Monday, June 15, 2009

The Beginning of A Meme: As America Approaches Gestapo Levels of Surveillance - It's The Street Brothers Who Sound The Alarm

21 comments:

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

What he really meant to say was that if he knew that he lived next to a serial killer, he'd take care of it himself without involvement from the law.

To protect himself from liability, he had to be fairly terse. But those of us who get what he is saying knows that the so called anti snitching has honor too. You don't just NOT let police know and ignore crime, you find ways to internally address it.

I prefer a locality based approach to crime myself...

Denmark Vesey said...

You right Mandisa.

The resistance to consider the possibility that "street cats" are reluctant to inform upon each other is the product of a "code" or a sense of "honor" is born from a reluctance to acknowledge their humanity.

The Plantation is in the process of dehumanizing these men, by portraying them as monsters / terrorists / or criminals beyond rehabilitation. The goal is to make it appear as if the only viable option is to kill them.

Cam'ron should have said - "There are a million men in For-Profit prisons just like me. Why should I fuel a system that is designed to destroy me?

Undercover Black Man said...

I prefer a locality based approach to crime myself...

And how's that working out?

Consider: If criminals don't have respect for the law, for the courts, for the police... and the police got guns... what kind of respect you think they got for those law-abiding citizens luckless enough to live within their zone of predation... and to object to it?

Denmark Vesey said...

"Consider: If criminals don't have respect for the law, for the courts, for the police and the police got guns... " UBM

There's a point young David, when Justice becomes a business.

The greater the danger, the more the Plantation can charge Plantation Negros and Plantation Crackas for protection. To "feel" safe.

A police department without criminals is like Homeland Security without Al Qaeda.

When police departments and surveillance agencies distribute "THE Criminals Are Going To Getcha!" meme, they're marketing.

Denmark Vesey said...

Bruva D.

The other problem with your worldview ...lol ... is that you fall for the trick of "the" criminals.

As if there are no others.

We have criminals prosecuting criminals. We have criminals sentencing criminals. We have criminals incarcerating criminals. We have criminals waging a criminal war. We have criminals running our banks. We have criminals selling criminal prescription drugs. We have criminals aborting babies in the 3rd muhfuggin trimester. We have criminals manipulating the genetic code of our food, for THEIR profit, we got criminals inoculating African children AROUND THE CLOCK ... But utter the word criminal ... & Plantation Negros picture cornrows.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Say it plain, youngblood:

Do you believe that burglars, armed robbers and rapists should be arrested and prosecuted? Yes or no?

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

UBM to answer your question NO. I believe that the people who they have wronged ought to find them and punish them. Often times the police are an impediment to solving crime and are often quick to arrest you for telling the truth.

There used to be this trashy woman who lived across the street from my parents. The police were there every night of the week around two or three in the morning when i was outside for my late night smoke.

I was sitting on the ground smoking my cigarrette and the police officer asked if he could help me with something. I told him no but the fact that they were there every night bothered me. He said: "Do you have a problem? And then that muthafucka handled his gun and mean mugged me." I told him "NO but that I had every right to smoke my cigarette in peace and the neighbors disrupted that by calling the cops all the time." He told me to mind my own business.

All I was doing was smoking a cigarrette on my parents property. It is interesting how the police officer was quick to handle his gun and tacitly threaten me when I was on private property.

I have said this already but I have no love for police. They don't solve crimes in general.

Talk about rapists? Its quite rare for them to do a goddamn thing about rape and if they do, they treat you like shit and make you feel demeaned by the rape kit examination.

The words of NWA ring truer and truer to me as I get older.

You might want to believe that the police are here to protect and serve. I say serve and protect who against what?

And the local approach to crime DOES work. If people in their communities are consciencious then self policing makes the most sense anyway.

Funny how the ghetto has the most police activity and yet it's still the ghetto. How's that working out for the folks who live there?

Most police officers are stupid fucks who have authoritarian complexes.

Like I said, I have love for only two who I mentioned previously.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

I got one better for you UBM, the police are like the UN trying to get IRAN or NORTH KOREA from going rogue. They don't do shit.

Undercover Black Man said...

I believe that the people who they have wronged ought to find them and punish them.

Ummm... uhhh... okay.

So you mean the "local approach" like white folks used to do in the South a hundred years ago? You know... lynching?

Denmark Vesey said...

Do you believe that burglars, armed robbers and rapists should be arrested and prosecuted? Yes or no?

Yes.

But I wouldn't stop there.

Americans had more wealth stolen from them during this fake war than every burglary and armed robbery in the history of this nation combined.

A No Bid Contract for 60,000 $1200 toilet seats is as much extortion as any local gang squeezing a bodega for a couple hundred dollars a week. They need to be on your short list too D.

There's a bullshit derivatives market operated by swindlers earning a billion dollars per year gambling with money insured by the American taxpayers. Need to be on your short list too D.

In the past 30 years incarceration rates have gone up 1,000% while "crime" is actually decreasing.

Summin aint right D.

Undercover Black Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Undercover Black Man said...

Yes.

Okay, DV. So if you believe that burglars, armed robbers and rapists should be arrested and prosecuted... do you also believe that eyewitnesses should cooperate with the police and testify against burglars, armed robbers and rapists in court?

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

Interesting obfuscation UBM. You know good and damned well that lynch mobs had nothing to do with exacting justice and everything to do with affecting more social control over Blacks.

The spirit of your comment is well taken, however. You are basically saying that if there are no established police then their might be mob rule independent of what's right and what's wrong.

Well, I say that your concern is moot because as DV pointed out, we aren't living under the rule of law at all. Our politicians are criminals who support other criminals both on wallstreet and abroad.

With that in mind, I repeat, I believe in locales fighting their own crimes.

Denmark Vesey said...

Yes.

Okay, DV. So if you believe that burglars, armed robbers and rapists should be arrested and prosecuted... do you also believe that eyewitnesses should cooperate with the police and testify against burglars, armed robbers and rapists in court?"

It's hard for me to think in such broad categorical generalizations D. Not trying to belabor the point.

I think each individual witness should make his or her individual decision.

A justice system fueled by witnesses who testify because they are "supposed" to testify is inherently problematic.

Don't ya think?

Big Man said...

DV

Most of the time folks make their own decisions about whether they testify or not. Typically, the police have very little power in getting people to come forward.

As for the whole "supposed" to question, what does that mean?

We all do things because we feel like we're "supposed" to do them. The problem is that people feel like they are "supposed" to testify, the problem is with selective enforcement of the law.

Addressing that problem has nothing to do with encouraging people not to testify. Do you really think if masses folks suddenly stopped testifying it would make the people with real power start playing by the rules? Hell naw.

That won't fix the corruption in the justice system cause the corruption is in the heart of man. People have been taking advantage of each other since their have been people. It's an unfortunate fact of life. In my opinion, the focus should be on convincing folks to live their lives according to a higher ideal, instead of advocating random acts of resistance just to prove you aren't a conformist.

Helping the police currently is the best way to help stem crime in neighborhoods. You got a better solution, I think you should let us know.



Come on now.

Undercover Black Man said...

It's hard for me to think in such broad categorical generalizations D.

Yeah, youngblood. You're famous for not thinking in broad categorical generalizations.

Denmark Vesey said...

Yeah yeah aight. D. Cute.

But I notice you ducked my snapping left jab.

Why the commitment to such a flawed notion of law and order? Why such a plebian picture of cops and robbers?

Why the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil monkey act when asked to acknowledge institutional hypocrisy?

Why is the Undercover Black Man so eager to accept the metrics and mythology ("shouldn't criminals be prosecuted")of a criminal "justice" system with a profit motive to incarcerate black people?

Undercover Black Man said...

Why? Because your weak shit doesn't begin to persuade me to reconsider my impulse towards order.

Denmark Vesey said...

Undercover Black Man said...

"Why? Because your weak shit doesn't begin to persuade me to reconsider my impulse towards order." UBM

LOL. Oh come now UB. Your little charade aint foolin' nobody.

All the eye-rollin' in the world can't disguise the fact you open like a broad. The degree of engagement is self-evident.

Now ...

"reconsider my impulse towards order." UB

Yes, you do have an impulse towards order. No denying that.

Whose order to which you have this "impulse" is what is fascinatingly peculiar, but sadly too common.

It's intriguing to watch a man diligently subscribe to hierarchy of social constructs not in his interest.

You know the dude.

Big House catch on fire, he's running faster than the master to put it out.

Carrying three buckets of water. Shouting instructions. Risking his life amidst the flames.

Why?

His impulse for ... "order".

CNu said...

"We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today.

They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master." -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Roosevelt's attack on the idea of laissez-faire had a long legacy. Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, was a great believer in private property. But he also said that "there is no natural property" because "property is entirely the creature of law." Above all, property creates expectations, and firm expectations "can only be the work of law."

Thus "it is from the law alone that I can enclose a field and give myself to its cultivation, in the distant hope of the harvest." In Bentham's ac­count, "property and law are born and must die together. Before the laws there was no property; take away the laws, all property ceases."

This basic claim was an important strain of legal realism, the most in­fluential movement in early-twentieth-century American law. The real­ists, most notably law professors Robert Hale and Morris Cohen, insisted that markets and property depend on legal rules. What people have is not a reflection of nature or custom, and voluntary choices are only a part of the picture. Government choices are crucial. This is so always, and simply as a matter of fact. Ownership rights are legal cre­ations. In the New Deal, the realists were vindicated. Many of the legal realists found prominent positions in the Roosevelt administration.

For the realists, the most serious problem with laissez-faire was that the basic idea was simply a myth, a tangle of confusion. As Hale wrote, "The dependence of present economic conditions, in part at least, on the government's past policy concerning the distribution of the public domain, must be obvious. Laissez-faire is a utopian dream which never has been and never can be realized." Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in some ways the first legal realist, wrote in a profound, haiku-like aphorism: "Property, a creation of law, does not arise from value, although exchangeable a matter of fact." Holmes proclaimed that property and value are a product of legal rules, not of purely private interactions and still less of nature. Economic value does not predate law; it is created by law. All of this, wrote Holmes, was simply "a matter of fact."[p. 21, THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS]

CNu said...

In other words, end "corporate socialism;"

end the privatizing of gains and the socialization of losses;

end the mythologies (such as laissez-faire),

end the illusions and conditioning upon which such abuses depend.