Disturbing the Peace of the Masters in Public: Latino Man Discovers "His Rights" were Actually Just “Master’s Favors" - NYPD Public Relations Failure After Bullshit Stop

"A Group of Cornballs." Not what SNAG Spike Lee had in mind with his NYPD Public Relations [propaganda or psychological warfare] campaign to promote racism/white supremacy and the corporate police state .

Disorderly conduct requires an intentional breach of the peace --- of the public. One circumstance where a breach of the peace may be occasioned is where the defendant uses words likely to produce violence on the part of others. Others meaning persons other than cops, that is the public. In general courts have recognized that police officers are trained to be more patient than the average person in the face of hostile words: police officers are trained to deal with unruly and uncooperative members of the public. A police officer is expected to have a greater tolerance for verbal assaults, . . . and because the police are especially trained to resist provocation, we expect them to remain peaceful in the face of verbal abuse that might provoke or offend the ordinary citizen.’ In re W.H.L., 743 A.2d 1226, 1228 (D.C. 2000).


In the video the public appears to be undisturbed  - as no persons appear to be paying any attention to the argument in NYC during the day. What is clear is that the cops are in their feelings, particularly the Asian & Black cop. In real life, as FUNKTIONARY explains, "a willing slave gets upset if you refuse to to acknowledge his or her master. Usually when people say 'act responsibly' what they mean is cow-tow to the conforming lies we call truths" [quoting George Battailes].

Here, said Sambo cops cannot deal with the Latino man acting irresponsibly, who has questioned their authority or their master's authority one time too many. Larken Rose states, any one treating cops as mere mortals, as if they are on the same level as everyone else, amounts to showing disrespect for their alleged “authority.” Similarly, anyone who does not consent to be detained, questioned, or searched by “officers of the law” is automatically perceived, by the mercenaries of the state, as some sort of troublemaker who has something to hide. Again, the real reason such lack of “cooperation” annoys authoritarian enforcers is because it amounts to people treating them as mere humans instead of treating them as superior beings, which is what they imagine themselves to be." [MORE]


Belief that we have some illusional power is actually submission to and cooperation with "government," "authority" and the system of racism/white supremacy. Such beliefs empower elite racists while simultaneously disempowering ourselves. At any rate, believe in your "rights" at your own risk. 

According to Dr. Blynd:

rights - fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man's system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man's nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the "State"). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or, enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. While the law reads rights referentially, what is universally needed in the praxis of rights discourse today is a particular re-inscription, demystification or reontologising of rights (revivified and convivial) by the pan-gendered subject-citizen-decoder—taken symptomatically rather than seriously. Most people rarely experience the cognizance of being property of corporate fictions because as long as you don't violate the rules of society your real status as feudal-property-slave is no: involved or revealed. If there is no 'I,' to what and to whom do rights as objects accrue? Those who are confused by suffering (and the subject of same) require a re-onotoligisation of rights through the trajectory of meaning independent of their existence. Rights and even 'lefts' (i.e., what remains after all of our imaginary rights are traced to their inception as figment) for that matter, like good and evil, are human inventions which humans treat as non-human realities. While fantasy frames invent rights, romanticism reinvents them. Enjoy your symptoms and play with your syndrome—the symptom is the solution. Read carefulh the holding in the supreme Court case of U.S. v. Babcock. Rights are myths—obedience to servitude or jail is the reality. (See: Abilities, Bill of Rights, Monoright, Servitude, Fantasy, Jurisdiction, Human Resources, Citizenship, Frankenstein, Autonomy. Rule of Law, Surrogate Power, Indigenous Power, Yurugu, Jouissance, Privilege, Disobedience, Duty & Willpower)