Burning Target and Autozone, and burning tyrants are not the Same Thing.
We need to be absolutely clear about something. Looting, pillaging, and burning private companies and innocent small businesses in the community is not the same thing as damaging and burning tyrant oppressive establishments. But, burning tyrants should not be the first response to tyranny either.
We Condemn Looting And Damaging Innocent Private Business!
We absolutely condemn and advocate against looting, pillaging, and burning private companies and innocent small businesses in the community. This is an act AGAINST freedom and liberty of The People. WHICH, the act of, IS another form of violent tyranny and oppression.
Those who looted, pillaged, and burned small business, Target, and Autozone in Minnesota were NOT furthering the fight against oppression. They aided it. Those who damage any sort of uninvolved innocent establishment, anywhere, are aiding in the oppression and harming the furtherance of justice.
Notice we did not mention the Minnesota Police Station, 3rd precinct in that; but we’ll get to that in a second.
They, the looters, in effect, oppressed their community further. Even though those are just “stuff” and “things” that were damaged and looted, that is not on the same level of murdering innocent people (George Floyd). They still greatly harmed their community in that now there are people in the community who are unwillingly without work due to the damage. These hard working employees in the community have bills to pay. They have to buy food and pay rent. Now, they will be even more dependent on an enslaving system, mostly due to the looters.
These oppressive Looters are NOT the justice seeking protestors. They are pathetic greedy opportunists who seek personal gain at the cost of their own community. Some are even just moronic anarchists who just want the thrill of destruction. Either way, they are oppressors; no different, in principle, than the “bad” cops.
Is There Such Thing as Justified Violent Protests and Riots?
Yes. When all outlets of failed and the state refuses to reform itself and seek justice FOR the people, what more are the people to do? Vote harder? These people are given only a few politicians to choose from, all of whom are trash and are either inactive and silent in the face of oppression or, are part of the oppression and just give ‘lip-service’ to the people and then just support the party line once elected (See Statist Arguments below).
Year after year, decade after decade, there have been PEACEFUL protests. There have been calls for reform. People have contacted their “representative,” attended townhalls and city counsel meetings… Their videos of publicly shaming the city counsels are all over the internet. The odds of getting a hold of your state and federal rep is almost impossible. Trust me, we’ve tried. If you want to try, here you go. We even see The People’s PEACEFUL protests flat out ignored (2A Protests of Virginia, 2019). So, when the people are ignored, what more can they do? Well, let’s look at the history of America.
To argue that violent protests and riots are inherently evil, is then to condemn every slave revolt and violent slave uprising. That is to condemn every revolt by native Americans. It is to condemn even the Boston Tea Party… The Boston Massacre was when protesting Colonialists were SHOT. What were they doing? They were violently protesting the Crown. They were throwing rocks at the Red Coats. The violent sacrifice of those killed by the British and the violent protesting lead to the free-est nation in history. The colonialists were ignored by the Crown. They were left with no option but escalate their confrontation with the ruling government.
When The People of a nation are ignored by their government, after peacefully submitting their grievances, and escalation IS REQUIRED. Everyone forgets that during the Civil Rights movement, there were a lot of big riots that took place which FORCED the government to discuss the issue. At the same time, boycotts, sit ins, and peaceful marches put a spot light on the oppression itself. Leader’s like Martin Luther King Jr. changed hearts and minds while the violence forced the open public discussions, forcefully. The founding fathers even stated, in the Declaration of Independence, that at some point, it even becomes necessary! (See The RIGHT No One Talks About)
To claim that violent protests are never good, is to be completely ignorant to the violent protests, revolts, and revolution that made the Bill of Rights even possible. A historical fact that puts statists at odds with the cause of their own freedoms… Now, we are NOT arguing for a revolution. Let’s be clear. We aren’t there yet. There is still hope for government reform. But we ARE at the point where peaceful protests NEED to become more forceful and need to be escalated; because the Teddy Bear peaceful protests ARE being, and have been, ignored.
The Target of Escalated Protesting
The People pay for the very establishment that is used to oppress them. City Counsels, State Assemblies, and Law Enforcement are all paid for by the people by their hard earned money, from taxes. These city and state PUBLIC bodies create the orders, ordinances, and laws that are used by law enforcement to oppress and violate civil rights! The chain of oppression is public funded. THIS is where the protests need to take place.
So, what should be done with the public funded establishments that have ignored the will and the voice of the people? What good is a police station that allows for the oppression their own community and the violation of their rights? What good are all the “good” cops who remain silent to keep their job? What good are the “good” cops who are “just doing their job” by enforcing the laws that violate rights? What good are the “good” cops who DON’T stop their co-workers from oppressing their community? What good is that building that houses the silent, passive, and the oppressors? Is that public building worth more than the lives lost? Is that building worth more than the rights violated? Is that building worth more than freedom and liberty? Is a building set up FOR Justice worth anything when it does NOT seek justice?
As we have previously stated (The Problem is The Police), it is THOSE buildings that need to be at the center of the protests. Not the local businesses that provide more for the community than that oppressing building. Then, the statist will chime in and say “well, that building provides jobs.” This is true. But SHOULD WE provide jobs to anyone willing to oppress their own community? Should we put up with a building the willingly houses people actively against freedom and liberty? Once a facility is used for oppression and evil (killing innocent people and enforcing unjust laws), should it exist, if unable to be reformed? When that building is home to a culture of power, control, and oppression; should it be allowed, if unwilling to reform?
The police and courts even support this idea in that they feel justified to cease the cars and homes of criminals. It’s call civil asset forfeiture. Why shouldn’t this be applied to oppressive establishments of the state?
Notice, our focus here is a physical LOCATION and not a person or people. We are NOT advocating for violence against the “bad” cops even. We are demanding JUSTICE and a system to reform itself to better SEEK SWIFT JUSTICE. We believe in the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” but when a VIDEO proves the guilt, there NEEDS to be justice to swiftly follow. The RIGHT to a speedy trial seems to be oddly slow for the benefit of the oppressors. They are given ample time to go home, get their affairs in order, find an good attorney and so on. But for the average person, we are arrested on the spot, sit and jail, have family and friends pool together money to get us bailed out AND THEN we can get our affairs in order; if we don’t get stuck with a Public Defender who is overworked as we just sit in jail until trial. Why the different, unequal, unfair treatment?
The target of our protests FOR SWIFT JUSTICE AND A SPEEDY TRIAL should be at the foot of all those who’s duty is to pursue justice; not at the person who is pending charges and trial. We should be at THEIR places of work, the buildings OWNED by The People. THEY need to be doing their jobs (seeking justice) or they need to GET OUT of OUR building.
We look at the actions of the founders of this great nation and see that they attempted every means of peaceful protesting. Wrote formal letters, peacefully protested, and boycotts. But because the oppression did not end and the government was unwilling to reform, they then went after government and government-partnered business buildings and products. How the colonialist patriots responded is a good justified blue print for us now.
How Did The Patriots and Founding Fathers React?
The Colonialists took their protests TO the established places. In 1763 the colonial governments of New York and Massachusetts sent formal letters of protest to Parliament. Prime Minister Grenville proposed a Stamp Tax. This law would require colonists to purchase a government-issued stamp for legal documents and other paper goods. Grenville submitted the bill to Parliament for questioning, and only one member raised objections to Parliament’s right to tax the colonies. After news of the successful passage of the Stamp Act reached the colonies, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed resolutions denying the British Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies. In Boston, colonists rioted and destroyed the house of the stamp distributor. In October of 1765, delegates from 9 colonies met to issue petitions to the British Government denying Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies. An American boycott of British goods, coupled with recession, also led British merchants to lobby for the act’s repeal on pragmatic economic grounds. Under pressure from American colonists and British merchants, the British Government decided it was easier to repeal the Stamp Act than to enforce it. Their mindset didn’t change. Their decision was a calculated decision, not a moral one. There was resistance to new taxes instituted in 1767 under the Townshend Acts. In 1773, the colonists staged more vocal widespread protests against the British Parliament’s decision to grant the East India Company a monopoly on the tax-free transport of tea. The East India Company became part of the oppression chain and was no longer an innocent private business. Although Parliament did lower taxes levied on other tea importers, the tax-free status of the British East India Company meant that colonial tea traders could not compete. Colonists responded by encouraging a general boycott of British goods. On December 16, 1773, American colonists disguised as Indians boarded East India Company ships in Boston Harbor and threw crates of tea overboard. This famous protest came to be known as the Boston Tea Party and is celebrated to this day.
When news of the Tea Party reached England, British officials moved to enforce discipline and order in the colonies. The British Government ordered the closure of the port of Boston until the East India Company was compensated for the destroyed tea. Parliament also passed several pieces of legislation in 1774 which attempted to place Massachusetts under direct British control. In the American colonies, these laws were referred to as the Intolerable Acts. British control was further solidified by the appointment of General Thomas Gage as military governor of Massachusetts. First Continental Congress convened in September of 1774. The Continental Congress agreed to the Articles of Association on October 20. These Articles listed colonial grievances and called for a locally-enforced boycott in all the colonies to take effect on December 1. The delegates also drafted a petition to King George III laying out their grievances. They were ignored. British military governor Gage wrote to London recommending suspension of the Intolerable Acts. British ministers responded to Gage’s suggestions by removing him from his post. Decent was punished. They felt that further punitive measures were necessary and pushed Parliament to pass additional trade restrictions on New England. London declared the colonies to be in rebellion and borderline “domestic terrorists.”
About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial firearms and ammo, reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot leaders had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. On the night before the battle, warning of the British expedition had been rapidly sent from Boston to militias in the area by several riders, including Paul Revere and Samuel Prescott, with information about British plans. The initial mode of the Army’s arrival by water was signaled from the Old North Church in Boston to Charlestown using lanterns to communicate “one if by land, two if by sea”. The colonialist milita and British Army then engaged and “The Short Heard Around The World” took place which sparked the revolution. This is actually celebrated as Patriots Day.
As their grievances’ were ignored, they escalated their protests. As the British escalated their forceful oppression, the Colonialists were forced to escalate their level of protests. Because the government was unwilling to reform and end oppression; the colonialists were justified in their violent protests and revolts.
Are All Police and Government Officials “Bad?”
This is a dumb straw man argument. No, not all are bad. Were all British troops “bad” who were killed in the escalation leading up to the revolutionary war? No. I’m sure there were “good” red coats. BUT the side they chose, caused them to get caught up on the wrong side of history. They could have quit their post, got a job else where or joined the colonialists and Continental army. Instead, they chose to work for an oppressor. Did all colonialists want a revolution? No. Did some “good” colonialists abstain from protesting and war? Sure. Did some die still, yes. But, if the few bold did not escalate for freedom, we wouldn’t have a Bill of Rights.
But you can’t claim to be “good” or call someone else “good” who is silent in the face of oppression. That is NOT a “good” decision or a character trait. It is actually immoral and wrong. So, with that said, the police officers who DO NOT speak out, who do NOT confront their oppressors, who obey unjust laws, and unwillingly, yet still, violate people’s rights; they are not “good.” They are the same as passive red coats.
Officers who abstain from breaking up peaceful protests but ONLY protect the innocent, who abstain from enforcing Red Flag laws, and Stay At Home orders, those are the only “good” officers. Their ultimate duty is to protect the rights of the people and enforce JUST laws. The enforcement of Red Flag laws, Stay at Home orders, tear gassing confrontational non-violent protestors, and remaining silent when co-workers oppress and kill… they are actually enemies of The People.
Were SS Officers who worked for the Nazi party, who didn’t kill anyone, where they “good” officers? Were slave traders who did not abuse or kill slaves, were they “good” business owners? Were the police officers who were just doing their job and enforced Jim Crow Laws, were they “good” officers? Those are rhetorical questions. No, they weren’t “good” even though they didn’t harm anyone.
Police who kneel with protestors, who march with protestors, is all find and dandy, but if there is no lasting policy and tactics change, all that is nothing more than a show to “look” like they are “good guys” when, in fact, they have changed nothing.
Good police officers need to speak up, take action, and confront their co-workers and police culture. They need to be the ones actively striving for change, reforms, and justice; for the people, with the people.
Looters VS Protesters & Good Police VS Bad Police
Not all protestors are looters. Funny how this is how they are portrayed by the same people who argue that not all cops are bad. They are right, but illogical and inconsistent in their application. Not ‘all’ police are bad and not all looters are protesters. If all protesters are potential looters, than all cops are potentially bad. See how logic works?
BUT the overall police culture assumes that aggressive confrontational protestors are potential looters and criminals (even though they are not). Just look at police behavior when they stop someone for almost any reason. They detain free people assuming they are a potential threat and criminal. This mindset is what leads to a quicker response to shoot. The justification is “for their safety” but that leads to this logical question: “safety from whom?” And right there, it reveals that the person they are detaining is secured in case they are a violent criminal… even though, they may not be. So safety precautions are there then for civilian non violent free people are from overly zealous aggressive police officers? The default view of protestors and innocent and free civilians is that they may become dangerous at any moment.
When a cell phone is in your hand, it is assumed to be a “potential weapon.” If you are lawfully carrying a weapon, it needs to be secured by the officer; in case of what? In case you are a criminal. But what about the weapon use of an aggressive zealous officer? We see, time after time, they draw their lethal weapon for almost any reason; non-compliance for example. Is that a reason to pull a gun on someone? Can a civilian just whip out their weapon on non-compliant people? We see the police culture of zealous weapon use ingrained in the policies, justified by the “dangerous nature of their job.” But what about civilians who are legitimately scared of the dangerous actions of the police? Is the fear of harm justified?
There were 1,112 non-suicide-related deaths at the hands of police in 2019. These numbers are UNDER REPORTED according to the Department of Justice . 31% of those killed by police in 2019 were African American. 41.9% were White, who were killed by police. Now, not all of them were wrongful killings.
The data from 2015-2019 shows 430 Afghani civilians have been killed by US forces in Afghanistan . From 2015 to 2019, police have killed over 4,900 US citizens. That is 11x more killings of US citizens by Police than Afghani Citizens by US forces in a war zone … sounds bad but let’s dig deeper into the numbers to get some clarity.
Considering the 2015 data, it is estimated that only 5% of the shootings were suspicious and questionable. Considering human life and killing is on the line here, suspicious and questionable shootings are wrong. There should never be a question of whether or not lethal force was necessary. That would mean that of the 1,112 killings in 2019, 55 killings were suspicious and questionable. These are those high profile killings that everyone is protesting. Applying that 5% to the total police shootings from 2015 to 2019, that means 245 shootings were questionable and suspicious. Doesn’t seem too bad now, well, that is still 245 people over the last 4 years that have been killed by various police departments nation wide that were questionable. That is over 200 different police departments doing the same thing; zealous questionable lethal weapon usage. Why do all these police departments uniformly resort to quick use of lethal weapons? The police culture.
U.S. verses U.K. police
But in 2016, only 3 people were killed by UK police . While that same year, over 900 were killed in America by police. Why in the world is there such a difference in law enforcement killings between the UK and the US? In the past 24 years, it is estimated that UK police have killed only 55 people. So, statistically, the police in American killed 4x more Americans in 4 years, than the UK police did in the past 24 years … In fact, that number was beat in 2015 alone, in America, in 24 days. So, what’s the difference between UK law enforcement and US law enforcement? Policy, tactics, and culture…
Keep in mind, we took away the instances where US citizens were justifiably killed. We completely agree in lethal self defense for all people, citizens and police. Those who were justifiably killed either brandished a gun in a immediate threatening manner or were really immediately threatening the life to the officer. The number we are using, the 245 people, are the questionable suspicious killings. We divide that by 4 (years) and we get 61, on averaged, are killed in a questionable wrongful manner, average, annually. Every year, US law enforcement wrongfully kill more than the UK in the past 24 years.
The US police culture is far different from the UK police culture who view the use of their lethal weapons differently.
The Safety of The Police
In 2015, 41 police were killed by gunfire. 41, nation wide. More citizens are killed by police in a questionable way than police are killed by citizens… but, let’s look at the odds or the per capita numbers.
There are roughly 700,000 police officers in America (2016 data) . If 41 were killed by citizens, that means they have a 5.857e-5 (or 0.00005%) odds of being shot in the line of duty. Is this the most dangerous job? Let’s look at Lumber Jacks.
Since 1992, the the federal government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has kept data on work-related deaths and injuries. Over a 22-year year span, an average of 5,650 U.S. workers perish each year on the job, or due to injuries procured on the job. We don’t even need to do the per capita math. Lumber Jacks risks are greater and more of them die than police. Being a police officer is safer than being a Lumber Jack.
Police death per capita compared to Civilian deaths by police per capita.
The black population in 2015 was around 45 million. 31% of police shootings are black. That means 75 of the wrongful police shootings were black and 100 were white (41%). Given that the black population was 45,000,000; there is a 1.66e-6 (0.0000016%) chance of an African American to be wrongfully killed by police, per capita. Now that is an interesting number.
Statistically, police are more likely to be killed by citizens than vise versa AND whites are more likely to be wrongfully killed by police than blacks. People keep pointing this out like this some how justifies something. But, this isn’t a race issue, this is a human life issue. Black, white, whatever, human life is killed at the hands of another human being. But even if and when we combine all races, wrongfully killed by police, police still have a higher risk than citizens. Is this why police are more fearful of harm? This actually lends credence to the idea that police are more aggressively assertive about using their weapons because of this. This feeds the police culture of quick use of their lethal weapons.
But ‘per capita’ stats really don’t matter
Not all police will interact with the public, some just have a desk job, and not all persons in the population will either. Some are still pooping in diapers and others are elderly or just keep to themselves. This statistical interpretation of comparing the total per capita data is actually a manipulation. It skews the outcome to make it seem a certain way. We want to remove the population that have no effect. What we want to know is if Cop A interacts with Civilian B, what are the odds of harm for either one. That’s it.
Let’s look at New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles [11,12].
2015 NYPD had 51,399 officers with roughly 20% in admin desk jobs. That means 41,119 may interact with the public and are relevant.
The black population of New York in 2015 was around 1,899,000. Children under 14 was around 366,000; and 170,000 over 70 years old. That takes away real threats to police. If a 13 year old child and a 75 year old man are a ‘threat’, you need better training. That leaves 1,363,000 of blacks in NYC are over the age 15 and under the age of 70.
Relevant police: 41,119 (20% desk jobs removed)
Relevant Black population: 1,363,000 (male and female, over the age of 15 and under 70)
Relevant Total NYC population: 6,254,356 (male and female, over the age of 15 and under 70)
Now lets look at how many NYC police are killed in the line of duty . Here we will only count the violent deaths (assaults, shootings, stabbings, etc) and not the accidental deaths; we get 785.
There is a 1.87% chance of an active, non desk job, NYPD officer will get killed by anyone of the total relevant population. That’s worse than COVID-19. That’s actually a scary high number, a high chance, for such a low paying job.
What is the chance of the relevant black population will get killed by the active NYPD? In 2016, 17 total people were killed by police, only 9 were black . That’s a 0.000006% chance for African American’s in NYC, between the age of 15 and 69, to be killed by NYPD… those are crazy low odds. That number is even lower when you add the total black population and not just the “relevant” age group. Yet, 1.8% of relevant, active, NYPD are killed violently.
This is very interesting because you don’t hear about this sort of data.
It’s funny (not really) that people fear the police so greatly, for a very small statistical chance (less than winning the lottery) and police fear the population, almost justifiably (the fear does not justify killing unarmed people!). But this police fear of the population extends nation wide and not in NYC alone. It is this fear of the populous that leads to the small chance of wrongfully shooting them. This fear is ingrained into the police culture, and as a result, nation wide, police are shooting people, even if it is at lower rates than the media portrays.
The Duty of Protestors
Legitimate protestors need to distance themselves from the looters and the anarchists. They need to call them out, and confront them on the spot at any and all rallies and protests. The dishonest media will associate the two and harm the message and reason for the legitimate protest.
Protestors should be as aggressive as rightfully possible while simultaneously protecting the innocent people and businesses. They should utilize Citizens Arrest laws and subdue these looters and anarchists.
The Duty of The Police
It doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court thinks police have not duty to “protect and serve.” . They’re wrong, just like they were wrong with slavery, abortion, and segregation. The have a absolute moral duty, responsibility, and obligation simply by the nature of their job to protect and serve the people of their community. They need to allow the people to have their voices heard, and protect them against any opposition, including opposition from their own coworkers.
It is also the duty of the police to right wrongs and fight injustice. That is the core nature of their profession. When their community has been wronged and has faced injustice, it is their duty to side with the people and seek justice; even if it brings them at odds with their own police culture and co-workers.
The Excuse for More Control and More Power
Our analysis of events has been pretty accurate. Just look at our initial statements about COVID-19 and our updates, for example. This is a defining moment for our elected officials and political structure. Either they hear and side with the people and cause change and reform; or they use this as an excuse to enact more laws to give them more power to have more control when this level of aggressive protesting occurs in the future. The British chose more power and control over the colonies. Either empower and enable justice or empower and enable more control over the people. Seeing as how the Patriot Act was renewed, Gun Control passed in the face of protests, and Red Flag laws forced on the people; it seems that the current leadership will seek for more government control and power… Just look at how Joe Biden talks to and views voters! His arrogance and cockiness is pretty typical of the current leadership.
We think Antifa is a bunch of nitwit losers with no lives. They are trash. BUT, because we believe liberty and freedom is the most important thing, we must then defend their right to assemble and associate… Trump labeling an unofficial moronic group as “domestic terrorist” sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the future. Any future President who hates our fight for liberty and freedom may one day label us as “domestic terrorists” because we are at odds with their policies of civil control. This directly chips away at constitutional rights to freely assemble and associate freely, even when you or anyone disagrees. And seeing everyone’s attitude toward violent and aggressive protests against oppressive government organizations, this leads down the road of labeling The Founding Fathers as “domestic terrorists” by the same logic. Again, Antifia is trash, and they do act out in such a way as to terrorize people who oppose them and disagree with them through violence.
But are Patriots and Freedom Fighters going to be labeled “domestic terrorists” if they act out in such a way as to terrorize a close minded oppressive state? Quite honestly, oppressive tyrants SHOULD fear freedom fighters and the will of The People…
In light of all that has happened and is going on, we feel the need to state this:
- We are for the aggressive escalation of the protesters due to the states lack of reforms and slothful justice, and the state ignoring the years of peaceful protests and peaceful grievances from the people.
- We are against those who seek to damage and harm innocent people and businesses. Anyone who does damage and harm innocent people need to be brought to justice, swifter than what the state did with their own murderer.
- We support all police officers who are open and actively strive to change their culture and reform their profession who actually seek justice by protecting and serving their community.
- We are against all police officers who remain silent and or act in an oppressive tyrannical manner, “just following orders,” that violates the rights of the people.
- We advocate for the use of all possible outlets before escalating the intensity of protesting, such as phone, email, social media contacting state representatives, peaceful public protests and rallies, boycotts, sit-ins, etc. Only when all outlets have been attempted but ignored, and or the state escalates its level of power and control, then escalating the intensity of protesting is morally justified.
- Antifa and any like group of juvenile losers that terrorize freedom and liberty, are enemies of the people, and a just state.
- Looting and burning innocent establishments is absolutely wrong and needs to be confronted by the righteous protestors and the establishments need to be protected by the patriots.
- See our ‘The Problem is The Police‘ article about possible solutions.
(1) “Maybe someone “of the people” should run for office,” a statist might then argue. Have you researched the COST of running for office?! The amount of time it takes to campaign to raise funds?! The People, don’t have time to become a career politician and campaign full time, year around, daily. Yes, some do make it. Some local heros do get elected. But that’s rare. They are statistical outliners. You are ignorant to think that Joe Shmoe of the community can get his name out there just as fairly as a Democrat or Republican backed career politician. Joe Shmoe has a full time job and a family to feed.
(2) “Then ‘Joe Shmoe’ should join one of the parties and get the financial backing” the statist might then say. AND THAT is statism at it’s finest. To reinforce the 2-party system. The 2 parties that got America in this mess and lead us down this road for decades.
(3) “Then they should reform the parties from the inside” statement reveals even more of the depraved ignorance of the system.
(4) “There are other ways to voice your grievances against the government.” This concept is completely dismissive of all previous attempts. That is the same thing as telling the people to “vote harder next time” or “protest peacefully harder next time” or “call your representative harder next time” or “attend public townhalls and city counsel meetings harder next time”. ALL THESE HAVE BEEN DONE, FOR YEARS, with NO results or reforms.