Thursday, February 18, 2021

A now deleted article written by Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement.

 This article was written by Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement, and filmmaker behind the series. The TZM blog was deleted but I found it on the Wayback Machine here. I decided to also re-print it here just in case it ever came up missing. 

I was motivated to do this after writing a long Facebook post in response to comments that my opposition to the "woke" movement meant I had sold out to the right. I made a video about this you can find here: Video about "wokeness" and TZM/TVP.

This is the article as it was published on the Zeitgeist Movement Blog on January 21st, 2011. 



Friends,
I want to make a comment about a certain angle of critique I have come in contact with and expand this rather trivial issue into a more important cultural point which many out there seem not to get – even in this day and age.

During the premiere of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward in LA on Jan 15th, a very kind women politely asked me why there “were not more woman in my film”. I responded to the effect that “well – I have to go where the data is.” She, of course, related and I feel her question wasn’t as much that she was offended by there not being “more women” in the film, but more to effect that others might feel some sort of bias by the fact. Fair enough, given the culture today.

So, I jump on a plane and go to New York City for the screenings there at Tribeca Cinemas. After the film ended on Jan 17th I was asked a similar question:

“What aren’t there more black people in your movie?”

At first, I thought he was joking. In fact, I spent a good couple of minutes making fun of the question…only to find he was, indeed, not joking. He really felt the need to understand why, in his view, there were not “more black people” in the film. So, of course, I explained that race is an arbitrary factor on all levels and that I simply do not recognize race anymore and the idea of “politically correct media” isn’t a notion I care about for it is a contrivance which perpetuates a false need to be superficially “equal”… as though I should say to myself: “Hmmm – the film is good – but I think I need more woman, black people, native americans, middle easterners, jews, amish and handicapped people etc.”

That stated, I want to point out something: Data is data and the people who present it are arbitrary.

I’ll state that again:

Data is data and the people who present it are arbitrary.

It doesn’t matter who Peter Joseph is – what race he is or what his background is – what comes out of his mouth is DATA and each person must compute that data based on the merit of the data itself- not the machine (person) relaying it. The messenger is and will always be irrelevant. Humans are merely vehicles for information relay. They learn – they repeat / adjust based on the novel-ness of their life experience/frame of reference/understanding. Those who are biased against data because they don’t “like” the prima facie identity of the person or entity communicating the data are engaging in what I call “INTELLECTUAL BIGOTRY”.

For example, Let’s assume I do a movie on renewable energy and the featured person in the work who is discussing various mediums of renewables happens to be a Nazi… or a Scientologist or a Christian … whatever. Does that mean the info they state is now suspect or biased? Is a film which has a Nazi in it suddenly a “Nazi film” regardless of the context?

Sadly, this is how many people comprehend in this culture. They don’t want to think so they seek to isolate the person’s assumed character (race/background/job/whatever) and attack that… rather than listen to what they say. And yes, I know, I’m Peter Joseph, the “arrogant” , “satanist”, “communist”, “new world order”, “asshole” “megalomaniac”, “cult leader”, “conspiracy theorist.”… but hey – guess what: even if all those labels were true: IT CHANGES NOTHING.

Data is data and if there is anything the public needs to snap out of, it’s the belligerent bias of the “projected identity” notion that blinds people to actually listening/considering new information.

Now, with respect to the need for more “woman or black people” in my film I want to make a critical point: It is nothing but a racist/sexist disposition to demand that the vehicles of data transfer in a film or whatever are of a certain origin; in a “politically correct” context. Again – Data is data.
I call this “reverse racism/reverse bigotry”

Frankly, it is nothing but biased and racist for there to be “puerto rican day parades” or “Italian American day” It is nothing but biased and racist for there to be “black awareness month” It is nothing but biased and sexist for the idea of the “feminist” to exist in the arrogance it often does today. Aren’t we interested in equality? If so- it means that you do not promote your “institution” of gender/race/ideology above others- it means you recognize the historical bias against you and work for it to be “neutralized” – not elevated in a vindictive/ego sense.

I remember reading about Martin Luther King Jr.’s apprehension to the idea of “Black Power”. He knew. He understood that to try to make your race/sex or the like “outstanding” is equality as biased as the oppressive forces that started the sad trend of inequality we see today.

Is there a dire need to generate more equality across race, gender and class lines? Yes. But that doesn’t mean your race/gender/class happens to be “special”. We are human. Period.

- Peter Joseph, Director, ‘Zeitgeist: Moving Forward’



Sunday, October 4, 2020

The Independent's Manifesto...

Why must we accept someone else's political platform instead of having our own?  




In the farewell address of George Washington, the first president of the United States (who was also the only Independent president...) he mentioned having serious reservations about the party system that was coming into power as he was leaving government. He had run unopposed for his position as president and appointed Thomas Jefferson to his cabinet specifically because he knew that Jefferson's political views were not the same as his own. 

In England where most of the founding fathers came from, literal civil wars were fought between political parties and this lead to the decision specifically not to mention political parties whatsoever in the Constitution. 

From History.com

George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

Despite this, political parties did develop within the United States much to it's detriment. And many of the warnings that George Washington put in his farewell address were rather then warnings to be heeded dire predictions of what would come to pass. 

From the farewell address of George Washington at OurDocuments.gov

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." 

"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. 

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

    It was clear to Washington and several of the other founding fathers that there was serious danger in the party system as individuals would band together to do what was best for their party instead of what was best for the country. And that what was good for the people at large would always be secondary to the power and influence that their specific faction had over the others. 

    This is why you see efforts on the part of both major parties to seek to undermine legislation, appointments of positions, and in general fight against any efforts from across the aisle in a fight over dominance. They will seek to sabotage the efforts of any president of an opposing party for example specifically to make their party look weak or ineffective. Even if whatever measures they are thwarting would be good for people like you and me. 

    When you add to this the fact that people with more money and therefore more money for campaign donations will inevitably have considerable power and influence over our "elected" officials the system further breaks down. 

    Gerrymandering is perhaps the most obvious example of parties seeking to get a ridiculous stranglehold on power for their party at the expense of the citizens of the states they live in. Literally jigsaw puzzling districts together to ensure their party has the majority of seats in the house and senate. You end up with crazy situations where the Governor of a given state elected by that state's majority is opposed by a state legislature that is for some reason totally dominated by the opposing party. This picture is an example of actual state legislature districts drawn up by members of political parties who are literally creating districts that are only populated by their party: 


    This ridiculous corruption of our democratic republic system is exactly the sort of nonsense that George Washington was concerned about. But I doubt even the founding fathers in all of their wisdom would of ever dreamed that the parties would simply create zones for themselves to rule within our republic. And to be clear, while the Republican party did perhaps do more of this recently in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc the Democrats have done plenty of this as well. 
    In my show with Clint Curtis, he revealed that he was called on by the same people that asked him to write election rigging software for voting machines to write a computer program to assist in gerrymandering. You can listen to my shows with Mr. Curtis here: (In two parts)
    There is also the issue of how our electoral system itself has been completely corrupted by the party system. The reason for example Bernie Sanders, a lifelong Independent had to seek the nomination for President by joining the Democrats is due to the ballot access laws that have been put in place to ensure that the two party duopoly remains in power. One thing the two parties agree on for sure is maintaining their dominance in all of our political system. 
    
    We are made to choose from a very small number of hand picked candidates for all of our important offices and it is extremely rare that an Independent or 3rd party candidate manages to penetrate the system. Governor Jesse Ventura managed to win the election in Minnesota but it was entirely predicated on his celebrity status getting him into the debates. During his time as Governor both parties worked together to thwart his agenda to ensure that he would not seek re-election. 

    Perhaps the best example of this, was the 2016 Democratic primary. It was revealed through hacked emails that the DNC had actively worked to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Angry members of the party filed a lawsuit against the Democratic party citing that they had donated money to the party under the impression that the process would be a fair and democratic one. 
    What was perhaps the most disturbing revelation that came out in this situation was that the lawyers working for the DNC literally defended the DNC by stating that the political parties are private entities that could literally pick their candidate in back rooms if they wanted. 

    And they were right. And they won. Many people are still unaware of the fact that the political party system is not in the Constitution. Many people are unware that there are reasons why. 

    Two private, unconstitutional organizations control access to the ballot, access to the debates, and as a result access to the highest offices in our country. 

    To my Republican friends, don't for a moment think that your party is exempt from this. In 2008 Congressman Ron Paul ran on an anti-war platform. And I distinctly remember him being excluded from debates at one point in favor of Rudy Giuliani. Despite the fact that Ron Paul consistently polled higher then Giuliani in every state. And more recently don't forget that your party didn't want Donald Trump at all. Jeb Bush was their guy as the Bush's are exactly like the Clinton's in that they are both deep state favorites. 

    The major political parties are bought and paid for. They have become instruments of plutocracy, rule by the wealthy. They distract us by taking stances on social issues that they feel will garner favor but this evolves entirely on their fancy. The Republicans for example historically were the party that moved to abolish slavery yet the Democrats are now understood to be the party for people of color. 

    It is perhaps the greatest delusion that any citizen of the United States can allow themselves to be caught up in to believe that either of these parties care about you. And even the third parties have the same sort of infighting and corruption at their core. The Green Party for example has a candidate who was favored by party insiders in ways that are perhaps even worse then the favoritism showed to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In one Green Party primary Howie Hawkins was literally the only candidate on the ballot despite Dario Hunter his main rival being sent an email confirming that he had done everything that was needed to be on the ballot. 

    I say it's time to stop surrendering your beliefs to parties. Make these parties earn your vote. Instead of joining these parties and having them take you for granted which they most certainly do, be one of those voters who will decide solely by which candidate actually is closest to their beliefs. And overall stop settling. 
    Political parties have become like competing religions, and you are expected to go along with all of that religion's doctrines to the letter. Even when they contradict each other. Even when you don't agree with one critical aspect but do agree with another. It's an unnatural way of thinking that only suits us when we surrender to group think and cease to think for ourselves. 
    
    Since I don't want to offend anyone from a specific party, let me make up some fictional parties for the sake of my analogy.... 

DISCLAIMER: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, platforms, corruptions, contradictions,  and hypocrisies detailed within are the products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual political parties, living or dead, is purely coincidental. -WINK-WINK-

    The people who get caught up in these political cults are expected to follow their platform/dogma to the letter. There is no room for any deviation. For example Bernie Sanders is actually pro gun rights. And is a Left leaning independent. Because he is seeking the nomination for the Jackass er...Democrat party he has to revise his position on this issue. As it is expected of him. 
    
    This situation also creates strange contradictions. So for example the Jackassocrats are pro abortion yet anti-death penalty. The Dumbocans are anti-abortion but also anti-welfare for the same kids they demand that mothers give birth to. The Jackassocrats at least currently seem to want to abolish or defund the police yet are opposed to private ownership of guns even to defend one's self. 
    
    But perhaps more disturbing then the things the parties say or do to contradict themselves there is what they agree on. And this kind of reveals the real truth of the matter. 

    Both of these parties actually serve the same corporate masters. The military industrial complex likes war. So do they. The medical industrial complex dislikes medicare for all so they also dislike medicare for all. Big money interests are at the top of their priority list. And we the people are basically just here to pay the bills. 

    So getting back to reality for a moment, consider for example the first economic stimulus packages offered by the Democratic Congress, and the Republican Senate in the wake of Covid-19. 

The Jackasses...I mean Democrats put together a huge corporate bailout, and then two weeks of paid sick leave...which they of course put in the fine print only businesses with less then 500 employees would have to pay. 

    In other words, only small businesses would have to offer any extra help to the people. The businesses literally in the worst circumstances. In fact there seems to be an effort to choke small businesses to death while propping up big business and big corporations. We are looking at a future where the major retailers are Amazon and Wal-Mart, two companies that pay very little in taxes if any. 

    Then the Dumbos...I mean the Republicans offered a one time payment of $1,200 that initially was proposed to come out of our next tax return, and that be adjusted down for the tax burden of the people involved. This amounted to the poorest people with no tax liability getting a whopping $300. Which is less than even the average paycheck of a minimum wage worker. Meanwhile they made sure to take care of their corporate masters forking over billions and billions to companies. And the wealthiest in our country strangely all increased their net worth while the rest of us are struggling to get by. 

    Do you see the pattern? These parties don't give a damn about you. And now they are playing political football with our future as the ball. Ironically Donald Trump as the executive has done more in the past four months to help us then either of the major parties. Whether this is for his own political gain is of course questionable as it would be for anyone in his position. But in the face of this pandemic neither party has prioritized anyone but their donors. 

    This is my message to activists on both sides of this issue. Reject the parties entirely. They are unconstitutional entities strangling our democracy. They are vehicles for the plutocrats to control our system. They are set up in such a way to keep us fighting each other over social issues that neither of them really actually care about. While the one class they continue to serve are the wealthy deep state over any of us. They want us distracted with race, gender, religion, etc to keep us from uniting against them. To keep us from picking our candidates on their sincerity rather then their membership of one cult or another. Reject the "illusion of choice". Reclaim your liberty. 

    You can support Trump, or Bernie, or whomever as an INDEPENDENT. As our system was originally intended. Stop donating to political parties. Stop joining them unless you have to temporarily to participate in an primary. Fight for rank choice voting so that 3rd party or Independent candidates have a chance. Support candidates as individuals rather than as members of political cults.  

    I leave you with some words from George Carlin: 








 








Saturday, September 26, 2020

The Kyle Rittenhouse Incident...

 On the night of August 25th, 2020...

    In the wake of the Jacob Blake shootings, protests and riots erupted in Kenosha Wisconsin. Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and members of a Libertarian Militia known as the Kenosha Guard were present at protests that moved back and forth through the city. 
    
    A 17 year old boy named Kyle Rittenhouse was with the Kenosha Guard providing medical attention to protestors and standing guard over one of the businesses that had been burned the night before. What transpired that night is a subject of controversy, and Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with 1st degree murder after shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum, and Anthony Huber, wounding Gaige Grosskreutz before leaving the scene and attempting to surrender to police. He was taken into custody the next day. 
    There are a lot of false narratives surrounding the events of that fateful night and I went into my investigation of what took place with the gut instinct that perhaps our country had another crazed mass murderer on our hands. But upon thorough investigation It is clear that was simply not the case. I put together a documentary video and uploaded it to Youtube and will be addressing common misconceptions in that video and on this blog. 

Friday, September 4, 2020

Who was Joseph D Rosenbaum? First man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha...

 Whether you think Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong or not, getting shot by an allegedly bad person does not make someone a good person...


Joseph D. Rosenbaum was the first person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25th 2020. 
    
    Rosenbaum was seen on video confronting the militia group that Kyle was part of that night, upset that one of the militia had put out a dumpster fire that had been set by protestors near a gas station. (I did a video piecing together many different clips of that evening that I will share at the end of this article). 
    
    Rosenbaum was extremely combative and aggressive with the militia group at one point daring them to shoot him. In one of the widely circulated videos of the first shooting Rosenbaum was shot after chasing Kyle across a parking lot and throwing an object at him. A gunshot went off in the distance causing Kyle to turn and fire at Rosenbaum who had gained on him. Rosenbaum later died of his wounds. 
    
    Since the shooting, my fellow activists on the left who have been allowing themselves to be so polarized that everyone involved in any controversy who shares their views is automatically forgiven of all sins. And anyone who opposes their views are automatically guilty. Everything people on our side do or say is always taken in the best possible light up to and including simply denying any wrongdoing. The opposite is true for anyone on the right. 
    
    So there are a lot of articles, facebook posts, etc paying "tribute" or "mourning" the loss of Rosenbaum as if he was a brave warrior for the cause. Here is a quote from the Kenosha News Article

"They came out here every time with us. Sweet. Loving. They were the sweetest hearts, souls." 


So here is where the myth breaks down...

Rosenbaum was a convicted sex offender. There was some confusion about his place on the sex offender registry as initially it was available but it was expunged because he was deceased. This is a screenshot of his place on the registry before it was removed: 


Here is a screenshot of his inmate profile at Arizona corrections. Link here: Inmate profile for Rosenbaum

Here is a link to his BailBondsHQ profile: Bail Bonds HQ profile... 

    So I stumbled on something else that made my dislike of this man slip into hatred. As I have a child who was victimized by a sex offender at the age of five. Someone found the presentence report. He sodomized young boys. 
And here are his court case files: 

Rosenbaum's victims were five boys, as young as nine years old..


This is the video compilation of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting incident with plenty of footage of Rosenbaum showing himself to be a less then peaceful protester. 



UP NEXT: Anthony Huber, repeat domestic violence offender...




















Friday, August 28, 2020

Why was Jacob Blake being arrested? Time to get real.

  The facts and fiction surrounding Jacob Blake.

UPDATED:

There are a lot of false versions of what took place going around and I honestly believe that is by design. I have read versions of this story that suggest that he wasn't committing any crimes and that he was just present to brake up a fight, that he had no weapons, and that he was just leaving as he figured the police had the situation handled and that he was therefore, free to go. 

I have also read that he was just present, and black and therefore the police tried to arrest him on a whim. 


The problem is, this is not even remotely accurate. 

The police were called to the residence by a woman who told the dispatcher that he was there and was not supposed to be there. And that he had taken her keys and would not return them. Why was he not supposed to be there? Turns out the reason was because he had a restraining order against him for domestic abuse, and rape. With an active arrest warrant. So in other words no he was in fact guilty of a crime when the police arrived by violating that restraining order. And he had an active warrant against him for 3rd degree sexual assault, domestic abuse, disorderly conduct, and trespassing. From CNN:

Source: CNN 


"Kenosha officers were called to a domestic incident about 5:11 p.m. Sunday, police said. A woman called saying "her boyfriend was present and was not supposed to be on the premises," according to investigators from the Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation.
In a police call, a dispatcher names Blake and says he "isn't supposed to be there" and that he took the complainant's keys and refused to leave. The dispatcher later explains she doesn't have more details because the caller was "uncooperative."

So no. The man was not just randomly being arrested for being black and present. He was in violation of a restraining order for raping and abusing one of the women present. He took her keys and would not return them. Details of the criminal complaint can be found in his arrest warrant here: 




UPDATE: The criminal complaint was further corroborated by this series of tweets from a relative of the victim here: 


  

Controversy surrounding the arrest and shooting...

Details of what took place are still coming together. But one of the problems with the nature of the internet when it comes to news and the already hysterical state of affairs when it comes to police shootings is that people were quickly lining up to use this incident as more evidence to justify their feelings on the issue of police shootings. The first video that was circulated by the public shows Jacob Blake walking around the front of his vehicle with police pursuing him on foot with their guns drawn. He is clearly being ordered to lay down on the ground the entire time, and being ordered not to go back into his car. He does so anyway which prompts the policeman to shoot him in the back 7 times at point blank range. He appears to of been carrying something in his hand that depending on what photo you look at looks like a knife. 

Reaction to the first video...

As seems to be the norm now when it comes to police shootings, depending on your political leanings you will either jump to confirmation bias that the police are wrong, or jump to confirmation bias that police are right. There is very little clear and independent thinking going on. So the kinds of things I read or heard were suggestions of "Why didn't they try and tackle him?" and "Why didn't they tase him?" and from people on the pro-police side saying things like "Why was he resisting arrest?" 

The problem is, both tackling and tasers had been tried, and failed. But nobody knew that yet as this next video was not being circulated yet.

Reaction to the second video? 

The situation is now so emotionally heated that all rational discourse about the topic seems impossible to find. On the right you have people basically saying case closed. On the left you have people emotionally calling anyone who says anything other then that this was a horrible case of attempted murder by police a racist and evil person. Like Cenk from TYT. People are so deeply entrenched in their views and at this point have personally invested so much in their insults and posturing on this issue that pride is involved. 

The other thing that kind of disturbs me is the total silence from the feminist activists who I have in the past heard say all rapists should be brutally punished and that we should believe all women. Well, the guy had a restraining order against him, and stands accused of rape and domestic abuse. 

There are a lot of people talking about whether or not he deserved what happened to him. One of the issues I have seen trying to talk to people about this topic is how little people really know about policing and what police shootings look like. I realized I should know more about this myself before I started talking about it. Novel concept I know. So I discovered a channel called "PoliceActivity" on youtube where you can watch hours of footage of what police shootings look like. Checkout that channel here: https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceActivity/featured

Anyway, I found a clip from another video that perfectly illustrates why police don't let suspects who are resisting arrest go back into their vehicles. And why they don't hesitate to shoot if you attempt to do so. 



I have watched an extended version of that clip that shows these two officers try to use tasers and wrestle with this guy for quite a while before this clip starts. There are MANY more videos like this. But people who are anti-police don't really spend much time trying to understand their point of view. In fact during protests the protesters are being instructed not to speak to officers and even more so confronted if they do. There seems to be an active effort to alienate leftists from the police entirely. I wish I could say there was not an agenda behind that. My instincts tell me otherwise. 

    The discussion on social media gets ridiculous pretty fast...

There is a lot of discussion of "Police are not judge and jury!" and "Not complying with orders is not a reason to be killed!" 

Police order you to get on the ground and put your hands behind your back so they can arrest you with as little danger to YOU and to THEM as possible. 

Suspects who refuse to do this demonstrate time and again an intention to escape even if they have to kill people to do so. People who refuse orders not to go into their cars, pockets, etc are behaving in a manner consistent with what happens when someone plans to shoot the police officer. 

So when you refuse to obey orders that include demonstrating that you are not a threat by keeping your hands visible, getting on the ground and putting your hands behind your back, not going into your car, and not reaching into your jacket you are sending signals to the officer that you are a threat. It's really that simple. 

They didn't order you to buy them a soda and then shoot you when you refused. They ordered you to follow instructions to make the arrest as safe for you as it is safe for the officer. 

Officers who have to make the decision to shoot have less then a second to do so, or die. Their lives and often the lives of other victims in the situation are at stake. 

Jacob Blake didn't have to be shot... 

He absolutely could of chosen not to resist arrest when the police were wrestling with him behind the car. 

He absolutely could of chosen to get down on the ground and put his hands behind his back at literally any moment before he was shot. 

He absolutely could of chosen not to open his car door and bend down in a manner consistent with someone who is reaching into their vehicle for a weapon.  

All of that was completely in his control. He chose not to. Why? Because he was a rapist, and domestic abuser who didn't want to go to jail. Plain and simple. Not because he was an oppressed minority being unjustly profiled and targeted for random violence. Because he was a rapist, and domestic abuser violating a restraining order that a woman got against him out of fear for her life. Believe all women. Right? 

A lot of the arguments in this situation lead me to see that people seem to want a situation wherein if a suspect simply decides to leave a situation the police should not pursue them. If they want to just get in their car and leave you should just let them go. 

And until they are actively trying to kill you that you should not be allowed to shoot them. (Some of them I feel hate police so much at this point they think the only just outcome would be for all criminals to simply shoot police.) 

In this scenario if you are a policeman responding to a call because a man with a warrant is harassing a woman who has a restraining order against him and he resists arrest you should just let him go on his merry way and absolutely should not shoot him even if he is behaving in a way that is typical to someone who is about to retrieve a weapon and shoot officers and possibly the victim. 

A lot of people are also suggesting that if he were white the police would not of shot him. On that Police Activity channel I linked above you can find plenty of footage of white people getting shot when they foolishly don't obey commands. You can also find footage of a lot of cops being shot when they hesitate to respond fast enough when a criminal intends to shoot them. 

The GoFundMe that was put up by Jacob Blake's mother has raised over two million dollars as of me writing this blog article. Getting shot for resisting arrest because he didn't want to go to jail for rape and domestic abuse made Jacob Blake a rich man. And canonized as a martyr and saint by the racial activist movements. Riots are ongoing with looting and destruction of property over the "injustice" and people are saying his name during protests. 

Let me make a suggestion. If we were not in a situation now with racial activism reaching fanatical and "Witch hunt" levels of irrational thinking and a man broke into a woman's house, raped and abused her and then returned later and violated a restraining order to take the woman's keys I don't think anyone would be batting an eyelash that he got shot. And as a father who's daughter was raped and had to endure what it was like waiting for the police to catch the man who did it I am kind of astonished that nobody is talking about the victim in this situation. 

The woman he raped and abused. I guess her life doesn't matter? 










 






 




Thursday, June 4, 2020

Racial activism pitfalls...

So I wanted to take a moment to try and offer some insight from what I have seen as an activist since 2008. I was part of Occupy Detroit and Occupy Flint. I marched and camped in both locations. And I learned a lot. I have also lived in racist places and places with high racial tension. The strategy has to be carefully weighed. And I am going to ask people to bear with me a moment. And not allow yourself to jump to any conclusions about me. There are people here who know me and apparently others who don't. But lets get this out of the way. I grew up originally in the ghettos, both in the trailer park ghettos of the south, and the inner-city ghettos of the north. By having a life like this I have seen the full spectrum. I had friends in Florida I had to play with generally in secret as the racism is blatant enough that they name local plants after racist slurs. But I also lived in Pontiac, and when I was there it was a place very unfriendly to white people as well. The "Nation of Islam" was allowed to do a presentation at my public high school to inform the white people present that they were the marked race of cain, and inferior. And that the mixed race people in the group were "abominations". I wish I was making this up. But it ended up affecting a lot of racial relations. Racist groups have something in common. They tend to go into poor neighborhoods and explain to everyone there that all of their problems would go away if they just got rid of X other group. This is also the method the nazis used against the Jews in Germany. It's easy to get oppressed people to hate. Obviously. So they exploit that. They also tend to seek out individuals with emotional issues, people who feel isolated and try to exploit that. The racism becomes their place to belong. Yes, racists themselves are often victims. Recruited and exploited into what is really a "cult". I have been trying to figure out the best way to explain this. Take it for what you will. But be strategic in what way you fight racism as what works in one place will not work in all. And there are pitfalls to be aware of. 1. Don't get so caught up in your passion to fight racism that you start seeing it even if there is none. Anything that gets people emotional, particularly groups of people can produce the sociological/psychological effect of an "Inquisition" complete with "Witch Hunts". And people in a group who want to get rid of maybe a rival or whatever can start leveling false allegations to try and get someone ostracized. Think critically. There is certainly racism to be found. But don't find yourself so hyper focused that you end up blinding yourself. 2. The most effective way to fight racism, is to humanize people of color to racists. There is a man I hope you all study who's name is Darryl Davis. He is a black man who actively seeks out KKK members to befriend them. He spends time around them and is kind and patient to them. Eventually these men often give up racism entirely. And I am talking about high ranking KKK racist officials leaving because of him. He doesn't get up in their face and shout things at them. Quite the opposite. And it works. It really works. It's not about being submissive to them, it's about demonstrating that their fears and hatred are ridiculous. When that becomes clear, they lose all interest in racism. Racism can tap into primitive "tribal" instincts that are still in our subconscious. You don't want that reaction. You don't want to look like an opposing tribe. You want them to realize we are the same tribe. So for example it is not always effective to confront people because you can invoke a defensive reaction and then they are not listening. This is the opposite of what you want. You may be able to shout at some people and they will retreat. You think they really changed their mind? 3. Be mindful that some people get involved in activism to be "cool". It becomes trendy to be woke. And this comes complete with cliques who can literally become snobby about it. As in their activism is better then your activism. What generally follows is a tendency to start analyzing everyone to see who gets the most "oppression points" and as ridiculous as it sounds this can get out of hand really quick. I would watch it devolve into being almost "fashionable" to start tallying up all of the ways you are oppressed and then start to use this as leverage in conversations. There is something to be said obviously about making sure that marginalized people are given a loud voice. This is important. With that in mind however, it cannot become everything about every conversation. Sometimes a person of color may be wrong about a given subject and a Caucasian person may be right. This does happen. But "Check your privilege" can be abused. I have seen it happen over and over. And it divides groups up and renders them ineffective. People start using activism as a situation to create a new hierarchy. You end up going to activist meetings and some of the activists in the group start reminding you of the popular kids in high school looking down their noses at people. And if you piss them off they arrange to humiliate you or drive you out. 4. Anger/hate is seductive. And it actually can hinder your effectiveness. Stress is scientifically proven to lower your IQ. Do not allow your goal of equality to instead become a goal of revenge. Not only will it not work, it will destroy you as a person. You are against the ideology of racists. Not white people. I have watched reasonable racial activists become radicalized in ways that even lead them talking about their race as superior. And then eventually they start talking about white people as inferior. And then they are lost. Do not become what you seek to oppose. Malcom X figured this out right before he was killed by his own people. Research it. This was Darryl's Joe rogan show, this may be too long for some people so I will link the Ted talk below.

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Biden supporters moderating Bernie Groups...

John Stevenson is on a mission to get you to vote for Joe Biden...

UPDATED


        So some time ago I was on a Bernie group and a fellow by the name of John Stevenson was making a lot of posts attacking anyone who was considering voting 3rd party. And going after anyone who dared to suggest that we would not vote for Joe Biden. 

Even when we brought up that Biden voted for Iraq. 

Even when we brought up that Biden voted for NAFTA. 

Even when we brought up that Biden voted for TPP. 

And... even when we brought up that Biden was a rapist. 

I really wish I had saved screenshots. But I am part of a lot of Bernie groups and figured this was just par for the course. 

So then I saw him doing the same thing in the Krystal Ball Rising Group on Facebook that I post on frequently. I called him out for it and was unaware that somehow he managed to become a Moderator there as well. He removed my ability to post, deleted my post calling him out and denied ever supporting Joe Biden. 



Unfortunately for him, his history is available. 



So what is interesting is he seems to of evolved on this issue...


     Now I am still looking for the original group I argued with him in, but he is much more mild in these comments I was able to find then he was in that group. He removed a friend of mine for just offering solid debates. Then he removed me from that group silently for not backing down on his "You must vote for Joe!" stance. No warnings. I was not rude to him on that group at all. He just clearly had an agenda I was screwing up for him. 

Krystal Ball has been very clear she has not in any way pledged to support Joe Biden. And I don't think anyone should be censored from a group devoted to her show for saying the same thing. 

V-





A now deleted article written by Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement.

 This article was written by Peter Joseph, the founder of the Zeitgeist Movement, and filmmaker behind the series. The TZM blog was deleted ...