Frank Serpico: Police are out of control

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bluntzilla420, Oct 29, 2014.

  1. This is a good reason for Americans to have unconditional support for a lawful and peaceful revolution.

    It is one of the easier things to fix.
    Through the continuous application of Cognitive Infiltration techniques citizens will be fixed. A happier world, a better world. There is no need to revolution when the human mind can be bent to the will of another. Peace for all!
  3. Typical coginfil, misrepresenting context to confuse and mislead.

    Through a lawful and peaceful revolution courts can be fixed. Through just courts, corrupt law enforcement can be corrected. Major policies of law enforcement can even be adjusted.
    You can be adjusted through selective cognitive infiltration. Eventually 2 + 2 will equal 5 and you will publicly cheer that!
    If only it was that easy, but too many factors predetermine that. Mainly, because judges and court officials are just as corrupt as those standing trial.
    Wrong and wrong and wrong.
    I will publically cheer the beginning of the a lawful and peaceful revolution completely possible by citizens unity upon constitutional intent and Article V.  Our fist right, to "alter or abolish" as codified in 1787 with the intent of the Declaration of Independence from 1776
  7. #8 Yana Usdi, Oct 29, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2014
    The courts... back in 1775 an event we now call the Boston Massacre took place. It could have easily turned into a kangaroo court with vengeance executions but for the efforts of one of our founders, John Adams, who took it upon himself to defend the accused. Adams would later go on the serve as President. At the time he took a lot of heat for it but he said it was one of the finest things he had ever done, not in the interest of the British soldiers but in the interest of justice.
    The same act today would not only bar them from going on to become President (can you imagine the 'traitor lover' 30 second ads?) but in much of the nation would have barred them from even serving as a judge or any number of other things. In many States such as Texas the judiciary is elected and subject to the same pressures, outside funding and politics, that our other elections are subject to. Corporations, special interests, they all play a part in picking our judges no matter if they live in the State or not, the biggest ad budget too often the winner. Where they aren't elected they are appointed by the very same politicians we want them to control. Think that one through for a bit.
    The main thing serving us at the moment is the fact that court appointments, where they are appointed instead of elected, are often for long terms up to and including life so it changes slower than politics in general. Where the courts do act as a restraining influence I see it as more due to them being appointed by a slightly less reactive, less demagogue driven ideology which dominated in past decades but as they leave the court and are replaced by todays politicians they will increasingly reflect the attitudes and judgements of todays politicians. The bravery of people like Adams, taking a very unpopular and risky stand, is hard to find these days and too often punished by us. And then we wonder why we don't see more of it.
    Thank you for that post!  Most excellent information. 
    Excellent points upon the creation of our judiciary.  Actually you have well underlined an issue I've long pondered, and you've underlined it with the proper perspective for me to use in stating, judicial positions need to be more fairly created and maintained across states and the federal government. 
    With that said, the lawful and peaceful revolution I would propose, which truly begins with an Article V convention occurring in 3/4 of the states, would proceed through the amendments needed to prepare the nation for democratic actions in their states upon proposing amendments and ratifying them, assuring ALL to follow have maximum constitutional intent.  Such intent can only be defined by people who are well informed upon issues and conditions, and the proposed preparation should take care of that as well as assuring that representatives are the best that can be to meet such intent.
    1) The right to alter or abolish, Article V is revised to include clause assuring the American people are prepared to define constitutional intent.
    2) Ending the abridging of freedom of speech
    3) Securing the vote
    4) Campaign finance reform
    Interesting that despite the risk Adams took, he was still elected as president.  Such action by the people indicates that there was a far better understanding of the truth of the situation he was in, by the people, with his representing the British officer, and what really happened, than history generally holds.
  9. Unfortunately I don't think the fix is structural, I think it's psychological and the problem in the end comes down to us as citizens. We forgot that there was supposed to be a 4th active arm of government in this nation, an informed and involved electorate. That's the one that failed first and allowed the rest of it to happen and I don't see a fix which doesn't start with that changing first. On all sides of the political isle.
    The right for example manages to ignore everything from Beirut under Reagan to the loss of a UN compound in Iraq and any number of others as just some of those things that happen,but let one happen under Obama and all the sudden they have what looks to me like Benghazi Tourette Syndrome. None of it is well balanced, honest, or anchored in anything like honest arguments but it suits the political narrative and we're sucked in to it.
    The left isn't any better, for example the so called assault weapons ban. Many seem to think we're talking automatic weapons or something when we aren't and when you get into the nuts and bolts of the acts themselves they tend to restrict stupid crap like bayonet mounts which have played no part at all in the types of crimes we're actually seeing. The idea of gun control on principle aside the proposed laws too often can't really help as they aren't pointed at the real problems.
    The only fix that I see is for the people, or a large enough portion of us at least, to finally get tired of the fear and manipulation. If you're watching the news and it seems you're being pushed into being afraid rather than informed then change the fucking channel and let them know why you did so. If a politician tries to manipulate with fear vote against them just for the fact that they want to manipulate rather than inform you, and so on. We can't bitch about a lack of reality in our politics and news if we not only aren't willing to demand it but we actively seek entertainment over information.
    The problem in the end is us, and the first thing we need to change to fix it is us.
  10. the second and fifth ammendmends need to he respected as well.

    Too many people buy into the nothing to hide bit

  11. #12 ChristopherABrown, Oct 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2014
    Agreed, but there are some aspects missing.
    We failed, but it was by structural design or induced flaw.
    In the competition for inclusion or exclusion of concept in the framing documents. A critical natural law doctrine surrounding the greater meaning of free speech was fractured and a critical part which empowered the people in unity for protection of rights was excluded.

    That fracturing started with the listing of unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence and went through 1787 leaving no mention of preparing to alter or abolish in Article V with an assurance of the people determining constitutional intent then culminated with the First Amendment in 1792.

    It is a powerful natural law doctrine that engages the best instincts of humanity. It came from the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy, more specifically the Seneca. It is called the "Greater meaning of free speech" and goes like this.

    From free speech between people an understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Amongst the framers were elements secretly loyal to the king. They banded together and covertly prevented the inclusion of the entire thing in the Declaration of Independence. The framers insisted on Article V, got it in, but the societal mechanism by which "alter or abolish" was already fractured because the tool of human unity was in pieces part missing.

    Okay, I admit that does not help us a great deal now, but it does define the catch 22 situation and with define a path out of this dilemma.

    Mostly I'm trying to point out that it was not all the people's fault. There literally was a semi global conspiracy, by a central group under the empire of Rome working to prevent America from being able to unify and defend its freedom.

    That's us here mow, but we've still got a conspiracy of cognitive infiltration working to blur positive human instinct and prevent unity. That's on top of the media manipulation you describe.

    Notice in preparation for Article V, the abridging of free speech is ended almost immediately. That is to counter EXACTLY the effects you describe.

    I agree, because IF we try, and stand for the 1787 constitution unconditionally, we can create enough of an education to overcome the divisive effects of party politics and stand unified for the principles the constitution stands for.

    Understanding HOW we got divided and what enabled the human bonds between us to weaken is a primary understanding we need to begin.

    People have more reason now than ever to heed discussion such as this one and abandon beliefs that separate and weaken.

    Have you seen what is happening in the thread

    If Free Speech Had A Purpose, Would You Recognize It?-This & Your 1St Right

    and what has gone on for 23 pages?

    Those people I am arguing with are not "us".
  12. Ok, I don't want to ignore the rest but I don't want to get so caught up in the details that we miss the big picture so I'll try to keep it to the main point I want to make and deal with the rest if it's relevant later, ok?
    I browsed the thread briefly but not in detail, to tell the truth political arguments tend to bore me because it's too often either a matter of 'us' vs 'them' or a matter of us not even sharing the same supposed facts due to differing news sources so we're not even having the same debate. I get bored with going over the details, and arguing over which details are even real or not. Did it for too many years already I guess ;) But I do want to make two (iI think) important points.
    First of all try to drop the idea of conspiracy and such. Yeah, in some cases things really happen and our courts convict on the charge all the time but most which we see in debate tend to be poorly sourced if at all and too full of connect the dot speculation. Even if all of the speculation was true, which is a long shot at best in most cases, half of your audience stops listening as soon as you start talking conspiracy. If you've got a real case to make it can probably be made on arguments of pure self serving greed and self interest (which is probably both more accurate and easier to prove in most cases). The public understands corruption and greed, conspiracy not so much.
    The last line is the biggest point I want to make though. There is no "us" unless you're talking about pretty much all of us. When I say that I'm tired of all of this left/right white/black whatever crap I mean I'm tired of all of it, and what's more if you want a conspiracy what's older than divide and conquer? The left and right in many cases aren't that far apart, nor the rich or poor, or any number of other groups, not as far as they think at least. You know how creationism debates too often involve not real versions of science but a cartoon version they were taught by someone hostile to science, how they argue not against science but against a lie they've been told about science? Same applies in most of the above as well. The libs for the most part don't want cradle to grave welfare, what they want is a hand when you need it and a shot at an education and such. The conservatives really aren't knuckle dragging neanderthals, most of our impressions of each other are cartoons and that's what we are against. If there is a "them" it would be the parts of the 1% who abuse their power to buy elections and manipulate our courts, laws and business environment. I don't even blame all of them though I'd damned sure like to see some of them in prison. The more "they" keep us fighting against each other the less we notice our real problems.
    Us against them in almost any context (in terms of our internal debates in the US) I see as almost always destructive. The more you come off as someone who's got it all figured out the less they'll listen, after all if you aren't listening then why should they? Stop trying to tell them about cognitive Infiltration techniques and just have a conversation with them as equals, it'll work better in the end I'd think.
  13. Before this thread gets too off track (sorry about that) I wanted to point back the the original premise of the thread. If anyone hasn't read the article yet you should, it's a little long compared to much we see these days but pretty good.
    Two examples he didn't really touch on that bother me are property seizure and the militarization of the police, both have got a bit of press coverage recently so there's probably a bit of current press out there for anyone interested in it.
    With property seizure they can take anything from cash to cars to homes or anything else they can get hold of in some places, some departments get major portions of their funding this way and couldn't survive anymore without it so there's an incentive to keep it coming. They can take it without ever even charging you with a crime, let alone convicting. The charge is against the property rather than against you and you have to go to court to prove you have the right to keep it, generally expensive enough that for many people they either can't afford to fight at all or are forced to take pennies on the dollar of their own property back.
    With the militarization of the police we've got everything from the distribution of war surplus to local police forces down to the SWAT raids we see way too much of. The SWAT raids are the part I'm more familiar with and over time they've increased exponentially with them now being used for cases that decades ago would have been a simple door knock and service of a warrant. One of the biggest problems with this comes from simple mistakes, be they caused by a wrong address or informant lies or whatever. The results of some of those mistakes can be browsed at an old link I have from my drug war activist days.
  14. Some good points there. Keeping issues separate is important though.
    Below several groups are getting mixed.
    I am talking about all of us NOT a part of a conspiracy to divide (which does exist) regarding a strategy and plan to assure rights and freedoms are protected with unity and humanity overcomes tyranny to prevail in survival and evolution.
    Dividing off the conspirators so they cannot confuse humanity before it can become an "us", or unify, is the point of the thread linked.

    There is a political conspiracy to prevent needed philosophical concept for unity from being understood and my point about the fragmentation of concept integration in the framing documents is what that is about. It continues today.

    The thread the conspirators complained about and had moved from the political forum to Pandora's box has the proof of the conspiracy they operate in.

    So in order to assure that you are not a conspirator I ask if you can agree and accept that the ultimate root purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?
  15. In terms of conspiracy there might be, might not, but if pushing the idea of conspiracy is itself destructive to your efforts then is it helpful to push that point even if you do believe it to be true? For example I'm no fan of media consolidation, too much of our information is funneled through too few sources with ownership so confused by subsidiary corps that we most of the time aren't even aware of who we're getting our information from in the end. I wrote a brief note about that in the media thread of the science forum that gives the basic shape of the problem.
    It would be easy to write that off to a mass conspiracy, an attempt to control us and crap, but it's a lot more productive, easier to prove, and easier to convince others it's a real problem when approached as simply the powerful doing what all of us do in the end. Serving our own self interest. They tell us about wall street rather than main street because that's what's important to them, they tell us about all kinds of things that improve or inform those at the top more so than those at the bottom. The biggest reason (in my opinion) why the public is so much more sympathetic as a whole to the arguments of power rather than of people like themselves is simply that this is what they are taught and raised on from childhood. If there's a conspiracy (which I tend to doubt) how would it be proved? But the fact that people do serve their own interests can be proved and with that we can explain any number of things.
    Now I'm not saying that any of it is real or not, what I'm asking is what's the point of arguing it if the effort is destructive to the goal you want to achieve?
    In terms of assuring "that you are not a conspirator", I'm honestly amused but I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. My activism days are done and I don't have a point to prove or a reputation to defend, not to anyone. I'm happy enough to talk with people who do want to do it and share some of what's worked or not worked for me but past that and posting on occasion mostly out of boredom, I really don't care. The premise of having to prove it though will have me smiling all day, thanks for that ;)
    It's kinda like the old thing where people were convinced that asking "are you a cop" would get an honest answer. They can lie you know. If someone mouths appropriate words at you, does that really prove anything? Really? I've no interest in playing the game.
  16. He would have called you an infiltrator had you disagreed with his statement. He's very one sided, and a few of us believe him to be mentally unstable.

    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
  17. Well, I might be a little nuts too, it makes life more interesting :rolleyes:
    I've seen people go from one side of an issue to another too often to give up on people who show the energy and interest that they do, at least not without giving it an effort and seeing if they are open to new ideas. There's a web page out there called The Thinking Atheist which is run by a guy who was a life long committed believer, so much so that he made his living working at a radio station which did nothing but. He's now a leading voice for the other side of the debate, and an effective one. I've seen other changes that were as drastic, climate change denier to supporter, and so on.
    If someone can make that drastic a change I don't see why other changes aren't possible too, probable even if you deal with large numbers of people rather than concentrate on an individual. Take that energy and drive, give it a better focus and such and they could do some good. Or not, up to them in the end, but it's worth seeing what they want to do and if they are willing to work on making a difference rather than a gesture which is all I see it amounting to with the current approach.
  18. I can certainly agree with that, it's his rampant use of infiltrator that's bothers me. If he wants to change minds, calling people basically lying deceiving individuals is flat out wrong an insulting.

    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
  19. #20 ChristopherABrown, Oct 31, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 31, 2014
    Not a game.  Interest in unity or supporting it is what the question is about.  An honest answer only comes from a sincere American that fully support rights and freedoms AND their protection within a rock solid plan for a lawful peaceful revolution.  A cognitive infiltrator would never answer, even with a lie.  Think about it.
    Critical thinking is our friend, along with absolutes.
    Curious how the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech" didn't rate even a comment.

Share This Page