which was avoidable.

Additionally, resistance to both has had dire consequences and astronomical expenses. A different decision here or there would have netted vastly different results and conditions. Better decisions should have been made with their handling.  We should have learned by now that opposition to evolution is to invite revolution. Change is constant and can not be restrained, at best only delayed.

But some change is beyond delay or denial. Such is nature’s fury. Foolishly, the defiance of nature has caused an escalation in the severity and seemingly frequency of catastrophic weather conditions and fire. Therefore, it would have been more prudent to address and mitigate the problems in hindsight than to ignore them. We should have learned by now that resistance to evolution is to invite revolution by circumstances, humanity, or nature. Change is constant and can not be restrained, even if delayed.

Unfortunately, the meter is still wastefully running. Many wasted resources and ill-fated decisions should have been contemplated far more beneficially. We must now relinquish a time gone by and logically improvise to address the prevailing circumstances. It is impossible to resuscitate the past by pretending it is the present. But, on the other hand, there are many benefits in seeking solutions and few in denying the problems.

The resulting distortion of Democracy, Capitalism, and the Truth is much too high a price to pay to avoid dealing with the symptoms, illness, and remedy for America’s afflictions. The only alternative diagnosis is that sustained disregard welcomes the certain toppling of Democracy and Capitalism.

By antiquated ideology, shakey fiscal policy, and a rampant virus America is on the brink. We are presently confronted with severe self-inflicted challenges. It is a bloated conceit to behave above the laws of nature and our common interest as citizens. Both will prove to be the wounds from the bosom of America too detrimental to survive.

My how times have changed having remained the same. The absurdity of events now has political zealots and separatists polarized, demanding land of their own to preserve their sense of nostalgia or rejection of inevitable changes. 

Still, father time waits for no one, and change does not ask permission. Is America not so beloved and grand that its destruction is preferable to resolutions to instill equality and address its inequalities no matter the culprit? If so, surely, you couldn’t tell by appearances. America’s terminal in critical condition.

It appears now that it is only a matter of time before we know what America’s tombstone will read. Here stood a great nation severed by arrogance and ignorance. Reluctant to change, unwilling to survive, and condemned to fall.

P.S. If it provides any comfort, America is not alone as country’s and governments around the globe seek to prevent significant changes beneficial to the people they supposedly represent. The mass suppression of economic, religious, and human freedoms demands satisfaction as swells of discontent stretch across the globe. The names, places, and circumstances are different, but the desire is universal, change.

 

Thurston K. Atlas
Creating A Buzz

 

 

Conforming to Freedom

The Choice is Yours?

FREEDOM. Freedom is the right to choose, speak, do, think, live, feel, and worship as you please without being subject to the restraint of being run roughshod over while exercising your civil rights. It is a liberty to be set aside from government restrictions or influences against your will and consent.

Give you liberty or give you death. Good old freedom, just like the old Smith and Wesson, will have to be pried from your cold dead hand but not while you are alive and still have breath in your body. Sounds good but rhetoric or reality? This is still America, home of the free and the land of the brave. I am sure you would be damn if you will let someone tell you what to do or scare you into doing something you don’t want to do.

You have every right to exercise your right to freedom and individuality. To do as you dam well please or not do as you dam well, please. It is called freedom, and it is our civil liberty to protect and exercise. Has there ever been a time when we were without it, no aside from that time?

A noble illusion of fundamental proportions. Freedom is an abstract concept manifested in reality. An illusionist performs tricks that usually influence the mind to distort reality by deceiving the senses to perceive or incorrectly interpret something. The most common illusion is the optical illusion, where the brain is tricked into accepting stimuli which it misinterprets or perceives as its creation when it is actually being manufactured.

One of the most incredible illusions is love because you cannot touch it, but it is undoubtedly felt and experienced; however, it only exists in a non-physical realm. The physical realm is lust or an expression of love’s biological needs. Love is expressed in a physical realm which makes it real, but it is really an illusion of the mind that manifests in the metaphorical heart.

It is the brain’s perception and the release of endorphins associated with a person, place, or feeling that creates blissfulness. Ever wonder how you can be so in love with someone and then later despise their very existence?

The shattering of the illusion where the spell was broken completely alters your perception of who they were to you, thus a broken heart that no surgery can repair. No physical damage can be detected, but it sure as hell is felt, and no one can tell you any different.

The same is true of hate and, yes, freedom too. Feelings are illusions and perceptions of reality, and feelings can’t be wrong, just inappropriate, misguided, or unwarranted. But this is not a love discussion, but it discusses the love of the illusion of freedom.

This optical illusion of freedom and how it impacts one’s perspective makes everything true within the existence of your universe according to your sphere of perception. A perspective seeking to assimilate with those who reinforce that reality. It creates an identity that becomes the basis for your personality and beliefs within that reality. A shared illusion of like minds similarly inclined to create validation.

Freedom is one of the biggest illusions that an individual practices which may have little or no basis in reality except to be contextually measured by the reasonable degree of restrictions or lack thereof. The illusion resides in the perception that makes it a reality, like love. Even when you exercise freedom, it is only seen in the form of a deed or gesture, which we recognize as the essence to choose.

Outside forces govern every facet of life we choose but we do not determine what is comprised within the margins of that choice. For example, Let’s say you choose a profession. When exercising your freedom of choice within the confines of that choice is criteria that you must confirm to loosely or otherwise that are fixed restrictions of that specific professional choice.

There may be educational requirements, time requirements, dress code, appearance expectations, drug testing, necessary equipment, and any number of mandatory conditions. They remain outside the realm of your freedom to choose if that profession is your choice and pursue it.

You may wear safety equipment, or if in law enforcement, you wear a bulletproof vest and carry a bat utility belt with lots of equipment. It is department-issued equipment, and you are required to have it, including body cameras requirements nowadays. All of which I am sure does not permit your freedom to be exercised regarding compliance, but you must, and you do.

So you consent, submit and conform to the restriction of your freedom in exchange for exercising that freedom to be included in the choice you have freely chosen to pursue. It is just the price of playing the game, but there are rules to the game that you will follow. You have the freedom to choose not to follow them, but you do not have the liberty to not follow them and still be involved.

That raises the question in a practical analysis do you really have the freedom to choose? Or do you have the freedom not to be involved or participate? To make it simpler, does everyone on the job have the freedom to show up whenever they feel like it? Or is there an expectation of being on time that will be adhered to if someone chooses to enforce it? Still, it is not your freedom of choice to not be on time and not face any consequences.

You may choose who you want to marry, but do you also have the freedom to select why they married you? Once married, there are rules and expectations of protocol that require the compromise of individual freedoms within the confines of the marriage. Even if you have untold freedoms within a marriage that all parties are aware of and consent to, laws and community restrictions impede your choices.

Restricting your freedom in a way that it would not if you were not married. For example, the limits and conditions within the given hall pass or permission structure determines if you have cheated. Suppressing your desires, emotions, and thoughts because of the decisions associated with the consequences of your choice to marry restricts your Freedom. When you speak of Freedom, it is a relatively theoretical concept.

 

 

In practice, it can leave you feeling trapped in a situation that circumstances don’t allow you to walk away from while yet being free to do so. This freedom is not just the physical restraint of your movements but also demands the constant consumption of your time and any accompanying restrictive commitments. Compromise and unfulfilled desires become standard concessions of your expression.

A narrowing spiral occurs once a decision has been made, presenting the various possibilities of any decision according to the universal law of cause and effect. Hence, every decision alters the current circumstances while presenting another set of more limiting circumstances specific to that decision. Another set of expectations to restrictively adhere to. 

This will require another choice that will lead to a more definitive selection, which lessens the spectrum you have to choose from within that choice. Thus, your Freedom of choice essentially and eventually reduces your Freedom to choose other options. A diminishing course of action is developed.

You can exercise no freedom beyond or outside of your control or awareness, knowing only that which is within your grasp, understanding, or choice. You adhere to most social and religious standards that were not of your creation but claim the right and Freedom within that range selected and provided to you while never assuming you never had control over the initial selection.

Choices are generally made for you, and you then choose from that variable. The illusion is you were not influenced in a predictable way to conform.

Your level of conformity is guided by your morality in judging or condemning anyone outside your radius of compliance. To censure their act or choice beyond your level of courage to not conform as you did. Is Freedom then displayed by your right to be the same or different?

The prevailing social model of schooling, education, employment, and happiness is not a structure of Freedom but conformity and rewards within that system for compliance. You follow the rules and make sure others follow the rules that you dare not violate, but who regulates the rule-makers if not themselves, surely not you.

Raging against the system would seem selective at best and counterintuitive at worst, considering how many times you reinforce the system by your actions. For example, for the many who refuse to get a Covid vaccination, how many have the required childhood vaccinations and flu shots? How many have given their children these shots in exchange for the convenience of school indoctrinations and societal group conditioning? 

The consistency of your choices and protest is not an expression of Freedom but conformity. Not to judge vaccinations but to illustrate the context of the choices made that limits selection or liberty. Imagine if the government ordered a microchip to be inserted in every person in this country above ten years old.

This microchip would monitor and record your every move, your close associations and interactions, your appearance, your habits, and personal behaviors, predict your thoughts and actions, and any normal facet of your life, including your location and movements. As a result, this microchip could probably have long-term effects on your health and influence your psychological inclinations.

 The implications of this microchip are only limited by the imagination or denial of its purpose but would, over time, become an addictive dependency. Your every move is scripted or record by your very own unique compulsion to incorporate the microchip into your life.

Remember the Freedom of the Smith and Wesson to be pried from your cold dead hand before you surrender your Freedom. No need to worry because it has voluntarily been replaced by a cell phone, Ipad, smart TV, Alexa, and Siri.  The technological convenience extends far beyond these personal agents of surveillance to the public arena. Ever wonder how do these devices respond when you call them if they are not listening? How do they hear if they are not actively listening and recording?

Cameras everywhere have you mostly convinced it is for safety purposes or convenience. Not only do you provide information on yourself, but you also do so on everyone you know when you are addicted to social media, recording your every move, encounter, and with whom. If not willingly, then, by the proximity of cell towers pinging when you move in a way to trigger the triangulation for optimum phone service, or that is what you believe.

Information is the new currency to control, predict, manipulate, program, and monitor your whole existence with your full cooperation and consent. Electronic and video surveillance initiated, submitted, and operated by you.  You then indoctrinate your children when you use these devices to teach and raise them because you can’t be bothered. It is too stressful for you to deal with your very own children but the machine will.

So you send them to school for teachers to deal with what you have deemed an impossible task beyond your capabilities. Now multiply that times a classroom size. Where is the Freedom to escape the social engineering at every turn that is innocently woven into everyday life for your Freedom not to be an illusion?

Now you have voluntarily done what the government could not force you to do and somehow speak of your Freedom being taken. It is not being taken; it is being given by stroking your fears and catering to your conveniences. So it is amusing to hear someone speak of a microchip in the vaccine when you keep one with you constantly, even when you are sleep.

You tell it secrets you don’t share with anyone and even trust the entirety of your financial transactions to it or a cloud. By these illustrations, Freedom would seem compromised in will and exercise by you.

 Three questions arise. Why would it be necessary to put a chip in your body that does less than your cell phone and other gadgets to monitor your existence, affairs, and encounters? Second, is your love of Freedom real, or has the definition of Freedom changed? Third, is conforming to Freedom under the misconception of liberties the same as the illusion of Freedom? Freedom is choices but are the choices freely?

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating a Buzz

 

Aubrey’s Deadly Jog

 Posse Comitatus

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest condolences to the family of Ahmad Arbery and hope that my intent to shed light does not in any way deepen the family’s grief and mourning but be an instrument to assist in achieving justice and perspective. Every person is born with a purpose in life, no matter how long or brief that life may be, sometimes to achieve a higher purpose.

The purpose may be beyond our understanding and reasoning, which only deepens our pain. However, that purpose may not have been for them to achieve longevity but rather to be the catalyst for the advancement of a cause. In this situation and similar situations, the grand purpose may be to become the straw that stirs the social consciousness and brings about historical change. Yet, for whatever reason, some are chosen to be bona fide crusaders to advance a cause greater than themselves.

All law enforcement and prosecutors should know as part of their mandatory training that the only thing that separates the general public and the police in authority is the police’s ability to arrest for misdemeanor crimes and issue citations within their jurisdiction. In addition, all citizens have the right to make a citizen’s arrest regarding felony crimes, although not recommended and strongly discouraged.

Although that action comes with strong recommendations to avoid making those arrests, encouraged instead to have minimal contact or interference outside of notifying the police. An off-duty policeman’s standard of intervention is not mandatory but only to take a police action that can be as simple as calling the police or reporting their observations.

To make a citizen’s arrest in a felony matter, you must first have intricate knowledge of what constitutes a felony and the various exceptions that should be considered, such as the force continuum. The main exception is you cannot legally shoot anyone over property regardless of the property’s value or the felony status of the theft.

Not only do police know this, but anyone with a concealed carry permit is taught this as part of their CCW training for receiving a certificate and permit. You also cannot instigate a situation and then claim self-defense or being in fear for your life. This information is disseminated by the instructor giving the certificate in a mandatory state-issued handbook educating you on the matter. That is why they have police academies and extensive training to distinguish arrest powers.

Civilians attempting to hold someone forcibly on nonfelonies for them refusing to submit to your curiosity and lack of authority is kidnapping. That person is essentially being kidnapped and not even close to meeting the legal threshold needed for a felony citizen arrest. He had no reason or legal obligation to comply with his own kidnapping or legally comply with someone who had no right to confront him brandishing weapons. Kidnapping is to remove someone and restrict their movements without authority and against their will or consent.

Did this group of self-appointed champions of good know his intent and if he may have been an investor, interested home buyer, had approval, an employee stopping to check, or if he was in fact trespassing? Their knowledge of the law would have to extend to understanding criminal mischief, criminal trespassing, criminal damaging, vandalism, unoccupied structures, petty theft, and grand larceny to start with, in addition to Aubrey’s constitutional rights. He clearly was not carrying stolen property.

None of the above mentioned would grant them the right that they acted upon, especially not being directly affected as owners. Did they notify the contractor for confirmation? What was their authoritative jurisdiction? Did they have the minimal legal corpus delicti to affect an arrest, detain him, or make a voluntary request that required him to submit? What was the evidence of a crime? So now their prima facie probable cause was based on what felony crime they were reasonably sure that he had committed. What authorization did they have to confront Aubrey violently?

Their lack of in-depth investigation required at the very most being warned or advised? Their proliferation of fabricated burglaries in the neighborhood, which went unreported, had nothing to do with this situation since you cannot burglarize a place with no doors, windows, or encasement to prevent or have the expectation of preventing access or entry. If these vigilantes were aware of the others who committed the same atrocity, are they now justified to hunt them down, or how did they confront them?

Were they most likely already aware of others who had done the same, but something differentiated Aubrey from them? Were others disregarded for the same violation and their actions permitted because of their race? If he were white, would they have reacted differently, also overlooking him?

You would expect a veteran law dog to be slicker rather than a principal participant in killing someone over property and not even his property. Also, Aubrey was a gentleman jogging and not using furtive moves, evasive actions revealing a criminal intent, or any urgency resembling fleeing a crime. So, why would it be necessary to confront him in the highest threat pyramid mode instigating a code red situation with weapons?

Armed private citizens can be assumed to be robbers or an assault attempt. The real police must announce who they are loud and clear and advise you of their suspicions when ordering you to comply while in uniform and with a patrol car. Private citizens demanding compliance while their authority is unknown or nonexistent leads to these sorts of issues. That is why citizen arrests are ill-advised unless life is endangered.

What was the vigilante’s declaration that would make Aubrey react in fear for his life from a good old fashion roundup or threat of serious physical harm? The only reason for the weapons display was a projected fear of a deliberate intent to confront him while armed. Even with a numbers advantage while confronting him, why would the cowardly lions go that far if they were that afraid.

They could have just followed him until the real champions of doing good on the city payroll could have arrived. Having a shotgun drawn for a conversation was unnecessary, revealing the fear that they claimed which was their creation. Governed by using the minimal force necessary, what were they afraid of going even beyond police authority, and if they were that afraid, why did they?

In law enforcement, there is a natural progression of how things routinely unfold. But, unfortunately, this would appear outside of that natural progression in the lack of their initial arrest for nearly two months and the appearance of a suspected coverup. The coverup has to stop creating a dangerous atmosphere that significantly damages a portion of the public’s trust in believing that you must abide by the law when applied against you. Unfortunately, however, it isn’t applied for you.

The law must also abide by its own standards when broken against you and applied against another even if they are white. Thus, by law, all the affirmative defenses are useless if you place yourself in harm’s way intentionally, are an instigator in the wrong, or third-party defenses that arise out of lack of right or authority with no obligation or danger except that undertaken and created by you.

They exhibited more authority than the police are allowed, and no one had a problem with that. I guess even the retired law dog forgot that he was retired. There are too many discrepancies and other exculpatory facts unknown to the public revealing misconduct to be defended.

The examination of tapes or radio transmissions between dispatcher and responders, any separate dispatcher tape and log or notes, landline conversations and texts outside the official system, frame by frame scrutiny of the video taken, and visual enhancement to determine specific elements, electronic devices, emails, conversations had and statements made after the fact will definitely expose their criminal intent and any concealment efforts.

Their story is prone to crack under closer scrutiny exposing their true motivation, racist state of mind, past discriminatory beliefs, validating deceptions, and glaring inconsistencies. The law is specific but frequently manipulated and ignored as a matter of principle regarding these incidents on a racial basis and a case of selective enforcement. This has been justice the American way.

Others get off on what we routinely are arrested immediately for or are imprisoned. I guess justice really is blind but seemingly only to the facts. Some are routinely afforded concessions not made available to us, even while merely jogging. Some who would state they are absolutely diametrically opposed to racism and categorically deny their hypocrisy still saw no need for immediate arrest for this cold-blooded murder.

Brazen negligence and dereliction of duty must be punished, accompanied by a firing or resignation in addition to the prosecution of any coverup undertaken. Someone like that, despite personal views, cannot remain in a position of exercising that degree of lack of judgment, regardless of their color.

When will public officials be held accountable as a general deterrent, powerfully demonstrating that the public and other public officials will not tolerate it? The hypocrisy of it all, not to apply a proper and consistent legal application, is obviously stacked to white privilege or law enforcement bias.

Any official coverup is almost as egregious as the crime. It reveals an acceptance and approval for the offender and the offense while a murder did occur. The injustice you cannot feel is revealed by your barbaric inclinations reflected by your inaction. Bigotry unfit for public office and a tacit approval condemning your fitness to serve.

As for the vigilantes, there could not be hatred without a hater, nor could there be a lie without a liar to tell it. When characterized by fear or hate, it reveals the weakness in your mind that cannot be concealed. You absolutely cannot claim to stand your ground or be in fear for your life when you run up on someone trying to put the smackdown and get scared because they didn’t wither.

Why did you initiate a conflict then cry out to the universe of being in fear of your life but not in fear of committing your savagery or bigotry? If some crazed bigot chased you down carrying a shotgun and armed with murderous intent, what are you to then think? You were probably outraged that a courageous Black Man still would not submit and cower in the same fear that you showed while consumed by your racism.

If you were a victim of what you are a practitioner of, imagine the victim’s perspective jogging one minute and life slipping away the next paying your price without proof of a crime because you wanted to be a cowboy. Practitioners of the unspeakable and sympathizers within the system that aligns with you saw no fault in your actions have exposed themselves. They should be prosecuted along with you.

Considering the violation of human dignity after the murder and essentially the abuse of a corpse by violating all human decency to take a trophy picture and video your escapades led to your demise. Reversing the roles and you would be outraged and rampaging for justice but recommend endless tolerance from us.

Now you want to throw a rock and hide your hand? In fear of YOUR life, what about Aubrey having more reason to be in fear for his life while hunted by multiple assailants? Those officials who aligned themselves with your actions have effectively identified themselves as accomplices after the fact to have attempted to aid and abet concealment of a murder. No one can be proud of your lack of courage, lack of human decency, and inferiority complex disguised as vigilantism that proves nothing is beneath you or your supporters.

Devout no doubt in your religion that states thou shall not kill, but still indiscriminate killers because you are entitled, afraid, and think you have a better spoon to be beyond the law. Needing someone to discriminate against to make you feel better about yourself, but the racism and fear remain even when the numbers are disproportionately in your favor and carrying a shotgun. Maybe the answer to curbing this racism is to give you some spinach-like Popeye or a pretend medal like the cowardly lion, perhaps even some decency of character.

Veteran law dog must have forgotten that this is not the 1950’s. But then, I guess at least now you don’t have to worry about the old neighborhood or your house anymore; accommodations will be provided for you and hopefully for life. The contractor or owner of the structure is at home eating dinner while you and your vigilante gang are headed to prison, not realizing that being the neighborhood enforcer was not your role. Now you are being held accountable for your vigilante murder.

Justice and arrest were delayed for over two months. There were repeated refusals before an arrest was made or proper handling of an apparent state murder violation of an unarmed black man, as well as DOJ civil rights hate crime specifications violated. Justice will not be complete until the murder conviction and imprisonment of the three vigilantes.

The dereliction of duty by police, prosecutors, and district attorneys demonstrating beyond bad judgment after the fact to absolve murder need to be identified and exposed. Once exposed, they need to be prosecuted according to the degree of their wrongdoing that undermined their office, positions, legal responsibility, and public trust.

A prevailing national mentality has emerged from the shadows to reflect seething racism seeking to justify and implement alternative interpretations and unlawful applications of law to ignore atrocious crimes and murders against Blacks. Those whose actions have identified themselves to exercise these mentalities with illegal ramifications demonstrate a criminal act that merit prosecution.

Behind the scenes at the highest levels, the Trump presidency, the dog whistle has been issued in a not so discreet or subtle way stating fine people on both sides. But, unfortunately, this dog whistle creates an atmosphere where this racist conduct is encouraged and applauded by the racist puppet master, delighted how the puppets dancing on strings are ignorantly carrying out a racist agenda.

The 2020 election in Georgia revealed resistance to lawful changes that didn’t meet your expectations and ignited extreme opposition to the rule of law. The law is to be upheld when contrary to other’s expectations but disregarded when applied to yours or somehow deemed fraudulent when you are disappointed. The legal process must be equally applied without compromise or variations of compliance by those who enforce it, even if not by those governed by it.

Racist consent no doubt created the atmosphere to draw these bigots out of their vigilante closet. Perhaps politics gassed them up to make America great again by divisive rhetoric, racist tolerance, and assumption of white immunity. Nero, a mad man, was said to have fiddled while Rome burned; he now tweets while America burns and while you will sit in jail. You should have chosen more carefully your actions and your inspiration.

These perpetrators of murder and enablers of these murderers share an overtly appalling commonality which is a blatant mockery of accountability and scorn of prosecution. They are cohorts of the same criminality. That cannot be allowed to go unsanctioned while justice is mutilated to anemic integrity and corrupt contortions.

Vigilante’s actions circumventing the law and standard of justice when committed undermines the legal system for civilized expectations of conduct and due process. Ongoing and collective intent to minimize this murder transforms individual acts of atrocity into unacceptable systemic indulgences in violation of state law, the RICO Act, Consent Decree investigation, and DOJ hate crimes or civil rights violations.

The murder and coverup investigation regarding all participants should leave them subject to the highest degree of legal condemnation. This is mandatory not only for the loss of Mr. Ahmaud Arbery’s life by murder but the integrity of the legal system to be respected and representative for all. If not, the law is respected by none, not those committing atrocities or those refusing to be subjected to them.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

In fear for your life

 Deadly Force.

The standard for legal justification of deadly force is the same for police and civilians, but it is interpreted and applied differently. Therefore, following the law and exercising your rights must include adherence to the application of the law and the procedures or scrutiny if deadly force is used by you or against you, whether civilian or law enforcement.

The standard default declaration is to proclaim being in fear for your life. It has no meaning but is generally understood to mean something that is subjective but not specific to the situation. You only think you know what it means but it has a different meaning to everyone projected upon and applied to a situation. It is vague and supports a spectrum of fear levels based solely on fearful anxiety.

The time when that is acceptable as the primary justification for using deadly force has passed and defies objective reasoning or quantification. Thus, fear should no longer be sufficient or a factor for using deadly force. Instead, the actual circumstances should constitute a code red threat or tactical disadvantage creating an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death, not to gain compliance or quell any fear.

Being in fear for your life is very subjective. It can primarily reflect your psychological frailty instead of the actual circumstance you are in or confronted with actually being a serious bodily harm threat. Specific physical and mental allowances must be made for a variance of vulnerabilities, the prevailing circumstances confronted with, and the objectively reasonable response. Still, an actionable threat must be the primary reason for any legal lethal force response.

Realizing that most civilians have uncertainty regarding when deadly force is appropriate and required lends itself to a tendency to erroneously use deadly force based solely on fear, not the threat. Sometimes law enforcement being unaccustomed to high risk or confronted with unfamiliar situations, can react with certainty but erroneously or prematurely from fear or anger, not the threat. Force must be reasonable and unavoidable, and prudent in its exercise where your actions did not create or escalate the threat.

When deadly force is used, the standard for reasonableness, even when justified, requires it must remain within that which is not excessive. The standard applied by law for both civilian and law enforcement is to use the minimal force necessary to neutralize a threat based upon the known or reasonably perceived circumstances at that time but not to your level of fear.

Your perception is formed by the actual events or circumstances existing at that time and the threat’s ability to carry them out, resulting in serious bodily harm to you. According to the law, it is explicitly forbidden to use deadly force to protect property regardless of the value of that property. Deadly force is only supported as a counter to serious bodily harm.

The subjective factors that influence deadly force use are age, size, gender, physical limitations, specific previous victimization, etc. The list is long, but the actual justification must be supported and based on specific factors justifying the action to be warranted and always from a defensive perspective.

These many considerations are supporting factors of articulation but not justification for deadly force. The harmful threatening act is the only primary justification that can be legally considered. The rest is just supporting elements of that action or threat. The perception of a serious bodily harm threat must also be of the nature to be carried out at the time of your reaction.

You must have the fundamental knowledge of what perceptions of a threat you were responding to, why you reacted that way, and whether you can legally respond that way with a force that will likely cause serious physical harm or death. It must be a reaction to their actions supported by a reasonable response to a specific pending or imminent articulated threat.

Being in fear should not be the emotional state you are in; instead, the apprehensive projection of the threat if allowed to progress to a reasonable conclusion. You cannot instigate or agitate a confrontation and claim to be in fear of the situation you created. It would be best if you remained near blameless in your contribution to the circumstances causing the conflict.

For example, a vehicle moves forward and backward, not sideways. If law enforcement knows this places themselves in the forward or reverse path of a vehicle without escape options, they have essentially created their own danger. Therefore, deadly force should not be used. Instead, better judgment should.

Everything articulated should be their actions and your response. You must only do what someone’s actions force you to do. Reacting for your safety must be warranted and justified by your right not to submit yourself to the discretion of whatever misfortune, harm, or criminal intent that may be forced upon you.

If placing yourself in harm’s way and then the assumed harm is attempted, then by default, you ultimately initiated that attempt. If it was expected to possibly occur, knowing the risk and danger, you actually allowed it to happen by your actions.

Deadly force must always be reactionary to a threat unforeseen or unavoidable. Knowing the standards under which you will be judged, feeling confident in your response, and committing yourself to restraint as necessary increases your advantage of legally responding to a deadly threat with little hesitation and minimal scrutiny.

Understand that fear is where your concerns and insecurities overcome your confidence and commitment. What may weaken your resolve to resist or survive is strictly subjective to your fear of inadequacy and not a response to the actual threat. Reacting to the actual threat is responding to the resolution of the threat and not the resolution of your fear. Under this perspective, fear has no place in the equation for consideration of your actions.

There is a distinct difference between a response for your life or being scared and frightened. Fear is from within; it is something that you choose to accept and project. Fear is closely related to your level of preparation, familiarity, comfortability, and any unfavorable circumstances present. When these levels are low, your anxiety is high, so fear is more of a reflection of your personal state of mind than the threat confronted with, even when lethal action is necessary and unavoidable.

Anger is fear projected outwardly, and fear is anger projected inwardly upon yourself. No one can account for your or another’s fear, biases, or insecurities. No one should have to account for why you or anyone is afraid of the dark or an impending danger that does not exist outside your mind.

Fear is often a stereotypical or conjured projection causing an irrational override of reality. So, fear must be removed as the primary criterion for using deadly force. Fear is an admission and display of irrational behavior and most likely an indictment of your confidence.

Legal justification is the principal standard and level of responsibility that anyone carrying a firearm consent to by carrying that firearm and definitely by using deadly force. Insinuated by implication and association are also all bullets fired being accountable to the shooter. It has nothing to do with the shooter. Instead, the person getting shot to provoke and justify that action of being shot.

What did they do to get shot that was a reaction to and material reflection of their behavior? From the shooter’s perspective, they did this, and I reacted as such. Not, I did this due to my fear of unwarranted anticipation of an unobserved action or being absent of any overt indication of danger. Much like chess, only one move is made then the opponent must make a move until checkmated. Your move is executed only after the opponent has made their move which you then counter or prevent.

When deadly force is used, there is a legal responsibility to stop when it is no longer necessary, even if initially justified. As the threat level changes, force adjustments must change, adhering to minimal force necessary to discontinue the threat. Excessive force occurs when the adjustment is not made or justified in the beginning. That standard applies to less than deadly force as well. Passive resistance is not a justification for deadly force.

The standard criteria already legally established for deadly force should be firmly applied and enforced with violations fully prosecuted to discourage the motivation and occurrences of its violation by civilians and law enforcement. Law enforcement and vigilantism must especially be scrutinized to diminish violations of publicly accepted legal expectations and legally established statutes.

Even cowboys recognized in the wild west that shooting someone in the back or from behind was inherently wrong because it was cowardly and suspect of the threat they posed with their back towards you or running away.

Multiple gunshots to the back should be assumed murder absent some extraordinary circumstances and articulation to justify the nearly indefensible. Possessing a gun that is not in a position to be used most certainly falls under the same reprehensible cowardly actions since it is legal in most places to possess a firearm.

In the use of deadly force, there needs to be fully transparent investigations and personal accountability according to the governing state and federal laws, police department general police orders of operation, the departmental expectation of conduct and tactics, and civilian or officer-initiated encounters. In addition, civilians should be vigorously held to the same factually based reactions rejecting their reckless behavior, frivolous encounters, and fear of situations they created or had no legal standing to enforce instead of an imaginary justification of fear.

Being comfortable in situations requires mental preparation to visualize likely scenarios prior to encountering them. Lack of knowledge and preparation manifests itself in panic and fear, which is prone to overreaction. Memory retention and muscle memory are then trained by conditioning them where your only concern is logically and methodically dealing with the threat or circumstances without panic.

Proficiency in your craft, whatever it is, breeds confidence, even if it is baking a cake. Target acquisition is the next issue of paramount importance. You must be sure before firing what you are shooting at, why you are shooting at it, with what you are using to shoot at it, can you strike the intended target, and how many times is reasonable to fire to eliminate the threat but not necessarily the person.

You should not just unload on someone out of fear without articulating why it was necessary. At this point, it becomes suppressive fire without a confirmed target or justified circumstances. Controlling your anxiety avoids reckless behavior and unreasonable actions which are regrettable or debatable.

Recent news examples that illustrate the lack of these principles are the Breonna Taylor, Jacob Black, and Duante Wright shootings. In the Taylor case, the lack of target acquisition and discipline under stress laying down suppressive fire. The Black case poor tactics and poor suspect control to prevent him from moving contrary to risk aversion.

Mainly seven shots to the back being excessive to repel the perceived knife threat, which had not yet become direct. The Wright case where panic and overreaction mentally short-circuited the motor skills and muscle memory familiarity to perform an act your body knew was wrong but that your mind overruled to grab the wrong weapon.

You can train for stress, but only stress simulates stress and fear is always present with the uncertain where you feel unprepared, even taking an exam or a critical event. Still, fear must be processed and redirected to heighten the ability not to immobilize it. The first consideration is always to minimize risk to yourself by your tactics to maneuver to minimize danger.

You must be proactive to predict, eliminate, prevent, or minimize the risk, escalation, or damage you must do to someone by limiting their opportunity to harm you before deadly force has to be used. You cannot account for other’s actions but are responsible for your tactics and actions, so control what you can control, yourself.

Excessive force and deadly force must be responsive to the deafening outrage and continued advancement of transparency and accountability regardless of who the violators are. The public now demands it, and the law requires it to be applied equally without prejudice or reservation, thereby minimizing the fear that others have for their life in these encounters.

The police must now also police themselves to raise their shared duty of accountability to these known standards and restore public trust to the previous levels enjoyed and beyond. Ongoing training should reflect this, and violations should be exposed to protect the integrity of the uniform and profession to establish a law enforcement culture in line with the changing times and respect for life. Civilians must adhere to a standard of conduct that does not initiate or invite deadly force to stay out of the gray zone subjecting themselves to fear.

Remember to eliminate fear; you can practice until you don’t make a mistake but can also practice until you can’t make a mistake to be genuinely proficient and eliminate fear. It is about taking life seriously to invest the time and resources into training yourself lessening fear and promoting better judgment when carrying a firearm.

Taken from my forthcoming book, the Pointman.

Thurston K. Atlas
Creating A Buzz

Tactical Protest

 Objective Campaign

The intent and purpose of protest are to demonstrate the objection, frustration, and dissatisfaction of circumstances denied redress, which can no longer persist without adjustment or change. Civilizations have been toppled over disregard for the people’s protest of conditions that will not be tolerated. Protest can be stifled, but eventually, it resurfaces and overcomes the suppression of the people’s will. History always repeats itself in this regard, and change prevails, or extinction occurs.

Effective methods of protest vary with the extent of outrage and the ramification of its effect to force change. Additionally, the passage of time influences the efficiency of the protest methods used to settle any such grievances. The more widespread the objection, the higher the expectations for change are. The more likely a revolutionary demand emerges that requires radical adjustments to the system according to the people’s will and acceptability.

The method of the specific change’s ultimate purpose and other expressions of frustration should not be confused or used to dilute it by the actions used to achieve that change. Radical responses have erupted during protests where force has been met with force. Peaceful protest has also been met with force. The circumstances under which demonstration is conducted must be focused and flexible to maximize its effectiveness while minimizing the harm to the protesters being suppressed by this force.

Harmful exposure to protestors should be minimized and is equally as important as the cause. However, perhaps with the societal climate changing, a new political administration settling in, and the Covid virus still lurking, it may be time to adjust the tactics. Maybe, use more strategic, effective, and conciliatory tactics conducive to the desired change making the outcome more attainable. This is not to suggest not to keep the pressure on or lessen the expectations but to achieve objectives differently to galvanize resources across a spectrum of solutions and support more efficiently.

Any protest should consolidate active and passive support not to alienate resources or allies that can be an asset supporting change or at the very least not standing in opposition to it. The total Black population is roughly 48 million or 14.7 percent of the total U. S. population of 328 million, leaving approximately 280 million people that are other than black. With 67 percent estimated at some point to support racial equality, it is clear that an additional 52.3 percent (171 million) would be helpful.

Taking it to the streets with bullhorns had its place in the past and may still contain a level of effectiveness. However, today a precise focus combined with efficient use of human resources applying technology can disseminate messaging and informational exchanges beyond physical opposition to gain more of an advantage.

More modern tactics can resolve some significant concerns and limit the negative impact on protesters, the alienation of allies, and the alternative actions or narratives levied against the protestors. Protest tactics, methods, and ideologies need to be updated; surgical precision, not blunt force, is required. It is not the skill of the sword but the skill of the swordsman that directs the blows.

Destruction is an emotional response to frustration that is not equivalent to passion or progress. It undermines the success of legitimate efforts and squanders opportunities for meaningful action, resolution, and advancement. The objective is to facilitate focused disruption and change without random destruction or ill-fated confrontation. A tactical advantage has the purpose of engagement with a minimal footprint or target but maximum effect.

Inflicting disruption and affecting changes without being subject to retribution and resisting dispensing collateral damage to innocent parties not involved in the engagement is the goal. Specific tactics can define most responses by manipulative design, thereby aligning the reaction with the purpose of the tactics while working to position the objective for success. Success can often be attainable without conflict when the opposition’s energy is converted or depleted to benefit the protest objective. You cannot lose when causing methodical attrition to the opposition unless by surrender.

Conflict is always an option but becomes exhausting and depleting when recklessly deployed as a default reaction. It should be the last resort even when conflict is the first chosen action. This is not a doctrine of non-violence but a perspective of principle to not become or commit the very oppression we are protesting against. It only justifies their response, fear, and treatment of us, forming a perspective contrary to change while enforcing resistance. Resistance needs to be weakened and not fortified.

It serves no meaningful purpose to destroy or loot except to indiscriminately inflict pain upon someone who has not harmed us directly or who may be sympathetic to the objective of the protest. Protest awry presents the opportunity to express anger, emotions, or repressed personal vendettas by offering an outlet under the disguise and protection of collective outrage for the cause. The business of protest is not personal; it is collaborative, the collective objective is primary, and it will provide some resolution for many of the personal vendettas.

Destruction for the therapeutic purpose of soothing angry feelings or emotional outbursts is not practical or efficiently convincing and mostly futile without focused goals for achievement. Being under the influence of a mob mentality or raging emotions undermines the collective purpose of tactically maneuvering to accomplish our stated objectives and changes. Avoiding compromise by self-imposed distractions or succumbing to emotions is essential in executing a strategy for change.

Our anger turned inward or against us is on us and counter-productive. Emotional intoxication creates an impairment to clear thinking and promotes regrettable actions alienating allies from supporting our cause. Regression into our deferred pain or submission to displays of emotional fervor prolongs our condition. As the past has consistently proven, anger subsides with time and expression, making it unsustainable and unreliable motivation to propel protest or change.

Pent-up emotional frustrations must be controlled, transformed, and refocused for any protest’s sustainable strength and integrity. The mind must be engaged, not the emotions, for logical actions and sustainability of intent. The insanity of our same approach without results is evidence of itself that we have traveled this road many times before to find ourselves on the same road again. It is past due time to change approaches for perhaps a different result other than being angry, stubborn to self-examination, or prone to destructive behavior.

Confrontation is the lowest level of persuasive negotiation or communication with the greater force usually dictating the terms and conditions over the lesser force. Overcoming a more significant force or power does not involve direct altercation but a strategic and analytical negation of their advantage. Primitive expressions of anger acted out from past pain are counter-productive to future gains.

Anger disregards intellectual pursuit and persuasion, surrendering to and conceding an inability to reason or debate our objective convincingly. Commitment finds a way to achievement by not succumbing to surrender or outburst when faced with obstacles but engages adaptation.

Our strategy’s disciplined and foundational principles have to remain firm in its conviction but flexible in its focused execution to sustain the expansion of our influence and support the acceptance of our objective. The cultivation of our base requires that they be informed of the purpose and the method of achieving it. Their determination, resources, talents, and skills, when efficiently deployed, will effectively optimize their contribution to the collective objective.

The methods used should be surgical and fluid in dissecting the obstacles to the objective’s realization. When the methods and techniques are organized and unified, the impact can undoubtedly be predictable and quantified. However, when we come to do serious business, then keep it strictly business. Doing business with tangible results with measurable outcomes must be structured by expressed policies and concessions aligned with our agenda.

Appeal to one political party or ideology has historically failed, resulting in bouncing from one extreme to another, never achieving the wholesale changes sought. More realistically, it has led to being conquered by exploiting our differences and personal ambitions instead of unified by our commonality of interest and objective. This division has no viable focus, momentum, or process to make demands much less change.

The insanity of the same old protest tactics has yielded glacier changes considering the last 60 years of progress since the bullhorn and slogans that rhyme have formed the focal point of social justice protest. Unfortunately, as a result, perceptions remain tainted (theirs and ours), assurances hollow, and equality still elusive.

That is not to discredit the efforts and accomplishments of those who have gotten us to this frontier. Instead, it suggests that to fully benefit from these unprecedented times embracing tactics conducive to current sentiment and public consciousness would seem wise. We can then avoid unnecessarily repeating the same futile cycle where destruction overshadows progress.

A multidimensional approach must be utilized, attacking the systems and perpetrators of injustice and those who would align themselves with justifying or concealing institutional and societal violations. Political and legislative recourse is the most pervasive and effective way to universally isolate and identify systemic injustices to punitively and economically persuade or penalize transgressions and transgressors alike.

It is imperative to use all those who would align themselves with our objective of equality and fairness to address both major political parties to propose, pledge, and produce programs, legislation, and penalties. The precise agreed-upon procedural implementation and application should be transparent and obvious.

Changes to existing structures in violation must be urgently undertaken and remedied. Given the opportunity to honor any assurances, visibly effective actions would be the only acceptable verification. Our political and economic courtship must be accompanied by this bouquet as well as by any other suitors who would seek favor with us.

Since beggars have never been choosers, for us to have a choice, we must develop further options to empower our interest without other’s permission or compliance. Therefore, make it necessary and in their best interest to create a coalition with us essential to their own success demonstrated by their actions seeking and validating our trust.

Political and economic prowess is fundamental to being respected as a force to be reckoned with and afforded the same first-class citizenship considerations as any other group. A major cohesive political initiative is needed to consolidate a coalition of grievances to remedy historical and systematic discriminations. Redress inclusive of our grievances and interest, including those marginalized within the diversity of our ranks.

While the political influence and legislative reform are the most pervasive and effective methods, economic protest is the most immediate and convincing consideration to facilitate change. Mutual goals, shared results, cultural awareness, and systematic bias can all be altered by the bottom line.

Maximum strength can be derived from the imposing of strategies that impact and weaken the financial interests of those in opposition. Let our spending do the heavy lifting against immovable obstacles and damaging objectives. Money penetrates many adverse resolves.

Preparing, educating, and directing our base in our preferred way of resistance or persuasion is the most impactful initiative. Financial withdrawal puts us at no physical risk, allows us to remain lawfully blameless, and is an exercise in our spending discretion that can be heard without ever being seen but felt. It is called discretionary spending, and it is our prerogative.

The tactical concentration of resources and the creative application of proven techniques reversed engineered and effectively used against us can be effective for use by us. Hostage negotiators seek to humanize hostages to captors by deflecting their ideology, making them reluctant to harm the hostages. The most prevalent is self-identifying with the hostages and reflecting their similarities to elicit empathy from the captors. They must be made to see themselves in you or see the similarities of you in themselves.

Lima syndrome techniques can be used effectively towards those who are not hopelessly entrenched in their ideology and position to encourage sympathy for those who have wronged or are wronged. Their injustice is their shame which they feel compelled to resolve along with civilized impulses of compassion. The same technique can reverse social engineering to reject racism and instill a more socially compassionate affinity for equality.

Conversion of the ideologies and perspectives of people must hold a more significant enticement to change old thoughts rather than to adhere to them. First disproving those antiquated beliefs, then embracing the voluntary integration to their identity a genuine acceptance of the change. Their hurtful actions becoming vile, distasteful, and regrettable to themselves.

Protest not aligned with core beliefs results in resistance as a survival mechanism as if they were personally attacked. This personal attack is then internally adapted to reconcile those core beliefs to justify resistant thoughts and actions. Any required change must be a self-revelation where an acceptance or realization transforms those actions and attitudes to a different set of core beliefs aligned with a new perspective.

The concept of addition by subtraction seems counter-intuitive, but much can be gained by what is taken away. It is far more challenging to remove a thought and replace it than to place it there initially. In this regard, social engineering must be addressed relative to racial inferiority or superiority complexes perpetuation. Spreading of either must prevent the ratio of people who learn, are taught, display, or are made to feel either.

Repetition and reinforcement of these concepts lead to their prevalence and, when reversed, can lead to these concepts being rejected. Time and patience utilizing reverse-engineering of the propagation of these concepts where there then becomes an overwhelming presence of the desired one, and the absence of the unwanted one leads to the extinction of the unwanted behavior. Like potty training of sorts, it instills a level of conditioning that is socially acceptable, compelling, and enduring.

 

 

Aside from the many psychological and behavioral modification techniques available, procedural adjustments can be similarly effective on institutional and structural entities. These agencies entirely comprised of people operating within those systems are either governed by, restricted by, or compelled by some parameter of conduct or procedural mandate. The adjustments can be implemented when an understanding of their protocols, mandates, and operations is utilized.

Intimate knowledge and understanding of these parameters can nullify, neutralize, restrain, or mobilize their resources. Conflict is short-sighted when others can do the heavy lifting for our purpose. For example, resources can be utilized for our protection or against us depending on how we maneuver their interpretation of our intent. Let their muscle support our intent and against any known antagonist intent, as the national guard did for school desegregation in the sixties.

To lessen the possibility of conflict and be equally effective, a massive crowd assembled in one place without a specific agenda for their collective assembly is not tactical or practical when our assembly results in their assembly as a stronger, more fortified consolidated force. Peaceful assembly locations should be carefully chosen, and agendas precisely directed and fully understood with contingency plans against conduct clearly undermining our purpose. There have to be no tolerances for egos, flexing, insults, emotions, or agent provocateurs, just our objectives and goals.

Any conduct while assembled under our flag reveals whether you are with us or for yourself, in which case this unwanted activity damages our purpose. Our protest must occupy the high ground morally, intellectually, and geographically to move separately but in coordination, while converging collectively into a specific purpose and method to achieve that purpose. Disbursement into smaller crowds that spread resources and divide commands demonstrating clear, peaceful intentions minimizes herd mentality on both sides, and our communication can become more sustainable and direct.

If a breakdown should then occur, it would be isolated to that one location and not into collective chaos as when there is one massive assembly. At peaceful assemblies, law enforcement has to respond to any probability as a paid captive audience. So instead of yelling, insulting, or confronting them, why not try to convert them or at least salvage the ones who may find themselves marginalized within their own ranks as well as sympathetic to our protest and objective.

It is a marketing opportunity since they cannot leave, and exposure to our ideology cannot be avoided. This time and opportunity can be used to hear or see our message and possibly promote it in places where we cannot. By the same measure, the key is not conflict but expense. The more they stand there, the larger the expenditure becomes until it becomes too much on the city budget. City officials will want to negotiate a resolution because law enforcement will also complain and protest about their own conditions and attrition. It will then become a matter of wasted resources and weakened morale.

Law enforcement, city officials, and city council can be required to meet with the public at any number of safe environments where we can put a name and face with a promise or proposed action. The police department is always open to receiving complaints, must investigate, and must give a disposition to the submitting complainants. Churches, schools, community centers, and government facilities can all be utilized for community events and meetings. If they can’t come to us, then we can always peacefully assemble and go to them. Systems and resources are always susceptible to being overwhelmed.

Law enforcement reform starts with the hiring practices of who they put into the uniform and an asserted effort to increase their interaction and familiarity with the culture of the community they serve. Avoidance of bias deployment of selective enforcement throughout the community, a better internal and public accountability system, and assurances that reflect departments and specialized units ratios align with the community demographics are also needed. Discretion is encouraged where minor offenses build goodwill and correction instead of revenue and criminal intent.

Removing the overseer, occupying force, and adversarial culture and mentality of law enforcement to be above the people they serve is crucial to better policing. Changing the officer’s expectations within the department to be less numerically driven as the basis for the court system, jails, and general fund revenue. Additionally, training needs to be directed at mental and psychological options for compliance, de-escalation, and control under fearful or stressful situations that simulate reality. Indeed, a different type of training and increased training is in order.

Engaging the political and legal process at the municipal, county, and state level to change the city charters, county enforcement, and state laws mandating more accountability and transparency removes many instances of abuse. The other component to remove abuses is to remove those who obstruct or violate the intent or equal application of the law. City Charters can make the Police Chief accountable to the public and not the mayor. The law is full of remedies that are not currently aligned with the will of the people or used to reconcile them.

The political structure of this country is established upon majority rule, even if that majority is by one. The path forward seems clear to keep that which has served us well in the past, embrace that which reveals itself to be effective moving forward, and discard that which has not produced the desired results.

The use of technology, emails, social media, and the like that can be consolidated at the push of send is a powerful tool to disseminate protocols, actions, and objectives. Information is the new currency, and shared education is the manner of transport to expose the iniquities of history and the needed corrections now and in the future for advancement.

The objective must be exalted above the method of the objection, the message superseding the messenger, and the change sustained beyond the sacrifices made. All those concerned are welcome to be agents of change under this directive that lessens harm to the integrity of our concerns.

We must practice policy-driven professional protest, not random emotional exhibitions of extortion. Some of the methods and techniques available are time-sensitive and subject to subversion. There are forces actively attempting to legislate and criminalize specific actions to abolish or lessen their use and effectiveness, making it more difficult to protest without retribution and retaliation.

These laws designed as countermeasures to suppress voting and protest have been announced or anticipated which the development and implementation of effective alternative methods must be employed that are impervious to being undermined. Force is used for revolution, which is not reasonable since our goal evolves and it is not the overthrow of the government. On January 6, 2021, an attempt was made on the Capitol by anarchists hell-bent on suppressing our objectives and the incoming administration as well as the imposition of theirs.

Force in the form of civil unrest and civil disobedience, as it is termed, has minimal effect, being localized at best and a squander of human resources at worst. Using revolution employing force and confrontation, the butcher’s tools generate casualties and opposition with the need to maintain coerced compliance. Evolution is the tool of the master akin to chess outmaneuvering the opposition manipulating their move by intellect and persuasion to anticipate their move and checkmate them with their contribution.

We are not equipped for revolution by force and should not be so inclined when the results move us farther away from our goals. On the contrary, the times are ideally suited for evolution, with the circumstances ripe with the proper strategic approach. The surgical attainment of our prime objectives should aspire to minimal exposure and maximum benefit. With that in mind, adaptation and progression do not have to be glacier, but it will take some time and sustained effort.

To survey the factual landscape and assess the most effective course of action, the first thing we must do is control our emotions and remain reasonable about the sequence and scope of our goals. We can not succumb to the emotional compulsion to express our frustrations through destructive methods that yield only a release of anger but limited results.

We must then logically analyze the playbook being used against us for vulnerabilities and deficiencies. Many have historically been the same, but the support has waned, significantly exaggerating the weaknesses exposing new paths to change. Just as their ideological numbers have weakened, ours have been strengthened, forging overt empathy and allegiances towards justice for us.

Dissent and allegiances in unison with a significant number of people who should not be alienated or excluded from their contribution to a mutual objective. For example, some have aged out of active protest in the streets. However, they still can significantly contribute if an avenue for their participation was available which remained within their capabilities. The same holds for adolescents who can contribute in their own particular way or those who would need to remain anonymous for their own preservation but would love to contribute if provided a way.

The racist or conservative value ideology has to be exposed for what it is and the lack of inclusion of some who support it, not realizing that they are not included except for achieving a goal that will discard them. Conservatism is rooted in the past, which does not include alternative sexualities, gender roles not male-dominated, inter-racial relationships, immigrants who visually do not look white, and the list goes on.

These are the divisions and vulnerabilities which need to be exposed. The 2020 election and the strategy utilized by Stacey Abrams and many others are symbolic of the horizontal attack on a vertical establishment. The legs can be taken out to make the head fall.

The divide and conquer tactics that have been so effective against us redirected against the social intimidation used to sustain this stain of racism can now be used as never before to topple this system of discrimination. Isolating its methods and motivations cultivating change for its own survival or wither isolated from the acceptability of change. The implosion of maintaining their discriminating ideology will collapse when starved. The pen is mightier than the sword, and the briefcase more effective than muscle can use their momentum against their purposes when redirected for our purposes.

The prototype builds a horizontal coalition targeting as many local gatekeepers as possible from the school boards to city council from the infrastructure that governs them by vote, city charters, or other legislation that either changes their policy and functions or promotes the compromise needed for our redress.

The latest census report does not accurately reflect the shifting demographics of those by their designation whose interest would more closely align with our objectives for their benefit. The number of those who would oppose or actively resist has diminished when put into the context of racial and economic oppression, which comparatively suppresses their prosperity as well.

Focusing on the horizontal social foundation is where the legal and meat on the bones changes will be more attainable and intensively affected at the grassroots level. Producing new socio-economic norms not constricted by race, gender, or discrimination will require more vertical institutional infiltration.

It would be regrettable not to fully benefit from this unprecedented time in a diametrical shift of ideologies, theirs and ours. Confronting this plague of racism that has persisted for centuries has spilled out into the open, and we can not refuse to update our strategy conducive to meaningful change.

There was civil unrest under the previous administration as clashes of ideology and practice, but that most certainly seems not to be the case with the Biden-Harris administration, so why would the method of protest be the same for friend and foe. They deserve a chance to benefit us from the highest levels as they have pledged without being encumbered by behavior that undermines their efforts or strengthens the opposition.

By demonstrating their actions and those appointed by them, they have demonstrated more willingness toward fairness than we have been recently accustomed to. So let us do our business while they do their business unencumbered by each other and in support and coordination towards a just objective.

We can use all the help we can get and can not afford to squander our allies or resources by our emotional behavior or lack of logical strategy. So many of these protests are in response to the loss of life of individuals whose family gets constantly bombarded with reminders of their loss. They deserve closure and resolution reflective of the pain they endure and provide the progress that can be the only thing to minimize their loss and provide some degree of comfort.

So first and foremost, let us not get too wrapped up in our anger to exacerbate their pain without honoring the progression needed as a result of THEIR loss. We must embrace their wellbeing and make sure they are provided for while we claim our actions are on their behalf without honoring their wishes or embracing their condition.

Remember, it is about their families and protest, collectively, not us individually releasing anger. We must remain diligently respectful of their loss. United, we stand erect consolidated in purpose and with the integrity of our convictions to demonstrate that which we demand.

The teachings of Sun Tzu or the Five Rings present conceptual tactics of principle and concept. The study of Hannibal from Carthage and Shaka Zulu reveals helpful strategic maneuvering of resources, innovation, and positioning. These learnings are military tactics that will prove effective in a civilian application of protest.

War tactics applied to peaceful thought processes guiding social movements whose ideology is adapted to reflect the logical application of their concepts not to create war but to create evolution and progression. They are designed to minimize conflict and self-inflicted collateral damage while ensuring success in overcoming obstacles by a coalition of consensus.

The question is will we put an end to some of this nonsense or wait for others who have less incentive? But, again, the perspective of tactical protest is wisest, not demonstrations of emotional outbursts.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

 

 

Christianity Weaponized

 Without Question but with Doubt?

In the movie “The Book of Eli,” starring Denzel Washington, his character was the blind guardian of the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible and its teachings were in danger of extinction and were obsessively sought after by the evil antagonist, Carnegie. Carnegie believed that the book’s power rested in its ability to control the hearts and minds of the people.

Ultimately, he believed that the possessor would have tremendous power over the people. The belief of the people in the word of this book, the book’s implied integrity, and the assumed authenticity of the book could be exploited to control them, deceive them, and make them obedient by their dedicated worship.

When the people believed, their belief would be susceptible to engineer justifications and accept otherwise unreasonable assumptions or conditions by a mysterious mandate from an invisible deity who required obedience and would be unquestionable.

The devoted religious stipulations would concede complete submission and worship. It would be reinforced by parents, family, culture, community, and sometimes country as a foregone supposition. It is an indoctrination that integrates with one’s identity and requires the compliance of one’s actions.

I have been conflicted by this topic for quite some time and have tried to avoid it, but it keeps coming back, compelling me to ask the questions I have pondered to further reconcile my indoctrination with my acquired knowledge. Therein lies the dilemma, follow my upbringing of what I was conditioned to believe. Or follow my discoveries that challenge the validity of that acceptance.

Can two things be true that are diametrically in conflict on many levels, and any attempt to merge them still leaves distance and inconsistencies that only raise more questions? What I was introduced to believe from a child was not my choice and maybe not even my people’s choice for them to accept and teach, but it was all they knew.

Having studied and researched religion and history, I can’t help but venture into uncomfortable territory searching for the truth. I seek the truth by definitively deciphering religion without any emotional influence or feeling any betrayal of my ancestral conditioning.

Deductive reasoning leaves me even more baffled. What I was taught was out of love. The best belief and “knowledge” available to them at the time. A belief down to their DNA instilling obedience to and worship of the Lord. It is no doubt that perpetuated beliefs in the devil, prayer, and God has kept people in submission, acquiescing to enduring hardships as a test of faith.

This being the will of the Lord, even if it is in direct opposition to his very “attributed” words and teachings. The concept keeps you in constant subservient despair for a reward to come after death, although no one has verified or bore witness to this “glory” called the afterlife of judgment and salvation. I guess that is why they call it belief in faith.

In theory, you would remain in limbo in some dimension until judgment day, which by our general knowledge includes every human being ever born or at least since the time of Jesus. That would be an astronomical number of people awaiting judgment day at the same time. Imagine the logistics of processing all those souls simultaneously and keeping the records accurate, but that is the power of God or your qualifying explanation which I shall not dare question.

In the movie, Eli was blind, yet he navigated the world and defended himself without any obvious limitation, seemingly having sight and being guided by the vision of faith. That single-purpose vision enabled him to “blindly” commit to the deliverance of the book.

Although the book was physically taken from him, it was intricately fused in his mind and psyche through constant exposure and relentless repetition. His existence, adherence to the Bible’s words, and deliverance of that word to the masses consumed him until his death, even having caused his death. So strong was his belief in the word and his determination to deliver the word that he willingly died for it, accepting that complete sacrifice may be required.

That is a possibility when you are a true believer, knowing that no suffering is too great or too long to satisfy the unquestioned wisdom of God or to submit to the evil of Man by turning the other cheek. Even the Lord needed warriors such as Joshua, but we, the meek, shall inherit the world through our suffering.

Logically and physically, turning the other cheek would conceivably end with you having two swollen and sore cheeks while waiting for them to tire of slapping you, but this is what is required by God, for the love of God, and love of your brothers or sisters. So dare not rise up against someone who is harming you but let the Lord handle it. But what about their accountability for the love of you and their obedience to God?

Would not God deal with the one in violation instead of demanding the obedient suffer under his “protection”? The old testament eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is to be forsaken for the new testament of turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. When God tires of nonsense, his wrath is felt to smite you, but you suck it up when you tire. That is the disadvantage of not being the Lord our God. Remember vengeance, be it the Lord’s.

Since the beginning of humanity, or as I prefer humanity, that body of life that demonstrates kindness, mercy, and compassion that is uniquely displayed only by humans, there has been questionable behavior towards others and often decreed by religion in the name of God. Murder, genocide, biblical curses, sufferings, and slavery are prevalent in “Christian” teachings and tolerances while committed for the glory of God?

Not only is it throughout history, but it is also in the book. It continues to be practiced and justified by those in strict obedience and adherence to the Bible and their “Christian” faith of self-declared believers and overseers. If that sounds horrible, perhaps this is even worse as the two-edged sword efficiently cuts sharply in both directions, those who are directed by it and those who have it directed against them. Just as practicing “Christianity” allows them to do it, practicing the same “Christianity” demands that you accept it.

It is recommended that you pray on it regarding any injustice and toss it up to the Lord for review and consideration. You can even assemble your warriors, prayer warriors, that is, and submit a complaint to heavenly HR for review, and a divine sign will be notifying you regarding your submission.

Prayer may take time as the system has not been updated in thousands of years and is believed to have quite a backlog. Prayer can be defined as a solemn request for help or expression of gratitude requiring trust and belief in a controlling power greater than yourself to gain favor or to acknowledge favor received but always from a position below best expressed humbly from your knees. A humble servant remains in no position to demand or even timely expect, only to request obediently.

The Lord is never late but right on time and may not be there when you want him but will be there when you need him. If it weren’t for it being the Lord, these terms of engagement would most likely have to be renegotiated to reflect the price you pay for the services rendered.

We all know that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making you think he didn’t exist but what if the greatest trick the Christians pulled was making you believe he did exist? This is not to be blasphemous but to explore alternative concepts that may strengthen our belief and resolve in “Christianity.” I assume we can all stand to have our thoughts be more fully discussed, accepted, and understood without fear that they will be shaken or changed.

If we are true to our beliefs, then our beliefs will not be diminished but increased, and I have no intent or purpose of changing your beliefs lacking the power or will to do so but just request your assistance in clarifying mine. The truth can always stand examination to verify that it is the truth, so fear not, but as I said, it was uncomfortable for me, so I acknowledge that it may be uncomfortable for you as well. Indeed we can move forward to explore not our belief or our right to believe in what we choose but my point about it.

Our beliefs in life cannot be too fragile to forbid discussion even if that discussion is challenging or an opposing viewpoint. My viewpoint is not opposing, but our conviction should not be proven to be fleeting or too weak to process additional knowledge or opinions. This is not about opinion and definitely not about mine but a conversation devoid of emotions and sacrilegious safeguards that discourages historical insight.

This leaves religious interpretations for our own discretions. Our religious interpretations are our business alone but let us explore some things that we all know and some things that we may not all know to more fully understand the context of my point. Just as our “Christianity “cannot be contested, so is it with my point because it is not my declaration of opinion but the expression of historical fact.

Notwithstanding, the time before the written word and the foundation of Christianity. Nor the veracity or content of its teachings or existence of its principal players. Even the events and accounts therein because it is immaterial to my point. It is immaterial to my point, but my point may bring about our further examination of those very concerns. Etymology is the study of the origins and true meaning of words which are the building blocks of language.

Time brings about evolution in the usage and meaning of certain words creating and distorting understanding of these words over time. Before the written word, the reliability of word of mouth was subjected to he say she say accuracy and the limitations of descriptions by the available vocabulary. What an ancient might have described as a fire-belching creature we may very well call a UFO today or aircraft.

There is no direct knowledge, a consensus of acceptance, or rational accounts of much of the Bible, including the Garden of Eden, Jesus’s life, the many books not included in the Bible, and God himself. Do we genuinely know aside from belief alone and acceptance of that which “has been written” and told?

The accepted depiction of Jesus is blasphemous in its presentation and altered over time to reflect the characteristics of the population of the people it influenced, even the existence of a variety of depictions of Jesus’s appearance among other non-white nationalities.

Furthermore, centuries had passed without a portrayal of Jesus revealing his actual physical characteristics because it was forbidden. Finally, a composite portrait was commissioned and introduced called the Head of Christ by Warner Sallman in 1940, which is widely accepted and a portrait of Jesus. So complete is this heresy that just asks any child the color of Jesus, and they will tell you white.

This portrait was an extension of Eugenics to convey Christ with a halo, and angelic Caucasian features as an imaged to be worshipped and an implication that God is white, and whites are Jesus like to be elevated above all races. Thus, the two-edged sword of superiority and inferiority psychologically and culturally established an engineered justification of systemic racism and a race-based hierarchy in society.

It is a contorted interpretation. The Bible does not remotely give this depiction, nor does the geological population of historical accuracy, yet this is still the standard that is accepted as open propaganda. It raises the question of what else might there be to the psychological and cultural collusions unknowingly and widely tolerated or accepted. Glad you asked.

The emphasis on avoiding confusion starts at points that are not open to interpretation or word of mouth but are documented in a time frame that is reliable now and well established in language still in use today. The documentation has put forth its own concentrated rationale and objective to influence and implement philosophies and principles so comprehensively that they still impact society, cultures, and institutions today. Their promotion is so pervasive that it might leave you questioning if your beliefs are chosen or embedded as a matter of survival and manipulation.

 

 

The insinuations and meanings are not like visions where the totality of sight consists of the voids being filled in by assumptions. These declarations of law and practice left no uncertainty of how they were to be viewed and applied. This creates a context for some to overvalue themselves in a very complimentary and flattering delusional image while forcing others to cling to oppressive obedience.

It is misery laden with the nightmarish despair of beliefs still waiting for permission while conforming to a context that devalues our humanity by our own actions and acceptance despite any words of protest. Accordingly, praying for the burden to be removed instead of psychologically disrobing ourselves from the burden consuming us by unconditional acceptance and pure design.

Let the distortions begin steeped into laws based upon biases, mutilated revisionist history of absolution and false achievement, forced faith, and unjustifiable hope disguised as belief. Keep in mind that we do not have time to go back farther or expand beyond what is sufficient for this contemporary discussion.

There are critical distinctions in the development of Christianity that popularized it and its manipulations, which were weaponized for oppressive purposes. Translations that shaped or obscured some essence of the Bible favor interpretations consistent with particular objectives of various rulers and nations that furthered the objective of devotion without question.

Constantine The Great Nicea Council, Theodosius Decree, King James I Bible, and The Black Code are a few examples of who was more influential on Roman Flavian Christianity than the actual teachings. Consequently, the instructions were more tailored to an agenda than to the core of biblical teachings. It was then forced upon those who would resist these Titus manipulations by either incorporating some of their beliefs or flat out murdering them. Conversion to Christianity was often a life-saving measure, your own life. Historically Christianity is a religion of conquering from a personal level to a national level.

Historically Christianity has been used to persecute the Jews and create distance from Christianity’s association to Judaism and establish itself as the preeminent religion. Constantine permitted Christianity to be recognized as a legitimate religion changing its believers from being persecuted to protected in Roman society.

Theodosius later made Christianity the only religion of the Roman Empire but incorporated other beliefs to solidify believers where Constantine had solidified what was believed in the Nicea Council. Jews who attempted to prevent conversion were sometimes burned alive. Forced baptisms and conversions were commonplace. Burning and destroying knowledge of anything contrary to this time or belief when something else was believed or worshiped occurred.

Christianity was used to justify and establish the racial superiority of white Europeans over all others. It was further expanded to the new world to institute colonialism and slavery as a moral duty to subdue, exploit, and exterminate dark-skinned people on religious grounds.

King James I furthered his narcissism under royal absolution and slave trade activities by his association with the Bible. Christian faith and belief have long been used to oppress targeted populations while simultaneously justifying cruel treatment by religious doctrine and often accompanying legislation.

Black Codes rooted in colonialism, patriotism, and Christianity after the civil war were explicitly created and imposed in support of slavery, validating the despicable treatment of blacks under the cloak of Christian beliefs. The civil war was supposedly in part to abolish slavery, but afterward, this code was pervasive to maintain the discount of white supremacy.

It was the predecessor to Jim Crow and maintained a pseudo system of slavery and indentured servitude. Today’s vigilante-armed militias are an extension of black code enforcement. They are often your most ardent believers of Christianity and the most passionate demonstrators of racism while genuinely denying being racist under their Christian faith. They are often the same going hand in hand, being a proud Christian and a staunch racist. Not stated to offend anyone, but if the shoe fits, if not, it is not your shoe.

Revisionist history cannot conceal how the indoctrination of Christianity, distinct from Christian principles, has and is still being used to promote and justify oppression and injustices by some oblivious of their tarnished indoctrination’s origin and purpose. Dred Scott, by law, made it your Christian duty to return slaves and oppose their freedom giving birth to modern-day law enforcement injustices. Thus, the population control was two-fold: what should be done and what cannot be done under Christian principles.

Being raised under Christian principles had very different meanings based on race and class. It was not about religion but the manipulation and weaponizing of our beliefs. These beliefs have been so contorted and perverted that the only choice we have is blind faith or humanity that will not allow us to practice this brand of Christianity.

The salvation of our souls was not the goal. The goal was and has been the complete indoctrination of our minds to defy humanity and logic by intrinsically embedding programming to be beyond reproach, change, reasoning, or questioning. It becomes fundamental to our existence and identity, which otherwise would require us to fully denounce ourselves, which sounds a lot like white privilege denial.

The presumptions of Christianity as practiced today might leave future and more advanced civilizations that may come after this one has destroyed itself to look back on the primitive and pagan worshipping rituals asserted to be following the belief that was wholly practiced outside the doctrines of that belief.

Failing to grasp a truth beyond our ill-fated conditioned upbringing and refusing to understand that believing does not make it true, just as disbelieving does not make it false. Maybe the rituals of Christianity began in the Garden of Eden with the tree of knowledge. It was forbidden to have specific knowledge from the tree, which could have been the subconscious mind as the source of that knowledge.

The subconscious mind is the only thing that can be so fundamentally controlled to produce the total belief and obedience required of the conscious mind. To believe without confirmation through repetition and constant reinforcement. The confirmation of Christianity is the worship and devotion to it and that God is real and his wisdom absolute but often baffling.

So, in the end, it is the unquestioned belief that brings salvation and eternal reward. The refusal to stray from that belief and the rejection of any other religion is how this belief evolved. Otherwise conditioned differently, we would believe wholeheartedly in a different religion. There are many beliefs, and everybody can’t be right. Someone has to be wrong, but God’s word altered to the whim of man or powers in vogue is worshiping those entities and not God. Maybe that is why faith is required without validation. This not to slam Christianity, just manipulating it disguised as glory to God, remembering to keep the faith.

Perhaps what is should not have been, what should have been wasn’t, and what could have been will never be was a quote I heard as a young man that sums up a lot. The judgment day for the sins of mankind, both individually and collectively, cannot be pleasing to God despite repenting on our deathbed. Atrocities committed God’s name, the adherence to his law mangled, and the complicity of those who knuckled under for their own prosperity and convenience contributed to the perversion of his glory.

Dare not associate God with nonsense executed in his name and the misleading of those genuinely seeking his knowledge and comfort. Christianity teaches suffering while those who impose it prosper. Being a child of God, imagine your father who vows to protect you, then let unconscionable acts be committed against you.

What wisdom or benefit would that be? By inquiring and seeking knowledge without restriction but to exhaustion enables us to expose deceptions and illuminate truth. So conflicted by what we are and what we should be or should have become more apparent with research and inspection and not by simply accepting that is just how we were conditioned. It is acceptance in the knowledge that is required.

Many wars are predicated on ideology and religious differences. One side adamantly declares their right to practice theirs while denying the other the same freedom to practice the one of their choosing. Death forced baptisms and repressive conversions should not be the tools of religion. Hitler’s Aryan race propaganda came from America’s Jim Crow, which was based on religious teachings and eugenics.

He was only practicing what America practiced, but the hypocritical home of the free and land of the brave must have felt Americans are the only ones who could commit such atrocities and righteous indignation claiming racial superiority. Therefore, America was somehow compelled to galvanize to stop Hitler while even using blacks in the process. Still, it was not compelled to discontinue the heinous acts and horrendous treatment of blacks in America or racial superiority declarations.

Religious justification for slavery has survived for over four hundred years in a nation that has been Christian during that same period. It was right to stand against the holocaust of the Jewish people and not tolerate their condition. It would have been nice if America had thrown Black folks a bone with some meat on it, letting us wet our beak with the American dream enjoyed by whites, or a heaping helping of some of that privileged brand of Christianity.

There can be no doubt or denial that religion and Christianity, in particular, have been deformed and weaponized for a more sinister purpose more aligned with capturing souls than saving souls. Faith and hope require that you pursue a sign delivering only subjective explanations, but seeking subjective explanations reveals some objectively revealing signs.

The right question brings about the correct answer just as the correct answer discloses the appropriate question. Only then can faith be fortified, not by refusing to ask or refusing to answer the questions or denying the answers. On the contrary, being forbidden from this tree of knowledge sows confusion, reaping contempt or, more shockingly, maybe the truth.

Let me ask you a question. If forced acceptance of something for the benefit of one segment of the population to which others must be coerced into accepting and adhering to, what is its validity to not stand alone on its merits and prevail?

Today’s so-called conservative Christian values are often used to cloak status quo exercises of exclusion and self-aggrandizing judgments of moral superiority based on faith often closely aligned with discriminatory beliefs. In a country that supposedly values freedom above all other virtues, why is another’s freedom the first thing to be trespassed on for your convenience and conformity?

Morality by your determination and standards is required to sustain your authority and dominance to dictate how others should act in a range agreeable to your beliefs without regard for their choice within a socially acceptable range but not compliant to your chosen standard.

The principles of morality are contrary to your arrogance to oppose someone else’s right to choose outside your confinements, leading to you imposing a greater injustice upon them than the lack of morality that you would accuse them of displaying. With that said, shouldn’t the example you set is the one to follow, not the one to reject. Which do you project by your actions, morality or immorality in compliance with the principles of each virtue?

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

 

Diluted Justice and Pure Morality

Judgement Day- Home Team always Win 

Justice and Morality are as old as civilization and communal survival aiding in the coexistence of different norms. They often are confused with each other because both are sometimes present at the same time. They are really just both agreed-upon social norms that provide society’s guidelines and govern the restrictions of its members.

Justice aspires to punish wrongful acts and distribute fairness ethically. However, morality is more concerned with good or bad and right or wrong in principle. The question then becomes who sets the standard and how binding it is for all to follow or submit to as an arbitrarily accepted social standard.

They are really close in definition but not in practice, application, or agreement. Under some circumstances, it remains the same and, in others, has an entirely other interpretation based on who is observing or practicing it. It can be virtuous over here while prudish over there.

The variations of each are endless and fluid, but some are consistent within a range or scope of understanding and, at times, baffling. A duality of the same condition by definition diluted is weakened in strength or lessened purity while pure is unadulterated or without dilution or contamination.

Let’s get to the point without any emotional blinders or folks head jumping time over concepts that their mind or experiences refuse to give allowance for to understand that their adherence to the home team undermines the strength and clarity of their assertions and positions.

It is more of a reflection of where your feet are and the conditioned or adopted perspective that results from a liberal or conservative application of your reality to impose your truth upon others. Liberals generally live and let live while conservatives hold tight to adherence and dissemination of their perspectives upon others. It is many times a cognitive dissonance ignoring the discord between philosophy and application.

In actuality, neither can be an absolute truth. Still, justice and morality can be a more inclusive comprehensive display of the virtue and veracity of your perspective that separates yours from opposing ones but strangely enough align them on common ground.

If we are outraged by attacks on the police, then we should be equally outrage by attacks on civilians by the police. If we are outraged by the police killing black and brown, we have to be outraged by black and brown killing each other. The blade cuts both ways with integrity as the dividing denominator.

When your politician or political party has been in lockstep with racist or divisive rhetoric for many, and you have fully or partially embraced that, then you dilute your hypocritical view that someone else is supporting division by their words or actions.

You cannot be silent when it is the home team and criticize the opposition for the same or similar things. You see, this is where the justice becomes diluted and the Morality less than pure. When you set the table and prepare the meal, you lose credibility to complain and deny your transgressions while bemoaning others.

The caterpillar’s knowledge is defined by the confines of its cocoon, unable to see beyond its perspective or limitations. The butterfly is transformed by expanding and shedding its limited existence to a sphere of expanded consciousness and possibilities.

The human perspective and experience are much the same in a micro or macrocosm of reality as you expand outward from your cocoon of a singular view towards a transformative multi-sensory one. It reflects the contemporary evolution of thought and perspective that is the adaptation of survival in a larger cocoon or radius of understanding.

There is a distinct difference between compromise and being compromised, between concession and surrender. If a majority sets justice and Morality as a social norm, then it would stand to reason the same dynamic should be used to change it in the adaption of a different standard.

Look at domestic violence and its acceptability that traumatized generations of women and children, once a social norm and even encouraged. Its acceptability has run its course, and while it is still a reality, it is condemned for the despicable act of self-hatred projected outwardly victimizing vulnerable targets masquerading your cowardly inadequacies and lack of self-control as dominance.

The same is valid with these moral judgments and racial prejudices on who do not deserve the same considerations as you because, in all your righteousness, their culture is not yours. Most people’s fortune or misfortune is simply a matter of to whom and where they were born.

It was not their choice of who, when, where, what culture, advantages, or disadvantages they were born into. It was not your choice what education, principles, or demons your parents struggled with or suffered from. There are times when it is not even yours regarding yourself, but even if born in the lowlands, you can scale the peak.

It is a mix and match, but there are plenty that we claim credit for that was the pure luck of the draw, a sort of social genetics. Be careful of judgments and values we place on others because of despair for our challenges or lack of gratitude for our blessings.

The pandemic should have taught us all something about how our circumstances can change overnight through no fault of our own to find ourselves in a food line, business or career obliterated, or the shoes tight and the purse-string light. Comparisons are always dangerous and usually an exercise in subjective status in a derogatory manner.

It gets real really fast when we become them, and these are the shoes we now walk in, or we ride in the struggle buggy for the first time. So it is all the same application to a different situation. So when we judge by a certain measure, we must make sure we do not fall short of being judged by the same measure. So when your words condemn others, make sure your actions don’t condemn yourself.

It would only stand to reason that to protest for social justice, against systemic racism, and denounce racial inequality are absolute legit demands. Still, we must also flip the coin and hold ourselves to a level of accountability that does not dilute the integrity of our demands or promote the impurity of other’s morality.

We must handle our end of the table, which we have control over. We control our spoon while we must cajole others into managing theirs. That within our power, we must grab holt of and correct while continuing to demand our humanity from others but let’s also require and demonstrate that ourselves.

They are two different things but closely related, and I believe interdependent upon each other. I trust that the better we treat ourselves and each other, the more our internal communal dynamics will improve with or without external help.

The dreaded talk that black and brown parents have with our children needs to expand beyond the usual topics to include their behavior and ours. We can only hope that white families have a dreaded talk with their children beyond the sphere of their cocoon.

The same criteria applied to Chauvin and many other cases of excessive use of force by police must be applied to the senseless excessive use of force by us against us in our communities which is equally terrifying and on a larger scale.

We cannot allow ourselves to be numb to the conditions in our midst that are claiming so many of our people, especially our young people. It reminds me of the saying that even if you have old tattered clothes, they should still be clean clothes.

If this is where we start and is all we got, then we have to make the best of it, and it will bear crop in the harvest season with cultivation, patience, and time. The struggle is real out there but also within here. If we suffer the most, then we need to find solutions for our generational provisions and safety.

We need change, theirs and ours. By whoever it applies, each taking their transgressions out of the equation or conversation of social dysfunction. Let’s give them something else to talk about, whoever they are. Peace, prosperity, and wisdom to the people that justice and morality will become less subjective to emotions and perspectives but aligned with unwavering integrity, progress, and resolve.

With that said, let me ask a question if the prevailing racial strife and circumstance had different parties inserted, then would it change the perception, or would the same hold true.

For example, insert black, gang bangers, or opps instead of the police within the situations mentioned playing out in the inner cities across too much of this country. Would that not be just as unacceptable and disgraceful, maybe even more so because it would be us doing it to us. Injustice or murder should not change according to who and where it is done.

The expectations have to be condemnation even when committed by us if the anticipation is for accountability for actions. It should not be judged by who is doing it but by what is being done. Then it would stand to reason that our outrage has to be focused on the act and the perpetrator, or at some point, our validity and impact diminishes of demanding better.

It is the parable of the goose and the gander; it should be the same with different players and with the same standard applied. Consider how many black lives would be saved if the two scenarios met in the middle and were lessened, but we control our communities.

Protest is cool against the system but let’s play our position on the opposite end to display love, patience, and change. The change demanded from others; we must demand from ourselves and reframe from that which alibis police use of force and irregularities. 

It will not eliminate their behavior, but it will lessen our contribution to it, making it evident and irrefutable to any misconduct. Some changes we seek without must be the change we are willing to create within. Giving no concession to inequality by keeping our knees straight, our backs unbent, our character intact, and our perseverance soaring in pursuit of our humanity and pure justice from a diluted morality.

We are not victims or survivors; we are warriors in pursuit of our humanity armed with intellect and integrity that does not require anyone’s permission. The resolution resides in time and commitment now so that the following generations can shed the disparaging and condescending cloaks of racial biases and economic gloom.

A strong ten-year commitment followed by another ten-year cultivation period will make tremendous permanent strides like the mighty oak, which grows into its strength over time. The seeds are the children raised to know no other way, feel no other way, or accept no other way because you can only feel inferiority if it resides in you.

Racism’s historical ramifications must be exposed, adjudicated, and conquered, but being a resilient people, it is not preventive of our ascension and perseverance. It can only be if we allow it to be; it is the victim mindset of despair and submission every time we ask for permission.

Therefore, just as we band together to protest against these evils, let us collaborate to establish our humanity adhering to our own social norms, which embrace each other.

If freedom is free, then we are free to frame our destiny. Enforcing justice and morality in our communities, creating social norms more in line with our integrity, desires, and prosperity can be done by us to better police ourselves.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

Resisting Arrest Gone Wrong

Refrain from Assault.

Let me state that this is not to bash the police, and I support Police Officers and their safety when confronting dangerous and violent criminals who endanger lives. However, I will not honor these rogue policemen who act from being afraid or, even worst being callous and reckless with their use of force.

Fresh off of the Chauvin verdict, some would say do not resist arrest, merely comply with lawful or unlawful police commands, do not attempt to flee or escape, or force the police to use force against you to gain control. For them, we need to redefine resisting arrest and noncompliance that necessitate the use of force being used against someone.

There is the legitimate reality where force is needed to effect an arrest or prevent death or serious bodily harm. However, during these times, it must be distinguished whether the arrestee is resistant or combative. The difference between being resistant is not wanting to comply, attempting to get away, and combative is actively attacking the police person to inflict damage. Either way, the level of force must reflect the level of threat posed and the totality of the circumstances, including the crime committed.

For example, let’s examine a real-life situation and determine for yourself from the police person’s perspective the degree of fear for their safety or how the combative noncompliance of the suspect contributed to the use of force against them.

Afterward, you can determine for yourself if the suspect posed a sufficient danger and warranted the use of force against them. Keep in mind that laws and police policy and procedures govern the use of force, and noncompliance alone may not be the only criteria for force. Still, there may be some mitigating circumstances to take into account.

This involves a suspect who the responding policeman believed was fleeing the crime scene after an attempted theft offense and being confronted by the store personnel. When the policeman confronted the thief, he was met with disregard for his command and attempted to escape the scene.

He immediately, for his own safety and the protection of the public, physically engaged the thief with physical force to subdue and prevent their escape. The policeman then believes he was met with a monumental struggle that clearly left him out of breath and presumably exhausted, eventually needing backup to control the suspect.

Thank goodness backup arrived to lend assistance as the suspect appeared to be a handful for both police persons. There would have been a tremendous outcry from the public for another non-compliant criminal if deadly force had been used.

Once even handcuffed on the ground face down, subdued, and reasonably under control from the previous struggle, the thief still was insistent on making it home. Due to the struggle, the suspect did suffer some injuries, but deadly force was avoided displaying the police person’s restraint under challenging circumstances.

The suspect’s history was unknown at the time, and I am still unaware of their criminal history, if any, or their propensity to assault police personnel. We cannot allow that, as the policeman to first encounter the suspect repeatedly advised the suspect that he was having none of it. He further explained to the suspect why force was needed and the folly of not complying with his commands. The suspect still did not seem to grasp the gravity of the situation or comply.

To further clarify the danger the suspect posed, the suspect was a 73-year-old white lady for those who it may make a difference. She is approximately 4′ 10′ tall and eighty pounds suffering from dementia. The Young Turks reported her name to be Karen Garner living in Loveland, Colorado. The video captioned “Cops assault elderly woman with dementia” can be seen on TYT. The incident occurred on June 26, 2020. It has come to light because of a federal lawsuit against the police for excessive force. It was captured on police body cam.

The merchandise attempted to be stolen from Walmart amounted to $13.88, which was recovered by Walmart personnel. When confronted, she produced a card to pay and had the ability and willingness to pay but was refused by store personnel and sent on her way.

The police were still called for this scenario. They caught her down the road, walking where he confronted her, ordering her to stop. She did stop, repeatedly stating that she was going home, and proceeded to do so. Shortly after this point, the policeman physically engaged her wrangling her to the ground in rodeo fashion.

Before we go on to be clear, let’s sum up the crime and the policeman’s recourse or authority to respond in how he did. The store refused payment and let her go. The store retrieved their merchandise which amounted to petty theft. The store, most likely and by all indications, would decline to prosecute for the attempted theft. Folks, this is Walmart we are talking about and an elderly lady with dementia.

Furthermore, these stores might want to reconsider always calling the police on these very petty crimes, which they most likely will not waste their time prosecuting. The claim was she pulled down an associate’s mask. However, all charges were dropped.

Think about if she should have even been arrested or given a citation, not to mention physically manhandled for such a petty crime. She suffered injuries to her shoulder (dislocated), arm (broken), and wrist (sprained), not to mention assorted bruises and cuts with blood drawn as a result of this forceful encounter. What was he arresting her for if Walmart had washed their hands?

More importantly, he never advised her she was under arrest, which he must do, never tried to deescalate or reason with her or impede her path. He just basically attacked her for daring to not heed to his command without regard for any prevailing circumstances except arrogant indignation for what he told her to do. It would appear her greatest crime was not obeying his orders, notwithstanding her diminished mental capacity to understand him or her frail condition both mentally and physically.

The policewoman who responded as backup you would have thought was more compassionate or observant than him, but she assisted him and mimicked his demeanor against the little old lady. Thus, the policewoman essentially was an accomplice in the assault of an elderly lady with a seemingly apparent mental condition.

Imagine the confusion and pain she must have experienced. It should be noted that often individuals with these disorders have a higher threshold for pain and thus do not exhibit pain as you would expect or the ability to communicate it. It is a vast difference between holding her or grabbing and twisting, which can be seen to have occurred indicating intentional infliction of pain.

There were much better options available which no one can deny, and the usual justifications I am sure will be offered and possibly entirely accepted and supported. However, the typical protocol after the tussle, she should have been taken for medical evaluation and treatment after being finally advised that she was under arrest and then taken to jail.

The jail personnel should have refused to accept her if she had any injuries. Instead, it was reported that the police persons stated that she was uninjured and she was booked into jail. She suffered from four to six hours before she was sent for medical evaluation and her injuries treated.

One would wonder if the situation would have been handled better if a supervisor was notified to respond on scene and be aware of the circumstances’ totality. A higher ranking official, a sergeant, did respond and reprimanded a brave civilian for interfering with police business. However, he joked and condoned the treatment of this elderly woman, did not order that she receive medical treatment, or display the judgment one would expect from a supervisor.

Furthermore, separate use of force documentation would have revealed the sergeant’s investigation into the justification for using force. The police department and the city’s dubious claim that they had no knowledge of the incident until the federal lawsuit was filed seems disingenuous.

The footage was police bodycam, and a request had to be made to receive. Thus the delay in filing the lawsuit may be directly attributed to a delay in receiving the incriminating video.

Nevertheless, think of all the resources and personnel; police, medical, booking officers, clerk’s office, prosecutor, and judge. Some other incidental personnel sprinkled in who would have had some dealings with this case. Now we can add federal investigators, attorneys, more judges, and most definitely lump-sum taxpayer’s money again.

From a humanistic standpoint and concern for her health, we can only imagine how she suffered and has been impacted. We can only wonder what fate the two police people and their supervisor have faced or if medals and a parade were for taking down such a danger to society.

All three need to be fired, arrested, and charged with felony offenses. Desk duty and suspensions are not sufficient. Damn the cancel culture nonsense. They do not deserve a second chance to display such horrendous judgment again. The lack of compassion is stunning, and the visual use of force unjustifiable.

This video turned my stomach but is an illustration of what is wrong with policing. She wasn’t black, young, thuggish, armed, a threat on her best day, or any of the other worn-out identifying cliche, which is usually thrown out there for excuses. She is our mother or grandmother. That is who she is!

This is in full display for all to see the arbitrary authoritative gutless resort to excessive force against her. Imagine how anyone else would have fared, deadly force, maybe? This cannot be blamed on training or lack of training directly attributable to the individuals involved detachment from the public they should serve while intoxicated with power and control. In case you were wondering, all parties involved were white.

It is the arrogant authority deranged mentality that absolute control and obedience must be imposed. I hope they have better patience and compassion with their family and loved ones who may not understand or comply with their every word. This is guerrilla and gorilla policing at its worst, which can easily be mistaken for racism if a person of color would have been the victim.

It is not always training, racism, or fear for life and limb that elicit these kinds of responses. Instead, it is a propensity for control and authority with no tolerance for anything other than immediate and total compliance under any circumstances. It is not even terrible judgment but a complete disregard for self-restraint or policy and procedures.

This would appear to be an extreme isolated incident that could not repeat itself. By contrast, another equally fine set of police handled a suspected burglary in Port Allen near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in exemplary fashion.

They responded to a burglary in progress and caught the suspect red-handed calmly sitting in a chair on the porch when they arrived. The suspect seeming dangerous and highly suspicious, attempted an explanation but to no avail. However, it was no fooling the keen senses of these police persons due to their training and experience.

The one policeman preemptively had his taser trained on the suspect, who was slow to respond while offering a lame excuse. Luckily, force was averted, and he could be handcuffed and placed in the zone car.

No harm, no foul, and all is well. But, unfortunately, the menacing suspect then began to yell for help of all things after stating that he did not need to be roughhoused. The policeman who had convinced the suspect earlier to surrender without incident or he would light him up with the taser then encouraged the suspect not to remain silent.

After the suspect continues to yell for help, the policeman then did what he had advised the suspect he would do when his threats and intimidation had failed. He repeatedly tasered the suspect while the suspect was seated in the zone car and handcuffed.

Further investigation revealed that the suspect lived in the house and had misplaced his key and broke his window to gain entrance into his home as he had advised them while calmly seated on his porch. Once confirmed, it was decided that his crime was disturbing the peace by yelling for help and warranted his arrest after having the hell tasered out of him.

The man is Izell Richardson Jr., a 67-year-old man with a bad back and black for those who it may make a difference. He was cooperative and secured in the zone car when the policeman entered the rear of the zone car to taser him at close range. Charges were trumped up, no pun intended, and he was arrested and taken to jail. An officer at the jail then called for medical attention for him to be taken to the hospital for treatment. He was not charged with any crime.

Port Allen can start ponying up his settlement as well. To be tasered for verbal disobedience not directed at the police or inciteful while secured and handcuffed in the zone car is not criteria for using force to this magnitude. Maybe it would have been better to ignore him or listen to him explain.

Mr. Richardson Jr, who is black, is the victim of the systemic police abuses many complain about, except racism probably was not the case since the brave policeman who assaulted him was black also. Nevertheless, he was also representative of the fear for their lives and the terror some civilians have in police encounters.

Both of these incidents have striking similarities if you examine them closely and the symptoms are the same as the Chauvin case. The symptoms are the visual or noticeable manifestations of the illness, disease, or dysfunction. It is the indication of disease, not the disease. Whether we want to recognize them or not, we have seen the signs, but to continue to ignore the symptoms allows the disease to progress and become terminal.

Claims of support and protection for the police are actually the protection of the system. Improving the system to ensure it is healthy and at optimal operation should be the middle ground consensus for all concerned.

Democrat or Republican, black or white, fund or defund, pro-law enforcement, or otherwise must be able to come to a truce for opposing opinions to agree that some of this nonsense and hypocrisy can be dispensed with as distasteful to all concerned. Strong arm assault will not be tolerated.

Perhaps it is time for the police to protect and support the police by not committing these senseless acts of outrage that cause the collective condemnation of their profession. The above two scenarios clearly demonstrate the abuses and lack of oversight from the overseers to police themselves. So, let’s agree to universally police them on this type of nonsense to make it clear that this shit won’t be tolerated, especially with our seniors.

At least we should agree on that unless we were raised by wolves, hell, even if wolves raised us. These are two separate cases of felonious assault on seniors without sufficient justification or cause. The police persons involve getting due process which they did not allow their senior victims.

We cannot contest every aspect of a broken system unconditionally, supporting blatant criminal assaults especially captured by the very police bodycam itself. But, come on now, what could possibly be the delay in arrest and charges prima facie to the video evidence?

These actions forfeit their right to any consideration, and if it is built into the system, then it is time to change the system that gives allowances for this behavior. It is inconceivable that arrest and charges are not immediately upon discovering felony assault on seniors without any police personnel charges preferred swiftly and harshly. It would be nice to extend this protection to everyone. Still, at least we should agree on how we are not about to let our seniors and children be treated in law enforcement encounters, especially like these two non-threatening situations.

This lady and man had their Constitutional Rights violated in much the same fashion that we have seen many times before. Sadly, until rogue policing is strongly punished and denounced, we will most likely continue to see it over and over again. Meanwhile, there are still those who unconditionally support the police in any misconduct or brutality they are jammed up committing, displaying sympathy and support for the police.

Most police do not support this nonsense. News flash they are not the police when committing crimes and these blatantly unconscionable atrocities. They are criminals with criminal behavior carrying a badge.
If they are here to protect and serve, I would hate to meet those here to harm and violate. It is getting to be hard to tell the saints from the sinners.

This is not to condemn all police or policing, but even among the ranks, you have to admit that this is getting to be ridiculous and very damaging. Maybe someone should let these bad apples know they are wearing body cameras and should conduct themselves as such. The egregious must be expunged from your ranks. It amounts to their individual accountability versus your collective condemnation. Amputate the disease so the police body can survive.

Respect to the women and men who do the job with honor and hopefully the tarnish from those who do not will remain with them as individuals for them to be held to task. The time has come to separate the wheat from the chaff, the good from the rotten. Policing is classified as a profession, and profession indicates professionals and respectability.

The hiring process, authoritarian culture, and tolerance for impropriety must be addressed to prevent further erosion of respect and authority. Zero tolerance, and if not, the noose you tighten will be your own, and as for Port Allen and Loveland, where is the love or discretion for the seniors?

This cannot be tolerated, so I would encourage everyone to see the videos and judge for yourself before it becomes a reality near or dear to you, like your parents or children. On that, we should agree, and we can dispute the rest, just not the seniors. A journey starts with the first step, and incremental concessions are an excellent first step. Arrest and charges against the police are a better first step in cases like the above.

We know the consequences of resisting, but what are the benefits of complying or non-combative behavior? A little finesse, patience, and persuasion could save an enormous amount of settlements. But, unfortunately, police settlements are becoming the most unpleasant way to riches.

If the police refuse to accept better options, they encourage payments, skepticism, condemnation, mistrust, and oversight. Many cities are self-insured, which comes out of the city budget or rainy day general funds, while insurance companies insure others.

When will the risk to insurance companies become so great that they refuse to accept the liability or indemnify themselves against misconduct and these large settlements? When will the public or police tire? At some point, the tarnish will be too much for the good Officers to bear, or at least not a laughing matter of pride.

Let me ask you a question to put this into context. I like to reverse engineer situations as if debating where the opposing viewpoints are assigned and not chosen for argument. Just stack it up, flip it, and smooth it out, so pin this twist of fate.

The white police personnel encounters both scenarios where they either damage the black man breaking bones or taser the black man in the back of the zone car while he is handcuffed. Now flip it where the black police personnel encounter the white lady and do the exact same. This should crystalize for opposing viewpoints the crux of the condemnation.

It sometimes is not racial except by the context of the parties involved and the appearance of racism so close that you cannot tell the difference. It is sometimes a culture and psychology present among police developed out of a fear, separation, superiority, and survival indoctrination exaggerated and rampaging out of control, which compels these actions and condones them. The culture comprising the system can only be affected to the extent of changes in the mindset of personnel.

The system changes the personnel, the personnel changes the system, or one or the other needs to be replaced, if not both. Abolishing the police is ridiculous. Transformation is wise. It is amazing how a bunch of egg heads always knows what is best for everybody except themselves.

Here are suggestions for a three-step tango to target the problems and changes needed. One, give a questionnaire to all police departments and court personnel surveying their raw anonymous opinions of their operations, procedures, applications, and suggestions for improvement.

Two, if the hiring practices cannot more evenly reflect the population served, they should be well-versed in the people they protect and humanize a sensitivity to them. As part of the police academy training, it should be mandatory to visit rec centers, festivals, and various neighborhoods to familiarize themselves with the people and the people to the police.

Three, incentivize correction and not monetize punishment for police profit via court appearances, the city and courts via general fund revenue, and the prisons via slave labor.

Everyone does not need to go to jail, but statutory or discretionary punishment must be identical for everyone. For example, the right to bail is not a right if you cannot afford it, so a tier of offenses that clearly outlines personal recognizance releases from jail and bailable offenses in addition to high or non-bail crimes.

It would relieve over-crowding and the system’s accountability for the room, housing, and health of those in their custody. Consider increase community service for a contribution to society instead of a drain. But, unfortunately, desperate times call for desperate measures or at least a shift in ideology.

Fear of exposure, fear of honesty, and projections of failure for deviation from the old system we already know either don’t work or is inefficient will seek to prevent changes. The money to pay for these and other changes can come from the money saved from settlements and repetitive expenditures for resources to maintain the old antiquated system.

So back to the duality of reality. There can be no resistance where there is no opposition, just as there can be no opposition where there is no resistance. There must be compromise and concessions from all sides and assurances to heed and abide by the fair determination of the criteria set forth. Anyone in violation would clearly be deemed out of pocket and subject to that tier of consequences and conditions without respect to color, wealth, or occupation.

The adherence to a one-dimensional past developed for the singular benefit of becoming less of a majority demographic. Supported by a two-dimensional arrogance to maintain and justify the historical, cultural nepotism of those benefits is withering. Put under the three-dimensional microscope of current demographics now demanding a four-dimensional futuristic solution to propel us forward.

What has been can no longer be, and if the changes needed are not met, then what could be will never be. Yesterday is gone. The world is changing, and the old policies of oppression and authoritative domination of the people or suppression of their expression generate one hundred percent dissent and dissatisfaction whatever your position or opposition.

So we all have to give a lot to get a lot, and that is something we all can no longer resist for things to go right.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

George Floyd Part 3 of 3-Deductive Conclusions and Forfeited Integrity

 Uncompromising Evaluation

An objective examination has to be detached from the desired outcome or emotional inclination and should only examine the facts and actions as they were observed to have occurred. Then compared to any explanations given when evaluated against these observations will yield the most precise determination of guilt or innocence.

Strictly an uncompromising assessment of the deeds alone removed from the person’s identity performing the act will objectively reveal if the deed was justified regardless of who the doer of the deed may have been.

For the exact purposes of guilt or justification of actions, it is practically irrelevant who committed the act but only if they had a legal right to do so in the manner in which they did. It comes down to right or wrong, proper or improper, no matter who did it, friend or foe. Impartiality demands that if that same set of circumstances existed with you, it would be considered fair and just.

This is the ultimate perspective of neutrality of judgment required concerning the application of the law. With this lens of detachment, the incident can begin to be clarified.

The clerk initiated the encounter requesting a police response in c/w Mr. Floyd passing a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. The police responded to find Mr. Floyd was located in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. He was removed from the vehicle, placed in cuffs, and escorted to the sidewalk, where he was seated.

He was then escorted across the street without incident but resisted being placed in the rear of the squad car. He claimed to be claustrophobic, a recognized mental disorder of anxiety, but no exclusion from being placed in a squad car or arrested.

A brief struggle of control ensued with Mr. Floyd being resistant to being placed in the rear of the squad car but not actively combative or aggressive toward the policemen. His practical intent was not to be placed in the squad car, but it was not to inflict injury upon the policemen.

Being placed on the ground prone is a judgment call and at the policemen’s discretion but would seem to contradict any claims of their concern for his previously displayed distress. Moreover, there was oddly no verbal attempt to deescalate the situation or attempt to calm his anxiety, especially since it was not a violent crime or exigent circumstances.

If possible verbal de-escalation is the first tactic on the force continuum scale and would have seemed preferable considering the investigation into the details of the counterfeit twenty had not begun in earnest. They still had not determined what their course of action would or could be. Enforcement of the law dictates that restraint be used comparatively to the crime committed unless escalating circumstances command a more intensive response. Just as you would not use swat for a jaywalker, the response given must be proportionate to the crime committed and the response received.

That notwithstanding, once prone on the ground, Mr. Floyd’s mental state reflected his physical state, he was submitted. He was within the policemen’s control and physically compliant.

He was also verbally compliant, pleading for his life and stating his physical condition of respiratory distress and that he could not breathe. Mr. Floyd offered no further resistance to being placed in the car because he was prone on the ground and not aggressive, combative, or evasive at all; he was secured.

But was he in custody? Had he been advised that he was under arrest? Chauvin demonstrated his total control of Mr. Floyd by Chauvin’s hands being in his pockets, indicating that whatever resistance that had been present, Mr. Floyd was well under control at that point.

Furthermore, Mr. Floyd provided no resistance from the point of being unconscious or deceased, although Chauvin continued the neck pressure with his hands casually in his pockets. Suspect control or threat of harm was never a concern. Chauvin’s casual placement of his hands in his pocket from the start reveals that any threat had been subdued.

Mr. Floyd was never able to account for the bad money transaction where a fake twenty-dollar bill turned into a homicide. Before dying, Mr. Floyd had to pass out first, meaning he was still alive but unconscious.

Chauvin’s continued pressure, in addition to rendering Mr. Floyd unconscious Chauvin ensured that Mr. Floyd had no chance at survival or revival. No corpus delicti or proof of guilt was ever established since the intent was not established that he knew it was bad money.

It should be noted that if Mr. Floyd had been one hundred percent compliant, the incident would have unfolded differently; however, did his non-compliance rise to the level of force that was used and sustained on him. Of course, cooperation with law enforcement is always preferable, but the force used for non-compliance must be measured to the circumstances.

It should also be noted that so callous was Chauvin’s indifference that even Mr. Floyd’s plea for his deceased mother or his unconscious state elicited no compassion from Chauvin’s demented implementation of the ”law.”

Now let us examine the policemen’s actions individually and collectively to establish any culpability. No culpability means that they had no effect on his death, and it probably would have happened anyway at that exact particular time. They did not send four policemen for a counterfeit-twenty assignment, so who received the call and who was assisting?

Was radio notified that they were assisting, and should they have even been there? If Chauvin was assisting on the run, then he should have remained secondary and let the assigned car handle it to their discretion. Was there a procedural discrepancy with the response to the assignment?

Two policemen arrived, and shortly thereafter, another two policemen arrived. The first two to arrive on the scene engaged Mr. Floyd, and he was placed in cuffs. He was subsequently seated on the sidewalk. Nothing extraneous so far as excessive physical force except perhaps the way he was approached could have been handled better.

Next, Mr. Floyd was escorted across the street towards the store. Before being escorted across the street, at least one officer stated that Mr. Floyd was noticeably distressed. What actions did he take as a result of this observed distress, and when? What were the signs?

If he was, in fact, believed to be in distress, it should have changed from a possible arrest situation into providing medical assistance. The main reason is city liability. If he were having a heart attack and was under arrest, then the city would be liable for his medical care, hospital stay and would have to assign an officer to his room around the clock to guard him. To avoid their liability and the city’s, he should have been passed off to medical personnel. He could have then been made a named suspect for future charges.

Aside from that, it is their legal and sworn obligation to provide assistance and not continue pursuing arrest when medical attention is needed while under their control. The policeman who first noticed the distress had the most responsibility to notify the others of Mr. Floyd’s suspected condition and why he thought so.

Considering his suspected medical distress and only having the ability to arrest with prior authorization from the Secret Service for permission, that should have made them get him medical help and be on their way. Instead, it becomes problematic with the suspected medical complication and lack of jurisdictional authority to arrest.

Once taken to the ground on his stomach alongside the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back, he posed no threat to the four policemen or no threat to escape. It is nearly impossible to get up quickly or otherwise from that position or launch an assault.

If it was necessary to place him prone on the ground, then there is no policy, procedures, or training that allows for any force which is no longer necessary to bring a person under control. Once unresponsive, he was incapable of any resistance or threat.

Minimal force required to effect an arrest is the standard to justify force, but there is no justification for its use and no allowance for it legally when it is no longer necessary. What is the justification for kneeling on a deceased man’s neck for over two minutes and 46 seconds after his suspected expiration? The application of the knee to the neck area is where the criminality begins, and Chauvin’s mental state of mind begins to be detectable and exposed.

At this point, the complicity of the other policemen’s state of mind can be determined, regardless of whether they had participated or not in the restraint; their intent also became apparent. Thus, two policemen did knowingly, purposefully, willingly, and physically participate to some degree in exerting force and providing assistance to Chauvin to further his criminal excessive use of force with no legal justification.

They essentially participated in the assault of Mr. Floyd since there was no legal justification for force. The third policeman served as a deterrent and threat to discourage anyone who would intervene. With Mr. Floyd fully compromised, there was no need for any continued force or support of it.

Chauvin did knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently steadfastly hold his knee to Mr. Floyd’s neck area, resulting in his death even if only a contributory factor. If argued that Chauvin’s intent was not to kill Mr. Floyd but to restrain him, at what point did Mr. Floyd no longer need restraining?

Additionally, Chauvin’s excessive force was knowingly and purposefully applied, resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death rendering the force intentional and his death consequential to that force. Finally, it is expected that an 18-year veteran reasonably would have known the possible consequences, especially when warned and other policemen stated concerns.

What cannot be argued is that Chauvin’s knee was certainly intentionally placed there for nearly a nine-minute duration of time. But, further, he knowingly, willfully, purposefully, recklessly, and negligently without regard for the outcome because he replied to concerns acknowledging his disregard.

Chauvin’s actions revealed a mindset of punishment, not restraint, with his hands in his pocket to disguise the downward force and balancing of his full weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck, fully displaying the ease of his depravity, arrogance, and control.

The force used on Mr. Floyd by any officer once he was on the ground on his stomach handcuffed was a criminal act and felony assault by virtue of the policemen being armed and the assault resulting in Mr. Floyd’s death.

Excited delirium by compression is asphyxiation, defined as suffocation or a smothering effect. Breathing restriction and compression by weight is always the main trigger and can clearly be determined to have played a significant role in Mr. Floyd’s death.

As a policeman, you cannot facilitate a crime, or if you observe a crime, you are sworn to intervene, and it does not specify who is committing the crime. Any unlawful act you are sworn to intervene and prevent. There were multiple failures to intervene or pursue an alternative action that could have saved Mr. Floyd’s life.

Intervention could have occurred at the point when Mr. Floyd was believed to have been in distress before crossing the street, at the moment when he complained of breathing difficulties with Chauvin on his neck, and at the point when he had no pulse when checked.

Furthermore, another crucial time of inaction was when an officer suggested sitting him up to avoid the known concern of death from the explicitly mention excited delirium concerns, which was the eventual outcome. When Mr. Floyd was found unresponsive while the public begged for his life were all points when and where intervention should have occurred legally.

During the assault, Chauvin verbally responded, disregarding all concerns and information he knew or should have known. He was an 18-year veteran on the job, a field training officer, and the senior man on the scene. The senior man is always held to a higher standard, assuming he has the most experience and discernment knowing what to do or, more importantly, what not to do.

Chauvin knowingly continued his felony assault and discouraged other courses of mitigation or intervention. He knowingly and purposefully did hold his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck and maintained it there, fully aware of the risk and without legal justification. The other policemen’s actions were to do nothing to end this excessive use of force and were actively complicit in holding witnesses at bay using the authority of their uniforms and weapons, arguably as criminal tools.

The issue of crowd control is separate from the excessive use of force on Mr. Floyd. A different response regarding crowd control should have been directed toward the crowd. In no way was he responsible for the crowd reaction when he did not encourage it, but police misconduct incited it.

No obstruction charges or otherwise has been levied against any member of the crowd, just as no additional force on Mr. Floyd should have been used against Mr. Floyd for the crowds’ actions. Their fear from the crowd was due to Chauvin’s use of excessive force, not a menacing crowd threatening violence but a rebuking crowd.

They used their uniforms and intimidation of their authority in the furtherance of Chauvin’s crime. Had it not been armed, uniformed policemen involved, there is a more likely chance a civilian would have intervened, preventing Mr. Floyd’s death. Instead, they provided protection while Chauvin committed his crime displaying their complicity and willful approval of Chauvin’s actions by their inaction or support of his actions.

The two rookie policemen knowingly acted to support Chauvin to further his felony physical assault, thereby consenting to his actions and sharing his Mens rea, intentional infliction of unnecessary force. Their state of mind was to willfully, purposely, recklessly, and negligently with full knowledge against all perceived risk consent to excessive force by at one point physically assisting. Obviously, they did not oppose it or intervene to prevent it but did assist in it.

Citizens and bystanders with no time on the job or academy training knew the risk. Mr. Floyd and the public were trying to tell the policemen repeatedly. All four policemen were fully aware that their actions or inaction posed a significant risk to Mr. Floyd’s life, even insinuating it themselves. The consequences of their actions or inactions were known or should have been known that serious bodily harm or death would be the result.

Due to the 8 minutes and 46-second duration of the homicide beginning when Mr. Floyd was handcuffed on his stomach on the ground, all four policemen displayed knowing, willful, purposeful, reckless, and negligent conduct at various intervals while Mr. Floyd was the victim of excessive force that led to his death.

It is evident that Chauvin’s intent was to disregard the risk of death to Mr. Floyd, continuing even when Mr. Floyd was deceased. Chauvin continued until the EMTs arrived. None of the policemen did anything to stop Chauvin or aid Mr. Floyd. All four policemen displayed each of the required mindsets during the duration of the lengthy deadly incident at various times. This was a homicide committed by a policeman that was aided and abetted by three other policemen.

Citizen video, police bodycam, radio transmissions, and multiple witnesses in broad daylight in full view of the public were not deterrents to their crime but present overwhelming evidence against their actions.

The question of intent or guilt for Mr. Floyd’s death would seem undeniable. Still, due process of law and possible plea bargain or sentencing arrangements could be the only reason to claim innocence, certainly not the legal justification of their actions. So how can anyone defend their actions?

Mr. Floyd was a human being treated inhumanely, well below any standard that should be acceptable from law enforcement. Accordingly, the law has no accommodation for such actions. Mr. Floyd’s Constitutional and Civil Rights were trampled and suffocated from his body without compassion by policemen who now hide behind their rights seeking compassion for themselves.

Their Constitutional Rights will be upheld, and due process assured them where defense attorneys would attempt to blame Mr. Floyd for his own death while being handcuffed on the ground. Despite the force continuum, display of excessive force on a deceased man, discrepancies in observable actions, and their implausible explanations, they will try to justify the reprehensible by claiming no laws were broken by them. Perhaps along with some form of qualified immunity will be claimed.

Aside from the verdict still to be rendered from the courtroom, the City of Minneapolis has rendered its verdict. A historic settlement of 27 million dollars to settle the wrongful death lawsuit regarding this incident. The size of the settlement reflects the horrific depravity beyond reason, vindication, protection of the law, or moral standards. It was an honorable action by the City not to justify or minimize the colossal injustice that caused Mr. Floyd’s death. Instead, it is an exemplary example of admission of blatant guilt to preserve government and law enforcement integrity.

Defending obviously egregious acts effectively diminishes public respect for and compliance with law enforcement and encourages resistance to unfairness. The public trust, which took many good deeds and years to establish, can be nationally destroyed instantly by one act such as Chauvin’s. It is only regained when the law is enforced equally, including against law enforcement personnel that violate their sworn duty.

Obvious and blatant violations of the law, duty, and public trust cannot be condoned and tolerated, especially when it is this egregious and erodes the public trust. Such egregious acts make it hard for good Officers to maintain public trust when this kind of policing creates problems for them and erodes their protections.

The negative consequences are suffered by the law enforcement community, even more so than the public. Although everyone in the public does not interact with law enforcement, all law enforcement are public servants and must adhere to a code of conduct imposed on them due to the repercussions of Chauvin-like behavior.

The implementation of body cameras, loss of credibility, attrition of public perception, the increased propensity for resistance and aggression against personnel, defunding issues, decreased union and bargaining power, and the restrictions on equipment fearing abuses against the public are responses to law enforcement injustices.

Other ramifications are more hazardous working conditions, decrease public cooperation, GPS on vehicles, restricting search warrant criteria, use of force and contact documentation, morale decline, and dissension among the ranks.

Hiring and staffing difficulties, federal oversite, qualified immunity protections removed for honest mistakes, and many more are directly related to law enforcement not being willing to police themselves. When law enforcement cannot self-regulate themselves, then more restrictive levels of accountability are placed upon them.

Law enforcement must evolve beyond the pathology and culture it traditionally has operated under to change its method of operation, progressing beyond the rugged, physically tough beat cop authoritatively demanding unconditional, absolute submission to their authority.

No longer exempt from judgment, being protected by their arrogant elite status as the law or by the repressive intimidation of dreadful consequences separated from the people they should serve. Coercion by a quasi-military occupying force which civilians must categorically comply with or force will be justified, is no longer tolerated.

Being law-abiding should not require a humbling and submission to authority even when unlawful acts reminiscent of vigilantism are imposed by law enforcement. Instead, you must simply enforce the law, not become the law.

Unfortunately, police have historically been the enforcement arm of racism, immigration, minority control, and labor and union disputes at the direction of those with undue influence over policy or preference. As a result, they have enjoyed a royal centurion discretion accountable only to their superiors to whom they answer, relegating the commoners beneath the power invested in them, creating fearful respect.

The regulation of authority, punishment, and freedom instill a reflexive apprehension when dealing with law enforcement. We all know the feeling when a police car activates its lights behind us. The perception and projected expectation of behavior during these encounters are generally uneasiness until relieved by their demeanor or the reason for the encounter.

It is usually magnified to a conditioned anxiety if you are a member of a demographic where abuses have been normalized or expected. Racism has always been entrenched in law enforcement and the military with a culture of tolerance and a lack of condemnation, implying a tacit if not often explicit approval endorsing that authoritative abusive mentality when no action is taken, or it is condoned.

This tendency towards an adversarial mentality must be modified and admonished when inappropriate. A police versus the public mentality reinforces a war-like occupying force perspective where the opposition is dehumanized to justify abuses and violations of their dignity and humanity.

Insisting their rights and treatment is an inconsequential consideration and rationalization for lack of accountability regarding your treatment of them. War or law enforcement displayed at its worst should have regulations regarding the rules of engagement, treatment, and capture that it must follow. Law enforcement must follow the guidelines established and, when blatantly in violation, should concede error instead of the righteous indignation of defiance to being judged.

If you will not listen or display reason, you essentially provide no other option except not to be reasoned with, thereby encouraging non-compliance. Thus, you are further justifying a forceful response in a self-fulfilling hazard of your creation.

Evolution is preferable to revolution when reflecting or pursuing social changes, and cooperation by persuasion to convince rather than rugged physicality or force seems a better alternative. To accept surrender is preferred to forceable submission, and if fair surrender will not be accepted, then resistance is encouraged. The goal is not a calibration of machismo but the easiest obtainment of an objective.

Let force be the response to conflict and not the cause of it. Influences of the history of policing by implication, ideology, and methodology must reflect the future of societal tolerances to preserve the most respect and support for law enforcement. The job is not for everyone, maybe not the faint of heart or brutally inclined with limited people skills. For the maximum support for law enforcement to be maintained, there have to be admissions of obvious wrongdoing and misconduct.

It is counterproductive for law enforcement to support violations of wrongdoing; it exposes that the system is broken, and they will not fix it without further restriction of their authority. Law enforcement must be subjected to the same laws they are sworn to enforce, not above them.

It is sometimes necessary and always better to relinquish the part for the good of the whole. But, nevertheless, good decent Officers must not be cast under a cloak of scorn with elevated hazards under hostile working conditions to defend the indefensible.

The police union dues, morale, and resources should not be spent despite members’ dissent for actions they disagree with and know to be wrong. The first rule of policing is to go home every night from the job, the will to overcome and to survive encounters.

The second is not to let someone send you to the penitentiary and jackpot you by their actions. I am not going to do your time for you or with you. I will not let you jackpot me and send me to prison for your actions. This is understood.

The police union has an obligation to defend officers and not waste the members’ resources by publicly and arrogantly condoning unquestionably damaging behavior, which compromises the whole department’s credibility. A policeman has a fiduciary duty to supply the union with actions they can defend but not to the detriment of the union members, the police department, and the whole legal structure.

The actual thin blue line and honor among officers is not to ruin or let a fellow officer get jackpotted on your dime. United we stand separately we fall so that others are left standing. The primary offender should accept the brunt of the burden to alleviate as much as possible on the remaining policemen. That is the real code.

The union has a responsibility to protect the union body above an individual member, understanding that one must sometimes answer so that others may serve without contempt. However, refusing the obvious accountability disparages the union’s principles and, by association, the principles of your union members that paints the good officers with a bloody brush. When these policemen’s actions do not give you anything to work with, you must save the ship instead of circling the wagons.

The righteous needs of the many outweigh the detrimental actions of the few. But, if they blow it so badly, then you must step away and condemn their actions even if by absentee proxy of removing your unwavering defense, if not your conditional support.

How many of your members agree with having their dues spent for this? How many good OFFICERS have to suffer as a whole nationally with the public perception that you promote? When you, good and bad, wear the same respected uniform, it is hard to tell from the outside looking in, but you know from the inside, the good from the bad.

The decision must be made among the ranks, the bosses, the prosecutors, and the judges but mostly the street cops on the front line who are the most vulnerable not to allow members to tarnish them by criminal behavior because you become silently complicit by aiding and abetting that as well. The street cops surely suffer the consequences most.

When the union sees no evil and the union staunchly proclaims with arrogant indifference their support for crimes such as this, they tolerate it by demonstration and proclamation. Then, the only logical conclusion left is that this could be an undetected RICO violation of an ongoing culture of a criminal enterprise with known collaborators and tolerance for criminal activity and corruption.

It invites investigations and attention. But, at the very least, it is a poor demonstration of leadership that endangers law enforcement and promotes an insidious culture waiting to implode again.

We know what it should say about Chauvin, but what does it really say about those who would defend this public assassination. Who can be proud of this abomination or defend its despicable representation as good policing? What manner of twisted articulation can justify these four policemen’s actions?

Why the extraordinary efforts to justify this behavior and claim that these actions were necessary and legal? Why lose all credibility to represent the other members by supporting these actions? Did these actions meet departmental expectations, and are they representative of what a police union and police department can be proud of?

If they did not fear for their actions, they should not fear having it called for what it is and suffer the consequences. At its core, it is murder by all standards for all involved, which should come with extended stay, room, and board, complimentary amenities, free utilities, plenty of company, and lifetime membership for Chauvin should also be included.

More specifically, extensive prison time for violations of all four levels of accountability and serious deterrents must be imposed. The success of any conviction is not in assessing the highest charges but in dispensing the most prison time to be served. At the Judge’s discretion, sentences should run consecutive, meaning one after another, which means maximum prison time.

Local, national, and global outrage has been agitated to condemn this vile murder, while some would defend this evil at enormous cost claiming support of law enforcement or Mr. Floyd’s non-compliance. This is not racial, black or white, but human. He was a human being with a family and loved ones whose actions did not rise to the level of what we all witnessed.

It should never be witnessed or suffered again. If this were done to an animal, the depravity would be apparent and the outrage universal, or would you prefer that this happen to other men, women, and juveniles as justified standard police operating procedures, especially over minor offenses.

Police procedure and conduct are what is on trial. So why hasn’t the ongoing protest, property destruction, billions of dollars in resources and lost productivity, racial division, and decay of law enforcement respect, safety, and morale not been enough to admonish the actions of one man’s barbaric casual act of murder?

Remember, this is all over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, and the question must be asked was it worth it?. If you need any further guidance on if it was worth it, the City of Minneapolis just gave 27 million reasons why it wasn’t.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Crimes Against Humanity The Extended Reality

Hard but True, Raw but Real

Let’s get down to business removed from the political correctness and pretense of social graces to speak openly without regard for contrived moral consciousness, forced remorse, or unwilling accountability.

Instead, let‘s put everything on the table out in the open to analyze everything regarding present and future projections regarding racism and discrimination.

Strictly speaking, it is a culmination of psychological conditioning, economic exploitation, and opposed interest which stubbornly continues similar to an addiction to delusion. The delusional obsession is to an entitlement of preferential accommodations and self-image of superior character selfishly pursued at the expense of all others not in your identifying group.

Blacks seemed suitable and were easily identified by their dark skin tone for exclusion. Your subgroup sustaining a subculture of suppression while claiming to be above all groups of animals and humans at the self-proclaimed pinnacle of the biological chain.

Thereby elevating your subgroup above all others by standing hoisted high upon your artificially privileged advantage, looming above all creation. It is like the great Oz, who was not the all-powerful portrayed but a sniveling insecure little round man hiding behind a curtain of vulnerability pretending to be invincible. This created great fear and respect as long as the curtain remained closed.

Pulling the curtain back reveals the fear and inadequacies that lead to the need for and continuation of this façade. Without this belief and confronted by reality, the acceptance of no such advantage before God or man means the masquerade is up. This creates the stubborn need to refuse to relinquish that idea because it is the core of your being, your identity.

It is shocking to your core and psychologically devastating to deny the foundation of your beliefs despite overwhelming evidence that it is not valid. Further, to admit your atrocities committed to cheating your way to the top is inconceivable to the psyche, so the ramifications are minimized.

That only leaves one alternative: denying its benefits and doing everything to keep it going; otherwise, the image is shattered, and so are you. It then becomes a desperation of survival where racism and discrimination must continue. To remove them would be symbolically likened to removing your air, but literally, your attitude of superiority is closely followed by its advantages.

Furthermore, the diminishing of your future demographic advantage brought about by fewer babies born per family while you are ambitiously pursuing wealth and careers. Finally, considering inter-racial relationships of all kinds, sexual alternatives without procreation, and the death of staunch racist ideological individuals over time lends itself to a bleak racist demographic projection.

The continuation of this projection is not favorable to the white male dominancy of society. The white male historically had no consideration for anyone, including the white female, with one exception: inclusion when and to the degree that you were needed to sustain their position.

Now their reckless actions have had unintended results that have undermined the very purpose they sought to preserve. Now it is a crisis of survival thirty to fifty years down the road from now. Change has long been set in motion, and change is coming. Adaptation to change has always been the key to survival, and survival reliant upon cooperation within the species.

I am not under the illusion that racism is about to end anytime soon but will allow for the whimsical notion that the ideological DNA of some individuals bent on racism or their survival dependent on racism may abandon it.

The glacier shift of the racist collective to be persuaded of the benefit for themselves in changing their unjust perspectives, the closer integration of racial identifiers and similarities, the demise of bigots, and discouragement by the punitive connotations attached are the mitigating factors for change.

There is no easy way to say it and no need to sugar coat it in the context of history if judged by the last hundred years and the next hundred years. A little over a hundred years ago, in 1906, it was acceptable to daily put a black pigmy named Ota Benga in a cage with monkeys in the Bronx Zoo on display to visually convince the public of the animalistic nature and close proximity of blacks to animals.

This undoubtedly contributed to his eventual suicide but definitely even more lasting was the effect it must have had on whites who witnessed it. The New York Times wrote in support of this barbarity as basic eugenics on displaying the missing link for perpetuating myths and stereotypes to be taken as fact.

There can be no misconception that there have always been decent and compassionate whites who have denounced slavery, racism, and discrimination. Over time their numbers have increased to the present multi-race coalition in solidarity with blacks about the horrendous treatment endured with the necessity to end it and install equality.

It is an advantage and privilege that they do not want or need at the immoral expense of other human beings. The key to committing these atrocities is to devalue, reduce, and dehumanize your victims to a deserving or irrelevant position unworthy of empathy or compassion. But the question then becomes who appointed you to make such a determination.

You see, that is where religion and other forms of reinforcement and repetition are applied to believe and validate anything to defend and promote their belief, no matter how sanctimonious and preposterous the justification may be.

The elements of this twisted reality are a classic example of schizophrenic behavior, where their self-perceived contradiction to and diversion from reality morphs into a nightmarish fragmentation permitting unthinkable behavior and lack of willful remorse, making it easy to repeat.

The extreme aggression, savage demeanor, and arrogant defense of the atrocities committed under the guise of conservative Christian values go without saying that they would appear to be contrary to any actions a Christian not suffering from extreme mental illness would ever commit. 

Compound that by its pervasive nature, and it reveals a group brainwashing seemingly under demonic psychological indoctrination resulting in mental slavery to racism powerless to resist its destructive programming. 

A programmed compulsion of righteous evil and disregard for actions expecting no consequences. The portrayal of blacks as savage, dangerous, sexual predators, stupid, animalistic, and the list goes on and on serves to conceal the depravity of the accuser when their actions are compared against the accused.

The racial slur “coon” has its origins in hunting and killing human beings for fun. How could the indiscriminate murder, enslavement, beatings, and rape of blacks not be more indicative of the savage provoking tendencies of whites claiming to be civilized? Now, who has demonstrated the absolute savage and animalistic predator actions of a barbaric inclination if not whites?

The transference of these ghastly behaviors, which are identifiably one-sided against blacks, serves as the propaganda-driven denial of the racist incubation reflected by whites without concealment. Just educate yourself on the extent and practices to better understand both sides’ journey and current condition.

Rejection of the facts may be the only way to align yourself with the insanity and brutal reality blacks have faced at the hand of whites in this country. The dehumanizing realization of white atrocities is understandably frightening to whites wondering how people can be treated so viciously and still stand for the flag, defend the country, and endure the bullshit.

Patriotism is the current code for allegiance to inequality and misplaced blame on others for actions and disappointments resulting from your own miscalculations. Exclusively claim to be the only guardians of patriotism has resulted in an erosion of its principles by the mangling of its meaning, application, and demonstration.

Forced adherence to your manipulation of superiority into patriotism on anyone who does not look like you has had the effect of creating resistance to something which was never a point of contention. It has always been inequality.

The current fervor of voting rights is more aligned with voter suppression than voter fraud because the day has passed when you could regulate an outcome of the election, as evidenced by the election of former President Obama.

The will of the people’s vote cannot be calibrated to assure victory for you, so it must be suppressed against you. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been enacted if it were not needed in response to racism and voter suppression. Whites agreed that this was the case, and countermeasures had to be explicitly implemented to ensure that the target of these oppressions, blacks, had judicial protections for voting.

So, it would stand to fact and reason that neither the Civil War nor the Emancipation Proclamation abolished the slavery mentality. The ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 abolished slavery, but it then transitioned into Jim Crow and blatant systemic prejudices.

One hundred years after the Civil War ended, the need for legislation was a recognition that racism, voter suppression, and discrimination were still the Jim Crow law of the land. It would then be counterintuitive that discrimination and oppression had continued beyond the Civil War, but sadly, very true it had.

Affirmative action and similar actions would not be if these ongoing oppressions ended when some claim. But, unfortunately, many have continued despite these alleged remedies. It is an affront to decency to have the unmitigated gall to whimper about reverse discrimination and unfairness of opportunity allocations and access based solely on race designed to alleviate the disadvantages systematically imposed upon others by you.

To deny fairness to others by declaring your plight of unfairness and inequality is to either proclaim yourself stupid, irrational, or a racist. I would like to think the best of you and, given the benefit of the doubt, assume that you are simply irrational.

The overt discrimination and exclusion practiced have been solely based upon race, but to bemoan your suffering by the inclusion of others while crying about opportunities you had readily denied others exceeds an elevated threshold of irrationality.

To be held liable is not discriminatory or discretionary but should be expected. Cancel culture cannot be used for absolution to ignore your culpability granting blanket immunity oblivious to your actions.

It is deemed unfair by a cry of cancel culture regarding white’s accountability for their transgression when facing societal condemnation or discontinuation of patronage. Drawing the line and adopting unpleasant consequences by withdrawing voluntary support is not an obligation owed to the offender but a right of the offended.

White males lack the credibility to complain. They have always been on the till with improper privilege subsidized on the public draw. Their hand in the cookie jar and thumb on the scale of justice. They value freedom, prosperity, and fairness exclusively for themselves and are quick to complain when their expectation of preferential treatment is not met.

It is ridiculous to insist that such monumental injustices be swept under the rug while even the slightest rebuke of your privilege is exaggerated to an intolerable injustice. Stop it. They don’t make rugs or exaggerations that huge. This strategy to alienate yourselves from blame by denying your privilege by claiming victimization again contradicts the historical facts of your actions.

The mentality and benefits are so great that some would masquerade themselves as part of the Confederate heritage. One is born in Canada of Cuban descent and named Rafael as Texas Ted to Americanize his image for easier assimilation into the good ole boy’s club.

Could you imagine the difference in perception between Rafael Cruz and Ted? Another would claim his Confederate membership even though his lineage is German. The drumpf clan, whose real fortune is that his grandfather was exiled from his native land for draft dodging returning to America where he had fled.

Neither of these persons’ American lineage extends beyond their grandparents at best. Nonetheless, they have claims of their Confederate heroes and heritage. But white skin, anglicized name changes, and cultural adaptation allowed them to assimilate and minimize if not avoid racial discrimination.

This is the lure of white privilege while distancing themselves from their true heritage and diverting attention from themselves by ostracizing others and denouncing immigrants when their families are not too far removed from the immigration tree.

What better to illustrate a reversed crab-in-the-barrel mentality? Instead of franticly keeping them in, they keep them out, designating more assurance of privilege for themselves. A sort of all-in-the-family of preferential treatment requiring adaptation of Confederacy biases.

White skin alone is the prominent inclusion factor, with prejudice is a bonus. MAGA is an adaptation of the make Germany great again philosophy used by Hitler in his rise to power and espousal of white privilege in a maniacal pursuit.

Tell a big enough lie enough times very loudly over prolonged periods that the people will not only believe it but accept it as the truth was Hitler’s mantra. These same tactics are familiar tactics of American Republican politics and ideology today, raising the question that if the nostalgic return to a MAGA time was possible, then what time would that be.

Would it be a time for lynching, coon hunting, forced labor, or any other litany of atrocities since there was never a time when they did not exist in America? What elements of slavery and discrimination would be preferable?

Are these the conservative Christian values we are to return to, as demonstrated by history? Lesser forms of expressing these values are still present. Unfortunately, the Republican party has been maligned with acceptance and promotion of these aspirations by association with MAGA principles.

If not a return to slavery, the continual furtherance of white privilege by the dehumanization and discrimination of blacks specifically and minorities in general, now to even include the poor. Let’s call it what it is, and you should say what you mean.

No further proof that America is off the rails realistically beyond redemption than half the elected officials refuse to denounce an insurrection or exclaim that it is wrong to murder a black man by choking him out in broad daylight placing your knee on his neck.

There is plenty more, but what more do we need. Refusal to condemn and reject these actions actually condones them. The reason why they are acceptable is that it furthers your agenda. If a dog had been choked out, Republicans would have been outraged because it does not further their agenda, and their estimation of the dog is above the dehumanization felt for blacks.

Do you for one second think they care about unarmed blacks being killed and sprayed with bullets as long as it is understood that, for example, whites storming the Capitol are not to be treated like the n-word. Only one shot fired, but a black can be fired up multiple times in the back. No precautionary show of force or mass arrest, but some would still ask what disparity?

Not condoning or requesting a violent response but simply highlighting the disparity that seemingly can only be based on race. What happened to the stance of when the looting starts, the shooting starts?

On Capitol Hill, where an overwhelmingly almost exclusive mob of whites attempted to overthrow the government in the ultimate act of looting, there was less enforcement than if a Nike store was being looted. Furthermore, the outcry is deafening from those being held accountable.

Can you imagine their shock and indignation at being called to answer for the very attempt to overthrow the government? What is this country coming to when whites are being arrested for being patriots to the Confederacy? Amazingly, Blacks are even expecting equality and redress?

The discrepancies of response and expectation change when blacks are involved with the law unequally applied or by anyone even expecting it to be applied equally. How can one unarmed black be more of a fear-provoking threat and intolerance than a whole mob of insurrectionists?

The justification for Capitol Hill law enforcement restraint was praised, while questionable articulation for using deadly force against unarmed blacks is not condemned. Not advocating for less respect for white lives but equal respect for black lives.

There has to be a comprehensive understanding, standard, and application of the law that does not give carte blanche for law enforcement misconduct and abuse of citizens.

Qualified immunity must have clear objective parameters where protections are no longer enjoyed and resources expended for disqualifying conduct. Law and order, crime and punishment, as well as wrongdoing and judgment, must fall unabated on the actions committed and the person who committed them, not the exemption of their guilt by race or profession.

 

 

The guilty deed is tethered to the guilty’s name if integrity is to be maintained; otherwise, it occasionally and eventually will lead to some feeling they are left with no choice but to resist detriment. When left with no choice, the choice is then made clear. While police are necessary, their actions cannot be above the law simply because they are essential and less likely to impact a white person adversely.

By the same indication, police interactions are negatively exaggerated; citizens are emotionally inflamed and apprehensively predisposed. This reflects the reverberations from injustices and perceptions that influence citizen’s cooperation and politeness.

The point is that a recalibration needs to occur on both sides, but the abuses of authority are not immune to the adjustments required to improve interactions. On the contrary, the submission to injustices brings about a greater dissatisfaction and a resistance that escalates into a more hazardous condition for all concerned. On the other hand, mutual respect deescalates conflict and promotes cooperation.

What encourages resistance, divisiveness, and danger is injustice, racism, and despair. The cause and effect are apparent, and the dismay at the resulting outrage is disingenuous, and of course, based on if it is happening to you. A plea for solidarity healing society only becomes an objective when you are not making the concessions or the balance of power has shifted away.

Only, if you stand to lose or lost something, it would have been better and more convincing had that been your mantra when you had the leadership influence. Now the tables have turned, the plea for bipartisanship is uttered, and the priority of moving forward together healing a fractured country at a fragile time is encouraged at our disadvantage.

Renovations are always best when you are already working on improvements requiring one cleanup. Suggesting that grievances are delayed for the good of the whole would somehow benefit us is contrary when your concern was and has been to benefit only yourself.

So many times in the past, this conciliatory posture has only resulted in a delay, not improvement proving to be a sadistic prank time and time again. So, suppose this is truly a time of healing and bipartisan cooperation. In that case, the Republican leadership should try to cast at least one bipartisan vote as a sign of their sincerity.

Extending the olive branch for once instead of demanding concessions to conform against conventional wisdom and our best interest. Having exhausted all your deceitful persuasions, your advantage by inequality has run its course leaving you fearful of the void. There is plenty of work to be done and time is squandered not resolving the issues that can and will no longer be silently suffered.

The accumulated depletion of will and resources will not accomplish your objective since your preference is not the only consideration to be considered. Compromise and cooperation can not be adverse abstract principles. They are the way forward. You can not persist in taking pride in obstruction and destruction to exert a futile exercise of power.

History is undefeated and has proven that resistance to change and stubborn ill-fated indecision has led to obsolete power and doomed existence. The arrogance of America will not let it recognize that there have been many demises of world power among nations based on the civil disorder and refusals to make changes.

The societal collapse is often preceded by extreme economic instability and fluctuations, infrastructure and labor deterioration, hunger and chaos, and then governmental collapse. Balance and equilibrium are universal laws, and imbalance by its nature is unstable and prone to collapse. Due to the imbalances of racism and oppression, societies worldwide are now wobbling.

Now the question is which will come first, the change or the collapse? I do not believe it will be changed because of its opposition and the universal foundation of deceit it has taken to last this long. It is collapsing under its own weight of deception and denial. Think about a celestial gravitational collapse that occurs due to the contraction of its own weight or pulls inward, succumbing to disorder.

Why is America exempt from collapsing from contraction resisting the harmony and order of the universe or God’s will? No need to look to the sky since history and anthropology can confirm the earthly demise of civilizations that once had great power. The turmoil of the year 2020 was a premonition that cannot be survived repeatedly, especially with the tailwinds still being felt.

Progress and transformation to form a more perfect union not defined or restricted by the past is the way forward. Those who long for the past are afraid of the future. Uncertain of their prospects and secure with the status quo without regard for advancement but clinging to stagnation to prolong their significance.

By nature, the young become old, and the old gives way to the new. This country was built on racism and the surpluses from black labor. Vast wealth and resources have been accumulated and shielded from blacks without question. Can there be any further denial of that? Should there be a recognition of that in words and redress? Damages can not be undone or life restored, but mending can be pursued.

Since I have stated my pessimism or realism about significant change not being forthcoming, let me just express what could or should happen. The first restorative action which will have the most significant impact is to cease and desist the nonsense, to just knock it off. Despite all the lives lost and mangled, the economic inflictions have had far more reaching implications than the murders.

Personally, more apologies, ineffective methods, or promises are not needed. The deaths caused and atrocities committed cannot be rescinded, but the wealth benefits denied can be recuperated like when stolen artifacts are returned. The government, businesses, and institutions should pursue more than conversational remedies since they received real monetary benefits. Money would be a suitable substitute for words.

Financial is not the only form of payment, and the government should not be the only payer but make no mistake, slavery was about the benjamins, so the benjamins need to be paid.

Services are the most likely form of payment that only require tendering the services, terms, or business you already provide, such as free higher educational opportunities. Generations of descendants of slave owners have benefited greatly from what they established to pay it forward for their ancestors.

The primary distribution would be opportunity, development, and investments but mainly just stop the bullshit for us to receive a fair shake. Since no white person today has owned a single slave, it seems only reasonable. But, they most certainly are recipients of racist privilege, enjoyed the restrictions levied, or been enriched by the bias practices so entrenched in American society.

So it is not unfair that someone else would get a fair shot after your road has been paved by discrimination. Forty acres and a mule was the unfulfilled promise, and eliminating discrimination still a dilemma, but economic viability and sustainable resources are the reparations now required.

The Civil War basically set the parameters for economic profit-sharing the way the American Revolution did, only domestically this time. As a result, the north received a more equitable distribution of the profits and a more sensible voluntary method of extracting the surplus of exploitative profits from black labor based on black’s lack of options and suppressed conditions. The south received the ability to continue operating as usual with the adaptation of the new extraction method, supposedly voluntary labor with slightly lower profit margins.

They both received plausible deniability. The dehumanizing treatment was pretty much the same, and freed blacks still worked on the plantation scratching out a living at the master’s behest only now the new and improved way of debauchery was called Jim Crow.

The Industrial Revolution beginning in 1860, greatly influenced the end of legal slavery and the most likely cause of its abolition because it transitioned from sole dependence on human labor to machine labor.

It created new models of efficiency and manufacturing, making the old slave model obsolete, but it did not eliminate the need for a permanent underclass to manage the machines. Instead, it lessened the method of physical labor required and increased the productivity for greater profits more evenly distributed among the north and south.

Thus, the master-slave relationship became the boss-to-worker relationship model still practiced today as the basis of the economy with many of the same philosophical principles regarding labor.

The master to slave mentality and dichotomy persists today for whites to become indignant at the very suggestion that discrimination exists or the audacity to expect relief. There is a diametrically opposed residual effect of this mentality that has dissipated over time but still exists.

A polar opposite of a shared personality disorder, racist whites psychopathic character traits devoid of compassion or remorse and black’s submissive need for permission and conciliation. The refusal of whites and the request of black regarding reparation displays both mentalities. If they are delusional, then we are imaginary, or is that the other way around? It is hard to tell.

Centuries of bigoted behavior still leaves us in the position of requesting what an overwhelming number of whites refuse to give or recognize. However, the context of slavery and the psychological realities created a subculture of survival for blacks which in essence has manifested into our saving grace and sustaining resiliency. The missing piece has been cohesion securing an identifiable targeted objective with a solitary concentration.

Targeted penetration into isolated and sustainable components using relentless incremental campaigns of focus building scope and momentum. So, if reparations are forthcoming, then beautiful, but until then, we must forge ahead from a position of fortitude, focus, and resolve to realize that a shift in the paradigm of our perspective is the most efficient and assured way of securing equality.

Previously suffering from an extreme deficiency, we now have sufficient agency to pay ourselves first. Meaning no permission is needed from others for assurances of equality, but that as always, we must renew our efforts from where we are now with what we have to build alliances and coalitions for prosperity and equality starting with us.

We have enough, we have plenty, but the division of our resources and purpose cannot be counterproductive or diverted. Discipline is needed. Certainly not separatism, we have paid too much but inclusion on our terms to equally wet our beak.

Repeated requests always transform into pleading, which is always distasteful under any circumstances and rarely effective since it grants the power to refuse or grant the request. Far from being downtrodden or self-pitying, we should be encouraged at how far we have come, what we have had to overcome, and what final frontiers of racism we are near to conquering.

You never had the right to dominion over us, so now we do not need to seek your permission for our salvation. Reparations are for your salvation. Again, the most valuable gesture would be to knock it off, but either way, we have made tremendous gains to close the gap, notwithstanding the tremendous gap that remains.

Rest assured your children will not face the retribution of your actions but will have to adjust to the extinction of your privilege. Your survival as a race will not be endangered as you claim to fear, but your most significant fear of the elimination of your advantage will be realized. The privilege or displeasure of white America will no longer be the paramount concern on which society operates.

Your substantial resistance should be more productively directed toward rectifying the problem, not denial and concealment to continue your comfort. The hypocrisy of denouncing bullying, being too strong for bullying does not extend beyond being too weak for racism, perhaps the greatest form of bullying. Your racist fragile psyche and mind are dependent on the intimidation of racism. The poisoning of a feeble mind believing that white skin somehow makes you divine.

Deprived of privilege, your means of survival will not be like the constant struggle for survival from the lowest socio-economic status of society like ours has been. It will not be sabotaged by the systemic injustices you have consistently heaped upon us.

The crux of many issues in the black community has been influenced by slavery and Jim Crow, which will not be anything you will have to contend with as contributing influences of dysfunction in your communities only as a haunting nightmare of your actions.

Black is not only a race but has been a condition, a condition that has had an extreme toll. Levies for atrocities and crimes against black humanity were committed over centuries. An overdue tariff is owed in this realm but may be collected in another with your soul.

Deflection or denial of these conditions cannot be independent of issues confronting the black community since close examination will likely reveal a correlation to slavery, discrimination, or the psychological trauma caused by them.

Not to mention the generational poverty caused and endorsed. Therefore, the repeated insistence on deflecting onto other problems in the black community does not absolve you of your infractions or justify our exclusion from equal treatment under the law or equivalent opportunities.

A three-dimensional understanding of a four-dimensional problem leaves you one dimension short of a resolution. The Confederate heritage and the American legacy are synonymous with each other from the inception of this country and the founding father’s vision.

If the founding fathers were as wise and incredible as they are portrayed, then why was slavery allowed to be woven into the fabric of America’s DNA? It was intentional, and maybe why some whites think they need to take the country back for white exclusivity following its purpose.

The founding father’s guidance and influence is still the overriding authority today of adherence suggesting their vision has transcended nearly four-hundred and fifty years of governance but not the detrimental effects of slavery.

The constant square peg in a round hole predicament of stretching the interpretation of their intent on matters they could not have envisioned essentially expresses the intent of the current interpreter.

The emphasis is then on the current interpreter to subjectively convey their own understanding and guessing the original intent or interpretation. Clarity of interpretation then is the paramount objective or selective choice of a subjective interpreter but still conjecture.

The confusion and misconceptions of understandings and allowances of iniquities have traversed, deviated, and wandered over time with the subjective translations of intent and purpose. Still, the one constant has been economic exploitation by the manner of racism.

In their infinite wisdom, the founding fathers should have calculated the compounded effects and centrifugal implications of racism. So, therefore, they never envisioned one day having to address the restitutions accrued and the adjudication required to resolve reparations. Accordingly, it was recognized that restitution was owed but reneged upon with the forty acres and a mule promise.

They should have had the foresight to envision that it would become one of the perils of the country surviving just as the American Revolution had. Refusing remedies to offenses unjustly enforced creating a domestic threat from dissatisfaction.

Attempting to maintain their advantage suppressing anyone or anything that supported a change, even the government. The last time it was called the Civil War, and this time it is called Trumpism, MAGA, Patriotism, and Republican complicity.

If my words, tone, and honesty are harsh, then the reality has been more harsh and bitter to experience for us over a prolonged period of centuries. Feeble attempts to misrepresent, reduce, or quantify our damages expose the unwillingness to understand, preventing a resolution.

You must first understand then accept the problem thru the spectrum of the casualties caused before you can rectify them. Racist ideology and white’s resistance to being held accountable leaves me unconvinced that significant change or national reparations are on the horizon, but collapse is impending.

The combination of racism and economics fueling the downfall as symptoms of the illness. The disease is self-righteous arrogance not capable of change exposing a self-destructive premise.

If repeated reminders of discrimination and disregard for resolution are any indication that racist compulsion leaves bigots powerless to resist and hopelessly cursed destined to be like the scorpion’s sting, being in their nature to sting even if it destroys them as well.

There can be no genuine remorse without redress and consequences to express and satisfy the wounded, but the truth is that there can be no healing without remedy. While some are hoping and wishing, I am well beyond the age of believing Santa Claus is real or if real reparations or healing will be achieved any time soon.

P.S. Be sure to wear your seat belt. We are expecting some stubborn turbulence ahead.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz