It ties in neatly with another piece I read this morning from the esteemed Daniel Greenfield: THE CIVIL WAR IS HERE.
For some time now, Leftists in California have made mouth noises about secession, though nothing has come out of that (nor do I expect it to). The reason is that Progressivism doesn’t desire peaceful coexistence. Progressives are unable to share power. Indeed, they are unable to share anything.
The notion that some folks of like mind might get together and form a country of their own is anathema to these people. They suffer no equals where power is concerned. It is all or nothing with them.
If you asked the average Southerner on the street what he thinks of California leaving the Union, he’d probably say something along the lines of “good riddance, the sooner they go, the better.”
Nothing is stopping Progressives in America from moving to Canada, or the European Union, or any place, really, that is more Leftist than America. Yet they stay. Why?
Daniel Greenfield explains for us:
This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.
The Left wants to rule. It wants dominance across the entire world. They won’t leave the United States, nor secede their portion of the country from the rest, because they want absolute control over the entire Earth.
It’s about world domination, the old game of tyrants and would-be conquerors. It’s not about helping the poor, or the sick, or the disadvantaged. Just as World War I wasn’t about liberating the Serbs from Austria-Hungary.
It’s about defeating all opposing ideologies, and imposing a singular worldview on to every living human being. Naturally, the humans who fail to accept the program won’t be suffered to live.
Observer the glee Tom Kratman discovered in our enemy:
Another use is after the cops have drawn blood. Destruction of police vehicles via Molotov to the back seat and fuel intake is an effective way to escalate things. And watching police dance like a damned soul all aflame is still a beautiful thing.
Tom explains his own opinions on this man’s celebration of lighting people on fire:
“A beautiful thing” to burn someone alive, is it? I can see it being a necessary thing, in military terms, where necessary means little or nothing more than advantageous. But “beautiful” he says. And some people think it would be overreaction to shoot these people on sight. My ass.
Understand this clearly. To a Progressive of the Black Bloc persuasion, your violent, painful death is beautiful. Are you still concerned what they think of you? Does it still make you feel bad when one of these guys calls you a racist, or a sexist, or some other thing? They want to kill you.
Now, of course, the average garden-variety Leftist isn’t as overt as his Black Bloc ideological kin. And to be fair to him, he probably wouldn’t want to see you die, certainly not violently and painfully. But at the same time, he is willing to turn a blind eye to this violence, to make excuses for it, and to protect the guilty when they are caught.
But again, if he’s willing to allow this behavior, however tacitly and unofficially, does it matter what he thinks of you? Should you care about his opinion of you whatsoever?
Daniel Greenfield explains our choices:
The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.
We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.
But we cannot have both.
In other words, the options are to fight, or to embrace social justice in all particulars. Escape is no longer on the table. Secede isn’t on the table either. There is no where to run, and no legal recourse which the Left will respect.
The settling of our grievances has come to civil war. For now, the war is mostly a cold war, fought within the government itself, as Trump’s administration attracts the ire of almost every branch of the bureaucracy, media, and entertainment factions of the Progressive movement.
But don’t misunderstand, it is a war that could go hot at any moment. Best to be prepared.
If there is any optimism to be found here, you may see it in Tom Kratman’s piece, where he informs us that, in the end, our enemies may be making a serious error by pushing things this far. They have forgotten that wars are fought by human beings.
One is tempted to counter with, “What right have you, as an anarchist, to try to impose rules on my machine gun teams as they mow you down?” This whole section illustrates something I strongly advise the reader to look into in Lee Harris’ excellent book, Civilization and Its Enemies. The short version is that these people are, however dangerous, fundamentally unserious. They are not revolutionaries; they are unpublished and unpublishable playwrights, writing fantasy plays in their heads for themselves to star in, in which plays we lesser beings are reduced to the level of morally insignificant stage props.
They think of us as stage props, as their moral and intellectual inferiors, as dullards, rednecks, and uneducated hicks. They have more hubris than Napoleon taking on Russia. One suspects that their assault will fare just about as badly in the end. But either way, best to be ready for them nonetheless.
Police brutality is a hot topic these days, and for good reason. Some of the cases have been egregious, with flash-bangs dropped in a baby’s crib, or a man suffocated for selling loose cigarettes. Others appear to be more of a case of suicide-by-cop. Michael Brown, thug and thief, certainly wasn’t an innocent man. Nonetheless, I am wary of the over-extension of police powers, and this continual problem with unconstitutional search and seizure. The precedent is bad.
It might make the officer guilty though.
But the issue is, pardon the pun, hardly as black and white as the media portrays it. To explain, here’s a personal story relevant to the situation:
Several years ago, my former roommate’s car was stolen. The apartment above us was inhabited by an old, ex-State Trooper, who had one of those faces that looked like it was carved out of wood, a sort of expression I’ve seen many times on combat veterans. So when the cop cars showed up, and they were taking my friend’s statement, the old guy came out to see what all the fuss was about.
Right around that time, one of the cops reported that the car had been found some miles away, ditched on the side of the road, with the radio ripped out and some vandalism done to it.
While the cops were talking with dispatch, the old State Trooper took a puff from his cigarette and explained how this was all going to go down. He said that the perps would probably be found nearby. Prints would be on record and all, and they’d have a laundry list of priors. Even though this was grand theft, they’d probably get off with some probation, maybe a bit of jail time if the judge was in a really shitty mood.
He waxed nostalgic and smiled (I distinctly remember this semi-predatory look on his face). He said back in his day they didn’t bother with all that fuss and paperwork. Wasn’t worth it, he said. Why run a kid’s future with a record like that, or waste the judge’s time? No, he explained, back then they just took the kids out behind the shed and whooped the tar out of ’em. Gave ’em an ass kicking that they’d remember all their lives.
He said: “and you know what? They listened. You whoop a kid like that, and he doesn’t do that shit again.” As the cops came back to give my friend a lift to wherever the car was found, the old man shook his head and walked off, and left me wondering which way was ultimately better. Beating the shit out of the perps once or twice, or going through the same song and dance for as long as the perp lived and remained free.
I don’t really have an answer for you, but it’s food for thought.
It’s time to revisit an issue that has probably wandered back into the dark recesses of the average American’s limited intellect. Police departments are still considered by your typical Social Justice advocate to be barely one step above the Nazi SS. And this article featured on Gawker exposes the idiotic mental hoops one has to jump through to believe that narrative.
In recent weeks, the White House has reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening “community policing” around the country.
Whatever. The speechwriters and a bunch of Blue Ribbon, fact-finding commissions told the White House to “reaffirm” some goodthink to the public at large. Tomorrow, Obama will express solidarity with the African dung beetle. The day after, with the victims of transphobic genderqueer oppression. Why is this news?
The suggestions for building better “relationships” and boosting “trust” are comprehensive but, for a national crisis brought on by the killing of unarmed black people, there’s one thing conspicuously absent from the public policy solutions: the acknowledgement of racism.
That’s because it doesn’t exist. Oh, I’m sure there are individual racist police officers (hint: not all of them are White, either). But the police departments do not have any institutional racism codified in their headquarters. Mein Kampf is not circulating the halls of your local Sheriff’s office. There is no policy saying “go forth, officers of the law, and murder as many Black people as you can.”
Rates of violent crime are down and have been falling sharply for more than 20 years. In fact, since the early 90s, the national homicide rate has fallen by 51 percent, forcible rapes have declined by 35 percent, robberies have decreased by 56 percent and the rate of aggravated assault has been cut by 45 percent. And black Americans have contributed to the decline. For blacks, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are the lowest they’ve been in more than 40 years. Murder, rape, assault, domestic violence—all down.
Gawker contradicts itself here. It basically just made a case for how effective more aggressive policing has been in the last two decades, and is then arguing for us to stop doing it, because it’s racist. That’s lunacy. I mean, just why do they think that drop in crime happened?
However, much of the statistical portion of the article is true, if misused and twisted. Remember how bad New York was, at one time? Aggressive policing brought the crime rate down considerably. Crime, overall, has dropped considerably in recent years. You see, a nation with a serious crime problem essentially has two options, both of them bad. Aggressively enforce the law, stop & frisk, profile, post cameras and cops everywhere, etc… Or it can choose to change the culture of (or simply remove) the community producing the criminals. It’s an uncomfortable truth, but we know which community produces the most violent criminals. Read this report on The Color of Crime.
In fact, nearly half of white Americans polled believe that violent crime has increased in the last 20 years. Another 13 percent believe that it’s stayed the same. Less than a quarter of whites realize there are less violent crimes today than there were in the 90s when the crack epidemic and gang violence were at their height. Even more, whites overestimate just how much blacks are involved in “serious street crime” and, on average, believe that black people commit a larger proportion of crime than whites do.
Notice the intellectual sleight of hand here. They say that, on average, Whites believe Blacks commit a larger proportion of crime than Whites do. then they imply that this is somehow an unfounded notion. This is, in fact, a true belief. On a per-capita basis, Blacks are seven (7) times more likely to commit violent crimes. Worse, most of the victims of these crimes are also Black! Gawker is, in a roundabout way, arguing for more Black deaths. A bit racist, perhaps?
The way the author wrote this, to steer around and imply things that are left deliberately unsaid, tells us that he knows this. In simple terms, the author is a lying charlatan trying to construct a false narrative, but doing so in a way that leaves room for plausible deniability if caught.
In a country that has identified black people as its criminal element, public safety (and perceived security) is more tied to the suppression of blacks than it is to the suppression of crime. And as long as the public insists on its myth of black criminality—almost as an article of faith—police practices will be impossible to reform.
It isn’t a myth. Even Black officers of the Law know this. Black cops don’t want to be responsible for Black neighborhoods, and I don’t blame them. Sending them in to police those areas alone (a suggestion that crops up from inane Social Justice advocates from time-to-time) would result in more Black officers being shot. Again, racist.
This police officer understands the problem.
A grand jury believed it. A great many Americans find the story believable—most without ever even having to hear it from Wilson’s lips or read the transcript.
Gawker is arguing for the Grand Jury’s ruling in the Wilson/Brown affair to be overturned. They won’t say so openly, of course. In Modern American discourse, everything is implied rather than openly stated. Most people writing on these issues are intellectual cowards.
The thing about the Wilson/Brown affair is that the whole thing rapidly grew larger than life. Battle-lines were drawn even before testimony and evidence came out. Nobody cared about the ruling per se. They only cared if the ruling justified their own preconceived notions about Race in America. If a White officer shoots a Black suspect, the presumption of innocence on behalf of the officer is thrown right out the window. It’s a presumption of guilt that the media forces the officer to disprove. It’s wrong.
“…And knowing that identity is not simply defined by what we are, but what we are not, can it be that our police help give us identity, by branding one class of people as miscreants, outsiders, and thugs, and thus establishing some other class as upstanding, as citizens, as Americans? Does the feeling of being besieged serve some actual purpose?”
The thing of it is, a good many Blacks are these things. No, not all of them. The Youtube video I posted is proof there are good Blacks. Thomas Sowell is, in my opinion, the greatest living economist in the world. He’s a Black man. Despite all that, the Color of Crime data tells it to us straight. Blacks are seven times more likely to be those things than the rest of America.
Why is it that Asians, who also suffered severe discrimination at various points in American history, do better than Whites in almost every metric, including criminal stats? Why is it that Latin Americans, while not doing as well as Whites in these areas, are still far better than the Black community?
Charles Barkley, of all people, gives us a hint:
Thug culture is destructive, of that there can be no doubt. And yet, this culture is glamorized and held up as a model for young Blacks. Furthermore, as Larry Elder notes frequently, Black families have been destroyed in recent decades. Over 70% of Black children are born out of wedlock. There are many single mothers on welfare. This has terribly damaged the Black community. Whatever Leftists tell you about single parenthood, it is, at best, a deficient condition (though some mothers manage anyhow). Children generally do better with two parents. That’s common sense. The formula of glorified Thug Culture plus a number of unruly teens in single-parent households is a recipe for disaster.
White Americans of good conscious will have to confront their boogeyman head on. Because the truth is that there can be no “community policing” in black communities without engaging the community, without engaging black people and our distortion in the American imagination.
This notion of “community policing” is idiotic. Police officers go where there is crime and attempt to stop said crime through enforcement efforts. Not all cops are paragons of virtue. And I’m not a fan of how police departments have been overstepping Constitutional bounds in many cases. But, consider the alternative to their efforts. It would look something like inner-city Detroit – a place most cops don’t go anymore. Yeah. I wouldn’t want to live there either.
People like the author of Gawker’s piece ensure that no meaningful culture change in the Black community will ever happen, because they think even identifying the problem is racist. And so, failing that, aggressive enforcement is the best we can do. But they’ll complain endlessly about that, too. Again, racism.
One gets the idea that they actually want more dead Blacks on the streets to serve their Progressive narrative.
Describing what constitutes “civilized behavior” can be difficult. Nonetheless, many individuals have an instinctive understanding of it that we label “common sense.” For those who lack this understanding, force is required to maintain the correct behavior. Barbarians may not understand the nuances, but the business end of a handgun is a universal message even the most uncooperative perp can wrap his head around. The movie Gremlins 2 had a classic line describing this.
Fun, yes. But in no sense civilized.
So in any advanced nation desiring civilized behavior from its citizenry, there are, effectively, only two options available: common sense or force. Either individuals voluntarily police their own behavior, or someone must be hired to do that policing for you. One of the fascinating facts about Early America is that there was NO police department. What little policing was needed as well within the capabilities of the local militias. And when police departments were first formed, they were unarmed. They would ask you nicely, as a polite reminder, to not do that thing you were doing. And, in those days, it worked marvelously. Certainly, crime existed, as it always had, but not anywhere near the levels we experience today. Most crime in America, pre-1850, was of the petty variety, pickpockets and the like. And they were often whipped and beaten by the local militias for their troubles. This was remarkably effective.
However, America didn’t stay this way. Over time, crime increased and punishments were reduced in severity. Today, for instance, it is generally acknowledged that whipping and caning people for theft is egregious and in violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Constitution. Never mind that, for nearly a century after the Constitution was written, corporal punishment was the norm. When an American citizen was convicted in Singapore of a variety of drug-related offense (the list was incredibly long), many Americans were horrified that he was caned, despite this being the standard for such crimes in Singapore and once having been the standard in America.
The unspoken threat of force that had kept the lid on Barbaric activity in America had been lifted. This might have been workable were it not for a second component: immigration.
Now, hold the phone, Dystopic, you might say. You aren’t going to rant against immigration are you?
No. Not exactly. One does, however, have to understand that immigrants come from different societies. The compact that had, prior to 1850 or so, governed the behavior of polite society in America often did not exist in the countries the immigrants were coming from. When the Irish first came to America, it was a culture clash of epic proportions, despite most of them speaking English and having familiarity with Anglo cultural norms. In Europe, force was the rule, unlike the (relatively) peaceful American compact. Americans had an obvious distaste for European force. Europeans, on the other hand, figured that with “The Man” out of their lives, they could do whatever they liked.
There was a solution to this, naturally. More policing. So the police departments were armed, and began to look a lot more like our modern police forces do. They went from passive policing and post-criminal investigation to active beat cops. “Paddy wagons” made their appearance, and the prison system was created. Prior to this, jails were mostly a local Sheriff’s problem. Corporal punishment was deemed more effective than long prison terms. Murderers were executed, not jailed. Thieves were beaten, not imprisoned. The jail was more of a drunk tank and a waiting room for execution than anything. But not after this.
And so the Irish were, at first, convinced to accept the American way through threat of force. To be fair, it actually worked that time around. Pretty soon the Irish had integrated into the wider American culture, bringing their holidays and traditions into the melting pot. Other immigration waves were similarly handled: Italians, Germans, Chinese, etc…
Americans had to give up their notions of a civilized compact with a minimum of force, and in so doing became much like the European countries they had broken with a century before. In truth, it may have never been sustainable in the first place. Who is to know? But the newcomers became successful Americans, and the new policing system was deemed validated.
However, this active policing still existed alongside a robust corporal punishment system. Murderers were hung. Thieves beaten then jailed. Strong punishment and a risk of getting caught served as a criminal deterrent.
Then came Prohibition. Prior to 1900, the government mostly stayed out of private matters. Indeed, it was common to find cocaine, marijuana and a variety of other things now illegal at your local pharmacy. But the women’s suffrage movement brought the right to vote to women.
And women were pissed.
In those days, drunks, drug addicts and the like were usually married men. Their wives expected better from a husband. It is hard to overstate the loathing women had, in those days, for drugs and drink. Women didn’t work as often as they do today, and so relied upon their men to provide some semblance of living means. A drunk couldn’t do this.
It is no coincidence that drug laws and, eventually, Prohibition of alcohol originated with the same women who were demanding the right to vote. Women were, quite honestly, well-justified in thinking the way they did, too, even though the movement would later go south in a big way.
Naturally, these prohibitions had to be enforced by someone, and so policing grew in size and scope. It now concerned itself with more personal matters. Speakeasies were busted, organized crime made an appearance (the Kennedy family, famously, was involved in this). Crime rates went through the roof. The Law of Unintended Consequences made itself fully known. America’s federal police force expanded by orders of magnitude. The FBI, DEA, NSA and ATF all trace their roots to this period. Now policing had to be coordinated across the country and was no longer a purely local affair.
No gun control regulations had ever been needed in America until organized crime took to mowing down people in the streets with automatic weapons. But with new regulations, designed to combat this problem, even more policing was necessary. America was now caught in a loop of ever-increasing crime and resulting police expansion.
Though Prohibition was eventually (wisely) repealed, the drug laws remained on the books. Since then, police have increasingly focused on this unwinnable Drug War. That “war” has been going on for a century with little overall success.
Meanwhile, the same women who wanted these substances banned a century ago also brought compassion to government. Did we really have to hang cattle rustlers? Did we really have to beat up petty thieves? The focus on the justice system changed from deterring crime to rehabilitation of criminals themselves. This was new. Prior to this, punishment was considered its own rehabilitation. And if it didn’t take, there was always the hangman’s rope. Now the system had to care about the criminals, too. This meant more guards, an army of bureaucrats, and a number of psychologists.
To say that policing became difficult in this environment is to say that the Sun is kind of bright. The days a nice policeman would politely ask you to stop doing that thing you were doing were long gone. It would be laughable today. Who would listen to them without a nightstick in one hand and a gun in the other?
Then along came Lyndon B. Johnson and the Great Society, the single most destructive thing ever to happen to the Black community. He was supposed to have said this:
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference… I’ll have them n—-rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years”
Now that’s some pretty tough medicine, eh? LBJ was a closet racist of epic proportions. But LBJ was the innovator ultimately responsible for the welfare system we have today. Following that, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing and a variety of other ills were created.
The result was immediate. In Black communities, marriage declined rapidly, such that today over 70% of Blacks are born out of wedlock. Marriage has its perks: namely the combining of income and resources that allows people to escape poverty. People often had to get married in order to make it. But now the government stepped in and provided the means. And once provided for, the impetus to escape poverty declined. The priority shifted into how to make poverty comfortable. Ben Franklin told us how futile that was:
I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Half a century later, much of the Black community has been destroyed. Larry Elder, a Black critic of the welfare state, strongly agrees with this sentiment and has a warning for Whites: marriage rates are now dropping for them, too. Thomas Sowell, perhaps the greatest economist alive today, states the following:
Nearly a hundred years of the supposed “legacy of slavery” found most black children being raised in two-parent families in 1960. But thirty years after the liberal welfare state found the great majority of black children being raised by a single parent.
Minority communities became hotbeds of poverty. Crime rates went through the roof. The Drug War turned bad almost immediately and the entire thing took on the air of an us vs. them race war.
The point I’m trying to make here is that policing in America sucks. No other word accurately captures how difficult it is for the Police to maintain civilization in America. Nobody is interested in a civilized compact any more. More money is to be made selling illegal drugs and hustling for race wars. And, as this post should serve to demonstrate, the history of America is one of policing continuing to get progressively more difficult, so to the average man in a blue uniform, the job stinks and is more or less guaranteed to get worse.
There are very few men that can still sit down with another, drink a whiskey and discuss political matters without becoming angry and violent. Barbarians are everywhere, and the welfare system has taken on an active role in turning civilized people into barbarians.
Punishment has been reduced and made laughable, in many cases. In Norway, a prison was built with absolute luxury in mind. Prisoners there live better than most Americans do. Norway has a maximum 20 year sentence for any offense, and no death penalty. That’s right. Rape children and slaughter innocents and the worst you get is 20 years in a luxury resort. Coming soon to America.
The onus of maintaining civilization in this declining environment is now largely on the beat cops. And, as De Blasio has demonstrated, the government doesn’t even care to stand up for them. And now people are demanding their deaths. That’s right, the citizenry is actively demanding the death and destruction of the only force keeping a lid on an all out race war.
Let that sink in. I know the police are problematic and have too much power, relative to the Constitution. I know many of them are abusive, offensive and aggressive. But understand why they are this way and think for awhile on the alternative.
We are way past friendly neighborhood officers keeping kids from lobbing toilet paper at your house.
And before you say “Dystopic, that’s racist!” I want you to see the absolute most inspiring picture I’ve seen throughout this whole mess, a Black resident of Harlem who realizes, like I do, that calling for the death of cops is the worst sort of evil and anti-civilizational behavior possible.
This is a brave man, and my admiration for this act cannot be described in words.
I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.