“Lawlessness: Fueled by this president’s anti-police policies and race-baiting rhetoric, thugs are attacking cops and terrorizing major cities. Horrible violence is breaking out all over. We are witnessing a national crime wave…Called “racists,” officers’ morale is in the sewer. Cops fear for their safety and worry about being unfairly accused of using excessive force against black criminals.”
It’s not just cops that suck, it’s murderers, theives, burglars and rapists. I know that’s tough to wrap our minds around. Civilization didn’t just happen, and it doesn’t continue to happen without a segment of our population dedicated to throwing behind bars those who prey on the civilized. Getting mad at the cop for a speeding ticket does nothing to quell the forces of chaos that are now encroaching on our civilization. When we get tired of the anarchy, get ready for the armies of vigilantes. Then law will be gone. It will be war of all against all.
In about 30 years minorities will surpass whites in population in the United States. The problems these minorities associate with racism will multiply, because those problems do not in fact stem from racism. As in post-Apartheid South Africa, violent crime will skyrocket in the US. South Africa is the most violent democracy in the world.
First, the white minority will retreat to white-majority states. Living in cities with a high percentage of minorities will become increasingly tenuous. Many will be outraged by this statement. But outrage is not refutation. The facts in most cases can quell outrage, but not in the case of “racism”. Every statistic in every state shows that young black men are the most active violent criminals in the country. Is this a false statistic made by black majority Baltimore, Detroit, and Memphis, governments? Why are these stats so in almost every reporting district, and every police department?
The police will necessarily become more “militarized”. The term “police militarization” is a term in vogue. Mostly what people who use the term mean is that police SWAT equipment looks scary, much like the argument liberals made when banning assault weapons, which in fact had much the same functions as hunting rifles. For the purposes of this essay, I will define militarization as the utilization of classic military “principles of war”. Police forces will conduct some or much of their operations using these principles because as crime evolves and grows, it becomes increasingly indistinguishable from war. These principles are: OBJECTIVE, OFFENSIVE, MASS, ECONOMY OF FORCE, MANEUVER, UNITY OF COMMAND, SECURITY, SURPRISE, SIMPLICITY.
Libertarians will continue to put the cart before the horse, obsessing about the 1% of bad police, while forgetting that 99% of people in jail deserve to be there.
German sociologist Max Weber stated that governments have legitimate monopolies on violence. In these future city-states, the police will begin to lose their monopoly on violence. Thus, as in Baltimore, increased federal security forces will be required to maintain order, such as the National Guard. Violent clashes and deaths will inevitably occur. The militarized police will eventually come to resemble the South African Special Task Force.
Welcome to the future of policing in America:
Don’t be fooled. Mass violence, theft and destruction are held in check by a ribbon of civil authority in the US. Yes, in some countries, when the power goes out, there’s little threat of looting and terror, (Japan for instance), but the US is not one of those countries.
At least 39 homicides were committed during the two-day strike in and around the northeastern city of Salvador that added to fears about Brazil’s ability to ensure public safety during the global soccer tournament.
Violence swept the city after state police went on strike on Tuesday night to demand better pay and other benefits, prompting the federal government to dispatch troops to restore order in Salvador and nearby towns.
Just as the entire world has become spoiled by safety that America provided it, so have Americans come to take for granted the peace they enjoy. Behind the veil is a demon.
Although not a pleasant topic so near to Christmas, I feel it necessary to touch on the issue of guns, violence, and the limits of what the law can do to protect us.
First, I will hit upon utility of the law. When I was a police officer, it was common for me to deal with “violations of protection orders”. A protection order is simply a legal piece of paper that ordered one person to stay away from another. It does nearly nothing to stop a person from actually having contact with another; the hope is that the possibility of getting in trouble will deter most people from violating the law. But as I would counsel some of the people who believed in the extraordinary power of the protection order, it is not a force field. It will not make bullets bounce off you. Moreover, people can violate a protection order without the rest of the world knowing they did so. They can stalk their victims, they can make anonymous phone calls, and they can murder their victims and get away with it, just as did O.J. Simpson.
Recently after the shooting at Sandy Hook, I began watching a documentary on the Beslan school shooting in Russia. In the first part of the documentary, a small boy, who was at the school during the massacre, makes a stunningly insightful comment at the 3:06 minute mark:
There is no God, only force. Military force.
I’m not sure whether to be more dismayed by the child’s nihilism, or the fact that he is more philosophically insightful than 99% of the adult liberals whom propose additional laws to control those breaking already existing laws. The laws against homicide did not prevent the children of Sandy Hook from being murdered. Now of course I am not for the removal of laws against murder. They certainly make some people think twice, and they provide us a legal path to imprison those who refuse to play by society’s rule, but they do not guarantee anyone’s safety. Nothing does.
Let’s talk about the usefulness of restricting gun rights. Later, I’ll touch on justice and what our Founding Fathers believed. I’ve already talked about the limits of written law and Blaise Pascal agreed:
Without force, the law is impotent.
Does anyone believe that by restricting access to AR-15s, violent crime will drop? If so, can you support your belief in fact? I can provide support to show the opposite is true.
Two countries, very close to America in cultural climate (and culture is important when considering crime and individual rights), Australia and Britain, experienced astounding increases in violent crime aftter implementing increasingly restrictive gun laws. In 1997, Australia enacted its gun ban. Some believe that Australia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Five years after the ban, violent crime increased by 42.2%. Rapes jumped by nearly 30%. Shockingly enough, criminals didn’t obey the law.
We love the English accent. It summons thoughts of a refined and stoic people, steadfastly enduring Nazi air raids and fighting evil to the bloody end. Too bad England’s violent crime is even worse than America’s, despite heavy-handed restrictions on guns. In one decade, gun crimes in Britain nearly doubled. And while England has relatively low gun-crime, it is still the violent crime capital of Europe. One of my fundamental problems with modern liberals is not that they want a more peaceful and safe world, but that the laws they propose in order to make such a world rarely do what liberals say they will do. From the Kyoto Protocol to guns laws, the liberal argument is that of Piers Morgan: “We have to do something!” Consider this: Australia and Great Britain are both big islands, making the importation of illegal firearms more difficult than in countries like America. Yet this fact and the strict laws are not nearly enough.
How about trying something that works, doesn’t infringe on the Bill of Rights, and isn’t the child of a dreamy, politically correct world?
Then there’s our friendly neighbor to the south, Mexico. Here’s what the US Consulate in Tijuana web page has to say to Americans travelling to Mexico:
Don’t bring firearms or ammunition across the border into Mexico.
Don’t carry a knife, even a small pocketknife, on your person in Mexico.
You may become one of dozens of U.S. Citizens who are arrested each month for unintentionally violating Mexico’s strict weapons laws.
If you are caught with firearms or ammunition in Mexico…
- You will go to jail and your vehicle will be seized;
- You will be separated from your family, friends, and your job, and likely suffer substantial financial hardship;
- You will pay court costs and other fees ranging into the tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself;
- You may get up to a 30-year sentence in a Mexican prison if found guilty.
If you carry a knife on your person in Mexico, even a pocketknife . . .
- You may be arrested and charged with possession of a deadly weapon;
- You may spend weeks in jail waiting for trial, and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, court costs, and fines;
- If convicted, you may be sentenced to up to five years in a Mexican prison.
Claiming not to know about the law will not get you leniency from a police officer or the judicial system. Leave your firearms, ammunition, and knives at home. Don’t bring them into Mexico.
Yet the drug cartels, not the Mexican government have the monopoly on violence in Mexico. Draconian gun laws do not prevent drug lords from fielding their own militias. I’ll find somewhere else to vacation, thanks.
I posted the following on my Facebook page earlier today:
Question to Liberals: If you were at Sandy Hook on the day of the shooting, and you had a gun, would you have shot the killer, Adam Lanza? If so, how do you square that with the prevalent argument from the Left that there should be gun-free zones and no armed teachers or guards? If you would not have shot him, how would you live with yourself?
If a person answers that they would shoot the murderer, they admit that having a gun at that time is preferable to not having one. And yet many liberals argue against gun rights. Of course, their argument is only that of Rosie O’Donnell. Guns are for me, not for you. Only me and my bodyguards can be trusted with them. I agree that some people prove they cannot be trusted with guns, but the average American can and should be trusted.
The police cannot protect you. Take it from a former cop. The police protect you only in so far as the criminal fears being caught, after the fact, or to the extant that you can slow the criminal down until the police arrive. If someone breaks into a person’s house, intent on injuring another person, the police will not stop him if the victim has not taken proper precautions in protecting themselves. That’s why I’m for both passive and active defenses in schools. If we make our banks difficult to attack, why not our schools? The disingenuous argument that our school houses would become free-fire zones doesn’t ring true when we consider the less important institutions in America that have far more security than schools, yet don’t resemble the Wild West.
Of all the myths of the Left, none is more beloved than, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Our most advanced writers–the Leftist intellectuals ensconced in the cocoon of academia, could only hope so. Thus their over-reliance on such entities as the State Department and United Nations. Talking and making rules doesn’t mean jack to the people we’re worried about. Force does.
Finally, there is the philosophical and historical argument for gun rights in America.
Thomas Hobbes said it best:
A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force, to take away his life.
If the government takes away the right of a man to defend his life, it essentially takes away his life. Any effort by the government to take away the right to self-protection assumes the ability of the government to adequately protect the individual, which it cannot do. Were all citizens afforded a Secret Service protection detail, such regulation may be justifiable. But that’s an impossibility.
Sometimes justice outpaces utility. For instance, in my mind, just as Edmund Burke argued, free trade is not so much about utility (how much in taxes the government can harvest) as it is about what’s right: It is right that people should keep what they work for. In the case of guns, it is right that I be able to protect my child and myself. It is not right that a man be able to break into my house and rape my wife without me being able to shoot him in the face…
The statements of America’s Founding Fathers and other respected historical figures are replete with support for individual gun ownership. While I’ll try to avoid appeal-to-authority fallacies, I submit that these figures deserve to be heard, and sufficient evidence is required to overturn the wisdom of these men. The proposed gun control laws have proven insufficient in the past in this country and in others. And they violate my inalienable right to protect myself. A law that both doesn’t work and harms individual liberty is a bad law, something this country surely doesn’t need any more of.
I’ll leave you with a few gems from the brilliant men that left it in our hands to maintain that great thing we take for granted: Our own liberty.
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
— Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
“The great object is, that every man be armed. […] Every one who is able may have a gun.”
— Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
— George Washington
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
— Mahatma Gandhi
Recently, after winning the gold medal in the 2012 Summer Olympics in tennis, Serena Williams dances the “Crip Walk” in celebration.
Williams defended herself by saying that she didn’t plan the dance, but that the joy from her victory overcame her and she began to spontaneously dance.
For those of you whom like me, didn’t know what the Crip Walk is, it is a dance created by the Crips street gang from Compton, California. The dance is associated with the violent and criminal lifestyles of gang members throughout California and has been banned in Los Angeles schools. MTV will not play videos (does MTV play videos anymore?) that display the Crip Dance.
While many are critical of Williams’ display, others defend her, saying that she should be able to celebrate in any manner she wants. Her defenders appeal to absurdity. Consider the response if a medal winner rendered the Nazi salute in celebration. And then defended themselves by saying it “just happened”. The fact that it happened spontaneously may speak worse of the person, since the act is obviously ingrained in their subconsciousness in some manner.
Others will say that the Crip Dance is “just a dance”, and that no harm was done. Again, ignorance. Perhaps a KKK hood is “just a pillow case”. Clearly symbols mean something. The Nazi swastika communicates a message because we know the world view of those that created it.
Gang violence in some places in America is a scourge. Murder, drugs, robbery, destruction of property are part and parcel for areas infected with gangs. There is nothing to be celebrated there. If people think they are celebrating black culture by celebrating the rituals of violent gangs, well, that ought to tell us something. The fact that Williams pulled this on a world stage is an embarrassment to our people. We all bear the shame.
You probably know by now that the 19 year old Colton Harris Moore, otherwise known as the “Barefoot Bandit” was arrested yesterday in the Bahamas.
Disturbingly, the miscreant had 60,000 fans on Facebook. People have also had T-Shirts printed, promoting Harris-Moore’s freedom. It is indicative of the downward spiral of our culture. That spiral looks like the water in a flushing toilet.
It’s pretty obvious why Harris-Moore chose a life of douchebaggery: His mommy thinks the world is being too hard on him. Quoting from the above-linked article:
“Harris-Moore’s mother, Pam Kohler, has said that he had a troubled childhood. His first conviction, for possession of stolen property, came at age 12. Within a few months of turning 13, he had three more.
Kohler has defended her son, saying the allegations against him are exaggerated. She previously told the AP that she hoped he would flee to a country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States.”
See, Mrs. Kohler, we have a name for your son, here in the military: Shitbag. Yes, that’s right, a bag of excrement. That’s a word for someone who has no honor, no code, no sense of right and wrong or duty. Just like your son. I’m sorry his father didn’t beat him enough. I’m sorry that his father was also a shitbag. But how are you helping in any way when you say you hope your son gets away with committing felonies? Please, go back to eating your government cheese and smoking 4 packs of Virginia Slims a day. Yes, I know. Film rights are in the works and you’ll probably make a bundle off your son’s idiocy. Such is the way of our world now. Being an idiot can make you famous and with fame comes money that the idiot didn’t have to work for. And with that money you can buy yet more cigarettes and malt liquor.
Actually, a bag of crap would do much less damage than your son has done, Mrs. Kohler. And yet, somehow you still believe the world owes him something. It does. It owes him a giant boot in the ass.
But this article isn’t written for Mrs. Kohler or for the Barefoot Bandit. It’s written for Harris-Moore’s 60,000 friends on Facebook. You are even worse than he is. I suspect, that in the deepest crevice of Harris-Moore’s dark heart, even he knows what he’s done is wrong. You on the other hand, think it’s a big joke. And for that, I do hope that every one of your houses is burglarized by a shitbag of Harris-Moore’s caliber.
Some of my readers may have heard about the recent video, published by an organization called Wikileaks, a self-proclaimed government and military watchdog organization. The video shows an Apache helicopter crew engaging a group of people in Iraq during the 2007 surge. At least eight people are killed and two children are wounded. What seems to outrage the critics the most is the verbage used by the pilots. Things like: “Good shooting” and “(laughing) They ran over a body.” Also, “Come on buddy…all you gotta do is pick up a weapon.” One pundit commented: “It’s almost like they’re playing a video game.” Several times the pilots express glee at the sight of their kills.
Here’s the video. Interpret the propoganda by Wikileaks as you see fit:
But no. It’s not like they’re playing a video game. It could be said of those playing video games, that it’s almost like the gamers are at war. The people at war are not copying what they’ve seen in video games, people playing video games are obeying the animal urge to fight.
Perhaps the greatest of all myths when it comes to war, is that men don’t like to fight and kill. What they really don’t like is to lose a fight, die or receive a catastrophic wound. This myth is a primary reason that the intelligentsia, who only study the cold movements of armies, the logistics and the death tolls, fail to fully grasp the nature of war. War is not–primarily–concerned with morality or rationality. This is particularly true in third world countries where the male urge to fight is not blunted by organized sport or entertainment.
Many American men denied the opportunity to enter the military during WWII committed suicide. I can say from my experience in the Army that people in our current Army love to deploy to a combat zone. I rarely hear anyone complain that they are going to fight. Except for being away from their families, they’d rather be fighting than sitting in garrison. How much more does the insurgent want to fight, since after killing some Americans, he can simply walk back to his home and wife and children at night? It is primarily young males that play video games and engage in contact sports. And let’s not forget that males constitute 93% of the prison population, as of 2003.
The nature of war and crime are closely related. Let’s look at some crime statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
The first thing that jumps out is that violent crime in the US has declined considerably since the 1970s. Contrary to the popular myth propagated by an ever-chugging media. violent crime has been declining for decades in the US and also in many parts of Europe. Let me suggest the un-suggestable: Could violent video games actually be partly responsible for reducing violent crime? Is the natural male urge to engage in violence being sated by virtual killing? Is it a coicidence that the fifth generation of home video game systems–possibly the most revolutionary leap in gaming realism ever– spawned in 1993? The early to mid 90s brought us the Playstation, Sega Saturn, and Nintendo 64. The groundbreaking game, GoldenEye 007 dazzled gamers with a level of realistic warfare never before seen.
I am not suggesting that moral lessons and teaching the value of non-violence are of no use or that other factors aren’t involved in the fall of violent crime rates since the 70s. I’d also have to point out that violent crime rose considerable from the turn of the century until the 60s. I’m merely noting that there is a natural male urge to engage in violent, reckless and dangerous activity and that perhaps artificial violence has diluted the real thing, whereas is the 40s and 50s it seems real values did the job.. Left to himself, a young male will probably find himself in trouble with the law sooner than later. One needs only look at crime statistics in the inner cities, where fatherless young males roam the streets. These places have more in common with Sierre Leone than the American heartland. So, in the absence of moral teaching in youth, there is also the absence of internal safeguards against the use of violence. It could be that violent video games quench a thirst that exists precisely because the male has not been taught proper social interaction methods.
What people really don’t like when they see the above video, is that the pilots seem to like what they are doing. The critics expect men fighting to experience horror with every falling enemy body. To cringe over each wounded opponent. If fighting were that psychologically trying, men wouldn’t do it. If the insurgents felt the same guilt from killing Americans that they felt from say, accidentally killing their own child, there would be no insurgency. What men have and always will search for, is a socially acceptable reason to fight. And in the absence of fighting, they engage in other activities that stress the subcortical regions of their brains and their adrenal systems.
I can give first hand attestation. Nothing gives me the same high as competition. I know many men who feel the same. War is the ultimate competition, and killing a socially acceptable target gives many men the ultimate high. As a police officer, there was a thrill in the chase, to violence–and it was socially acceptable. When criminals resisted arrest, I was more than happy to use legal violence. Afterwards, I felt euphoric. Lying about this will not change what every cop and soldier knows: We didn’t get into those types of jobs for the paperwork.
The Apache pilots acted as men have for thousands of years at the sight of a dead enemy: They celebrated. Our politicians should set aside for a while the intellectual texts (though they have their place) that drive foreign policy and pick up a copy of The Iliad. Homer captured the sheer joy of combat experienced by warriors better than anyone since. The Greeks never separated sports from warfare, and in their myth, their best warriors were also their best athletes.
So, men who are victorious in war act in precisely the same ways as men who are victorious in sports or in video game sessions: They celebrate. They denigrate their enemy. We lie when we speak of the savagery of ancient man. We are the same now, only now we’ve figured out ways to expend our violent energies without actually killing anyone.
Small Wars define the current generation of fighting. Warrior cultures, composed of youthful males without much to lose and nothing else to do but fight are the enemy. The enemy is not a professional but does gain much local prestige and even food, women and a place to live by being willing to kill Americans. Our politicians fail to accurately perceive the nature of our enemy and his reasons for fighting; not so much a sense of injustice or outrage, which are only the social phantasms used to justify the fighting. An educated Demos will not take away the reasons for people in Somalia and Afghanistan to fight unceasingly. It will only give them a way to create methods to channel aggression into other areas besides killing humans.
Not surprisingly, the hottest story on the web right now is the horrible slaying of five US Soldiers by one of their own.
It really bugs me though, that the common thread in all of these types if bylines is that somehow the war itself is causing these breakdowns. Look, the average day, week month and year of deployment in this type of war is boring. You’re in a country, “inside the wire” of your FOB (Forward Operating Base) and you just want the smells, sounds and sites of your own land. There aren’t bombs going off next to you every day.
Wilburn Russell was a communications specialist with the 54th Engineer Battalion, stationed here in Bamberg, Germany. He wasn’t going toe-to-toe with Jihadists.
I’m here to tell you a horrible secret: Soldiers love fighting. They love killing the enemy. I won’t lie to you. They love even more, helping people and building schools that make people happy, but don’t ever think that there isn’t something about fighting that makes a warrior want to stay a warrior. He just learns to properly channel his desires. It’s difficult to be good at something you hate. You learn that strength must be tempered with justice.
What drives many to the edge, is boredom. Boredom creates too many thoughts.Thoughts become nightmares. Nightmares can become realities mingled with blood.
The media will want us to believe that this is a problem associated with the war. In reality, it is a problem associated with being human. Sgt. Russell had problems. Many people do, and do not resort to mass murder. Russell was a short timer. He was almost done with his tour. It seems that if the war were the problem, the small amount of time he had remaining to fight it would have soothed the pain. I suspect the source of his pain was much more complex than even war.
Left-wing media outlets have tried this type of thing before. And they got spanked for not checking the facts. Remember this one, by the New York Times? It’s a huge article, and it’s size contributes to its ability to convince. It turns out though, to be The Big Lie.
The truth? The Department of Justice’s studies into the matter show something quite different: Veterans between the ages of 18-24 commit homicide at about half the rate of the civilian populace in the same age group. Other age groups show lower rates, too.
Even Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has jumped to the easy conclusion that veterans become so tainted by war, that there is a significant danger of them becoming terrorists.
This will continue, no matter the facts. There’s a point to prove: War’s bad.