Predatory Police Power

The police are the cold unfeeling arm of the rising technocratic age.  The collective consciousness has been lulled into a synthetic reality, which is partially the cosmetic corporatist façade perpetrated by the endless barrage of pervasive marketing, also the sterilized lack-luster muted tone existence of domestication and empty dreams propped up with life by injections of professional sports, soulless pop music, a nauseating parade of propaganda films projecting the same ideal narrative with the implication everyone should strive for this crisp, pleasant, general euphoria the characters seem to be experiencing.

This condition of mass brainwashing, the new opium of the masses via the insatiable inebriation of popular culture disables the public’s defenses physically and psychologically.  The first step of this metaphorical disarming of the people is the unconditional authority worship instilled in the impressionable youth in the early formative years.  Intellectual cripples are bred carefully through this long process of conditioning, with one menacing technique of constant and belligerent mass ‘gas lighting’.  The public floats in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance, reinforced by constant over-the-top lies, psychological operations, and false-flag attacks coupled with a hostile, and aggressive nationalism based on brutal elitism; the result being a demoralized population, overwhelmed with a barrage of corruption and outright treason, the mind reels, the will is overcome, and the once independent souls give in, roll over and just take everything.  The result of this constant berating is a form of ‘Stockholm syndrome’ which causes the victim to love and defend his/her captor.

At this point, one might marvel at the seemingly melodramatic comparison between public education and a hostage situation, but this might actually be a rather light example, considering the current state of affairs the nation finds itself in, in a collective context.  The profound lack of creative energy is abhorrent to say the least.  Original, authentic, and masterful pursuits are stifled from an early age, and those rebellious individualist desires are replaced with conformist patterns, a dissent into a mediocre abyss.  The bright spark of potential that exists in everyone becomes atrophied from a deliberate determination to extinguish its growth.

The television has become a virtually unrivaled tool of mass mind control.  There is an ever increasing method of strong propaganda emerging, and that is the psy-op of ‘’cop shows’’ and their demonization of libertarians.  The characters in these episodes are: gun owners, home schooled, ones fundamentally opposed to vaccines, libertarians, Christians, ‘9-11 thruthers’, or conspiracy theorists, and rural folk; they are always the criminals who use their rights to their advantage to game the system.  They are portrayed, without fail, as immoral and insidious types of people.  The most extreme examples of each one of the ‘types’ listed above are used, the ‘conspiracy theorist’ they say:

“Johnny just went nuts after he got online and found the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website–he was never the same after that!  Now he rambles about controlled demolitions and thermite found by some physics professor at ground zero, the CIA/NSA monitoring his every move and MK-Ultra mind experiments!”

The Christians are always cast as cult leaders or brain-dead followers of some cult modeled after the Branch Davidians or Jim Jones.

Gun owners, and military veterans are always members of a neo-Nazi militia intent on planning terrorism on federal buildings.

The home schooled, anti-vaccine rural folk are framed as uneducated, socially awkward raving lunatics who find an excuse to quote the bible in between every sentence, they oppose public school and vaccines not because public schools are automaton breeding factories or vaccines are produced with mercury and viruses from animal tissue, and typically have dangerous and potentially fatal side-effects, but because they are skeptical of science and untrustworthy of ‘sinful city-slickers’.

Defense lawyers are seen as annoying barriers towards seeking justice for the victims. Defense lawyers are cast as the most hideous villains, always portrayed as some career driven narcissist who only cares about publicity, and always defending some pathetic obviously guilty charming psychopath who always knows how to use his rights to avoid prosecutions.

The constitution is seen as some out-of-date scrap of trash that just needs a different interpretation, because technology is moving too fast, and if only we could overcome the barriers of the old laws like the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and that ‘neo-confederate’ tenth amendment too, then we could seek justice for all and it would rain gum drops in the 100+% tax socialist utopia.

Rights are always seen as something that must be overcome—‘if only we could break into his house to find the incriminating evidence then we’d have a case against him!’

The most extreme examples of crimes are used to justify finding ways around the fourth amendment like new biometric scanning or hacking into computer system without a warrant issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized–yes, in these television shows the judges and district attorneys are always unconditionally bound by the laws, much to the inconvenience of seeking justice for the victim.  This is unlike the real world where the Bill of Rights has been discarded.

The police, detectives, and DA always have the moral high ground, and they are always superior beings in contrast to the public, who are cast as drooling incompetent morons who can’t even blow their nose, or wipe anything else for that matter, let alone be productive members of society.

The second amendment is a privilege granted by the state to the public, drooling morons, incompetent fools, domesticated animals, gullible slobs who need the strong, all knowing moral police to protect them and are denied the god-given right of self-defense–God forbid they have a gun.  Every time someone is caught with a gun they are treated like the worst class of degenerate scum.  Everyone shrieks—‘Gun!  Gun!  Gun!’ like it is the end of the world.

Despite the carefully crafted pristine image painted on television of the moral crusader police force, the real world tells a different story.

The police have become offenders of all means of brutality.  There is an epidemic of hideous abuses of police power demonstrated on a weekly basis all across the world.

There seems to be a serious lack of statistics on the murder of citizens by police, but a few watchdog organizations are compiling evidence to document this bizarre phenomenon.

According to filmingcops.com police have killed over 5,000 people in no-knock raids alone, this number is up by 4,000% since the 80’s. Compare that with the Iraq war with 3,500 troops killed by Iraqi insurgents.  In Afghanistan about 2,000 troops have been killed by insurgents.  You are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.

The police no longer protect and serve—what used to be called peace officers.  Peaceful protest have been met with swarms of black clad officers armed with riot gear.  They are in combat mode against what declassified DHS reports suggest ‘anti-war protestors’ and those who reference the United States Constitution are the new terrorists.

Seems like every day some power-hungry lunatic police officer is killing someone, or at least injuring them horribly, and if they die? ‘Oh they had a condition’–the death is never from the brutal beating they endured by the gang of thug police officers.

Police brutality is becoming constant, a new death or serious injury at the hands of these ravenous psychopaths on an insane power trip is more frequent; the man pulled out of his wheel chair and beat to a pulp, the down syndrome homeless man beat to death by six officers, the foreign man who was shot for not understanding an officer’s commands, the deaf man who was tased for trying to communicate, and even the barking dog who was killed for barking, just to name a few recent cases of innocent victims of the hideous blood thirsty corrupt death merchants.  Police are often held to a different standard, with more leeway for crimes.

It seems to be the policy to shoot first and ask questions later no matter the circumstances, many internet videos show countless unarmed civilians being shot without provocation of any kind.

Cops, if held to the same standard of the public would have a higher murder rate of over 400% than the citizens.  They believe checkpoints and ‘stop and frisk’ are justified by the constitution because they are ‘protecting’ everyone.

Brave whistleblowers have revealed what the public already knew, that the police do in fact have quotas to follow, instructions given to them during their morning brief by the captain, and a policy of racial profiling has been established, and encouraged with the unconstitutional, fourth amendment violating,  ‘stop and frisk’ policy.

The world of Minority Report illustrated by Philip K. Dick where police arrest civilians for being guilty of pre crime has manifested itself,

Intelligence led policing is the theory of proactive and covert policing which encourages the practice of analyzing demographic patterns with mass surveillance and data bases feeding computer algorithms to detect crime ‘hot spots’.  The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 seem to justify the radical change in the theory of police work from the ‘traditional’ to the intelligence-based model.

From the US Department of Justices’ report:  ‘Intelligence-led Policing the New Intelligence Architecture’, the report mentions respecting the individual’s civil liberties when analyzing intelligence information, it goes on to mention that few states have laws in place regarding intelligence policing, and it completely rewrites the fourth amendment’s requirement of probable cause, it reads:

“Information gathering for intelligence purposes shall be premised on circumstances that provide a reasonable suspicion (as defined in 28 C.F.R., Part 23, Section 23.3 c) that specific individuals or organizations may be planning or engaging in criminal activity.”

The fourth amendment of the US Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In a section entitled, ‘Strategic Targeting’ the report suggests profiling individuals that will produce the best results:

“Strategic targeting and prioritization are other critical roles of intelligence. Law enforcement agencies with tight budgets and personnel reductions or shortages must use their available resources carefully, targeting individuals, locations, and operations that promise the greatest results and the best chances for success. Case or lead overloads can reduce investigators’ efficiency unless they know how to identify the most fruitful leads. Intelligence enables officers to work more efficiently.  For example, to help fight terrorism and domestic extremism, the California Department of Justice examines group characteristics, criminal predicates, target analyses, and intervention consequences to determine which groups pose the greatest threat to the state.”

The report then suggests that through the merging of the police departments with an emphasis on gathering vast amounts of data on private citizens one can acquire patterns, and decipher the hidden terrorist lurking inside every seemingly innocent individual, it states:

“Good policing is good terrorism prevention. In other words, professional policing of any kind is instrumental in uncovering intelligence associated with both terrorist activities and conventional crimes. Encouraging this perspective enables local police departments to involve line officers more actively and to reinforce the fact that enforcement, crime prevention, and terrorism prevention are interrelated.”

In the section on security, it suggests the most advanced security because:
“Security is paramount for intelligence operations because the materials found in intelligence files may be unproved allegations rather than facts.”

The intelligence-led policing study stresses the importance of a powerful data base that will be able to organize the information appropriately.  The new quantum computers will be able manufacture the preventative measures they desire by quantifying a vast amount of data, and condensing it into simplified pieces of information, for example filtering a person’s entire life: their phone records-calls and texts, financial transactions, business and tax records, internet searches, travel destinations, daily activities, and other intimate details all condensed into a convenient profile which may fit into the preconceived notion of what has been established as a ‘terrorist’ according to current definitions, whoever seems to be the ‘enemy of the state’ at that moment.  For example, post 9/11 it was radical Islam, and shortly after that the target shifted to ‘patriotic movements’ within the United States.

These quantum computers differ from the conventional computers in the sense that they seem to calculate issues on different levels and dimensions.  They use quantum bits, or qubits, instead of binary digits.  They have more the potential of more advanced algorithms based on the principal of multiple states existing simultaneously like the famous example of the cat in the box who exists in a state of life and death at the same time.

There is definitely an increasing militarization of the police, and another aspect of that comes from the Rand Corporation’s US stability Police Force.

According to the Rand Corporation’s report: A Stability Police Force for the United States, an outright outline for marshal law is provided, it discusses an international stabilization police force that could be possibly housed in the Department of Defence or Homeland Security as a possible extension of these departments or a separate entity.  The report implies that the agency will be used to stabilize war-torn regions in foreign countries, but considering many disturbing domestic trends in the United States today it is not so far-fetched to conceive this new agency being deployed, and used against American citizens.

“The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents.”

The purpose of this stability police force is to synthesize the needs of military and civilian police in countries under-going some type of national crisis or emergency.  It is concerning that the document suggests adding the agency as an extension to Homeland Security, because although it asserts this is for foreign policy, the section describing its creation, housing, and training laments the existence of the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the military from policing citizens, it suggests that with this ‘constraint’ the stability force can’t operate with certain branches of the military.  It is necessary to be wary of this new organization, because the entirety of the document appears to be an outline for marshal law, providing the logistics for a domestic police state.  Is it plausible to assume that this report could outline a covert agenda to create an additional military police force, an extension of Homeland Security, who has openly implied ‘right wing extremists’ as a terror threat, and when there is overwhelming evidence of an increased police state nation-wide?

Robot police, according to Foreign Affairs article Beware the Killer Robots by Charli Carpenter July 2013 UN reports estimate countries like South Korea, the United Kingdom, Israel, and the United States are increasingly developing robots with varying degrees of autonomy for battle.  India is the first country announcing its plans to develop a completely autonomous battle-bot.  The United Nations is proposing a moratorium on the production of autonomous lethal robots because of potential death tolls, much like chemical weapons, land mines, and cluster munitions which demonstrably cause indiscriminate killing and other implements like expanding bullets and blinding lasers that have been banned completely because they caused ‘superfluous injury’.

FBI director Robert Mueller admitted Drones are used to monitor US citizens, and recently leaked Snowden documents reveal that military kill lists are based on NSA meta-data.

Drones are promoted by government officials to be able to aid in raids, uncover ‘illegal private gun purchases’ like a famous DHS video promoting the use of drones in investigations, it shows a man selling a rifle out of his truck.

Drone policy—In a Foreign Affairs article Stein examines the rising use of drones to monitor foreign countries.  Should foreign nations be able to shoot down the robots we use to spy on them?  I mean, we ARE the untouchable above-the-law Imperial United States of Technocratic Oligarchy, who can do no wrong, right?

In a section from the foreign affairs article, Drone Decrees, by Aaron Stein Dec. 19, 2013, the article discusses the changing political climate and changing dynamics in a world where unmanned aircraft are becoming the norm for foreign and domestic surveillance.

In the Foreign Affairs article, author Stein suggests implementing the policy of treating drones the same as manned aircraft for times when it is found prudent by foreign countries to shoot them down.

“In the Gulf, the United States has sporadically opted to escort its surveillance drones with manned fighter jets, which raises the cost of such operations as well as the risk of escalation. Absent a clear norm on the response to shooting down an unmanned system, incidents involving drones could snowball quickly. And that is why the United States should develop a clear policy about the targeting of drones. It should be designed to prevent unintended escalation by defining the cost of provocatively using or targeting unmanned systems. These rules would need to apply to all parties, including the United States.  First, the United States should signal that it would hold the operator responsible for the actions of unmanned systems. Any retaliation need not target the actual operator, given the complexity of locating the pilot, but could include the air base from which the drone was launched. The goal would be to reintroduce the prospect of casualties and escalation into the drone equation by clearly laying out the potential American response if an adversary considers using unmanned systems in a coercive way against the United States or its allies and partners. In short, U.S. policy should be to treat drones like their manned cousins. Similarly, in the cases where a potential adversary targets a U.S. drone, Washington should make clear that it regards such an act as akin to the downing of a manned aircraft. The response, therefore, could include the use of force or strong diplomatic action.

There was a case in Colorado where the town of Deer Trail, reacting to government admissions of domestic drone surveillance, they proposed a bounty of $100 for drones to secure the air space of the town after the individuals over 21 years old received a ‘drone hunting license’.

The FAA issued a statement shortly after the consideration of this ordinance by the Colorado town, who asserts they are a ‘sovereign political entity entitled to protect their airspace’, the government agency decried the constitutional actions of the town of Deer Trail, and they implied sovereignty is an old-fashioned and antiquated concept by declaring they are the only ones who can protect the national airspace, their statement included a claim that people could be injured by a falling drone which is the government property, they would also treat the incident the same as the shooting down of a manned aircraft; their statement neglected the fact that drones have killed thousands of innocent people all over the world in the name of the ‘war on terrorism’ and if you purge the world of one of these instruments of death you are considered a menace, but if you utilize one of these murderous weapons to slaughter innocent civilians you receive a Nobel Peace Prize.

Government agencies like the DHS, and recently the US Postal Service have been making bulk purchases of ammunition in an unprecedented display of heightened paranoia or blatant hypocrisy when there is such a push for citizens to disarm, despite the obvious American tradition of keeping the tyrannical governments at bay with a well-armed population, to quote Thomas Jefferson, when the people fear the government there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people there is liberty.

The DHS recently purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition for ‘target practice’ although the rounds were hollow point bullets which would be impractical for such a use, and then they claimed it was just economical to purchase in bulk.  The government has demonized the purchase of firearms, while simultaneously they have begun arming to the teeth, and there was also a purchase of paper targets depicting civilians:  pregnant women, children, elderly, and more.

Recently in Virginia, a small American city replica was built costing tax payers 94 million dollars, it includes a subway, football field, and a church; the city is supposed to be training for foreign occupation, but the town clearly resembles an Any town, USA.  This piece of news dovetails with declassified government documents citing gun owners and veterans as the new terror threat.

According to DHS Right-Wing Extremist Terror Report, the focus of the war on terror is the domestic and the new terror threat is veterans, gun owners, Christians, libertarians, anti-war activists, and anyone who makes reference to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

What they fail to point out is the loosely defined term of ‘terrorist’ and how concepts like: ‘the enemy combatant’ can be easily manipulated to include American citizens.  According to the ‘Right-Wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalizing and Recruitment’ 2009 Department of Homeland Security report, the new terrorists are gun owners, veterans, anti-war protestors, immigration protestors and those suspicious of the federal government; this report repeatedly combines what it refers to as ‘right-wing extremists’ with white supremacist groups.  It constantly refers to an ‘anti-government’ attitude, disgruntled people obsessed with the new African American President, and those angered over the increasing immigrant population—libertarian constitutionalists are also categorized with all of the above.  Anyone who makes reference to a ‘new world order’ or a ‘north American union’ are also suspects of terrorism.

According to the leaked 2009 MIAC Strategic Report on the Modern Militia Movement, those who are critical of the federal government, the corporate Federal Reserve, libertarians, constitutionalists, Christians, those who support third party candidates, and citizens concerned with sovereignty or ‘common law’ are considered terrorists.

The absurdity of being involved in a global ‘war on terror’ with radical Islam is worse when one considers the links that President Obama has with many terrorist organizations:  The Weather Underground, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda (Al-CIA-da).  In 2013 Obama waived section 40 and 40a of the Arms Export Control Act to supply ‘Al-Qaeda freedom fighters’ in Syria with weapons.

The move to consolidate the police with intelligence agencies for a more efficient law enforcement model based on preventative measures based on preconceived notions and government propaganda–all based on an official narrative of organized crime at the state level, orchestrated by rogue elements, the phenomenon of ‘false-flag terror attacks’ continues to be neglected from the mainstream discussion, and if authorities continue to operate on a false basis of ‘intelligence-led policing’ which does nothing but reinforce past prejudices, by design it cannot produce new data, it is all based on the faulty preexisting information which is subject to many variables contributing to its lack of validity; the assumption is that the civilians are objects locked in a static environment with preset actions waiting to manifest, they are void of free will, and in this system, it is not unreasonable to have an automatic presumption of guilt about any of these ‘terrorists’, who used to be free, private citizens in a time not ruled by fear, a time not so long ago.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s