“Black Lives Matter” and “15 Now!,” have created all the conditions for a “perfect storm” in the African American community

Really CJS, you should grab a book and get a good grip around radical
criminology. Inner group conflict is the symptom of the lower/working classes
rebelling against the morals, values and laws of the controllers of production
(the ruling class). Crime, and the enforcement thereof, is the means to exert
control from the top down. Blaming the suspect/ criminal and holding them as
singular actors responsible for their deviance is a sleight-of-hand
deliberately diverting any responsibility of an unjust system of control.
Demean the individual, punish them and remove them from their non-productive
(in the capital sense) existence. Consult Tony Bouza.
 
Sorry, no Wiki links, all came from a book 150 years ago.
 
Gregory Reinhardt
Engels Strasse, Excelsior

Gregory Reinhardt
Posted at 12:09pm, Aug 18
 
“Really CJS, you should grab a book and get a good grip around radical
criminology. Inner group conflict is the symptom of the lower/working classes
rebelling against the morals, values and laws of the controllers of production
(the ruling class). Crime, and the enforcement thereof, is the means to exert
control from the top down. Blaming the suspect/ criminal and holding them as
singular actors responsible for their deviance is a sleight-of-hand
deliberately diverting any responsibility of an unjust system of control.
Demean the individual, punish them and remove them from their non-productive
(in the capital sense) existence. Consult Tony Bouza.
 
Sorry, no Wiki links, all came from a book 150 years ago.”
 
My response to Gregory Reinhardt:
 
As you said, you did not provide a link or any other reference to anything
about radical criminology. I did, however, find an article about it on
Wikipedia. You might want to check it out. It would appear that racial
criminology is based on Marxism, specifically something called Instrumental
Marxism as opposed to structural Marxism, and classical Marxism. This reference
to a Marxist ideology confirms my assertion in a previous thread that, “You are
a ‘true believer’ who, regardless of the evidence presented contradicting your
pre conceived notions, still ‘keep the faith…you are a religious fanatic’
 
I say you are a religious fanatic because Marxism is not a science as Marxist’s
claim. Rather it is a secular or political religion and therefore not subject
to falsification. For more on falsification in the philosophical sense, as it
relates to science see: https://en.wikipedia.org​/wiki​/Falsifiability​, also see
https://en.wikipedia.org​/wiki​/Karl​_Popper
 
I think the section “Criticism” in the article on “Structural Marxism” can be
applied to all of Marxism:
 
"Criticism[edit]
In a 1971 paper for Socialist Register, Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski[6]
undertook a detailed critique of structural Marxism, arguing that the concept
was seriously flawed on three main points:
I will argue that the whole of Althusser's theory is made up of the following
elements : 1. common sense banalities expressed with the help of unnecessarily
complicated neologisms; 2. traditional Marxist concepts that are vague and
ambiguous in Marx himself (or in Engels) and which remain, after Althusser's
explanation, exactly as vague and ambiguous as they were before; 3. some
striking historical inexactitudes.
Kołakowski further argued that, despite Althusser's claims of scientific rigor,
structural Marxism was unfalsifiable and thus unscientific, and was best
understood as a quasi-religious ideology. In 1980, sociologist Axel van den
Berg[7] described Kołakowski's critique as "devastating," proving that
‘Althusser retains the orthodox radical rhetoric by simply severing all
connections with verifiable facts.’”
 
For more on Marxism as a religion see the post on my blog entitled, “Comments
on Bolshevism as a religion.”
 
As I said in my article, “This is not to imply that African Americans are
naturally any more prone to violent behavior than any other race of people.
They are not.  All people, of any race, will display more violent tendencies
when stuck in poverty and when they are surrounded by bigotry.”
 
I agree that people of any race are going to be more prone to criminal
activities when they are subjected to poverty and other forms of oppression,
but that is not to say that society and the police as the agent of our society
should just ignore criminal activities in the African American community,
especially violent activities, committed against each other.
 
I think the only way to objectify judge a societies response to a strategy of
dealing with crime is to look at the results of those strategies in terms of
numbers of crimes per a given number of people, usually expressed as X per
100,000 people.
 
When we look objectively at the numbers of African Americans killed before the
advent of BLM and after we see many more African Americans killed, not less.
We see that when the minimum wage is raised we see more deep poverty among
African American youth, and more crime, including violent crime, including, but
not limited to homicide. Any ideology that does not recognize that simple truth
is of no use, and in fact is counter productive, if our objective is to same or
improve peoples lives. In this case, adhering to that ideology will result in
the loss of even more young African American lives, the lives BLM and people
like you claim to most concerned about. Don't you see the irony here?
 
https://occupirate.blogspot.com​/2014​/12​/comments​-on​-bolshevism​-as​-religion​.html
 
https://en.wikipedia.org​/wiki​/Radical​_criminology
 
https://en.wikipedia.org​/wiki​/Political​_religion
 
https://en.wikipedia.org​/wiki​/Secular​_religion
 
 
P.S. If you think Tony Bouza has something interesting to say please tell us
what ,and where we can find it. Bouza is known for being quite verbose and
therefore it would take a lot of time looking for something in his writing or
speeches, especially if we do not even know what we are looking for.
 
Captain Jack Sparrow
Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate
http://occupirate.blogspot.com

It is apparent to me now that someone like Ed Felien must get together with
Tony Bouza and compile something along the lines of the Little Red Book. CJ
needs it, you need it, and I need it; but it needn’t be red or read although it
might need some redaction before publication just in case someone actually does
read it for nefarious purposes.

And sometimes, with all due respect to Tony Bouza, he does NOT.  Sometimes his
"substance" is nothing more that New York snobbery an, " I am so much smarter
than you Midwest Rubs". SUCH as when he laughed at us when we tried to have
some action in the late 1980's to do something about the criminal gang wave of
violence abut to hit Minneapolis.  HE was from New York and simply knew much
more than our naive silliness and paranoia.  How did that work out???
 
Council Member Tony Scallon set up that meeting with the folks of the PVNAG
organization.  Brian Coyle was there as well.
 
Then to be fair, Tony Bouza was absolutely open and supportive of citizen
involvement and his office was always open to us.  The best Minneapolis Police
Chief in my memory.   No, there is no conflict in those two positions.  :-)I am
happy at present with the new Chief and hope he will be a great one.  BUT if it
does not work out, Tony would be one of my first choices for a new one. :-)
 
In the same vain, though I might disagree with some things, a lot of the time
Captain Jack's stuff really is right on the mark.  AND he certainly makes a
whole lot more sense than that put out by some of those running for Mayor and
Council elective office this time.
 
Jim Graham
 
From: Wizard Marks <<email obscured>>
To: mpls@forums.e-democracy.org
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 12:36 PM
Subject: [Mpls] “Black Lives Matter” and “15 Now!,” have created all the
conditions for a “perfect storm” in the African American community
 
Tony Bouza can't hold a candle to you, Sparrow, for verbosity. Difference is
that sometimes Bouza has substance.
 
Wizard Marks
Central, Mpls.
About/contact Wizard Marks: http://forums.e-democracy.org​/p​/wizardmarks
 
 
1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules.
  If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at
  <email obscured> before continuing it on the list.
 
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

CJ says, "Isn't it possible that these complaints were based on false
allegations, like the false allegation by Black Lives Matter, and as I recall,
repeated by Ed's paper, that Clark was handcuffed when he was shot, or that
Michael Brown had his hands up in a gesture of surrender when shot?”
 
> If you would have taken the time to read your own citation referring to my
article, you would have read: "At least you are not claiming that Clark was
shot while handcuffed as Black Lives Matter was claiming, and is still
claiming."
 
 
The one factual error you catch in my article: "Schwarze’s gun did not fire
because the slide was partially retracted, not, as was reported in South Side
Pride, because the safety was on.” Frankly, your criticism seems trivial. I
don’t think it matters if the gun didn’t fire because the safety was on or
because the slide was retracted—either option shows a level of incompetence
that deserves an official reprimand.
 
Finally, C J, or David Viebahn, or whomever you think you are at this moment,
please stop throwing stones. Criticism should be based on unity, criticism,
unity. First establish the basis on which you agree, then discuss your
differences, then show how a resolution of differences can lead to a more solid
basis of cooperation and unity. Don’t just throw stones.

My response to Ed Felien's
poste at 11:01am:
 
Ed,
 
These are your exact words which appeared in a SSP article entitled "Jamar
Clark, Rest in Peace…" on May 2, 2016: “Some eyewitnesses said Clark was not
resisting arrest, and some said he was in handcuffs.”
 
http://southsidepride.com​​/jamar​​-clark​​-rest​​-in​​-peace​​-may​​-3​​-1991​​-november​​-16​​-2015​​/
 
We know now that those “witness” statements were not true. According to the
official report by United States Justice Department under Eric Holder, an
African American Attorney General in an administration headed by Obama, also
and African American:
 
“In order to fully assess whether this shooting constituted an unreasonable use
of force, federal investigators closely examined, among other things, all of
the evidence concerning whether Clark was handcuffed when he was shot.  Federal
investigators spent considerable time and resources investigating this specific
question because the fact that a suspect was handcuffed would change the
analysis of whether a particular use of force was reasonable, since a
restrained person generally presents less risk of harm to an officer than an
unrestrained person.
Based on this extensive investigation, the Justice Department concluded that
the evidence suggests that Clark was not handcuffed during this incident.
Although approximately half of the civilian eyewitnesses interviewed by the FBI
reported having seen handcuffs on Clark (and other witnesses believed, based on
Clark’s body positioning, that he was handcuffed) these witnesses’ accounts
varied significantly in the details of when he was handcuffed, what position he
was in when he was handcuffed and even whether one or both hands were
handcuffed.  These conflicting witness accounts seriously undermine the degree
to which they could be used to either disprove the officers’ accounts or to
affirmatively establish that Clark was handcuffed.
Additionally, the relevant physical evidence, while not conclusive, tends to
support the officers’ account.  Neither the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s
autopsy, nor the independent autopsy review conducted by the Office of the
Armed Forces Medical Examiner, found evidence of injuries to Clark’s wrists
that would be consistent with handcuffing…
In addition, the department reviewed the surveillance video from the HCMC
ambulance that captured part of the incident.  When considered in conjunction
with the accounts of on-scene paramedics, the footage suggests that Clark was
not handcuffed when he was shot.  Two paramedics reported exiting the ambulance
and moved towards Clark who is lying on his back and not wearing handcuffs.
During that same time, Officer Ringgenberg can be seen on the video standing
behind the ambulance, pacing around, without kneeling on the ground to remove
handcuffs from Clark.  Additional video shows that when Clark was transported
into an ambulance a short time later, he was not handcuffed.”
 
I did read my citation. Both the statement above and the statement in my blog
post are true and entirely consistent. The false allegation was made by BLM
that Clark was handcuffed when he was shot. It is also true that these “false
allegations ... [were] repeated by Ed's paper.” The statement, “At least you
are not claiming that Clark was shot while handcuffed, as Black Lives Matter
was claiming, and is still claiming. Or, maybe you are still making that
claim,” is also true. In other words, you repeated the false claim without
making the claim yourself. In order to give you a chance to clarify your
personal position, I ask if you are making the claim that Clark was handcuffed
when he was shot. You did not answer that question when I originally asked it
in 2016, and you still have not answered it.
 
It is not true that I only pointed out one factual error in your articles and
statements on E- Democracy about the Jamar Clark shooting. There were many
false statements both in your posts on E-Democracy and in Southside Pride
beyond the question of why Schwarze’s gun did not fire. It does matter if the
safety was on, which does reflect on the officers competence, or if the slide
was retracted, which is more likely an equipment malfunction. The slide on a
semi automatic only has to be retracted slightly for the gun not to fire and
that can happen from multiple causes.
 
You were wrong as to the time of the shooting and you were wrong about the
weather and wrong to imply that the weather the following Thursday could have
anything to do with why Clark did not remove his hands from his pockets to show
he was unarmed before the shooting on Sunday, four days earlier.
 
You were wrong to imply that Tony Bouza was correct in his statements regarding
the law in the case of police officers shooting people when the objective facts
differ from a reasonable officers perception of what the facts may be. Bousa,
who is not an attorney, was wrong. County Attorney, Freeman, who is an
attorney, was correct. Are you now willing to acknowledge that fact?
 
Are you prepared to go on the record to say now that Clark was not handcuffed
when he was shot? Are you willing to say that Michael Brown did not, according
to the Justice Department report, have his hands up in a gesture of surrender
when he was shot? (1) (5) Are you willing now to say that the only evidence
that George Zimmerman had racially profiled Travon Martin was the altered 911
call by NBC, in an attempt to make Zimmerman appear to be racist? (2) (3)
 
I agree with you, “Criticism should be based on unity, criticism, unity. First
establish the basis on which you agree, then discuss your differences, then
show how a resolution of differences can lead to a more solid basis of
cooperation and unity. Don’t just throw stones.” lets apply that principle in
our dealings with each other and in our conversations with and about the police
as well.
 
You accuse me of throwing stones, but accusing the officers who shot Clark of
murder is throwing boulders. How can we engage police officers in a meaningful
conversation about police brutality and racism, which you and I both agree is a
problem in the MPD, if we repeatedly accuse innocent police officers of murder?
Lets first establish where we unify with police officers. For example we may
agree with them that we all want to reduce crime and especially violent crime
in the African American community. We may also agree that we want to reduce
incidents of police brutality and racism, and maybe we might also agree that we
want to see police response in poor neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color
equal to richer predominantly White neighborhoods. However, we may disagree on
the tactics and strategies necessary to accomplish that goal.
 
If we start out with the assumption that the police are illegitimate in the
first place and should not exist than we are unlikely to be able to unite with
them on any level. Too many in the movement to bring about police reform take
that position. They seem to think that the only purpose of the police is to
uphold the status quo, and nothing about protecting and serving the community.
I think that view is especially true among Marxist Leninists, what I call
Bolsheviks and especially Maoists. Perhaps you may know some of those people.
Perhaps we should have a discussion about that first.
 
Mick Kelly, the head of Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a Maoist
organization, who I talked to about this said they don't think the police
should exist at all. They say they would never call the police under any
circumstances. But when I asked him if he were in the Soviet Union or China if
he would feel the same way he said, “no”. He said that if someone were speaking
in a way that was contrary to the party line he would immediately turn them in
to the police.
 
If our purpose is not to find some common ground with the police to protect and
serve our communities, but rather to foment a Bolshevik revolution then we are
unlikely to make any progress in reforming the police.
 
I have personally been physically abused by the place on at least two
documented occasions. But I do not then assume that all police officers behave
that way. I have had many more interactions with the police where they have
behaved in positive ways.
 
I know they have been guilty of racist actions as well and I have protested
that racist behavior. I was at a demonstration at the 3rd precinct after Al
Flowers, an African American activist, who is also running for Mayor this year,
was assaulted at his home, in front of his daughter. But I cannot because of
that incident and others like it assume that all, or that even most police
officers are racist. I have also seen police officers exhibit behavior that are
inconsistent with a racist attitude.
 
When police do the right thing we have to be just as complimentary as we are
critical when they do the wrong thing.
 
I am sorry if you see my comments as “throwing stones” I do not mean to do
that. I attack ideas not people. I challenge you to find an instance where I
have attacked a person personally without it being an immediate response to a
personal attack on me.
 
The post above, by Linda Mann, is an example of “throwing stones.” She does
not attack any of my ideas, she is making all personal attacks. I take that as
a compliment, apparently she finds my arguments unassailable.
 
1. https://occupirate.blogspot.com​/2014​/12​/ferguson​-and​-its​-aftermath​.html
 
2.
https://www.washingtonpost.com​/blogs​/erik​-wemple​/post​/nbc​-to​-do​-internal​-investigation​-on​-zimmerman​-segment​/2012​/03​/31​/gIQAc4HhnS​_blog​.html​?utm​_term​=​.0d62578322c4
 
3.
http://deadline.com​/2012​/05​/third​-person​-exits​-nbc​-over​-misleading​-edit​-of​-zimmermans​-911​-audio​-266597​/
 
4.
https://occupirate.blogspot.com​/2015​/03​/george​-zimmerman​-is​-exonerated​-by​-doj​.html
 
5. https://occupirate.blogspot.com​/2015​/01​/a​.html
 
 
 
Captain Jack Sparrow
Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate
http://occupirate.blogspot.com