Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Sense and Nonsense of Extremist® Propaganda (Video)

Eccentric Intelligence Agency

Not long ago, LulzSec went on a hacking spree and released their “booty”, which contained approximately a thousand files of various law-enforcement and government-related material. As mentioned in my original post on this matter, I had limited time to view these files through a third-party, but did have the chance to see a few things worth mentioning. In this post I reference a video where two highway patrolmen are murdered by two crazed “sovereign citizens”.

Right-Wing Extremists Part 1.wmv (effective propaganda)

The video is disturbing and moving. Because of this I refer to it as “motivational art” for law enforcement, which I actually believe was its intended purpose. The video shows an isolated event of horrific – but unfortunately typical – nature.

Yet the conclusion contains a few elements no less disturbing than the video itself.

The narrator informs the target audience (law enforcement) of the new “domestic danger“, or of “homegrown extremism”, and goes on to suggest that “had these officers been aware of the “terrorist sovereign citizen” movement, they might have survived the ugly encounter. But they certainly didn’t; as neither have many other normal citizens and officers alike survived many other equally but unrelated horrific events. To take one such example – or even a few – and use them to create a case to make everyone in a minivan a potential terrorist is madness. Police take risks, and for that they are both appreciated and paid. Just as some people die while taking the train(1), or trying to sleep in their vehicles(2); police sometimes die in the line of duty. It is an unfortunate reality, and one which does not require “extremism” to understand.

Thanks to Activist Post for finding this one:

If we are to use such terms as “extreme” in any of its variations, we should use it without forsaking common sense or pre-9/11 dictionaries. Extremes are an American trait, and violence is the national anthem. We prove this through example. The US has the largest prison population per-capita than any other developed nation, and we incarcerate people for crimes primarily of nonviolent and victimless origin which are deemed in violation of “the law” by who? Us? Since when did common citizens of the United States explicitly express a desire that people be shot, arrested, or placed in prison for growing plant-life or trading private goods amongst themselves? I know there are some, but I think it a minority.

One need only have a look at citable reality to see extremism in law enforcement, and any thorough look will show that “extremists” – while occasionally a problem – are nothing like the epic danger pandered by law-enforcement, the DHS, and other organizations seeking to usurp civil liberties and quality of life for the sake of unrestricted and limitless surveillance and control. And since they’ve failed to find troves of brown terrorists lurking behind every corner in America, they’ve simply defaulted to activists, who are now the new targets of the FBI and DHS, along with anyone else not in agreement with an Unaccountable Headless Wonder. The skeptical, or those who question this agenda are now the “extremists”.

I know those officers suffered a fate that any good society would prefer to have prohibited; but they are by far the minority of those suffering such terrible fates, and for anyone without a fetish for law-enforcement, the primary purpose of the video should be apparent as an effort at emotional exploitation, and of a perspective which grossly neglects a reality which dwarfs it in proportion.

I have included several links to videos which help to illustrate this – hopefully to such a degree that offers no refutation. And I barely had to search.

Below is a link to video of Nathaniel Sanders being murdered by an extremist officer. When you see the man screaming and floundering on the asphalt as he dies, you’ll be on your way to a more objective perspective on the true horrors of extremism, and a realization that it is perhaps not only activists or intellectual dissidents who perpetrate them.

Nathaniel Sanders murdered by Officer Leonardo Quintana: http://youtu.be/su7VIBId4ZQ
The full report can be found HERE

Is it not also extreme to shoot an unarmed man in the back as he lay incapacitated on his belly? If this is not extreme, then we have nothing at all to fear. Below is a video where you watch this happen, amongst enough witnesses to prove it in court…

Cop shoots & Kill[s] unarmed Man (Oscar Grant)

For contrast, below is a rare example of damned good officers risking their lives to avoid killing an extremely dangerous man…

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEiRQoALcs&NR=1&has_verified=1

I include this video because it highlights the greater potential of good law-enforcement, and clearly shows that there are officers who would rather risk their own lives than shoot unnecessarily. These guys are due at least some respect, and probably could have had even less tolerance and still been reasonable. Pointing a gun at an officer after a pursuit is generally instant suicide. Sick, but pointing a gun puts the recipient’s life in immediate danger.

Finally, below is an extremely brutal video that fails to fit the Activist = Evil Terrorist meme, but shows how nasty things can get. Was this guy an activist, or a political scholar? Was he a sophisticated terrorist who hated the police for their freedoms? Was he a disciplined militia man? An evil constitutionalist? It hardly gets more extreme than this, and I’ll bet you a nickel that he wasn’t much of a writer or philosopher….

The other side: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41320219/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/detroit-police-release-graphic-video-precinct-shooting/

When was the last time you saw an organic farmer do something like that?

Update: Today Activist Post posted this article. It contains two videos of Ottawa police doing some pretty rotten stuff, like parading people around the facility naked, and other forms of Guantanamo-style nonsense. Extreme? We have a serious problem.

This post was inspired by the following post and video here, from LibertarianNews.org.

1. This is no false account, and happened to Oscar Grant.
2. Nathaniel Sanders was sleeping in his vehicle, with a gun for self protection.
*Footthought: While I loathe gangsters, it does not mean that I have a right to shoot them, and assume anyone fitting the profile is one. Otherwise, how would anyone distinguish such extreme actions from other extremists?

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


E.I.A said...

Regarding bus fare and shots in the back:

Aside from some reporters using a rectangular object on the ground as an ink-blot test, and seeing all sorts weaponry implied in it, another reporter mentions that a "bullet" was found near the scene. The point I would make here is that generally, lead bullets have a tendency to flee - rather than linger near - the point of origin. It is in fact their intended purpose. For a lead bullet to be found hanging around the scene, ...is a bit unusual.

I also noticed the arrogance of the officers, who seemed to have contempt for both the victim and the witnesses. They did not appear to conceal this.

According to one news report, the officers directly involved are on paid leave. What a great job when you can get a paid vacation by shooting someone you dislike!

We have seen magic bullets before - or are at least supposed to believe we have, and perhaps he actually shot and was shot in return. Maybe the bullets collided in midair. Maybe it was there from the previous night. Maybe Obama said it was there. It is sad that I have come to fault the police by default. ..*Must try to retain balance*... and it's getting difficult.

E.I.A said...

Error Confession,

Apparently the police were justified in the specific case of the "bus-fare back-shooting", and the man had both fired at the officers as well as previously injured people during other criminal activities.

Similar to the author of the referenced post, I was also basing that particular perspective on what witnesses had said, as well as (the then current) media coverage.

However, in no way should this imply any more than a single error on a single specific event. There are actually too many examples where one could only hope to be in error but haven't a chance. And more are coming.

Post a Comment