Tag: Thurston’s Thoughts

A Civil War Story

  Thurston’s Thoughts

Days of Old Again

A Civil War Story

There have been many wars that have shaped the fabric of American history. The question of whether they were necessary or not is a different question. However, a glimpse into the past should provide a projection into the present. The American Civil War was not about the abolition of slavery or the liberation of slaves as much as the method of labor. These were incidental attachments to an economic scuffle for equilibrium of economics, not equilibrium of humanity. Long after the method changed, the sentiment remained.

The humanity part lingers with the residue of racism’s heritage still openly displayed. Jim Crow became the moral compass for the next hundred years. Now it is tacit denial, selective amnesia, or charge it to the game. The Industrial Revolution may have freed the slaves as a replacement more than any moral consciousness. Whatever the case may have been, the resolution left plenty to be desired or accomplished regarding racial dynamics in America. This cannot be disputed despite the revisionist lens of denial. 

Likewise, the current global landscape of conflicts in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East are based on the imposition of economic policies, unhinged fidelities, and religious justifications. They are all wars of destruction. They are the old ways of doing business to settle a dispute or occupy territory. The economics of war has been to destroy only to rebuild later.

The destroyed cannot rebuild, so the destroyer pays for the rebuilding. This is paying twice for the same destruction. The seemingly deranged commitment to war and allies of war whether in agreement or not is illogically apathetic to self-interest. Consider if a sovereignty wanted to engage in war, I am sure they could start their own especially if others pay for it. Far too often, most wars are rooted solely in religious ideological justifications of subjective morality.

To lambast the reasons would be juvenile, but let us consider the consequences of what is lost since what is gained has always been anti-climactic to what was shattered. Sure bragging rights, intimidation, conquest, or religious and political governance may have been accomplished. But sometimes not really or only on a surface level. The undercurrent of resentment, opposition created, and ethnic or nationalistic contempt simmering in waiting is greater. Beyond war being hedonistic and narcissistic displays of frustration or power, it is the chess game of elites for power or dominance.

As such, ever wonder who the pawns have been? Pawns are sacrificed to advance a strategy in the protection of the King. Pawns only become valued when all has been decimated and they have the chance to be “crowned” and converted into an elevated hierarchy of power or usefulness. The King has less power than the pawns although they are still subservient to his protection by pedigree. Pawns are the lowly slaves of the chess board to be cavalierly forfeited.

In a war who are the forfeited pawns or slaves? For example, in WW2 when the shoes got tight, what pawn of sacrifice and degradation was “crowned” to fully participate in securing an “allied” victory? The answer is the same pawn that was once again condescendingly discarded and contributions minimized after they were no longer needed for war.

The Buffalo Soldiers, Red Tails, and many other Black soldiers and civilians contributed to a war effort whose domestic agenda did not include them. Ironically, chess pieces are black and white but the white always moves first for advantage. However, this article is not about that or the many sacrificial white pawns. There have been many recent wars since then from Korea, Vietnam, and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we only focus on the war against weapons of mass destruction, the accusations were false but the casualties, devastation, and expenses were real. One can argue the hidden agenda, but not the patriotism, nationalism, and commitment to American Democracy displayed by those who later were essentially expendable pawns. The greatest accomplishment of this war was generational expenses.

As far as terrorist accusations, many of America’s terrorist threats were once American trained or supported in the furtherance of their terrorism against someone else. Then they were freedom fighters but they are now terrorist. Furthermore, they are often religiously motivated or as resentment for some act of America committed. The two headed coin depends on which side you called, heads or tails.

The two sides of war are similarly positioned but the arrogance of unaccountability or at least the stipulation to err should not be arbitrary to patriotism but instead justice. The current arrogance of the colonist and religious states are under siege for this reason, repercussions. The indiscriminate unaccountability to humanity or for geo-politics run amok has led to a hazardous road ahead instigating WW3.

Notwithstanding the architects of 911 devastation on America and the vicarious global ramifications since, the impact has also been an economic calamity for America. Consider how one man has reshaped so many facets of American life and beyond strictly by the economic and governmental policy of a country he was never a part of. Other international powers have learned where America and its colonist brethren has refused.

The new method of war is civil in both senses of the word. One sense is domestic cannibalism while the other is polite in the form of vicious economics. I am afraid this will not be settled in the usual brute manner of who to bomb or slap around. Yet, the world persist. But, who do you strike out at when the enemy is you by your proclivities? What America has been a slave to has become its master of destruction by implosion. More widely, why do the global pawns continue to be ruled by ignorance or cowardice refusing to reject an elitist game of destruction and redistribution of wealth and forced ideology.

Nationalism is the older sibling of patriotism and thus subjective to selective geography and the perspectives of that terrain. Yet still, nationalism is a servant to religious bullying and the centuries old conflict caused by coercing beliefs upon those who do not share them. But, I ask two questions. What religion in the world accounts for dinosaurs in the 6,000 years old history of the world? Furthermore, is it more likely the earth’s archeology is lying or the narratives of religion are? But, heaven forbid we challenge inconsistent narratives.

There is a detachment from logic overwhelmed by faith in narratives that only stand on itself but not by independent assessment. Like religion, I guess governments are not to be questioned either. Nevertheless, how can governments of the world not be accountable to their people? Why do the people sheepishly submit to governance of bling obedience? Their smug rules are not our rules and our sacrifice is not theirs but their decisions are ours.

So, the people’s money often participate even if the people don’t. Yet the same money cannot be used to better the people’s condition. It probably is not a mere coincidence if you follow the money and not the distraction. We are programmed units serving a superior whose wellbeing exceeds our ignorance. But, is it ignorance if we know better but refuse to act outside of our mass hypnosis? This global calibration controlled by social and religious hallucinations become less defensible as time passes it by.

But it still exist because we play a childish game of tag or follow the indoctrination. I wonder what America’s next civil war will be sugarcoated as for easier consumption and digestion or does it matter? The principles of a pseudo Democracy with a pseudo religious compass governed by pseudo legislation under a fascist capitalism of exploitation last bastion of deception is patriotism. So, the next civil war at America’s behest will be religious nationalism, the greatest plague of historical European collapses.

From beyond the borders of America, the attack will be fiscally and that war has already begun following the 911 blueprint. Devalue the currency and squeeze the pockets by escalating expenses that create no value, only a false security, divisive accusations, and revolving victimization. It is a social experiment of scarcity creating desperation when dominance is not assured for a rigged outcome.

Therefore, America’s next civil war will indeed be about freeing slaves to ideologies, patriotic submissions, and misguided aggressions caused again by economics, cultural bigotry, or religious immorality. It is a civil war story we can avoid. Globally, humanity should check ourself before we wreck ourself. We must be careful not to let the past haunt us any longer. However, the present most assuredly will condemn as the past has. So, sadly the next global war will be to free the slaves of antiquated justifications and ideologies. But only if we can survive it.

P.S. Perhaps immigration policy would be more successful if it addressed the frontend where they are fleeing from instead of the backend at our border. Remember the Monroe Doctrine and the many intrusions when they wanted to keep foreigners out before the geo-political scramble of colonialism forced its way in. The money spent to keep them out could be used to improve their condition which would improve our border’s condition.

If that is not America’s problem, neither is any of these global skirmishes we engage in while civil war bangs on our door. By unnatural selection, immigration policy resembles the bias regulation of repopulation administered in the old school of segregation. We freely visit or appropriate yours but you are definitely not welcome in ours. But somehow, it is as fair as it has always been and just as destructive humanitarianly and politically.

Thurston K Atlas

Creating a Buzz

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation

Sub Heading 4

Generate custom solutions with the possibility to create synergy. Amplify outside the box thinking yet be on brand.

Link 4

Sub Heading 5

Demonstrating sprints in order to innovate. Build innovation to innovate. Drive outside the box thinking and try to think outside the box.

Link 5

Sub Heading 6

Leverage cloud computing but funnel users. Repurposing stakeholder management yet think outside the box. Grow core competencies with a goal to re-target key demographics.

Link 6

Sub Heading 7

Generate custom solutions with the possibility to create synergy. Amplify outside the box thinking yet be on brand.

Link 7

Sub Heading 8

Demonstrating sprints in order to innovate. Build innovation to innovate. Drive outside the box thinking and try to think outside the box.

Link 8

Sub Heading 9

Leverage cloud computing but funnel users. Repurposing stakeholder management yet think outside the box. Grow core competencies with a goal to re-target key demographics.

Link 9

  Thurston’s Thoughts

Economic Captivity

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation

Africa’s Incarcerated Liberation is provisional freedom under imposed conditions of autocratic approval. The context of current African events, post-transatlantic slave history, and historical geopolitical atrocities of ideologies long ago presumed abolished still flourishes. Attempts to hide its presence and purpose only expose the ideology’s modus operandi aligned with its prime objective.

So, any glare of scrutiny reveals the deformity of imposed arrangements that accomplish the same result but by far more insidiously disguised methods. The circumference of a circle is the radius of all it encompasses. An ideology’s radius is not full circle because, as various methods may have run their course, the philosophy rotates around its axis tethered to its origin.

Therefore, the ideology has only completed a cycle along its radius. The contemporary cosmetic makeover of exploitation and oppression are inheritances of racism. The liberation from imperialism, colonialism, and captivity is once again substituted with delusions of inclusion, blatant exploitation, and indiscriminate subjugation.

The names and locations remain the same while the method and degree of severity are metered to the level of tolerance, vulnerability, or coercively incentivized leverage. The political and economic arm-twisting extortion is an autonomy and resource shakedown of rippling proportions and stagnation.

Many may suspect this is a reference to their location and circumstances. However true that may be, this is a reference to where, for many of us, the larceny all began in Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, there is no need to regurgitate centuries of slavery’s atrocities. History is often viewed as the past and negligently absent of the radius of current events.

So, let’s focus on global diplomacy, specifically between 1884 and 1960, dictating the current events. This modern enslavement ideology incognito manifesto is either captivity by economic dependency or suffocation by debilitating sanctions. It is not a ghost or a vile resurrection but, despite denials, a sinister sequel for all to see.

The historical colonialist ideology and ominous expression are evident in the many intrusions currently occurring in Africa. These violations are globally and intentionally omitted and reduced by political propaganda, instigated instability, and guided distractions.

Still, nonetheless, briefly suspending the subjectivity of our reality to assess recent rumblings in Africa objectively reveals the supremacy ideology’s naked encroachment. It is a political, economic, and sociological macrocosm of the historical microcosmic racist replication in practice.

These are global incursions from decisions made not so long ago significantly contributing to global and regional conflicts and abuses of today. These incursions are not ancient history or geriatric grievances but modern-day dilemmas and devastation vindicated by antiquated reasonings. The despicable resumes, characters, and motivations of these social architects and their intent are generally unquestioned but not always known.

The current supposedly diplomatic process reflects the lack of diplomacy in its original purpose. This diplomacy of extortion and extraction has endured time and alteration. The current arrangement generates and sustains insatiable foreign interest, stifling African countries and the whole continent. Obviously, fairness is not considered good diplomacy.

Africa’s stipend from the benefits and development of their resources and wealth accumulation are geo-politically regulated as a domino effect of chattel slavery in practice and ideology adjusted for modern times. So, moving swiftly through history, the foundational premise for current consideration is the present geopolitical disorder in Africa.

The current cycle of historical revelations in Africa is inherited from atrocities committed primarily in the 1900s and well within the range of two generations. The precursor was established in about 1883, including Otto Von Bismarck of Prussia and Germany, “the butcher of the Congo” King Leopold II of Belgium, and The Berlin Conference.

They are the ignition for both world wars, the formation of NATO and the UN, Apartheid, and the current model of economic mugging of the Sub-Saharan African continent. It is characterized by developmental strangulation, pilfering fiscal policies, and embezzlement of political sovereignty. This mugging causes and regulates the stagnation of African progress, infrastructure, and self-determination.

This imperialist coalition and mentality of racist geopolitical directives are internationally and openly tolerated. So, by the strict definitions and mechanisms of superiority psychosis, crimes against humanity, and economic asphyxiation, we can properly establish the lingering geopolitical impact creating the present economic and sociological conditions in Africa and beyond.

Conditions of instability and intentional manipulation orchestrate the question to fit the answer. Instability is the smokescreen offering few options. But does the instability cause the need, or is it created to justify it? Ask yourself, whose objectives are realized? The imbalance reveals the answer as an exploitive business and social blueprint.

These flagrant violations are blatantly displayed strutting across the global stage. These fundamental global observations of current world events mirror many of history’s rogue ideologies. The principles of liberation are only remotely reflected in contemporary political and fiscal dealings with countries in Africa. Examine the practice and principle for the method and mandate.

A brief overview of the policies causing the destabilization of the Sahel region can only be by predisposed social and fiscal design. The coincidental subsidies siphoned reveal a shameful narrative of malicious oppression and subversion. This sabotage cultivates a fertile cycle of social hardship, resource depletion, and wealth heist.

What is the accumulated wealth depletion? Under the promises and cloak of democracy, international assistance, regional development, and security support, the price is no longer worth it. Often, the ulterior motives of exploitation are concealed by smiling faces, glad hands, and righteous postures. The economic three-card monte game slithers as a vicious predator amidst a vulnerable reliance of little resort.

Subsequently, history repeats itself as expectations have again proven to be a fleeting friend and dependency a fatal flaw. The geopolitical coalitions formulated then are still definitively shaping the global landscape. So, let’s explore recent history and present implications to analyze the objectives, methods, and consequences critically.

The vast and tangled web of this foundational diagram is the Berlin Conference or Congo Conference in 1884. It established territorial boundaries, regulated the orderly post-colonialization of Africa, and expulsion of fiscal and political autonomy. This is, by all accounts, allegedly post-chattel slavery.

Otto Von Bismarck, who was the seminal inspiration for Adolf Hitler, assembled the conference. Hitler aspired to return Germany to the greatness it possessed under Bismarck and in rebuke to the crippling Treaty of Versailles. Bismarck believed in blood and iron diplomacy as coercive persuasion for German unification and expansion by conquest, as later did Hitler.

Hitler’s racist inclinations and hatred were significantly honed by the twisted Aryan sentiments of Sir William Jones, Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte under Bismarck’s shadow. A direct ideological lineage can be connected from them to Germany’s role in both world wars. Bismarck’s temperature was conquered by all means, similar to the Doctrine of Discovery and several Papal Bull decrees of the Church.

The following century plus of global racism and predatory arrangements were influenced accordingly, especially in the southern hemisphere. European imperialism and Aryan proclivities and immoralities of global parasitic psychosis were disguised and deployed once again. History obscures the significance of Bismarck’s ravage on Africa by bolstering his value to Germany and Europe fostered by a cooperative effort to divvy up and occupy Africa.

The Berlin Conference (1884-1885) hosted by Bismarck at the request of Portugal was mostly to referee trade routes and territorial rights of European intruders pursuing imperialistic conquest in Africa. Next, enter Leopold II, who was appointed ruler of this region, ushering in a revitalized level of brutality and exploitation, including genocide, mutilation, and abduction to compel slave labor.

Leopold killed over ten million Africans as well as the dismemberment of children. Remember, this is not over four hundred years ago but a little over one hundred years ago in the early 1900’s. Ironically, a change in geopolitical appetite ended Leopold’s reign of terror in Africa.

The next period in Europe witnessed a scavenging instability the conference sought to rectify. During the 1910s, the feeding frenzy of ambition and consolidation led to WWI (1914-1918). The conclusion of WWI resulted in Germany being liable and gutted by penalty and debt.

This debilitating condition created the perfect political storm for the rise of the Third Reich, ultimately leading to WWII (1939-1945) and the 1938 Time Magazine Man of the Year’s campaign of anarchy. Diplomatically, the combustive period of the 1910s to 1960 experienced global unrest and unabated conquest.

The incidents of sanctioned consolidation blossomed with the Treaty of Versailles (1919), the Monroe Doctrine (1923), the United Nations (1945), Apartheid (1948), NATO (1949), and many more alliances to consolidate global dominance and control by asserting their dogmatic ideology. It is regulated by power, greed, and imperialistic arrogance. 

The lingering ideologies span the preceding beliefs and prevailing interpretations, postulations, and fabrications of Jones, de Gobineau, and Fichte’s entitlements of imperialistic excuses and misconceptions. Consequently, a post-WWII reality exposing the freedom and democracy protecting hooligans reveals the continuation of the same ideology supplanted by a revised explanation.

The global application is directed primarily at former colonies of colonialism, territories of conquest, and long-suffering lands of predatory exploitation despite their so-called liberation. Even after independence, the global colonizers continued to maintain authority and undue influence, similar to Jim Crow.

The ideology is the enslaver, while the act is the blunt instrument of submission such as force, debt, under-development, geopolitics, and many others to subvert liberation. Liberation is mainly granted to a degree of fading adherence or Africa’s inability to wiggle out from under manufactured obstructions and challenges. Liberation has proven elusive and transactional, although dated for reference.

Mali (1960 France), Niger (1960 France), South Africa (1994 Nationalist Party, 1961 Britain), Libya (1951 Britain) Chad (1961 France), Burkina Faso (1960 France), Ghana (1957 Britain), Guinea (1958 France, 1973 Portugal), Senegal (1960 France), Nigeria (1960 Britain), Namibia (1990 South African Apartheid), and Botswana (1966 Britain).

Unfortunately, there are many more countries in Africa and globally whose presumed liberation is reasonably recent or ignored. Furthermore, this formula is applied unilaterally against those not protected by the coalition of power and privilege.

The trajectory of favor produces drastically different narratives. Therefore, some countries’ liberation and sovereignty are embraced while others are summarily dismissed according to the whims of power. But often and coincidentally, by a spectrum of melanin and lineage.

Without the blessings of power, liberation is granted but conditionally recognized. Therefore, the spin cycle of covert oppression is overtly perpetuated, and violations are disregarded not according to statute but to status. Still, many of Africa’s “liberations” between the fifties and the nineties reveal many such arbitrary emancipations.

That is only twenty-nine to seventy-two years ago. Although relatively modern, it’s been plenty of time for liberation to take hold. So, a current analysis substantiates that the de facto bondages, abuses, and exploitations are deliberately continued. Many African countries are currently members of ECOWAS under French patronage.

This voluntary arrangement is enforced by multi-national troops and NATO as international police serving as the foreign interest protecting muscle. The crux of the problem betrays a voluntary arrangement because why is military force threatened if a sovereign liberated nation wants to withdraw?

Are disrupting food, restricting airspace, isolating by embargo, and imposing electricity sanctions a diplomatic response? A humanitarian response? A Geneva Convention response? Likewise, where is the international outrage? Why does French interest supersede Niger’s best interest in Niger?

Apparently, the swindling of African resources is far more welcomed in France than the African. Why do America and others unflinchingly support France in this mugging of Africa? But, heaven forbid a foreign government would interfere with American or French sovereignty. 

Yet, by comparison, European countries and others are conversely supported with billions in aid and weapons. Their sovereignty and liberty are almost unilaterally supported. So, the global defenders of justice, democracy, and liberation must deem these African countries’ autonomy or arrangements differently from Europeans.

The aid, unconditional support, enabling of abuses, selective enforcement of rights, and wavering fairness overwhelmingly indicate a distinct pattern. Many African nations’ plights are interchangeable, while France’s pattern and reputation is as a devoted offender by plunder, oppression, and history.

The specifics are unconscionable but obviously not inconceivable. France is grandfathered into power as a courtesy of their history and geopolitical maneuverings more than their current military prowess. They are a permanent member of the UN Security Council for this reason. 

They are core obstructionist to sanctions unfavorable to their aligned axis of abuses. As a result, France enjoys certain immunities as a curtsey to a global political façade strung out dependent on resources extracted from Africa. Africa literally keeps the lights on in France and contributes significantly to France’s wealth and prestige.

Therefore, France’s stature is mostly a bloated facade of nostalgic political romanticism and self-aggrandizing hypocrisy. As a pseudo-former slave trader craving Africa’s resources more than the chattel of old in an evolving world where African natural resources are so vital to many, France is unscrupulous.

So-called diplomacy and manipulated desperation are the briefcases for being triple-crossed into coerced seductions and reluctant solicitations as the preferred negotiating manner. But, the lurking method is brute force if disruption threatens foreign ulterior motives.

In particular, France, as a former colonizer, becomes the ECOWAS country’s current overseer, straw-bossing these African estate’s prosperity. The problem has become the improbable solution, except the improbable solution has always been the problem. The international hooligans and their transgressions must be judged by today’s standards when their incriminations are now being committed.

These are by fact, history, and current occurrences executed under autocratic rules and an exploitive ideology dressed a little better and more refined. A staunch unity of humanity, race, religion, decency, and consciousness must reject these exploitations and abuses conducted in any name, nationalism, anger, religion, or ignorance.

What is done to the least of us in the name of most of us takes no courage, just an advantage of power and a depraved mentality. But, dare we expand ourselves from our peepholes and illuminate the undeniable shackles of oppression still panoramically hobbling Africa and others? It is an insult to everyone’s humanity and integrity except for those whose self-identifying sadistic palette requires atrocities.

In which case, Bon Appetit, because atrocities abound. By our resolute and vehement condemnation, all must denounce any appetite for subjugation under any banner claiming any level of fairness, justice, integrity, or humanity. Should not inhumanity be inhumanity despite who commits it? 

Many African Nation’s recent declarations of sovereignty are, in reality, liberation from an ideology whose captivity, abuses, and destruction has spanned hundreds of years. So, despite mainstream national and international media disinterest in African geopolitics and exploitation, we must summon the courage to look, listen, investigate, and analyze the facts.

We must express outrage and categorically condemn these breaches of fundamental sovereignty and humanity. They are destined to invite more direct and collateral damage than actual benefit if not stopped. Consider it far less courage than the courage needed to struggle for economic survival, defend political sovereignty, or declare humanity under multi-national threat.

By what legitimate means does the divine right of life absent oppression not extend to all? Genocide by sanctions, pseudo-diplomacy, or briefcase is no different than by brutality except the method but not the consequence or culpability.

So, like many others, the African must continue to summon the nobility of spirit and identity, which is the foundation of courage. The courage to not self-sabotage, submit to adversity, or enticing hallucinations of empty promises of progress. To take courage in hand and chest to stand resolute in unity and not to repeat the actions of tribalism and feuding that led to our ancestral division and enslavement.

Africa must protect Africa as primarily a solidarity of common purpose, not a separation by differences. Standing unified with your neighbors, although you may have internal disputes to be settled amongst yourself. Africans must not rise up against Africans, period, especially for France. 

The legendary Nigerian must stand with its legacy of pride intact, remembering that last time, it didn’t stop until it was everyone. ECOWAS is what you do if you choose to, but AFRICAN is WHO you are. Be extremely careful of the tool of enslavement using you against you while the puppet master pulls the strings. European commanders used Africans to commit atrocities against other Africans for the misguided benefit of the conquerors.

History only repeats itself where it was not learned the previous time. Now ECOWAS is poised to sanction and threaten an attack on other Africans for the insult of France? After all, has France not committed an insult against Africa? Whose insult is greater, liberation or exploitation?

America recently has experienced a series of labor disputes and strikes to force negotiations for better labor conditions. Is this not also a labor dispute to demand negotiations according to profit and contributions? Why would war, military force, or starvation be the counteroffer to a legitimate labor concern?

If a laborer cannot withdraw their time, exertions, or resources for inadequate compensation, are they liberated? Undoubtedly, the democratic world can applaud and support such an inalienable right and rebellion against tyranny inspired by America’s revolution from British oppression centuries ago.

Seemingly, the African/French arrangement is past its cycle, and the rubber must finally hit the road. It is time for African liberation to display the essence and substance of principle and prosperity with the same terms, conditions, and respect as everyone else. Our actions must negotiate our appraisal and our compromise, not obstruct our autonomy.

Unity of purpose is awakened in Alkebulan to end it where it began. France and the bandits that incite Africa’s oppression and instability must encounter Africa’s unified self-reliance and resistance. Presented as a boulder to broker the best probabilities by collective bargaining of resources. The usual cycle of redistribution by war disguised as a fathom threat, political necessity, or humanitarian purpose of last resort must be avoided.

War reallocates wealth, wealth encourages deprivation, deprivation breeds poverty, poverty attracts subjugation, and subjugation erects justification, which triggers mutual resentment. This cycle causes a reset to protect fiscal, political, and ideological advantages, leading to conflict and resistance opposing change to maintain control and promote stagnation.

These spin cycles of socio-economic agendas transcend national accountability and bootstrapping it to the top. Their imposition generates pretexts by historical controls of coalitions and manipulations. The problem can’t become the answer, while the answer becomes the question, allowing liability and obligation to switch polarities.

The bait and switch follows a prescribed pattern of deceit. When the hidden sponsor of chaos is the savior from that chaos, it insulates the sponsor to prolong the chaos. The deception is a savior’s hologram easily manipulated.

Notwithstanding the previous “liberations,” the ECOWAS is the Economic Community of West African States with fifteen members. It is an economic trade council fostering self-sufficiency through member cooperation, which some members also threaten war and destruction on other members seeking autonomy from France.

The ECOWAS states official languages are French, English, and Portuguese. It is ironic how language reveals past conquests and lingering influences or, more precisely, ideological exposures. African economic stability and development rest on eliminating these influences fiscally and ideologically. 

The African must collectively regulate legacy resources such as gold as other nations do oil, as a true coalition of interests intertwined for African development and prosperity. Any great reward at a future time requires current sacrifice. However, curving time to future prosperity must be geared towards a future time of anticipation and innovation. 

Uranium, Lithium, Cobalt, and other resources are essential for the projected future. But they are also the currency and social exchange for immediate self-sufficiency and development. Unity aligned with strategic coalitions to accelerate facilitating development can be leveraged simply by AFRICA’S protection of its resources.

That is now what the marauders seek. The key is figuring out how to keep from being slapped down in the reinvestment of African capital concentrated comprehensively to produce the industry and infrastructure by tactical economic and political calculation.

The invigoration of African progress is society motivation, investment stimulation, and prosperity accumulation. The difference is these African contributions cost less sacrifice than the arrangement with France, which benefits very few Africans. Besides, any African reinvestment venture swells the African pot for African harvest.

France’s current portfolio, resume, and policy regarding the ECOWAS nations in the year 2023 demonstrate strains of colonialist treachery. What does France provide for what it receives? The gold, uranium, and other resources alone are not enough. France also requires the use of French currency, the French central bank, a military presence, their language, culture, educational indoctrination, and defacing of self-identity.

To strip people of their identity is to assign one to them. Economically suppressing a people by deprivation, scarcity, or regulation of necessities solidifies the population’s dependency. The nation’s dependency is achieved by debt and underdevelopment concealed as hope. Therefore, the misconception of assistance is the trap of dependency multiplied by fifteen countries and an entire region.

There has been some progress and benefit, but the arrangement now has been rejected. The routine plight of the ECOWAS nations striving to grasp the prize always held just out of reach along with the fruits of their wealth generation is over. Some ECOWAS nations are among the poorest nations in the world. This poverty exists despite the richness of natural resources, which repeatedly and disproportionately do not benefit them.

By the way, the United States has a military base in Niger and an unconditional full diplomatic support for France. With France, the United States, and others present in Niger for years now, why has terrorist not been neutralized? If terrorists are causing the instability, would increasing the stability depend on decreasing the terrorists? So, the continuing instability justifies the foreign presence.

Likewise, by extenuation, are the terrorists serving a purpose? Without them, another reason for occupation must be contrived. Nevertheless, the web still spirals. The cloak of global domination and power has proven to be too irresistible and problematic a garment to shed. So it continues. Consequently, the chaos of conquest continues unabated but not undetectable.

Evidently, other major global players of dysfunctional concealments, such as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations, and NATO, provide cover, proving justice must truly be blind. Accomplices are the World Courts of Human Rights, economic councils, international courts, and many others by selective outrage, hollow authority, or cowardly apathy. 

Apparently, by observation, their mission statements are selectively applied, willfully ignored, or, worst, illicitly complicit. Authority absolved cannot overlook, facilitate, concede, or commit the very violations they were created to adjudicate, oppose, penalize, or eliminate, even if they don’t enforce them.

They are not part of the solution but protectors of the problem, which now includes them. These co-collaborators weld fiscal, governmental, judicial, or humanitarian malfeasance to administer buddy passes, winks, and nods of acquiescence. These co-collaborators ignore violations or facilitate abuses as guardians shielding the violators and their interests.

IMF’s purpose is monetary stabilization of currencies, growth, and prosperity. Still, it fosters debt and allows policies contrary to its purpose. The World Bank fights poverty through development and capital investment but is plagued by favoritism and curious transactions.

The UN has disappointed miserably in its purpose of international peace and security by forsaking human rights and humanitarian compassion while seemingly oblivious to economic, ethnic, and sovereign violations. International law and fairness are decimated by the collusion of powerful security council nations and some others’ partiality preventing unilateral accountability, sanctions, or actions of remedy by a singular vote of obstruction.

Too often, NATO is the antithesis of crisis management by fostering instability, crisis, and exploitation. Their force is the puppet master’s shield and sword protecting fraudulent interests based on illegitimate geopolitical agendas. Many other international organizations are paper tigers with hollow authority or little fortitude, but must their voice or outrage also be hollow?

The answer is apparently very hollow and discretionary, depending on who the offender or victim may be. This moral corruption discredits and sabotages the integrity of the process and intent by selective enforcement and colonial alliances of imperialistic mentalities. France, Britain, and the United States have stirred the pot of oppression for centuries. 

Not to isolate them from other foreign marauders like Portugal, Spain, Germany, and Belgium by misdeeds but only by current power to orchestrate massive instability, predatory obstructions, and authoritarian directives. ECOWAS nations yield fifty percent of their gold to France’s central bank for the privilege of being exploited by the mandatory use of the French Franc.

Now imagine all these international organizations being unaware of France’s bevy of violations. What can be the only logical answer? Even the clear-cut declarations of the Geneva Convention violations are ignored without a whimper of international outrage. I wonder if the loophole is only if war is declared or not.

To further the discrepancy, a different response and reasoning is applied for the same circumstances committed by a different group. For example, Niger’s coup was against its leader. Still, France swole up offended by a liberated country they have no legitimate proxy over. Yet, rebuking France’s colonialist residue is considered an assault on France.

War is inhumane, but exploitation and inhumanity are a declaration of or an invitation to war, which eventually results in conflict and resistance as the only options. However, a staunch back with courage intact can be the only answer if it is the only solution. The imperialistic exploitation of supremacy ideologies of the early twentieth century cycles out as its grip of global ignorance wanes.

So, consider the impact on France’s fiscal stability, the Olympic Games in France in 2024, the denouncing of colonialist proclivities of greed and exploitation, or the default futility of a piranha-like feeding frenzy of aggression defending the indefensible. France must decide since they left Africa no other choice, but now France’s choices are limited to African decisions.

This is an economic and moral dilemma for France and their dependency on exploiting resources and a fifty percent gold tariff on the ECOWAS. It is time to renegotiate the terms, diplomatically, of course. Ultimately, French etiquette must prevail unconditionally, yielding to African political sovereignty, fiscal resuscitation, and wealth retention.

Otherwise, the emerging projection is a global conflict and regional instability to maintain a century-old imperialistic Bismarck ideology of a world structure and perspective that no longer can exist or should exist. The time has certainly come to weigh the consequences. Time is not in a bottle of old but urgently upon us. Now, the answer to this has become the question.

In whose name can France be defended? Not even Bismarck’s name. Please make no mistake about it, Africa’s incarcerated liberation continues the racist colonialist ideology rooted not only in history but right before our eyes. It is crystal clear for those who would only take a glancing look.

 Are these the kind of policies or actions, regardless of the ethnicity of the victim, we can condone to protect the economic exploitation of a sizable portion of a continent and humanity? This geopolitical slavery is not from long ago or unknown, so all that remains is liberation in practice and observance. 

Liberation is not transactional as a reflection of fiscal, political, or cultural surrender but a declaration of humanity. History will bear witness to us as it has stood against those before us. We must recognize the unilateral sovereignty and humanity of others to ensure ours. The passion is in the persuasion and not the perspective.

It undoubtedly should not be punishment for daring to better African nations with African resources. Everyone else not oppressed is allowed, and now so will Africa, not by permission but by declaration. Today, a clash of history, ethnicity, religion, or ideology must not devolve into a default response of destruction or display of power but cooperation and compromise of persuasion.

The world is trembling from the addiction to inhumanity and exploitation that must address the compulsions of ignorant ideologies promoting inhumane directives. Otherwise, resentment, rebuke, and rebellion are inevitable. Any apprentice of power must know, eventually, that the dignity of rebellion swells the courage to rise up, transcending fear and control.

The courage to resist instead of cowering in the safety of servitude and exploitation is intrinsic when pushed to the brink. We should all be afraid of what or who we will become if we are indifferent to the plight of others either by our hand, on our behalf, or in our view. But equally important, who are they made to become by us? Life and dignity of life must be mutually maintained.

The world is quick and definitive to stand with others. Perhaps it is time for the radius of concern to encompass the African. If not, don’t cry about who does or when ties are severed. That cycle is over. A new cycle has begun. Now, who dares stand with Africa and Justice against atrocities of geopolitical extortion? I do, do you?

 

 

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

Cultural Differences



Cultural Differences?

We are all culturally designed by the initial foundation of our existence in accordance with our environment. Our parent’s circumstances determine our environment and their environment, which we did not choose and, to an extent, was probably selected by someone else other than them, perhaps their parents. Even if they decided to change their environment or circumstances, they decided, we may have just influenced their decision but were born into it.

Where we are born has just as much influence on us as who we were born to. Yet, this environmental influence has an inverted effect. As we get older, the influence of our environment expands to adjust to changes while the parental influence declines. Of course, parental influence remains strong because it is part of our experience and our experiences shape our perspectives, but still, it decreases in a substantially active manner over time.

The status and cultural vindication among our self-identifying group or the norms of our geographical location is the measurement by which we primarily evaluate ourselves. However, others also probably assess us as a collective standard of that place and time. Thus, we endeavor to assimilate to our environment and subgroup that we aspire to become a part of or have found ourselves to belong.

If we are not choosing, then someone has chosen for us, and often our environment has made the choice. Our subgroup has many different levels, developed preferences, and motivations that constantly change with time. What is permitted, tolerated, encouraged, or prohibited changes regularly which require our constant adaptation? As the circumstances change, we must adjust for the present and future instead of functioning in the past.

Clinging tightly to the cultural pull of tradition or ritual can create an illusion—one of a present constructed of the past without considering the reality of these changes. Thereby stuck in time and ignoring the practical application outside of our subgroup. Remaining comfortably contained within our subgroup normalizes that group but not interactions with those outside that subgroup.

There is never an issue when everyone agrees. Still, any deviation results in some fraction being dissatisfied and exploiting a distinction solely based upon opposition to their preference or choice. Therefore, with those outside our subgroup, cultural and geographical disparities allowing for some degree of other’s dissatisfaction, we expect them to allow for a mutual degree of our discontent.

When in Rome, you do not have to do what the Romans do, but practices that do not infringe upon us are of consequence to only those who practice them. A perspective or tradition imposed upon a different environment other than those in agreement or harming others develops a problem.

Perspectives need to be in step with time as the world has become global, and movement is not confined to our little piece of real estate or experiences. There needs to be respect for others’ differences and geographical influences without abuses of their rights as human beings and residents of the universe. Assimilation is not to become identical to some subgroup or environment at the expense of your culture but to reflect the collective commonality of coexistence.

Assimilation is more of an idea than action because control of what someone self-defines themselves as is strictly subjective. For example, suppose you are categorically opposed to someone for whatever reason. Can you stop that person from feeling the opposite for you if that is what they choose? What about a sport’s fan-favorite team? Can you stop a person from cheering for that team despite your disapproval or knowledge by claiming it as yours?

It becomes an illusion projected outwardly without the detachment to travel outside your perspective. So, it remains within you, having no influence or effect on other’s shared preferences. We are a member of many groups that, without our consent, we do not sanction the membership of. What about a song we like? Can we control who else likes it, or a particular flavor of ice cream whose favorite it also maybe?

We share cross-culturally far more when examined from a humanistic perspective than from a cultural or geographical perspective. Just as people everywhere want the best for their children, why can’t others be allowed to want the same as well. Geography limits our imagination and acceptance because it restricts the definition of our commonality to a location, nationality, religion, or race.

This restriction is reinforced, diluted, and distorted according to who has conquered who at what point in history. What external challenges are to be faced and overcame. During times of crisis, danger, or needed solidarity, any division within or among these subgroups is expanded beyond these allegiances to the maximum mutual demographic affected.

In other words, it grows exponentially from our home to our neighborhood, from our city or state to our country. Then, finally, globally and to every other subgroup such as gender, race, wealth, poverty, religion, and so forth, when faced with a common threat.

When the shoes get tight, and the rubber meets the road, need seems to be the overwhelming unifying factor across all cultural and geographic boundaries. As language can travel without a passport and across all boundaries, commonality of interest travels even further, is more understood, and universally embraced within a common interest or need.

If a global threat from an invading celestial force descended upon earth, then we would all suddenly become earthlings or the human race and not of our identifying subgroup but binding together for the greater good and our mutual survival against a shared threat. The necessity of a universal definition and purpose realigns any subgroups to a consolidated identification and determination.

To assemble under specific affiliations is essentially a matter of comparing preferences to an outside group’s preferences. This, in turn, establishes the group’s criteria and beliefs with various hierarchies within the group as far as deeds, acceptance, and dedication. Thus, there are levels to everything, and their corresponding judgments, prestige, or values.

Validation that confirms your identity within the group deprives you of your individuality because you must submit to that of the group’s external projection in exchange. Reinforcing your desire to belong becomes the goal for your participation. Commitment to defined expectations supersedes adaption to external perspectives. Stubbornness sets in, leading to foolish rigidity and shortsightedness in a vacuum. A tunnel vision of them and us.

Justifying our preferences producing our reality within a larger reality that interacts and encompasses ours does not function outside our smaller reality. Instead, the larger reality functions outside the limitations of our limited acceptance and understanding, creating an impracticality in time, function, and ideology.

Somewhat illogical when you think about how often you indulge contrary to your biases. The denial of a culture you reject often has foods, influences, and products that you accept but not the people or culture that produces it. Cultural differences should be embraced as the variety of life that stimulates life’s experiences.

We only experience portions that could comprise the whole of our experiences when not allowing for things beyond our culture and understanding to expand our completeness. That which threatens your identity is a byproduct of your lack of self-acceptance and dissatisfaction with your circumstances projected upon another group justifying a convenient lie over the uncomfortable truth. The conscious mind convinces and deceives you of what the subconscious mind knows to be painfully true.

A group’s validation of their worthiness based upon perceived deficiencies of others thereby increases their own value by comparison having a better estimation of themselves. The validation of their value within the group becomes their cultural exclusivity, their membership. Preservation of their group culture surpasses their need for change, tolerance, or acceptance to maintain group approval.

Hiding securely within the comfort of association and exclusivity. It is upon you to celebrate your experiences concerning your parents, culture, and traditions that formed your identity as a cultural foundation. Others who do not share the same influences have their own inspiration to observe. These preferences should not be discredited or cheapened by any practices that further insult the dignity of others, celebrate discrimination, or are widely associated with reminders of atrocities.

Different is often a moral assumption and judgment of better, not a reflection that others could view you the same way. It is wrong to celebrate an injustice against someone, whether that injustice is performed by you or someone else. The perpetrator cannot determine the impact upon the afflicted; the afflicted must assess their own grievances and the impact of the injustice.

Celebrate and be proud of your individual spirit since there is only one of you in your uniqueness and embrace accepting your diversity from everyone else who walks the earth. The eyes see outwardly as a projection of you into your environment where there is still only one of you to celebrate and cultivate. Therefore, embrace your uniqueness and accept other’s uniqueness because there is only one of them. In the end, we all share the same uniqueness and commonality; there is only one of us.

The threat to our mutual survival is not of a celestial adversary but one that has been engineered on earth that threatens our children’s future and our co-existence as a species. If you want to exist, then you must allow others to exist, including plants, animals, and humans, all equitably. We are all citizens of the universe, whether we like it or not.

It would be best to make the best of it and bring cultural differences and socially engineered deceptions to examination and adapt from the past to the future. The greatest empires and civilizations the world has ever known have had an exploration date for one reason or the other.

We should at least make our demise something out of our control instead of protecting a global threat or festering our inability to denounce current and past atrocities and exploitations. Everyone must concede at least a little sacrifice; the world has change dimensionally, and so should we. It is not always where you are from but where you must adapt to and make allowances. We are all different but in most ways the same.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

No N-word Allowed



But Can We Stop?

The time has come to discontinue the deception of the use of the N-word. We cannot deceive ourselves about the historical usage of this word. Deception is most effective when employed with the complicity of the deceived when oblivious and totally clueless to the truth. Deception is mainly used to promote an acceptance of a falsehood gaining advantage or incentive by voluntary compliance. 

Any deception is a form of delusion that requires your acceptance and thus influences your reality, causing a manipulated behavior or response disguised as free will. A fantasy or illusion is then created, which establishes fiction as a fact that is then acted upon. Self-deception is the most effective form of deception, creating delusions of convenience.

Delusion is a mental disorder, and the more extreme it is and practiced or embraced, the more significant the psychological dysfunction. Delusion allows one to staunchly and adamantly accept and defend a belief or position that has been exposed and discredited as contrary to reality. The greater the dysfunction, the more danger it poses to the deceived one’s lack of awareness of the deception or delusional conversion. 

The concept of an enemy disguised as a friend is a common delusion, the wolf in sheep clothing syndrome. We are at a fork in the road in history to definitively restore reality to the legacy and use of the N-word while we grapple for specific treatments of equality. The perpetuated effects on our people in particular and the structures of society, in general, have restrained our mental health and progress. The courage to recognize and confront the truth is the first step to correct this deception as the first action to shed its grip. 

The N-word is defined in nearly all dictionaries as the vilest and most insulting word in the English language. Some have argued that we have appropriated the term to change the connotation and embrace self-love and honor our blackness. If this is true, why is it insulting when other races “honor” us by calling us that? Reflecting historical use of the n-word, the meaning has not been changed in our minds to an empowering and appreciative word when used by others. We even still use it in a derogatory manner against each other when angry or describing something foul.

Stockholm syndrome is developing affection or sympathy for your oppressors or captors by assimilating with their ideology, a sort of mental surrender. Stockholm does not promote a mutual partnership but a subordinate designation of your dependency as a hostage or slave to a master. It is an integration of your humanity as an eager hostage. It is essentially your justification for their actions for having held you hostage. The N-word can be interpreted as such by the embracing of it. Plato’s theory of reality further explains a correlation between thoughts and corresponding actions regarding social organisms. 

Lima syndrome is where the captor becomes sympathetic to their hostages and feels remorse for dehumanizing and imprisoning them. Imagine a captor insisting on inflicting dehumanizing treatment on a hostage. Now imagine the hostage embracing or insisting on the treatment used to dehumanize them by using it on themselves. The N-word can again be interpreted as this by adopting its usage because when they discontinued using it, we did not. It is psychological slavery so complete that they can’t even prevent you from abusing yourself when they have stopped.

Emotional bonds and coping mechanisms beyond what was needed for survival have now oddly enough become self-imposed conditioning. How can you disassociate the method of trauma oppressively enforce while this word was used? By our use of it subliminally, how does its meaning and origin change for us or others? Does our use damage our self-image as much as it damages our image to others?

 This extends beyond the border of mental illness. It is accepting and maintaining an outdated coping mechanism that has to be considered brainwashing. Begging for equality is the manifestation of the brainwashing of a hostage. Seeking validation for what was damaged inside us, asking for permission from the one who damaged us reveals a simmering pathology. It may be futile to claim power from what was used against us. Socrates described this well in his Allegory of the Cave of a limited reality defined by the wall shadows. 

The expression of a need for validation from the source of abuse instilled this inferiority complex that we do not feel worthy of vehemently denouncing. The N-word’s use is not a way of seeking relief from the brutal historical systemic racial subordination we have long endured. Are we so willing to continue using this word that we would deceive ourselves about the atrocious history of this word and what it has really done to us?

Our use does not vigorously reject the assumptions of the inadequacies associated with the N-word. We cannot embrace this word with such a horrible history and denounce all that it has represented. The historical meaning and application of the N-word can never be erased or minimized. When we demand change from others, we must also self-evaluate and demand change from ourselves.

 It should never be culturally acceptable to demean ourselves by voluntary association with this word. By contrast, no other race or culture self-define themselves with derogatory terms used by others to demean themselves. Others may use those terms, but they do not refer to themselves as such or allow others to do so.

Using the N-word to self-identify as a group is where we get it wrong because it guarantees that the word will continue to be derogatorily used for another four hundred plus years. The negative connotations continue to be falsely assumed as accurate. We correctly understand that we must forbid others from using it against us or about us. 

What we must understand is that we must also stop using it to define ourselves. At its core, the N-word is not a term of endearment because it feeds an inhumane dichotomy of ourselves in opposition to our interest. We must first convince ourselves that we are something else before others are convinced that we are something other than what we have allowed ourselves to be called. 

 

 

 

If we cannot or will not stop calling ourselves this word, why should others not perceive us as that even if they don’t call us that? Maybe we should not say it for them to hear, just as we don’t want them to say it for us to hear. Perhaps no one should hear it, which means no one should be saying it, most of all us.

Our expectations no longer request a change but demand change. We are in a position to expect and achieve this change but could accelerate it by our actions. What behavioral changes are we willing to make to bring about these changes sought? The question then becomes, is it realistic to expect change without us changing or making concessions that facilitate the desired changes.

Systematic atrocities have been conceived and committed using this word. This word has accompanied slavery, lynching, buck breaking, rape, coon hunting, Jim Crow, and many other atrocities to this very day throughout history, with the N-word as its constant and loyal companion.

Those who have subjectively dehumanized, oppressed, terrorized, and murdered our people have used this word to justify their actions. It has been their rationale for the denial of our fundamental human rights, claiming we are animals. This N-word has been inflicted upon us along with the extreme sufferings that have always accompanied its use. We must define ourselves and not fall victim to others’ historical definitions of us.

Just because we have been egregiously and systematically wronged, we cannot pretend that there are not things that we subject ourselves to that we must address for the improvement of our people. Some argue these result from intentional conditioning or social engineering, which may be accurate, but that does not dissolve our responsibility to resist it. For far too long, we have had to survive. Now we must begin to thrive.

Physical wounds have visible healing and damage, but psychological wounds fester under an invisible scab only detected and revealed by behavior. Behavior indicates more than anything your character and self-worth by your actions and not by your words. We must identify what actions and behaviors are counterproductive to our collective interests and obstacles to our advancement.

It is not always the boogie man; sometimes, it is our very own perspective that is frightening. The betrayal of our humanity and our interests can be considered high treason. Certain self-portrayals of ourselves does nothing to dispel some of these stereotypes. This is achieved by practicing this N-word lunacy that is associated with over four hundred years of atrocities. This word has survived many evolutions of society, law, and technology but remains resilient now by our support.

The circumstances where we were so methodically degraded was done using this word. They were denounced as evil; the word must then also be identified as evil and a symbol of that denounced evil. The immorality of this word is undeniable, reprehensible, and unredeemable. Sacrifices have been made, punishments endured, and unfair repercussions overcome for the price to have been long ago paid in full. Unity of our objective must prevail where divide and conquer has persisted in stagnating our interest.

A unified commitment to our equality establishes an axis, standard, and discipline that must be the basis of all our actions as a foundational change. The next frontier is promoting others beyond the limits of past restrictions to explore future possibilities envisioning ourselves as anything possible except for an N-word. Exponential viable advancement to incremental progress is more dependent on us than anyone or anything else. Playing our position or managing our post to hold ourselves accountable, being part of the solution and not the problem, is our needed contribution.

We must recalibrate our perspective, discarding that which does not serve us, rejecting its deceptions. We must declare an elevated reality that does not sabotage our efforts. We can only deny ourselves; we do not need other’s approval to proudly be the best representation of ourselves. Be the best representation of, not an abomination to our culture by cultivating, promoting, and nourishing excellence that demonstrates a worthy portrayal of our character. The results will motivate self-acceptance, generate impartiality from others, and display renowned honor. A singular journey and purpose becomes our collective reality.

The philosophical theories of Plato and Socrates can be interpreted to mean that words reflect thoughts, and thoughts govern actions that shape perceptions that restrict our realities which define limitations within that reality. The N-word perpetuates what thoughts within us and others compel specific actions or attitudes, creating contrary perceptions manifesting some realities that produce the limitations and obstacles contributing to our condition with our consent.

Black folks, kinfolks, and all folks, it is time to bury the N-word in an unmarked grave, never again for us to offend or be offended by it. If others are not permitted to say it or can stop saying it, then we can too. Remember history’s use of this word and that it was the last word that many blacks heard before death, and not in a loving way. Reportedly this was the last word heard by Ahmaud Arbery. Respect the young brother by replacing that word with one we can appreciate and be proud of no matter who uses it. Honor our self and those who have been taken from us. From now on, no N-word should be allowed.

I remember Big Momma use to say it is not what they call you but what you answer to. Mom used to say be known for what you do, say, and what you are called to not bring humiliation upon our last name or yourself. Those who need reprogramming to fill the N-word void should initiate a challenge to creatively replace it with something conclusively empowering and complimentary.

Let me ask you a question. Would you be willing to abandon the use of the N-word if it meant greater equality for our people? What makes you think it won’t? It seems like a small sacrifice for us to pay for the potential reward it would provide. Yet, it is the right thing to do for our children’s legacy to grow up, not embracing a vile reference to themselves no matter how we twist it to be all love. Remember, the restrictions of our minds constrain our movement and ascension, encouraging harmful perceptions. In our declaration of equality and our prosperous future there can be no N-word allowed.

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

 

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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

 

 

 

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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

 

 

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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 protect 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

 

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

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

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0

George Floyd Part 2 of 3- Logical Reasoning



Facts & Questions

Sometimes you must go backwards to retrace and unravel an incident, then proceed forward to a place of clarity. A review or reenactment from the end of the critical incident that claimed Mr. George Floyd’s life analyzed in retrospect will reveal the points incriminating to all parties involved based on the visual evidence and factual inference of the application of the law.

An examination from the end to the beginning of the encounter is a very distinct way to isolate the mental State of mind, the Mens Rea, or intent, so it is legally established. The criminality, the mea culpa or fault, can be best demonstrated by everyone’s actual actions or inactions at critical times according to legal standards.

Were these actions justifiable based upon what was known at the time, what should have been known, or what was being observed throughout that time? Was it within the law and police procedure or a violation? Does the action’s justification rise to the level of its application to the circumstances? Was it legally necessary and permissible? The answers all serve as actual testimony to the facts.

According to the law, inaction can also be an action when there was a duty to act. If there was inaction, was there a duty to act? What action should have been taken, and how could that action have affected the outcome? As a fluid evolving situation, the timing and chronological sequence matter greatly to the incident’s legality and outcome. Diligent analysis of the timing and sequence will reveal crucial determinations of criminality and culpability.

 Our method will state the facts as we believe them to be accurate and then ask the pertinent questions raised. Finally, in Part 3, we will examine the answers by deductive reasoning of the legal application of the law and police departmental policy and procedures, analyzing and suggesting the obvious logical resolutions and interpretations.

Facts: Mr. Floyd, while in handcuffs, was surrounded by four policemen and physically restrained by at least three of them at different times during the incident. He was removed from the scene by responding EMTs on a stretcher, presumably lifeless by all appearances. He was then transported to the hospital by the EMT unit.

Questions: Who radioed in for medical assistance, and at what point during the incident? How many policemen involved spoke with radio regarding medical aid, the reason for the request for EMT, and if requests were made to step up their arrival due to Mr. Floyd’s physical decline? When stating Mr. Floyd’s condition, was there any mention of Chauvin on his neck restricting his breathing? Was that due to an omission or concealment? What was said during the radio transmission? What do the dispatcher recordings and separate notes reflect?

When was a supervisor notified, and by whom did any policemen involved make notifications to advise command? Were there recorded specialized channels that communicated more sensitive information? Did that happen, by whom, and at what time? Were they recorded and reviewed if such secure channel communications took place and reviewed as they most likely should have been pursued by discovery or duces tecum?

What were EMT’s dispatched communications? At what point did the EMTs determine that Mr. Floyd had no vital signs indicating death? Was it before transport, during transport, or at the hospital by medical personnel? What life-saving steps did the EMT’s take, and how did Mr. Floyd respond? Once at the hospital, what life-saving steps were taken, for how long, and by who. What was the information given by the EMTs, are their paperwork and interviews complete and consistent with this information, and when was Mr. Floyd’s actual pronouncement of death?

Were there real-time 911 calls from the public as the critical incident occurred, and how many? What was the content of the policemen’s excited utterances as excited utterances by any party are generally admissible in court as evidence of knowledge or intent? When was the location secured and treated as a crime scene with the Use of Deadly Force Team or Homicide Unit notified to respond on the scene? Was deadly force protocol initiated and maintained, specifically the separation of policemen and preventing collaboration of statements before interviews? Was witness identification and statements gathered?

Facts: The primary policeman later been identified as Chauvin, an 18-year veteran of the force and the senior officer on the scene. Mr. Floyd was pinned to the ground by his neck by Chauvin’s left knee and left front shin area applied to the carotid nerve or artery area of the neck traversing the windpipe, trachea, and larynx.

The carotid artery is located on both sides of the neck. It does not matter which way Mr. Floyd’s head was turned. It would still be exposed. Also, the greater torque or twist of the head, the greater the vulnerability of this neck artery to causing unconsciousness or a fatal outcome. It restricts oxygen and blood flow simultaneously. This restriction occurred for an estimated 8 minutes and 46 seconds, of which approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, presumably unconscious, and probably deceased.

Despite public outcry, repeated warnings expressing concern from fellow officers, and Mr. Floyd’s very own plea Chauvin continued to apply pressure with his total body weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck. The force continuum scale governs police use of force and justifies what type of force is permitted. Code red is the highest level of threat and response category. Any neck restraint classifies as a code red on the force continuum scale, which categorizes the severity of its use as deadly force.

With code red being the highest threat level assessment, the resulting response can only be to preserve life or avoid serious bodily harm but not gain compliance. Any neck restraint is considered deadly force whether used against a policeman or used by a policeman. Due to the deadly force used on Mr. Floyd, it is very likely to have caused or contributed to his death and inflicted serious physical harm upon him. Thus, the necessity or articulation for its use is a problematic violation from its initiation and certainly its continuation.  

Reiterating that he was handcuffed hands behind his back, prone on the ground with four policemen surrounding him already searched and determined to be free of weapons. These circumstances do not support a code red response and neck restraint regardless of however applied. Therefore, it is not and cannot be justified according to the force continuum scale. 

There is, however, no dispute that Mr. Floyd’s death was caused on the scene before EMT arrived, with Chauvin’s neck restraint a factor. Without Chauvin’s knee as a factor, it would suggest that whatever other factors that contributed to Mr. Floyd’s death, he would have succumbed to them at that very moment anyway without Chauvin’s use of excessive force. 

The State certifies the Police Academy and dictates the training criteria and curriculum, which extensively covers the use of force. The City swears in the cadets to become officers, they have the ultimate legal liability and extensively covers the use of force. Technically, the use of force can be shots fired down to as minor as placing someone in handcuffs without incident voluntarily and with utmost cooperation.

The City gives the authority to arrest for misdemeanors and issue citations. The State gives the authority for deadly force and felony arrest, which is why you go to County Court for State charges. Although the State gives you the authority to use deadly force, the City is responsible for that force and subsequent training once the police are sworn in.

 By all standards applied both State and City, force of any kind must be the minimal force necessary to effect an arrest. Thus, force should discontinue proportionately as resistance lessens or it is no longer necessary. But in this instance, it becomes clear it was unnecessary to effect an arrest or gain compliance when Chauvin has his hand in his pocket, and there was no need to use his hands to control Mr. Floyd.

Questions: The question then becomes, was the knee justified in the first place based on the criteria for its use? If he had been a code red threat at any point, what level of threat did he present once he was unresponsive and feared unconscious or deceased?

Once Chauvin’s knee was on his neck constituting deadly force, at what point was Mr. Floyd not a code red threat or actively resisting with the threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone? Was there any discernable level of threat or fear of any kind with four officers present, and Chauvin’s hands in his pockets while his knee was on Mr. Floyd’s neck? 

Would the threat level seem under control and become suspect when policemen feel comfortable enough to turn their back and not be engage otherwise if any threat existed? Was Mr. Floyd allowed to comply, and were there verbal commands and instructions issued for compliance? Had compliance and control already effectively been achieved when three officers had only secondary participation? 

Were Mr. Floyd’s pleadings not an opportunity to ease the use of deadly force. Maybe issue orders to comply following a clear indication of his willingness to comply. But, instead, they disregarded their responsibility and duty to discontinue or cause to be discontinued the use of force absent his resistance or its necessity.

Despite all the concerns about Mr. Floyd’s medical condition expressed before Mr. Floyd laid lifeless, what threat to four policemen’s life or limb was Floyd with his hands cuffed behind his back prone on the ground on his stomach? If we believe their concern for Mr. Floyd’s medical condition, wouldn’t their actions be even more baffling?

With Chauvin on his neck, when did Chauvin order him to comply, or more importantly, what chance did Chauvin give him to comply? Even unresponsive with no pulse, the use of deadly force was not altered to the level of Mr. Floyd’s lack of ability to resist or actual resistance, nor was there any possibly life-saving officer intervention. 

Was a taser, pepper spray, verbal persuasion, or other compliance techniques or less-lethal option available? Why did Chauvin eventually take his knee off Mr. Floyd’s neck? Was it because Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, or Chauvin had killed him? No, that is unlikely because that had already apparently happened minutes before. It was confirmed by no pulse being felt by another policeman. Was the EMT’s arrival the only thing that finally prompted him to remove himself off of Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Aren’t illegal orders and criminal actions to be disobeyed and not participated in or furthered in addition to expectations to be prevented? Isn’t it understood and enforced in any military or quasi-military organization, including the police?

Is it not your vow and commitment to uphold the law and not break it? The movie A Few Good Men is a prime example. You should have done something and had a duty to stop it but did not. If you had intervened, maybe even after Mr. Floyd was unresponsive, could he have been still alive or potentially revived?

 

 

 

Would Mr. Floyd more likely have survived if not for his encounter with Chauvin’s knee? If we cannot say yes for sure that Chauvin was the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death, then we cannot say no either for sure? Can it be denied that the fact is three officers had a duty to step in and stop it, but they did nothing? Instead of intervening at various life-saving points, did they not aid and abet in the murder by either actively assisting or providing protection and crowd neutralization to deter citizen intervention?

Facts: Mr. Floyd is stretched out prone on the ground, handcuffed with hands behind his back face down after being placed there. Prior to being placed on the ground, Mr. Floyd was resistant to being placed in the squad car.

Questions: Were the duration and events which occurred while placed face down on the ground the best course of action or option available, or an indication of indifference to unnecessary use of force? 

Was standing him alongside the squad car or maintaining the position of him being partially in the squad car more preferable given his level of resistance?

What were all policemen’s roles in attempting to get him into the squad car and removing him, placing him on the ground? Whose decision was it to place him prone, and why if he was almost entirely in the squad car?

At what point did they each participate in the chronological order of events and why? Was there a detectable amount of frustration or agitation from the policemen towards Mr. Floyd? Was the reasonableness and level of force used lawful and necessary? 

Facts: The foundation of the law is what was known or reasonably suspected at the time. It governs probable cause and reasonable suspicion from the Constitution and Bill of Rights down to municipal law enforcement and policemen conduct. The history of the policemen involved was not known at the time, just as Mr. Floyd’s history presumably was not known at the time either.

Their histories have no bearing on considering the facts and motivations known at that time, not overriding any action that occurred then. The prevailing influence of histories consistently demonstrates a propensity to act according to a previous pattern, a reluctance exhibited to refrain from an activity, or implied tendencies during an incident. Histories are indications of conduct consistency and by no means restrictive of any number of actions or responses, both positive or negative, demonstrated which are inconsistent with that history.  

Mr. Floyd’s criminal history reveals no prior consistency of code red behavior towards police personnel. Also, after the fact consideration for the two rookie policemen’s lack of history bears no mitigating circumstances to avoid accountability but may indicate their experience but not their lack of knowledge regarding appropriate force. Histories are indicators but not always relevant implications that can be related to a current incident. It also has to be presumed that Chauvin’s alleged previous racial undertones must be considered equally as Mr. Floyd’s run-ins with the law if histories are a factor.

Questions: Why would Mr. Floyd’s history be unfavorable for him, but the history of the four officers not be unfavorable for them if so revealed? So are we to assume the history of the two veteran policemen is disregarded, the history of the two rookie policemen taken into consideration for clemency, but Mr. Floyd’s history held against him?

How could the unknown history at the time somehow indicate that Mr. Floyd needed treatment as a code red level threat in this incident? 

If Mr. Floyd’s history were unknown at the time of the encounter, what bearing could it have on the incident? If he were a priest, what relevance would that have on the incident if unknown, none? How could the incident not be a judgment on the actions of the participants at the time, which would render histories after the fact as irrelevancies?

Facts: The policemen walked Mr. Floyd across the street without incident, and he seemed to have some minor passive resistance but not actively aggressive behavior. He was handcuffed with minimal resistance and without incident or struggle. Mr. Floyd’s action upon being removed from the vehicle would not constitute resisting arrest or being combative. Therefore, it did not meet the physical standard or required warnings to cease and desist or placed under arrest for resisting.

It appeared he was confused and more verbally resistant, attempting to have explained to him what was going on and turning to talk but definitely not combative. Officers said that they noticed a concerning level of distress upon handcuffing Mr. Floyd.

Questions: Before being removed from the car, was Mr. Floyd adequately advised as to what the encounter was concerning? After showing signs of distress during handcuffing, why was Mr. Floyd even taken across the street at all? If Mr. Floyd was showing signs of distress, why was he placed on the ground face down? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, why did Chauvin place his knee on his neck, further complicating his distress? What was observed, and what physical signs and indications conveyed that was concerning? What, how, and when were the signs escalating, indicating decline? 

If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, at what point was this radioed in, and with four officers present, what assistance was he given? Is it prudent or customary to further restrict someone’s breathing if distress is suspected? Was there a belief that Chauvin’s weight on Mr. Floyd’s neck was in any way assisting him and a benefit to his distress? Was the delay in requesting medical attention from the initial suspicion before bringing him across the street justified, or the whole distress story a fabrication to cover the cause of his death?

What should have been the policemen’s response? Was there any reason for any delay in offering assistance, requesting EMT, or removing Chauvin off the neck of what you have stated was an obviously medically distressed person? If Mr. Floyd showed signs of distress, what distress signs were radio notified of to better inform the EMT dispatcher of the progression of his symptoms other than a grown man being on his neck? 

Imagine suspecting he was having a heart attack. Would you place him on his stomach with an over 200-pound man on his neck? Why was no aid rendered or attempted during his distress after he displayed no pulse? After displaying no pulse, did the other officers feel it was a lawful and necessary use of force for Chauvin to remain on Mr. Floyd’s neck?

Facts: The policemen responded to a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill passed at the store and received information that directed them to Mr. Floyd across the street. Almost immediately upon approach, the policeman escalates the situation by unnecessarily pulling his gun, revealing his disposition that Mr. Floyd knew it was a counterfeit bill. His demeanor was to prevent an escape or assume a threat level fearful enough to pull his service weapon, but why? You cannot just draw your gun on someone for a conversation. Was there a visible threat, or what justified this approach?

Questions: Was the twenty-dollar bill marked and taken as evidence prior to approaching Mr. Floyd? Did they know the counterfeit protocol of notifying the Secret Service and recording the individual’s information to be forwarded in a report? Should they have known counterfeiting is a federal crime and is only arrestable by a federal agent or by prior federal authorization? Finally, did they know that they lacked the authority to arrest him without providing he knew that it was counterfeit? 

Subsequently, was the counterfeit money found to have Mr. Floyd’s DNA or prints on it confirming after his death that he had indeed possessed the fake? Could they or did they know if Mr. Floyd had knowledge that it was counterfeit or how he obtained it?

Aren’t the Secret Service only interested in printing operations and patterns, not random twenty-dollar bills in which they cannot prove knowledge or intent? With authority to investigate but not arrest, why was any force at all used? Is it common knowledge that counterfeit money is in public circulation and could conceivably fall into the unsuspecting hand of any law-abiding citizen unbeknownst to them?  

Is there a point where the crime does not justify the force used or even handcuffing for a nonviolent cold stand or questioning? Can the actions leading to his death be justified compared to the nature of the crime, the public danger posed, or threats posed endangering the policemen’s safety? Was Mr. Floyd’s race a factor in the handling of this incident? Were the other policemen in fear of Chauvin or his reputation? Would a conversation, patience, or verbal persuasion have been more suitable, and is it also taught as a tool for law enforcement?

Reverse engineering of the circumstance and events reveals the highest contrast in logical continuity between what actually happened and what is said to have happened. Often when constructing a fabrication, it cannot pass the scrutiny of reverse analysis. It is constructed to make the pieces fit conceptually in a progression that only lends itself to conventional rationale, not in-depth questioning. The contemplation of why something would be necessary if the previous assertion is true becomes an evident contradiction. If it were true, it would be no need for the subsequent action.

For example, if they had honestly thought Mr. Floyd was experiencing distress before his death, why would Chauvin continue his behavior, or they allow it. It stands more to reason that they needed to conceal something and quickly falsified an implausible explaination that contradicts their prior assertions, actions, and the chronological sequence of events.

Their explanation leaves them exposed in too many areas lacking justification to be accurate. Moreover, it blatantly illuminates that if what they said were true, then countermeasures would not have been necessary, or otherwise, their action could not have been consistent with their initial assertion.

All indications are that their concern was for exposure from Chauvin’s reckless and willful misconduct, which left them assessing what they were part and parcel of was improper. Mr. Floyd needing medical attention could only be exacerbated by the distress inflicted upon him by Chauvin and their inaction. 

Now that the illumination of contradictions has been identified by the questions raised, then deductive conclusions of guilt can be examined and proven. Furthermore, did the punishment fit the crime or did the tactics fit the situation? Keep in mind even self-defense only allows for the force that neutralizes a threat and not beyond the danger posed.     

 

Thurston K. Atlas

Creating A Buzz

Posted on by whenplaytimeisover_xlw47n 0