Why, just don’t get pulled over.
This is the advice of George Brown, a captain of the Oklahoma State Police, shared during an interview with a local NBC News affiliate in the wake of revelations that three Oklahoma cops (see here) have been arrested for sexually assaulting women. Asked how to avoid being raped by a cop, Captain Brown urged potential victims to “…follow the law in the first place, so you don’t get pulled over.”
Oddly, Brown seems to believe that a cop who would rape a motorist would somehow be reluctant to fabricate an excuse to pull over a potential victim he happened to find attractive. You know, the same way “gun free” zones deter gun-wielding criminals.
The rapist cops – a Tulsa County deputy, a state trooper and an Oklahoma City policeman – have been charged with repeatedly raping and sexually assaulting women while on the job. Which is not surprising, given the nature of their job.
What, after, all, is the essence of “law enforcement”?
It is assaulting people under color of law.
It’s always been physical. Now, it’s sexual, too.
And, it’s becoming commonplace.
Here is Exhibit A in rebuttal to the badge-licker’s bleat that such atrocities are “isolated” instances involving “a few bad apples.” One cop from each proverbial shop – all arrested at the same time. A whole barrel of bad apples.
Captain Brown says that Oklahoma cops are “working to retain the public’s trust.”
The wonder is that anyone in the “public” retains any “trust” in the state’s costumed enforcers.
Consider: If these are willing to rape people, what do you suppose they’re willing to do during ordinary traffic stops? How many lesser victims do you suppose have suffered at the hands of these creeps and many others like them? Is it far-fetched to imagine such cretins might lie? Make up “evidence”? Pile bogus charge on top of bogus charge?
Remember: These enforcers were “serving” out there for years. God only knows what else they were up to.
It’s open season – on us.
One reason things have come unhinged is that these costumed goons have effectively acquired unlimited – and unaccountable – authority over the non-costumed. After 30 years of court-ordered outrages against the Bill of Rights – designed to establish constraints against the authority of the state – these enforcers (their own favored term, it’s important to point out) have acquired legal sanction to do quite literally anything they wish to us. With impunity. They can stop – and menace us – at their whim. Just to “check.” For what? Anything. We have given our “implied consent” to this, according to the courts. It serves a “compelling state interest.”
The interests of the individual being of no consequence to the state.
The courts have endowed them with legal authority to literally steal your money – its mere presence on your person being sufficient justification to impute you acquired the money “unlawfully.”
Now, prove you didn’t.
Their word is considered not merely trustworthy, but evidentiary. Ours is “hearsay” – and inadmissible.
It has reached the level that they may now literally fondle your genitals – digitally inspecting your anus (if male) or your vagina (if female). Perhaps both, if they feel like it. A pull-over for a minor traffic offense – which they can manufacture at will – is all the legal provocation necessary, courtesy of the courts.
So – why not make actual rape legal?
It would certainly make the act “safer” for the enforcers. They could charge any woman – or man – who did not immediately submit with resisting. This is already practice as regards physical rather than sexual assault. Check Spotlight Catalogue and Stratco Catalogue. If you raise your hands to protect your body against the blows of an enforcer, it is “resisting.” And the fact is that declining to accept a sexual assault is already “resisting” – as far as the courts are concerned. Cecily McMillan, one of the “occupy” protesters in NY, was convicted of assault – and sentenced to jail – for attempting to ward off a behind the back breast-grab by Officer Unfriendly Grantley Bovell (see here).
So, again – what did the Oklahoma Three do that was so wrong?
This may be how they see things. Take a low-IQ bully, feed his sense of entitlement, encourage his contempt for the non-costumed and give him almost limitless power to do as he wills.
What were we expecting?
What we’re seeing here is without doubt a fraction of what actually goes on. And it may well be that the incident in PA was triggered by one such event. How would you react if one of the victims of the Oklahoma Three was your daughter or wife? Knowing it is pointless to “file charges.” That nothing you say will be believed – while everything the thug-in-costume does is excused, soft-pedaled and covered up?
The pot is boiling, folks.
Throw it in the Woods?
If you value alternatives to the mainstream media, please support independent media.
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer to avoid PayPal, snail mail is fine. The address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
Will Grigg strikes again –
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/once-upon-a-time-patrick-buchanan-was-michael-brown-sort-of/
Will’s exactly right – and I have my own “Buchanan Moment” to relate:
When I was about 17 (early ’80s) a friend of mine and I got bored and decided to gin up some fun. “Fun” being my idiot friend (and I was as much an idiot as he was) glowering at people in other cars at traffic lights while – slowly – pulling out what looked like a real .38 snubbie (it was a cap gun). My friend – Scottish – has a superior War Face. He could scare the shit out of you with a look.
Well, he’d put on that War Face, slowly show the gun… and the people in the adjacent car would shit – and take off. We’d laugh till we almost pissed ourselves.
Did this a few times. Got bored. Parked at a shopping mall and went in to the record store to look at albums.
Came out about 20 minutes later to find two cop cars surrounding my Dad’s car (which was what we’d driven). Someone had called it in. The cops saw us – saw us go white – and listened to our story. We showed them the cap gun. They quickly realized we were harmless. No guns were drawn on us.
And they let us go after yelling at us for a few minutes – which was more than enough for us to never do it again.
Today, they’d have shot us dead.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the current administration have active contempt for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This brings out the worst in the government employees further down the line.
True, Robert –
But then, so did the previous administration. In my opinion, when the post-mortem is done by future historians, they will note that a Rubicon Moment occurred when The Chimp was (s)elected as Dear Leader. This cretinous little inbred unleashed America’s inner sociopath like no other (even Lincoln, who was at least intelligent).
The Chimp made the current Dear Leader – who would otherwise have been inconceivable – inevitable. He showed the powers-that-be that Americans will accept anything. That outright imbecility – in addition to brazen mendacity, contempt for every civilized standard of conduct – would pass largely without protest, provided it was couched in the flag. The American people are imbeciles. And the powers-that-be are no longer even trying to hide their true purpose.
I assure you, much worse is yet to come.
Meanwhile, The Chimp paints.
Would have been better for all if the chimp went straight to painting and skipped the deciding phase of his life.
I believe he was a kind of Litmus test. To see just how far things could be pushed; to see just how much the public would tolerate.
40 years ago, the public would not tolerate a president caught lying about a fairly trivial matter (election skullduggery by his underlings).
40 years hence, they didn’t give a damn about a squinty-eyed psychopath blatantly lying the country into an aggressive war, rounding up and disappearing people, torturing people (and smirking openly about it).
We’re doomed.
You know, it’s all Lady Bird’s fault. Back when hubby LBJ was Prez, she started her campaign to bootify America. Plant a tree and a flower and a shrub. Next thing you know we have Bushes living in the White House.
Ha!
Bush’s grampa Prescott was a Nazi-collaborating opportunist (typical Wall Street type). His father (the son of Prescott) is a first magnitude CIA creep-type. But, to give him his due, intelligent and clinical. The son – the Chimp – is both an inhuman monster and an idiot.
He’s the kind of who – absent the family pull – would have wound up as a BTK (serial killer) type.
Don’t forget Prescott’s father-in-law, George Herbert Walker. Any of those names ring a bell?
He was in with Prescott (or more likely the other way around) in helping to finance Hitler when he was seen in FDR type circles as a model rather than an enemy.
I’ve always wondered how different the world would be if Hitler had been accepted by the art school he applied to; the chimp is the most recent manifestation of a frustrated sociopath.
I read a very interesting book about the Chimp by a psychiatrist who noted his sadism, his glib/superficial charm, his need to dominate and his affront whenever challenged on anything. Textbook narcissistic personality that went “all the way” and grew into sociopathy.
The thing that scares me most, though, is that so many millions of my countrymen are just like him.
The Constitution, if it ever did have any validity (see Lysander Spooner), has been dead since Lee surrendered at Appomattox.
In my rankings, the Shrub surpassed LBJ to become the worst president since FDR. Then Barry Sotoero started where he left off and went on to become even worse.
But Lincoln was the worst ever – he destroyed the Union in a claimed attempt to save it.
While ALL presidents in the modern era have been lying narcissists (at best) or murderous sociopaths (at worst), it is important that we remember that they are only the face of the real powers that rule over us, not the substance of them. While little chimptard no doubt loved playing armchair warrior while in office, he wasn’t allowed to do so until the bankster-industrialist puppetmasters who were his controllers allowed him to do so, and on their terms and timing. No doubt the little retard wanted to go off and wreak much more havoc elsewhere, but either because the damage this would have caused would have outweighed the profits, or because there was no gain to be had for the Establishment, little chimptard (I wonder if he wears adult diapers?) had to content himself with ruining Iraqghanistan and squandering thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in American treasure there.
The last president who forgot his place and his role in the game, who thought that he had real power to exercise on his own initiative, got his head blown off in Dallas almost 51 years ago for his trouble. There won’t be any others who try the same thing.
So yes, chimptard was/is a disgusting sociopath, but even so, he would have been allowed to do nothing more than sit in the Oval Office and finger paint with his own feces had his handlers not decided to go through with 9/11. Had they not done so, the Bush II regime would have been as uneventful as that of Chester A. Arthur in the 1880s and as comedy gold-filled as that of Gerry Ford in the 1970s.
Agreed, Lib – well-said…. unfortunately.
Bah, nothing to see here. This is just part of the “duty to care” officers have for those in their custody. See Massad Ayoob’s blog (9/12/14) for that explanation, regarding the NM “clenching buttocks” case.
Well, Mr. Brown, I would never pull me over if I were you. Asshole.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/?hpid=z3
Asset forfeiture laws are applicable to our bodies now I guess.
Thank you Eric for writing this.
Thank you Bevin, for getting to the bottom of James’ collection of “gut-feelings” and impressions that I’ll categorize as one of the so called: “No Stupid Questions.”
If James has ended up with the wrong conclusion, due to spin doctors. I’ll assume others have also been confused.
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/local/ohp-captain-speaks-out-false-statements-regarding-/nhT4m/ Here’s the latest article continuing the same erroneous narrative. That the Captain is the victim of False Statements. I imagine this is how things ran in Soviet Russia as well.
Apparently there’s been “aggregious” factual errors.
Brown says the real shame is that false reporting of that nature makes people distrust law enforcement.
“We need the people’s trust, we need the trust of the citizens whom we serve.”
– thank you Captain Pakled.
His advice? “Trust your local news, the trusted news sites, the mainstream media, the sites that you can go to that they have responsible reporting, and don’t fall victim to slanderous lies that are spread throughout social media.”
In other words, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
As Eric has pointed out, and personally experienced. The market in newgathering and opinion is broken. There is no one who will pay the true price of learning the truth of the matter. So their is no incentive to learn and disseminate the truth any longer.
Main Stream Media isn’t acting in an entrepreneurial sense. Trying to do the best job and gain profit and win in the market. Because there is no market any longer. Just stringing words together and hoping to collect rent from one of the various factions that control resources and will reward or punish reporting in a way that suits their needs.
Yet again, are best hope of clarity, is again Mr. Jay Ramsey
Posted by JayRamey at 11:57 p.m. Sep. 25, 2014 Report Abuse
This story does not tell the whole entire story and just accepts everything that Captain Brown has to say about it.
I do believe the quote of Captain Brown’s answer is essentially correctly. However, the initial question by some unidentified male reporter is left out. I have seen the entire raw footage of the interview with Captain Brown on the Channel 2 website. And before Captain Brown answers, he is asked the following:
With “the stories we have heard in the media” (meaning all the Oklahoma police rape stories including the Tulsa County Sheriff Deputy AND the Oklahoma City Police Officer AND OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROLMAN ERIC ROBERTS) and the woman being pulled over is thinking “is this going to be a bad situation or safe situation, what are some things you can do to protect yourself?”
Captain Brown then goes on to give the answer that is quoted in the story. But I heard the last part to be slightly different. This is what I heard: “We suggest this. First and foremost do your part and do what it takes to obey the traffic laws and not get stopped.”
It is clear what Captain Brown is saying, and I hear it all the time from police officers and police sycophants. If someone is stopped by the police because of not wearing a seat belt or possessing a little bit of marijuana or DUI or jaywalking, or whatever else, and the situation goes bad and the “suspect” is wrongly and unjustifiably shot, killed, beaten, tased, OR RAPED, the police always put it back on the victim and say it is the victim’s fault because had the victim not broken one of these laws she would not have been in the situation in the first place.
Therefore, it is HER fault. This is EXACTLY what Captain Brown was saying and what he intended to say. These people believe that any time a police officer does something bad, it is never the police officer’s fault and always the victim’s fault for doing something that got them stopped by the police in the first place.
This is, indeed, my dilemma Tor…
I’m trying to do honest journalism – writing without pulling punches or shilling – but it doesn’t pay. This pressure – which is enormous – is felt by everyone I know who does what I do. We face the Hobson’s Choice: Do the right thing for nothing. Or, do what you have to do in order to get something.
The fact is I could work a mindless 40 hour week, doing some by-rote job for eight hours a day – and earn a lot more money and feel a lot less pressured. I’d have time again, too. No more sitting at this desk for hours on Saturday and Sunday… after sitting at this desk pretty much all day Monday through Friday.
It wears on you.
Dear Eric,
I don’t know if it helps, but you’re not alone.
I had a pretty secure job at a quasi-governmental trade promotion organization for a couple of years. It was the only non-private sector job I ever had in my whole life. I’d been out of work for a while and it was the only job I could get at the time.
I refused to compromise even though I knew perfectly well what was needed to survive under the then Green Terror of the Democratic Progressive Party. I insisted on being a stickler for “original intent” and kept using the term “Republic of China” instead of “Taiwan,” as I knew the Taiwan independence PTB wanted all obedient little quasi-civil servants to be.
So even though I received repeated commendations for my job performance, in writing even, I was eventually purged.
This was not speculation on my part. A department executive secretary privy to all the office secrets confided in me, telling me my high profile pro-Blue Camp politics was the deciding factor.
Probably the last straw was my attendance at a press conference convened by the opposition which accused the Green Camp of staging a false flag operation the day before the 2004 presidential election. The next day coworkers said they saw me in the audience as the TV cameras panned across the auditorium.
After I was eliminated, middle management even changed the color of the office chairs from blue to green. That elicited a lot of laughs among the remaining pro-Blue Camp employees, many of which were also let go one by one.
This is the world we live in.
The state-rapers are in full regulatory bukkake mode. I don’t know how this ameriKan gangbang is going to finish. But I take a quantum of solace knowing Zhang Weiying is still talking sense somewhere on this Lost Blue Marble.
Peking University Professor Zhang Weiying’s full confidence in a self-regulated market has kept him controversial.
Lin Yu (right), Co-CEO of NQ Mobile, presents a safety helmet to Zhang Weiying (left), an economics professor of Peking University.
People are basically animals, and have that instinct. There are good ones and bad ones, and like with all the other animals the good ones sooner or later get tired of the abuse by the bad ones. Take for instance the case of the dog. One can only kick a dog so many times before that dog does 1 of 2 things. 1 the dog will either run away, or 2 that dog will turn on the abuser, and tear em a new asshole among other things. Note dogs can’t shoot. This abuse by law enforcement, has gone far enough, and the people are doing just as they should.
then they should stop having the stazi driver check points too. how does the genius explain those.
This fool is spreading the THOUGHT that cops have some “right” to RAPE.
This idiot must be removed from office immediately. If he is not, his “superiors” AND he should be removed.
MEDIA-ASSAULT-THOUGHTS. There is no action that is not preceded by the thought and idea of the action, and MSM has immersed America in violent anti-social thoughts. and been publicly proud and boastful of their ANTI-heroes. The immersion of a society in the thoughts and ideas of senseless violence unaccompanied by consequences. The flooding of Media venues such as music, movies, video games, TV, with thoughts and ideas designed to induce violent behavior. If purveying ideas through the media does not work ….. why are $BILLIONS spent every year on advertising and political propaganda?!
Hey, Cops in Oklahoma: “If you don’t want to get shot by me, just don’t pull me over.”
Doesn’t sound like such good advice when YOU’RE the victim in question, does it?
I am curious though…in history has ANYONE ever beaten up/shot a cop and avoided conviction due to “self-defense”? (i.e. video clearly shows cop starting the fight, person shows video to court, judge agrees that the person was the victim and fighting back was justified…just like they’re supposed to do for ALL “self-defense” claims during assaults/shootings).
Just once? One tiny conviction based on common sense? A glimmer of hope?
Or do we have to start raping cops to get their attention to the matter?
I don’t know of any such, Mamba.
In the SC incident, for instance, if the guy had shot back he’d either be dead – or up on attempted murder charges.
The asshole cop, of course, was not charged with attempted murder or even reckless firearm handling.
Yeah, the guy in Times Square who was shot by police – police who missed him and hit civillians because they can’t find the target with a set of directions, and just spray and pray – THE TARGET was charged with attempted homicide of the bystanders shot by the pigs.
It was Will Rogers, IIRC, who said, “First, kill all the lawyers.” (But not bothering to google it, the sentiment is more important than the source.)
You got the Will part right, but the last name was Shakespeare.
Only know of ONE.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/02/texas-jury-refuses-indict-homeowner-henry-goedrich-magee-cop-killed-knock-raid/
The cops executed a no-knock raid for marijuana, and he killed one before they identified themselves.
Jury refused to indict.
And that was TEXAS….
(Of course, he was still charged with felonies for the plants, and it was magnified by the fact he had a GUN – a legally-owned, licensed gun. Making horticulture of a banned plant an even greater felony. I have never imbibed, but if Hitlery can say, “NO WOMAN CAN BE ILLEGAL,” How can a plant – an immobile entity, whose seeds might be bourne by wind or water or herbivore across an arbitrary, artificial, human “line”, be illegal? It beggars the imagination the SHIT we allow these THINGS – not people – to get away with, without executing them, burning the genome, and salting the ground they came from?)
I can’t think of any, which is the real problem here – the totally corrupt court system. No matter how much actual proof one has that the cop was the aggressor they will always believe the testilying of the costumed thug over the truth. All these “judges” are paid whores of the state who get their money from milking us mundanes, no way will they ever convict a fellow parasite. If ever a member of my family (or myself) was assaulted by one of these pigs I would be sure he got some Old Testament payback, no matter how long it took to administer it.
I beleive you are correct. I don’t recall the cae, it was on CopBlock recently; the judge DISMISSED the VIDEO EVIDENCE and found for the pig.
I can’t take the time to find it now – I have a PHB (Pointy-Haired Boss) guiding my movements.
Of note, the video contradicted the cop’s “testimony.”
Someone doesn’t appear to be “quoting” the right person.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/fact-check-oklahoma-hwy-patrol-captain-george-brown-blames-police-assaults-on-victims/
Hi James,
The quote is incidental. The relevant fact is that those cops are thugs. And that such thuggery is, unfortunately, becoming the rule rather than the exception.
You falsely accused someone of saying something they never said. That’s wrong; not merely “incidental.” The fact the rapist cops are “thugs” (and worse) doesn’t excuse what you did. Are you OK with people falsely attributing remarks to you which you never said? LEO “thuggery” has been “the rule rather than the exception” for decades. Most Americans would be terrified to live in a truly free country.
James,
The article was about cops abusing people. And the system defending the cops that do.
The comments section at the end of that article includes testimony that the occifer in question did indeed say those things and that his remarks were not taken out of context.
FYI:
Avatar
Jay Ramey • 2 days ago
I was the first person, that I know of, to mention how what Captain George Brown was saying was completely outrageous.
My comments were picked up by some other people and it went viral, as the saying goes. Let’s look at what Forward Progressives tries to tell
us in support of the rapist cops:
“Here’s the problem: the quote ‘then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over’ comes from the newscaster at the end of the video, not the Highway Patrol captain.”
That is a misstatement of fact. Yes, the news reporter says it at the end of the story buts she attributed the “tip” to Captain Brown. Furthermore, I just now ran across the raw video of the interview with Captain Brown. Another reporter in Captain Brown’s office asks when pulled over and with “the stories we have heard in the media” (meaning all the Oklahoma police rape stories) and the woman being pulled over is thinking “is this going to be a bad situation or safe situation, what are some things you can do to protect yourself?” Captain Brown makes some statements about that is a valid question about what to do on a traffic stop, especially if female. He then says, “We suggest this. First and foremost do your part and do what it takes to obey the traffic laws and not get stopped.”
So there it is. Captain Brown’s first “tip” to women that may be
concerned about getting raped by the police is “to obey the traffic laws and not get stopped.” I quoted exactly what Captain Brown said in response to a question about what to do especially with all “the [police rape] stories we have heard in the media” The raw video of the
interview in there online for anyone to find on the Channel 2 website.
From Forward Progressives: “This quote pulls two parts of the entire
news story together completely out of context. Captain George Brown’s appearance on the video tells people about what they should expect when dealing with law enforcement when pulled over and offers safety tips. However, the deputy who was arrested for assaulting women was responding to a call at a residence, not making a traffic stop.”
What the author of the Forward Progressives article does not know, or chooses to ignore, or just lies about, is that “the stories we have heard in the media” in Oklahoma recently involve 3 incidents: 1. An Oklahoma City Police Officer raping women during traffic stops. 2. An Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper raping women during traffic stops. 3. Tulsa County Sheriff Gerald Nuckolls sexually molesting women at a house AND when he got arrested he admitted that he had done similar things to other women during traffic stops. What is it that the Forward Progressives author is not understanding or getting?
From Forward Progressives: “The ‘then follow the law in the first place so you don’t get pulled over’ quote is also not only not uttered on the
video by the officer, but it’s at the end of the video when the anchor
is talking about traffic stops, and not directly in regards to the story
about the accused deputy.”
Again, at the end of the story the news reporter was paraphrasing a “tip” that she said was from Captain Brown. However, as I wrote above, the statement by the news reporter is almost a exact quote of what Captain Brown says during the interview that can be seen on the Channel 2 website. And again, I do not know why the author of the Forward Progressives does not get it: It is a story about “the accused deputy” because the deputy admitted to sexually molesting women on traffic stops AND an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper
has been arrested and charged with raping women during traffic stops AND an Oklahoma City Police Officer has been arrested and charged with raping women during traffic stops. Why the Forward Progressives author has trouble piecing all of this together and cannot understand that this is about police rape, whether on a traffic stop, or somewhere else, and why it matters where the police rape happens, is just beyond my comprehension.
13
•
Reply
•
Share ›
As the above testimony indicates, the local TV station has the raw footage of the cop saying exactly what he was accused of saying. Nobody was “misunderstood.”
But let’s not lose sight of what really matters. Whether this particular incident involved PR faux pas is not what really matters.
What really matters is that cops actually think and feel this way. That is what matters. And that is intolerable.
What are you talking about James. If there’s a correction to be made, please spell it out explicitly and in detail, so it can be corrected.
Throwing out accusations and hyperlinks everywhere, especially links to a domain called “forwardprogressives” aren’t likely to move the conversation forward.
It’s just an opinion blog, James. No one is heading over to the precinct to make any accusations.
Yup.
Either way, James appears to be more concerned about the cops than the people they abuse – or the near-limitless and unaccountable “lawful authority” they have over us.
Last year two women were stopped on what was a bogus stop between Ft. Worth and Dallas. The Occifer claimed to smell pot, both women denying they used, possessed or smelled it. So this notorious female gangster from the DPS was dispatched. She proceeded to force these women to drop trou in front of the whole world on the side of a major thoroughfare. She proceeded to don a glove na digitally rape, vaginally and anally both women with the same finger, same glove. Of course using the same finger on both orifices is illegal and dangerous but to use that same digit covered by that same glove on two women is clearly illegal. No big deal though. The women are suing hell out of the state and will win without a doubt…..and should. The rest of us will pay for that. I hate cops. Did I mention how much I hate cops?……..scum..
I can’t bring myself to like them either, eightsouthman. I think there are at least a few who can restrain themselves from raping women on the side of the road, or at least I hope so.
@8 – Those women got off easy. In Deming New Mexico they rip you out of your pickup truck, drive you around until they can find a doctor in an ER that will do it, then X-ray and anally probe you for 8 hours. When nothing is found they throw you out on the street. No charges filed, but they sent the hospital treatment bill to the victim.
In a case such as this, I get kind of Old Testamenty. You know? An eye for an eye? That female gangster might enjoy it, but how a roadside fingering by a stranger for her?
I am reminded of the liner graphics for Ugly Kid Joe…
http://uglykidjoe.info/component/option,com_easygallery/act,photos/cid,13/Itemid,37/
The labor may be coerced, but it is still labor. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.
It’s near impossible to not get Raped by the State, or at least be made to fear they might Rape or Cage and then Rape you whenever it suits them.
The State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. Do you support this State. Do you support the NAP. You can’t avoid this choice. By not making a choice, in almost all cases, you are choosing the State.
Do you imagine that sometimes the State should keep human beings in a cage under some pretense of authority. That the State was once an institution of Justice back in some days of yore? Or that the State should put to death, those who dare thwart its authority. Because you’ve killed someone without their permission. Or you’ve stolen from someone without their permission. If you think the State has ever been just. And could be again. Then you are in fact a part of the State. Whatever rationalizations or clarifications for why you’re somehow envisioning a better and moral State, is nothing but a steaming pile of Bix Nood. I welcome being disabused of this observation, if anyone wishes to argue for a different conclusion
The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.
Because we are under a State, this dichotomy can not be avoided. This site belongs to and is administered by a either two members of the owning-and-exploiting class. Or one member of the owning-and-exploiting class and his wage slave. That doesn’t mean you can’t like them in spite of this, but it should mean you are acutely aware of the true nature of browsing an internet site.
The owner of this site has shown that he is an unwitting grass-eater type of reluctant member of the owning-and-exploiting class, but nonetheless that’s who owners under a State always are. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.
At some point, you face either make a living and embracing the State’s anti-social criminal code. Trying to live outside the State. Or yourself become a criminal, and risk becoming yet another schmuck cockroach of the propertyless dependent class, scurrying about the World Wide Web or World Wide International Highway System, trying not to get caught in the Webs of the State or by its multitude of Predatory Webmasters.
Cop tells guy to get his license, shoots him for reaching for it. Der tag kommt. [The day when the State spends trillions to outfit every State Minion with a camera. And when this becomes the new normal, requires you and every other wage earner to wear one as well.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBUUO_VFYMs
Tor –
I’ve been thinking some more about your series of questions I attempted to answer the other day. I would like to amend my answer to #1 – Can capital create wealth?
Answer – no, capital IS wealth. Neither can labor produce wealth by itself. It can sometimes be used to acquire wealth, by providing a service to someone else in exchange.
But the creation of wealth requires the judicious mixture of labor and capital/wealth.
Philip,
It is actually possible to see humans AS capital.
Think slaves, wage or otherwise; or workers, who may technically be wage slaves, and a leader or visionary.
The pyramids didn’t build themselves. 😉
Phillip, so chopping wood to cook and stay warm isn’t creating wealth? If you chop more wood than you can use, it can be traded for something of value, wealth as it were. Just my thoughts. I don’t see ‘wealth” as just something that’s not physical. Maybe we’re debating semantics.
But the trees are the capital. Just chopping, the labor, gets you nothing but tired, if there are no logs to split.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Wealth
Most concisely, wealth is the ability to fulfill human desire
Wealth is the abundance of valuable resources or material possessions, or the control of such assets.
While “wealth” is considered to be an ambiguous and nebulous term, it is a concept that nonetheless has an important place in economics.
More specifically wealth can be defined as a claim on, or command of, resources (commodities, capital equipment, time, physical labor, et cetera) that have the potential to make the individual’s existence easier, more comfortable or more enjoyable (i.e. “better”) than it would be in the absence of such things.
Because value is subjective, wealth cannot be measured cardinally, but it is possible to measure ordinally.
Wealth can be said to be the ability to have desires fulfilled.
The antonym to wealth is poverty.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Capital
Capital are the goods that were produced by previous stages of production but do not directly satisfy consumer’s needs; they are used in production to eventually produce consumer goods.
The Formation of Capital
In the simplest example of an economy (the “Robinson Crusoe economy”), a person can spend time producing consumer goods and consuming them.
In order to produce capital goods, he must save, i.e. consume less than his means allow in the present. With capital, he can produce more and so consume more in the future.
The creation of capital goods is called investment.
Without the aid of capital, only goods with the shortest period of production are available.
Goods with longer periods of production are not available unless capital goods are acquired.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Labor
In production, man needs to combine other factors (capital and land) with the expenditure of human energy, called labor.
Labor and leisure
In employing his labor, man takes into account which are the most valuable ends it can serve (as he does with all other factors).
But he also weighs it against another consumers’ good: leisure. Leisure, like any other good, is subject to the law of marginal utility. The more a man labors, the less leisure he can enjoy.
The labor itself may provide positive satisfaction, dissatisfaction, or it may be neutral. In cases where the labor itself provides positive satisfactions, however, these are intertwined with and cannot be separated from the prospect of obtaining the final product.
Deprived of the final product, man will consider his labor senseless and useless, and the labor itself will no longer bring positive satisfactions.
An activity, which is engaged in purely for its own sake is not labor but pure play, a consumer good in itself. Play is subject to the law of marginal utility as are all goods, and the time spent in play will be balanced against the utility to be derived from other obtainable goods.
The activity of the creative genius is a separate concept from labor or leisure, in that it produces neither mediate nor immediate gratification.
Division of Labor
In order to exchange, each party must have different goods in relation to their wants, and must be relatively specialized in the acquisition of different goods. This specialization by each individual may have occurred for any of following reasons:
(a) differences in suitability and yield of the nature-given factors; (b) differences in given capital and durable consumers’ goods; and (c) differences in skill and in the desirability of different types of labor.
Exchange implies specialization of production, or division of labor. To what extent is division of labor carried on in a society depends on the extent of the market for the products.
If an actor knows, that he can exchange a part of his product for other goods, he may expend all his labor on it.
The mutual benefits from exchange provide a major incentive for potential aggressors to restrain their aggression and co-operate peacefully with their fellows. Individuals then decide that the advantages of engaging in specialization and exchange outweigh the advantages that war might bring.
Law of Association
Clearly, exchange is beneficial, where each party is better at producing one of the exchanged goods than the other party. If they stop producing in isolation and work on what they excel at, their total productivity for each of the products is increased. In addition to this, full-time specialization in a line of production is likely to improve their productivity and intensify the relative superiority of each.
What if one individual is more productive in all lines of production? In that case, it pays to specialize in that line of production in which one has the greatest relative superiority in production.
The inferior producer benefits by receiving some of the products of the superior one. But the superior producer also benefits, by being free to devote himself to that product in which his productive superiority is the greatest.
In one example: “A doctor who is an excellent gardener may very well prefer to employ a hired man who as a gardener is inferior to himself, because thereby he can devote more time to his medical practice.”
This important principle-that exchange may beneficially take place even when one party is superior in both lines of production-is known as the law of association.
Each person specializes in the task for which he is best fitted, and each serves his fellow men in order to serve himself in exchange.
A contractual society leaves each person free to benefit himself in the market and as a consequence to benefit others as well. An interesting aspect of this praxeological truth is that this benefit to others occurs regardless of the motives of those involved in exchange.
People may be indifferent to, or even detest, their fellow participants. It is this almost marvelous process, where a man in pursuing his own benefit also benefits others, that caused Adam Smith to exclaim that it almost seemed that an “invisible hand” was directing the proceedings
Here’s something to think about:
Rape is ALREADY legal, if he’s a Muslim.
As in, THE CASE LAW EXISTS.
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-jersey-judge-rules-muslim-mans.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/new-jersey-judge-rules-islamic-sharia-law-trumps-u-s-law/
http://pamelageller.com/2010/07/sharia-islamic-law-in-new-jersey-court-muslim-husband-rapes-beats-sexually-abuses-wife-judge-sees-no.html/
That’s just from one case, but it’s a big deal. Whatever happened to that wall between religion and teh state?
But wait, here’s the future…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/india-muslim-politician-says-women-who-are-raped-should-be-hanged
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm
Sounds VERY similar, doesn’t it?
People wonder why I am anti-Muslim? Let’s see, your leader preaches murder, conversion by the sword, every indulgence for the man, including pederasty; holds a woman as worthless, in all ways, and the inciter of all sins; and worships the ONLY deity I know of to tell his followers to commit war, murder, rape, pillage, cheat non-believers, beat non-believers, torture non-believers- all because you can! Hell, for THAT, I can play with the Cops in my back yard….
Note the similarity?
I’ll go Geek for a moment: TIE fighter space flight sim: Imperial rules of engagement: You should have three Imperials for every one enemy.
Sound familiar, again?
Meet the new boss – Same as the old boss….
We got a kinder, gentler machine-gun hand…
I get on my knees and pray… We won’t be fooled again!
If a “Law Enforcement Officer” is willing to break the law to the extent of rape, what makes the Captain (or anybody) think they would not be willing to perform an unwarranted traffic stop – especially in the type of area where they could expect to get away with rape?
1) It’s the same mentality that says that all these detailed gun laws on everything from purchases to how the ammo is stored are going to stop murderers.
2) It’s just another ‘obey or else’ threat. Fear based control. Punishment/violence based control.
3) cloverism. It’s always the fault of the person who wasn’t sufficiently obedient to authority.
This makes me wonder what the real reason was those two PA state troopers were shot. Perhaps the lone “survivalist” is a fictional character designed to draw our attention away from what those two “family” men were actually up to. The serfs don’t start shooting back for no reason. It’s no wonder “they” want to get rid of privately held firearms; there are a lot of attractive young women “packin’ heat” these days. We can’t have that getting in the way of one of the perks of the job, now can we? Or maybe have a husband, father or boyfriend seeing to it that justice is done in the wake of an “official” roadside “probe.” Rather than withdraw, rethink their role and return to actual peace keeping and public service, I predict the police will lie, cover up and militarize that much more. Things are indeed getting interesting here in the good ol’ land of the fee and home of the slave… Stay tuned for a lot more blood in the streets before this shakes out.
Why should a woman own a handgun? Because its hard to fit a rifle in a purse.
Gas and matches are cheap…
Just remember, GREEN hair and warpaint….
The vast majority of cops need to go to sensitivity training – they all have shitty demeanors!
“The vast majority of cops need to go to sensitivity training – they all have shitty demeanors!”
True. And the vast majority of cannibals need to learn which fork to use — they all have poor table manners.
I did notice a very keen resemblance between this new “felon” and Jared Laughner’s pix. Call it coincidence or call it conspiracy, the same person is obviously responsible for both incidents (I won’t mention which “incident”).