The sheer number of truly evil people in this country is horrifying. Most of them are black, most of them take what time they spend on the streets breeding like rabbits and causing mayhem. A career drug dealer once showed me a picture of over a dozen kids posing with a football, he told me they were all his. I didn’t believe him until I looked closer and saw the resemblance.

Anyway, law enforcement as a group are quite obedient. Nearly all jailers and most cops I’ve spoken too are exceedingly frustrated and disillusioned, but will serve whatever authority they see as legitimate.

Should an authority ever come around that values order and safety, American law enforcement would gleefully and quickly devour the criminal element.

Corrections is an insane leftist experiment. Most inmates are not dangerous, and locking them up serves no point. They would be better off paying fines or restitution and remaining free. Those who don’t or can’t can be sold by the state into temporary indentured servitude to pay off their debt.

The hardcore evil, amputation or execution. Prison doesn’t reform anyone, makes these guys worse, and let’s them back out on the streets freakishly strong, psychotic, connected and pent up.

Not to mention that it is expensive. It would be far cheaper and highly effective to amputate body parts or torture and execute your hardcore criminals. Even those rare ones that do rehabilitate, are still useless and never amount to any real good.

Nothing would be quite as sublime as seeing gangbangers walking around with no arms. See how many choose the thug life after that.

When I’m sitting in my chair, staring at the wall while the inmates watch Maury, that’s often what I’m thinking of. That or putting on body armor and taking long knives and going cell to cell deciding who needs to be ripped to pieces and who can live.

http://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Non-fiction/Do-as-I-Say-Not-As-I-Do-Audiobook/B004EXC8UE/

Not that there was much that I didnt know already in general way, but it got me thinking. Are the liberals (so called conservatives and liberals) actors or swindlers? They perform like actors, but they cannot be actors in a full sense. Audience knows who is acting, who is not, what is the fairy tale story, and what is reality, even if they emphatize and identify with the characters and the plot. Almost all the people either know only little about the politicians swindling or they dont know about it at all. They know to some extent about the contradiction between politicians words and their actions, about their lying, but the lying is mostly only fuzzily connected to some concrete immoral actions, aside from trying to stay in power with questionable means. This is not liked, but at the same time it is mostly explained away, “It is nasty, but unfortunately such lying comes with the territory. They mostly try to keep their promises, but they have to negotiate and make compromises, it is the nature of democratic and societal politics.” Thus it is generally slightly reluctantly forgiven. But liberal politicians breach systematically and with full will all the liberal principles they publicly proclaim to be ‘indispensable and absolute’ in their personal lives too, where there is no need to negotiate and make compromises with different political, bureaucatic and societal groups. These are often the principles with which liberal liberals so often accuse liberal conservatives, either because they dont follow them, or they dont follow them enough. Liberal conservative politicians lie and break the liberal principles slightly less, because they accept a little bit less of those principles; because they are more honest and forthright with their self-serving actions, sometimes even proud about them, and because they really are a little bit less cheating than liberals (but not much). And liberal conservatives have some endearing superficial leftovers from real conservatism.

But could we then just say that politicians are swindlers, pure and simple, they just vary a little bit about how much they trick the people? The politicians can have some real sentimental connections from their childhood and adolescense to their adult political views, and these and consistency could prevent them from changing their political views. Mountebanks generally dont have as much sentimental connections to their spoofing, and they can generally change their fields and methods according to situations, needs and abilities, although they can be specialized to a certain field where their skills are relatively the best. Charlatans do their defrauding without any reservations. Politicians, although they break their principles with full will in their personal life, may have some reservations. They could say to citizens, if they would be honest, “I think my political principles are nice in theory, but reality and my self-interests override all such principles. I would like to be honest with my self-interests and self-serving actions, and celebrate them like CEO super stars, but the political system and its requirements are what they are, demands of power are what they are, and your needs and demands are what they are, and these together compel me to become a swindler. I have to become publicly abnormal and unnatural to fulfill the public moral requirements of those three areas. Politics is largely about morality. The liberal system cannot function in such a way that (liberal) elites follow those principles they have to promulgate, equality; labor union rights; immigration because of human rights and humane principles; normal or more stringent taxation to the rich; pacifism; public school superiority and primacy; market economy regulation generally, and regulations especially on big banks and big companies; prohibitions and restrictions on tax havens, tax paradises and tax evasions; racial integration of housing and schooling; political correctness; customer rights; nature preservation; climate protection; etc. The liberal system functions exactly because and in such a way that liberal elites try force such principles on others, but breach all such principles in their personal lives and crony cooperation. If we would change this arrangement, the system would fall apart. We and the system needs public and political lies, illusions, delusions, manipulations, swindles, humbugs, etc., we need them like people need the air they breathe.” There is certain truth in it, in the same way than cancer tumor have needs and demands and requirements, or else it would wither and die. In a matter of fact cancer tumor would probably talk like liberal elites, if it could talk. A lot of things have gone wrong before, so that now we have such system, such elites and such people; upbringing; education; political life; virtues (if there is any real virtues left) and vices; social life; consumption; virtual ‘life'; bureaucracies; entrepreneurship; etc.

They walk on a razor’s edge navigating what they “know” and coforming to the politically correct parlance of modernity. How they operate and what they say are completely different.

I have a close relative who is a deputy in a medium sized city who explained it like this, cops are keepers of the peace, they aren’t allowed to “solve” the problem but are given enough leverage to maintain the status quo. (Thus city is 30% black but maintains a white mayor and chief)

He illustrated this with a story. There was a series of breakin in a nice neighborhood. Neighbors reported a group of “young blacks in white shirts, medium build, ect” just described every criminal in the city. Can’t start stopping every group resembling this description b/c racism. A week later, a stay at home mom finds three nigs in her kitchen, they bolt but threaten to kill her kid if she reports anything. Next day, a group matching the description is walking nearby. Stopped by a cop but he has nothing to detain them. He “lied” that he smelled pot and searched them…..found some because nigs are stupid…..and a handgun. They were IDed by the mom as the burglers and all three were booked on felony charges.

Technically what the cop did was wrong, but he potentialy saved innocent lives, and kept the neighborhood safe. I agree with his judgement call but there is a legitimate case against his actions. I chose to look at the ends rather than the means and think the criminality of the blacks is the root cause of the whole situation. The futre may require honorable men to do engage in dishonorable actions for the sake of their families, communities, and civilization. I cannot condemn the men in uniform who already do.

The need for police is contextual, not absolute. I have no problem with heavily militarized police in the right situation and aimed at the right targets. Post-Katrina New Orleans is a perfect situation. Jefferson Parish Sheriff snipers and Gretna riot control officers were essential to keeping the chaos contained within New Orleans and not in the suburbs. Yes, it was not the St. Bernard Sheriff’s Office that protected St. Bernard, it was ordinary, armed Chalmatians who held the line. Granted. But St. Bernard was under water. Where it was dry, the Sheriff’s Offices protected the suburbs from violence. Were there abuses? Yes, St. Tammany officers did begin to prey on their own citizens, because they had the luxury of a body of water protecting them from New Orleans and weren’t feeling the heat like those with a land or (intact) bridge connection. Their sheriff ended that quickly and turned his attention to the real problem: New Orleans gangs, for which he was lambasted in the media as a racist but reelected by St. Tammany.

My point: without detailed local knowledge, criticism of police is worthless. Every community is different, and each should be evaluated given the threats within their context, type of community, and numerous other factions. If Reaction, Southern or Neo, can teach us anything, it is to doubt broad, universalist theory-making.

If the police were less militarized and the war on drugs (with the follow on loss of privacy in all aspects of life that that silly escapade has caused) ended, to my mind there would be much, much less to criticize about American policing. The racial aspect of perceived police heavy handedness appears to be caused by black crime rates much more than ruthless racist cops who randomly select young black males for assassination.

Even being congenitally opposed to giving police carte blanche to act as they see fit without consequence, I think there is still a hierarchy of concerns that goes something like thugs < police < law abiding citizens. When any of the lower groups acts inappropriately, the higher order ought to control them.