The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition???

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
http://piazzadcara.wordpress.com/20...tion-by-james-petras-and-robin-eastman-abaya/

crs.jpg


1-police-state-gabriel-alcaraz.jpg


police_state_47520181985.gif


police-state-flag-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The question is why has the police state grown and even exceeded the boundaries of previous periods of repression and yet not provoked any sustained mass opposition?
Click to expand...
there's a very simple answer to this. APATHY!!!!!!

the left LOVES the police state tactics when employed against their enemies on the right
the right LOVES the police state tactics when employed against their enemies on the left
the left AND the right refuse to acknowledge police state tactics when employed against individuals or very small groups like families.

so the left and the right have to ask themselves, will they only acknowledge the police state once it's visited upon them? or will they wake up before that time and do something about it?
 
Weren't you just posting control posters like 5 minutes ago? Ken I seriously think that you have managed to turn irony into an energy source. There is literally no other explanation for anything you post anymore.
 
FN FS2000 said:
Weren't you just posting control posters like 5 minutes ago? Ken I seriously think that you have managed to turn irony into an energy source. There is literally no other explanation for anything you post anymore.
Click to expand...

truer words have never been spoken

that said....we are far from living under an actual police state. having a police force does not mean that all officers will be perfect, that all officers will uphold the constitution....they are citizens just like you and i and are thus imperfect.

if we truly lived in a police state, STY would be either dead or in a dungeon.
 
Yurt said:
truer words have never been spoken

that said....we are far from living under an actual police state. having a police force does not mean that all officers will be perfect, that all officers will uphold the constitution....they are citizens just like you and i and are thus imperfect.

if we truly lived in a police state, STY would be either dead or in a dungeon.
Click to expand...

Police states and tyranny never happen over night.
 
signalmankenneth said:
http://piazzadcara.wordpress.com/20...tion-by-james-petras-and-robin-eastman-abaya/
Click to expand...

(Excerpt) Historical experience teaches us that a successful struggle against an emerging police state depends on the linking of the socio-economic struggles that engage the attention of the masses of citizens with the pro-democracy, pro-civil liberty, ‘free speech’ movements of the middle classes. The deepening economic crisis, the savage cuts in living standards and working conditions and the fight to save ‘sacred’ social programs (like Social Security and Medicare) have to be tied in with the expansion of the police state. A mass social justice movement, which brings together thousands of anti-Wall Streeters, millions of pro-Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid recipients with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers will inevitably clash with the bloated police-state apparatus. Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state. The hope is that mass economic pain will ignite mass activity, which, in turn, will make people aware of the dangerous growth of the police state. A mass understanding of this link will be essential to any advance in the movement for democracy and people’s welfare at home and peace abroad. (End)

"Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state."

This is what many do not understand. The more that individuals insist on being "independent" (I did it on my own or I can do it on my own, I don't feel obliged to support social policies, It's not my problem, etc) the easier it is for the Police State to thrive for the simple reason we do not know anything about others. Just as many assume "National Security" is a valid reason for the government to hide things and assume the government is behaving correctly privacy, taken too far, results in people seeing their neighbor being arrested and assuming they must have done something wrong. If the Police came to arrest a close family member others members of the family would inquire and insist on knowing the reason because they knew that particular member.

As the article questions, "If the police-state is now the dominant reality of US political life, why isn’t it at the center of citizen concern? Why are there no pro-democracy popular movements?" the answer is the same as why some folks oppose social programs. They don't give a damn about others, plain and simple. They haven't faced an illness having insufficient resources or lost their home due to unemployment or been the victim of a mistaken arrest.

It goes back to that famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Those who claim 'personal independence' to the point of "it's no ones business" and "I'm not obliged to help others" makes the very thing they despise, a Police State, that much easier to accomplish. They are unable to see it even when it's happening right in front of them.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt) Historical experience teaches us that a successful struggle against an emerging police state depends on the linking of the socio-economic struggles that engage the attention of the masses of citizens with the pro-democracy, pro-civil liberty, ‘free speech’ movements of the middle classes. The deepening economic crisis, the savage cuts in living standards and working conditions and the fight to save ‘sacred’ social programs (like Social Security and Medicare) have to be tied in with the expansion of the police state. A mass social justice movement, which brings together thousands of anti-Wall Streeters, millions of pro-Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid recipients with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers will inevitably clash with the bloated police-state apparatus. Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state. The hope is that mass economic pain will ignite mass activity, which, in turn, will make people aware of the dangerous growth of the police state. A mass understanding of this link will be essential to any advance in the movement for democracy and people’s welfare at home and peace abroad. (End)

"Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state."

This is what many do not understand. The more that individuals insist on being "independent" (I did it on my own or I can do it on my own, I don't feel obliged to support social policies, It's not my problem, etc) the easier it is for the Police State to thrive for the simple reason we do not know anything about others. Just as many assume "National Security" is a valid reason for the government to hide things and assume the government is behaving correctly privacy, taken too far, results in people seeing their neighbor being arrested and assuming they must have done something wrong. If the Police came to arrest a close family member others members of the family would inquire and insist on knowing the reason because they knew that particular member.

As the article questions, "If the police-state is now the dominant reality of US political life, why isn’t it at the center of citizen concern? Why are there no pro-democracy popular movements?" the answer is the same as why some folks oppose social programs. They don't give a damn about others, plain and simple. They haven't faced an illness having insufficient resources or lost their home due to unemployment or been the victim of a mistaken arrest.

It goes back to that famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Those who claim 'personal independence' to the point of "it's no ones business" and "I'm not obliged to help others" makes the very thing they despise, a Police State, that much easier to accomplish. They are unable to see it even when it's happening right in front of them.
Click to expand...

apple:

i need $1000 to feed my family this month. when can you send me the money?
 
Yurt said:
truer words have never been spoken

that said....we are far from living under an actual police state. having a police force does not mean that all officers will be perfect, that all officers will uphold the constitution....they are citizens just like you and i and are thus imperfect.

if we truly lived in a police state, STY would be either dead or in a dungeon.
Click to expand...

this is said under the belief that i'm publicly vocal about what I post on the message board. I'm not that stupid and very much prefer being under the radar.
 
apple0154 said:
(Excerpt) Historical experience teaches us that a successful struggle against an emerging police state depends on the linking of the socio-economic struggles that engage the attention of the masses of citizens with the pro-democracy, pro-civil liberty, ‘free speech’ movements of the middle classes. The deepening economic crisis, the savage cuts in living standards and working conditions and the fight to save ‘sacred’ social programs (like Social Security and Medicare) have to be tied in with the expansion of the police state. A mass social justice movement, which brings together thousands of anti-Wall Streeters, millions of pro-Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid recipients with hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers will inevitably clash with the bloated police-state apparatus. Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state. The hope is that mass economic pain will ignite mass activity, which, in turn, will make people aware of the dangerous growth of the police state. A mass understanding of this link will be essential to any advance in the movement for democracy and people’s welfare at home and peace abroad. (End)

"Freedom is essential to the struggle for social justice and the mass struggle for social justice is the only basis for rolling back the police state."

This is what many do not understand. The more that individuals insist on being "independent" (I did it on my own or I can do it on my own, I don't feel obliged to support social policies, It's not my problem, etc) the easier it is for the Police State to thrive for the simple reason we do not know anything about others. Just as many assume "National Security" is a valid reason for the government to hide things and assume the government is behaving correctly privacy, taken too far, results in people seeing their neighbor being arrested and assuming they must have done something wrong. If the Police came to arrest a close family member others members of the family would inquire and insist on knowing the reason because they knew that particular member.

As the article questions, "If the police-state is now the dominant reality of US political life, why isn’t it at the center of citizen concern? Why are there no pro-democracy popular movements?" the answer is the same as why some folks oppose social programs. They don't give a damn about others, plain and simple. They haven't faced an illness having insufficient resources or lost their home due to unemployment or been the victim of a mistaken arrest.

It goes back to that famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Those who claim 'personal independence' to the point of "it's no ones business" and "I'm not obliged to help others" makes the very thing they despise, a Police State, that much easier to accomplish. They are unable to see it even when it's happening right in front of them.
Click to expand...
but haven't you been telling us that the benevolent big federal government is there to take care of us?
 
Yurt said:
so you're saying....we are not currently a police state....but in the progress of becoming one?
Click to expand...
Yurt, when a home is raided by the police, but it's the wrong address and the police have no liability, is that not a police state?
If the police shoot and kill an optometrist when they raid his house for gambling, even accidentally, and the cop is not held accountable, are we not a police state?
If you can be arrested for taking pictures, even though no crime has been committed, and the police are not held accountable, are we not a police state?

or does a police state HAVE to be thousands of heavily armed and armored cops patrolling every street and alley 24/7?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Yurt, when a home is raided by the police, but it's the wrong address and the police have no liability, is that not a police state?
Click to expand...

Is there no redress in the courts?

If the police shoot and kill an optometrist when they raid his house for gambling, even accidentally, and the cop is not held accountable, are we not a police state?
Click to expand...

Again tragic, and heavy handed, but I don't think you lay out the circumstance well enough to judge.

If you can be arrested for taking pictures, even though no crime has been committed, and the police are not held accountable, are we not a police state?
Click to expand...

Actually this is what the ACLU should be taking up instead of the usual liberal pap they do so often, with their token right causes mixed in for misdirection.

or does a police state HAVE to be thousands of heavily armed and armored cops patrolling every street and alley 24/7?
Click to expand...

Does it have to be? no, but I would think a true moving toward that would be a court system recalcitrant in even entertaining the notion of enforcing civil rights.
 
j-mac said:
Is there no redress in the courts?
Click to expand...
no, the 'good faith' exception applies in these instances.

j-mac said:
Again tragic, and heavy handed, but I don't think you lay out the circumstance well enough to judge.
Click to expand...
fair enough. i'll add some detail
Optometrist Sal Culosi had a SWAT team serve a warrant at his home because he ran a 'gambling' ring, which is to say he was running a football pool with very high stakes. While serving the warrant, one of the SGTs exited his vehicle with his gun drawn when he says a door hit him in the elbow causing the gun to discharge and hitting Mr. Culosi in the heart killing him instantly. The DA did not pursue charges because all 'policies' were followed and there was no criminal intent.

j-mac said:
Actually this is what the ACLU should be taking up instead of the usual liberal pap they do so often, with their token right causes mixed in for misdirection.
Click to expand...
and they have, with quite a bit of success. But individual police officers still arrest or seize cameras when they notice they are being filmed.

j-mac said:
Does it have to be? no, but I would think a true moving toward that would be a court system recalcitrant in even entertaining the notion of enforcing civil rights.
Click to expand...
would not filing charges against police officers that committed crimes be a step?
would lesser penalties for criminal actions by cops, as opposed to civilians, be a step?
would purposefully not following standard enforcement policies when cops are the suspects (no breathalyzer or blood draw in DUI stops) be a step?
would allowing a cop to resign or retire instead of firing said cop under investigation for crimes so that said cop could keep his/her pension be a step?
would police union retaliation against whistle blowing cops while protecting other cops be a step?
 
Yurt said:
apple:

i need $1000 to feed my family this month. when can you send me the money?
Click to expand...

If that was true you wouldn't be posting the things you do.

FYI, if I believed you and sent money it wouldn't be the first time I would have done something like that.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but haven't you been telling us that the benevolent big federal government is there to take care of us?
Click to expand...

Like any group of people they have to be watched/checked on/supervised. The government can be instructed to put our interests first but that's not going to happen when a large section of the population is against government programs. Those against social policies want them to fail so why would they oversee government to do the right thing?
 
apple0154 said:
Like any group of people they have to be watched/checked on/supervised. The government can be instructed to put our interests first but that's not going to happen when a large section of the population is against government programs. Those against social policies want them to fail so why would they oversee government to do the right thing?
Click to expand...
you're actually going to blame police and government misconduct on groups that are anti big government and against social programs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top