Category Archives: surveillance state

Safety tip for this coming New Year: Chris Rock – How not to get your ass kicked by the police!


 

 

Paradise lost: US military police ‘state of siege’ is on.


The photo below is from the state of siege imposed in California on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013 due to some attack on some cops.  It depicts a citizen trying to get to his home being threaten by the police. The residents in the ‘affected’ area were not allowed to come back to their homes for 24 hrs, homes were invaded by the cops as was done in Boston after the marathon massacre.

When I see this, I feel afraid of the police. As a person with a disability, I’m considered by DHS (Department of Homeland Security) as a ‘possible terrorist’. NYS Office of Mental Health (OMH) has probably by now put my name (and yours if you are receiving ‘mental health services’) in the FBI/NSA/ list of mentally ill people to keep an eye on. See my post ( under gun control category)  NY SAFE Act gun law .

What you see in that AP photo could happen to any one of us soon. All needed is a real or staged ‘terrorist attack’ on a cop by a ‘mentally disabled’ kid or adult and BADDA BAM, you have a rifle pointed at your face like that OR  a military boot stomping on your face.

This is NOT Iraq or Afghanistan. This is good ol’ Sacramento, California area.

A California Highway Patrol officer and another emergency responder stop a vehicle at a checkpoint near the neighborhood where a federal immigration officer was shot and three local police officers were wounded during a violent confrontation with a suspect in the Sacramento suburb of Roseville on Friday, Oct. 25, 2013. (AP Photo/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton)

Man sets himself on fire on the Mall


Man is critically injured after setting himself on fire on the Mall

WARNING! Image that may be considered disturbing by some people is included in this post.

In the USA, contrary to Europe and the Middle East, the  visible evidence of the consequences of the war on the working class unleashed by their elected law-breakers…um…I meant to say law-maker’s policies, is not the working class seen in the streets fighting their corrupted elected politicians and their police-state. No. In the USA, the visible evidence of that class war is the disintegration of the public mental health in the form of self-immolation, increase in suicide rates, increase in ‘mass shootings’. It’s not ‘chemical imbalance’, it’s mental illness due to political imbalance. Mental illness  in healthy societies is very low and not a problem to that society.

This  evidence of the  increased mental deterioration of our people is what our president callously referred to as that pesky

ritual that we go through every three or four months

I know you don’t like to hear this but, our president’s and law-breakers (in both houses of Congress and both parties) laws redistribute our wealth up to the billionaire elite of Wall Street, to the war-mongering arms dealers and builders, the health insurance industry’s CEOs, the pharma and to the surveillance industry’s CEOs (among other privileged elitists) through trillions of dollars spent in contracts. This leaves the public safety-net destroyed when we need it the most.

The ignored-by-the-media epidemic increase in homelessness, usurious loan interest rates that guarantee the debt will be unpaid by an unemployed working class, the trillions in student loan debt that guarantee the students will not have a living-salary because the interest is prohibitive, veterans returning home without health and mental health services, all of this and more can have ONE guaranteed result: trauma to the mental health, individually and collectively.

But there are TWO public expressions of this problem: class struggle in the streets, as in Europe and the Middle East, or collective and individual depression expressed in self-directed violence and/or spontaneous, unplanned violence against the society. This last one is the one the law-breakers fear because they know it can turn into class struggle in the streets with THEM as the target.

Soo, before that happens, they and their media have DISCONNECTED from the public view the chain that ties  the INCREASE in ‘mental health issues’ to the economic and political war on the working class, and put the blame on mental illness as a threat to society, with the mentally ill turned in the public eye into a ‘terrorist’.

http://thoughtcatalog.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/pavss.jpeg?w=584

Famous photo of Vietnam era Tibetan monk protesting the war.

Self-immolation has got to be the most extreme form of political statement. The Tibetan monks used it to protest the Vietnam war and even today. We have yet to see why that man in the mall here in the US set himself on fire but, whatever the reason, it’s a bad omen of the extreme effect this ‘economical crisis’ is having on our people.

These laws taking away the civil rights of people with ‘mental illness’ are NOT created for your protection. They have been created for the protection of the elected officials and the banking and financial elite AFRAID of what may happen to them when we finally wake up.

People, the medicine we need is ‘the people united’ putting the fear in the elite’s heart.

On criminals, terrorists, and crazy men Part2


Yesterday I opened a post about my views on mental illness and dissent in the USA.Today I look into how this connection was continually been made for us in TV programs.

The entertaining ‘terrorists’

Springer, Geraldo’s crazy politics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until 9/11, it was an imperative for the government, and the big financial interests it represents, to paint a picture of the USA as a happy nation, the spectator of a world in chaos, but not touched by it. The USA was above all that racket. We don’t have coup d’état in the USA, Kennedy’s assassination was the act of one and one man alone, no conspiracy was found there. It was a ‘common crime’. Neither did we have here racism a la South Africa.

Likewise, it was unwise to tag McVeigh as a ‘terrorist’; it would have messed with the idyllic vision of the US as a happy united people. There were NO TERRORISTS in the USA, land of the free; only crazy power-thirsty cultists, Nazis, Puerto Rican and Black separatists (meaning PRican liberation movement and Nation of Islam) fanatic sympathizers existed in our midst.

In the 1990s, TV shows like Geraldo, Ophra, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer helped paint the idea that these political groups and their views were laughable abnormalities, inconsequential and entertaining, not to be taken seriously. They could even be helped with therapy and kumbaya, as Ophra tried, because, after all, you have to be ‘crazy’ to be in one of these groups. Except that, what was crazy here was not the person but the political ideas of these people, the idea that the US government’s policies could be considered so oppressive by groups of people that they would choose to separate from it. (I’m not siding nor supporting any group here.); the idea that racism was coming only from the KKK and Black racists.

Political dissent in the USA was unofficially diagnosed FOR the public opinion through these programs as a crazy act, an irrational act. Officially it was diagnosed as ‘oppositional defiant behavior’ in the DSM bible. We were allowed to think that the root of these people’s problem was ‘social’: bad parents, poverty (usually the ‘white trash’ and ghetto members were the invitees), etc but never was the US politics and policies considered as factors. Are you crazy? Hell no! There was seldom serious discussions about these problems.

All these TV programs, my friend, represent the corporate art of ideological propaganda’.

Then came 9/11, the game changer.

“Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: “(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; “against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

Tomorrow I will discuss this new definition of ‘terrorism’ and compare it to the old one (in the earlier post for you to do the comparing on your own) and get into the scapegoating of mentally ill people as terrorist. It’s right there, in the highlighted part. Can you see it coming?

On criminals, terrorists, and mad men.


Before 9/11, a person who went out on a ‘killing rampage’ was viewed by the public as one who “went postal’, a ‘bomber without a cause’ or a ‘serial killer’. In other words, it was considered the act of a ‘common criminal’, not a political or act of war.  After 9/11, that same person committing the same act is considered ‘a war terrorist’ and ‘a crazy person’, to boot.

When and how did we decide to re-classify our definition of ‘common crime’ as ‘an act of war and terrorism’, and to link it to mental illness? Who helped shape our collective ‘perception’ of ‘imminent’ danger?

I will share my views about how mental illness has been scapegoat, after 9/11, as terrorism in a veiled effort to control political and social dissent in our nation, which our current president has declared to be in “a permanent state of war”.

Parts of this post will go under the headings:

The politics of crime: crime in the US before 9/11

Our a-political perception of crime

Mental illness to the rescue

THE POLITICS OF CRIME: Crime in the US before 9/11

Before 9/11, mental illness was seldom considered the sole culprit of acts of violence in our society. Acts of violence by ‘civilians’ (killing co-workers or loved ones) was seen by the public mostly as something done by someone who ‘lost it’ or who ‘went postal’. Implied in these descriptions is some sort of collective understanding that the person committing the crime was under the pressures of work, finance, love betrayal, or other social problems; the public was able to point to a ‘social context’ behind the act of violence. Because of this awareness of a social context behind crimes, the citizens of a town, city or state could look for a social solution to the problem of violence, not for a ‘war’ policy or armaments solution.

Also, pre-9/11 there was an unspoken social ‘agreement’ on the distinction between a ‘common criminal’ and a ‘terrorist’. A terrorist was a foreigner ‘at war’ against us but not here in the USA, and home-grown violence (by civilians) was just ‘regular crimes’. Thus, terrorism = act of war.

In other words, before 9/11 there seemed to be no ‘political’ crimes in the USA, acts of violence to advance political beliefs.  Seldom did the media or law enforcement agencies (at least publicly) tagged as ‘terrorism’ crimes that were clearly political in nature. Not even Timothy McVeigh, member of a separatist militia movement, was tagged as a terrorist, not until way after 9/11. The killing of a US President was NOT considered a political or even as terrorist act either. It was tagged as the act of a fanatical ‘lone-wolf’, who probably had been manipulated by the commies, a fact which would have made the crime a political one and a conspiracy. (But we never really went there, did we?) The ‘unabomber’ was a ‘rebel without a cause’, even a ‘mad genius’ but not a terrorist, certainly not a ‘political crusader’ for the animal rights movement, a fact many people don’t know about. And, finally, incarcerated political dissidents before 9/11, like imprisoned Puerto Rican liberation movement members, considered themselves ‘political prisoners’ (not terrorists) but the federal government had perennially refused to accept them as such, tagging them instead as ‘criminals’, until recently.

All of these examples of reluctance by the government to use the ‘t’ word, ‘terrorism’, fly despite the fact that it (FBI) had, before 9/11,  a clear definition of terrorism:

“the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals,against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”

That is a political definition of terrorism, based on power struggle between the government and other groups of people to “furtherance of political or social objectives”. It required a “group” (“two or more”), and purposeful coordination of acts was implied. But we hardly knew about this definition, didn’t we? Why? This is in part because of the “two or more” requirement, given that our criminals were almost always portrayed as ‘lone-wolves’.

OUR POLITICAL PERCEPTIONS OF CRIME

The one thing the government (federal and state) must protect above anything else is…no, it’s not ‘the nation’.  It is the public trust in the government’s institutions. No trust in government = dissent, polarization, and power struggles for change in the way the government leaders run the nation, be it through peaceful civil disobedience or violence.

The public’s perception of ‘crime’ is shaped by the government’s criminal and justice systems policies and politics, among others. (It’s interesting to me that the first American group to be labeled as  ‘terrorist’ was the animals rights movement in The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006, something unrelated to war or Al Qaeda.)

So, it is conceivable that, to protect the public’s perception that the majority of the people are satisfied with the government’s policies, that there is no significant dissent within the society, the actions of dissenting groups are described as ‘regular crime’ and ‘crazy’ to devoid them of its political statement against the government policies. It reeks to Nazism, doesn’t it?

So, in a nation engaged in a ‘permanent war against terrorism’ and in enacting political, economic and repressive policies (police and surveillance state), which attack the middle class (leaving de-facto only two classes, the elite and the poor), how is the government going to label the natural political acts of dissent and resistance of those affected by its unfair policies and the impact it has on the social fabric?

Tomorrow: the pre and post 9/11 perception on crime, and mental illness to the rescue.

Disturbing news: FBI calls half of populace with 9/11 doubts potential terrorists


This is the latest installment of Big Brother’s “anti-terrorism” orders.  What I find most disturbing in this Digital Journal   article  is that ANY “personal problems” is sufficient to label you as  “terrorist”, or more specifically a “sleeper” cell terrorist, if during your “personal problem” you happen to vent “fury at the West[?] for the  global policies of the US”. Also, “excusing violence against Americans on the grounds that American actions provoked the problem”, in other words, disagreeing with US foreign policies would automatically convert you into  a “sleeper cell”.

Notice that expressing your “fury” against any European nation, the “West”, counts as an act of ‘treason’. That’s the long arm of the globalist elite. You are not allowed to criticize or have dissenting views ANYWHERE, not only in the US or about non-US policies. Your political opinions are restricted now to either shut up or accept as perfect the nation’s  actions to ‘protect the homeland’.

If there where any doubts of the reality that our government distrusts its citizens, that this is a BIG BROTHER state, that dissent is DE FACTO banned, that ALL Americans are considered traitors by the FBI and our politicians, that our Constitution is dead…that article ought to erase any such doubts.

According to the FBI and the Department of Justice [justice for the elite] list of ‘characteristic’ behaviors and beliefs of terrorists, I and all of you who may agree with a few of my  posted opinions, are considered  ‘terrorists’ by our government. You don’t have to do anything ‘wrong’; just express disagreement about our government policies, mild or ‘furiously’,  or even just visit this blog, and you are a “sleeper” cell terrorist.

This is all happening during the Obama administration.

Yeap. America, the land of the free, RIP. Long live the dictatorship.

Section of FBI circular to local police   Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Sl...

Americans Fault Mental Health System Most for Gun Violence


Interesting Gallup poll.

One thing: according to the poll, Americans have NOT change at all, since 2011, in their believe that the “failure of the mental health system to identify individuals who are a danger  to others” is the MAIN cause of mass shootings (48%). But, there was a REDUCTION of 6% since 2011 to 2013 in the amount of people who believe that guns are the culprit. The question is Where did those 6% put the blame now? Evidently their change in perception is NOT reflected as an increase in the category of people who believe that the mental health system is to be blamed.

Surprisingly enough, Democrats are MORE likely to believe that guns are NOT the main culprit (51%), which brings the question: Why is the Dem Party so intent in ramming down our throats gun control laws as a panacea to this problem? As I showed in my previous post, Obama stated that the MAIN reason we have ‘ritualistic mass shootings’  is because “we” (the public) refuse to adopt “firm background checks”, a sad and absurd statement from the president of “hope and change”.

“Independents” are MORE inclined to blame guns than republicans themselves (44 vs 49% respectively).

This all leads me to believe that the Democratic Party PREFERS to blame guns so it doesn’t have to explain Why are they cutting funds for mental health services while the American people understands that bad quality of mental health services is the main cause of mass shootings.

If we were to accept that Gallop poll as valid, then these would be some points for the mental health advocacy community to consider:

1. Is the NRA succeeding in its message that guns are not to be blamed for mass shootings?

2. Is blaming the ‘mental health system’ equivalent to blaming the mentally ill individuals? That would be disastrous for us.

3. How can the mental health advocacy community take ‘advantage’ of the believe that the mental health system is the main cause of mass shootings? This point ought to be ‘exploited’: demand REAL reform in the mental health system NOW. While mental illness is NOT the ONLY reason for mass shootings (wars, national economy, environment of police-state, home foreclosures by Wall Street, joblessness, homelessness and many other social issues are part of the problem of mass shootings),  we could focus on QUALITY of services as much as on QUANTITY as a response to mass shootings.

We must battle against ALL background checks that stigmatize the mentally ill. Background checks are NOT the answer, not even enough to accept them TEMPORARILY because, once the legal damage is done, we can’t fight it for the next 50 years.

I’m a skeptic when it comes to polls, but, given that Americans tend to ‘buy’ them,  it would make sense to take advantage of this one.