July 18, 2016

For blacks, anti-police means anti-white, not anti-authoritarianism

Although we do have an overgrown police presence that would ideally look more like it did on the Andy Griffith Show, the necessary changes may have to wait for awhile because in the current climate, the main impetus behind "boo police" is anti-white sentiment among blacks.

In the minds of most blacks, the police are the foot soldiers and open-air prison guards who keep blacks submissive, at the behest of the institutional racist white system that feels threatened by blacks doin' they own thang.

Therefore, holding anti-police views -- or escalating to anti-police actions -- stems from resentment against white people as a group. To them, the police are white folks' hired goons, so neutering or taking out the cops is just the first step toward taking down the wealthy and powerful whitey himself, who will be left with no protective forces.

That is quite a different motivation from civil libertarian types who are skeptical of the police because they are their own interest group, who may or may not have the public's safety at the top of its priorities, depending on the circumstances. Harassing white teenagers who are loitering around a parking lot? Easy, but pointless. Throwing themselves into a violent conflict to break it up? Harder to get them to do, yet more important for public safety.

This wariness of a too-big-too-fail police force has nothing to do with favoring one faction within a bitter conflict between ethnic groups, economic classes, generations, or any other kind of demographic conflict. Rather, it has to do with relations between agents of the state and the citizens. It is the same kind of concern that we have over whether Senators are directly elected, whether the military can draft soldiers, and so on.

Normal white people won't support radically altering the police forces when that matter is a hot-button topic in a broader ethnic conflict between blacks and whites. So, unfortunately the project of restoring the police back to the Mayberry model will have to wait until we get a better handle on various civil conflicts where one faction views the police as a mercenary militia that protects the other faction in the conflict.

Certainly that will not be taking place when anti-white movements like Black Lives Matter have escalated their tactics to murdering cops in ambushes, and when a good chunk of the black population is unmoved by or even sympathetic to those tactics.

The last time we transitioned out of a heavy police presence to the friendly neighborhood cop was the Great Compression. Before then, during the Progressive Era, the stereotype of the cop was still a skull-knocker who was looking out first for himself and other cops, and secondarily for the citizens.

First the Progressive Era had to restore order to a society that had begun to spiral out of control during the laissez-faire Gilded Age, and imposing order on chaos is going to stoke the sense of grievance among those demographic groups that are more prone to crime and destabilization. It might have been Ellis Island immigrants in the Progressive Era, while today it's blacks. But order has to be restored, and that may require us to tolerate a heavy-handed police force until the chaos has been controlled.

In general, all of the social worker programs that liberals desire -- the New Deal, the Great Society, etc. -- can only begin once there is basic stability among demographic groups. It's like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, where you need to take care of the most basic pressing needs (food, shelter) before attending to higher ones (fulfilling work). We had to kick out a bunch of immigrants and shut off immigration during the Great Compression, in order to focus on taking care of a more cohesive and unchanging population.

If there is open civil conflict, we are drawn back into "basic needs" mode, and that includes tolerating a police force that is stronger than we'd like.

The upshot for people who see a de-militarized police as ideal, is that we need to shape the population so that open civil conflicts are minimal and shrinking over time. The most pressing task now is to send the illegals back and shut off immigration, to prevent the emergence of further factions in the ethnic conflict arena.

For those who will be staying here, like blacks, I'll cover in a follow-up post about generational cycles within groups who are here permanently.


  1. BioCultBeamDelta7/18/16, 11:12 AM

    I'm still extremely skeptical that simply kicking out the illegals will be enough to restore demographic equilibrium. My understanding is that there are still plenty of people in the country legally who are not citizens. Furthermore, there are people who have lived in the country for 20+ years, and are only now getting their citizenship with the explicit aim of voting against Trump. At that point, what is the difference between "legal" and "illegal" if both will destroy us? Also, how are we going to set up a system that prevents a bunch of supposedly assimilated Muslims from forcing the flood gates open again 60 years from now? The 1965 law was treacherously passed by certain descendants of Ellis Island.

    Also, none of this matters if immigrants (legal and illegal) keep having more children then the native white population. Until we have a massive white baby boom, we are still becoming Brazil and South Africa.

  2. I think a major motivation for the black media circus is to distract from the far greater threat of the ongoing immivasion. CNN is 24/7 black pandering, un fucking believable

  3. BioCultBeamDelta7/18/16, 11:59 AM

    On a less black pilled not, what effect (if any) will Pokemon Go have on cocooning?

  4. Given demographics of whose come since 1965, things would probably settle down to looking more like Chile after an immigration cutoff -- a country clearly white majority with some different brown groups. The big difference would be the black minority of course.

    Going by immigration policy in latin america where most of the newcomers are from, any hypothetical "2055 immigration act" pushed by allegedly assimilated cubans/puerto ricans would likely only see the reopening of immigration from south of the border and not muslim/sub-saharan immigration.

  5. A.B. Prosper7/18/16, 4:07 PM

    I second what BioCultBeamDelta says re: immigration. Nearly all immigration needs to stop and it needs to be reversed.

    In order for a traditional American society to work it needs to be 80%+ European and the vast majority of that needs to be Western European.

  6. The same europe that's getting to be visibly muslim? Nah. Let's not let in people from there.

    Argentines, chileans and castillian mexicans from Sonora or Nuevo Leon are actually likelier to be white than your average young french or german with coffee or chocolate skin and a beard.

  7. "The most pressing task now is to send the illegals back and shut off immigration"

  8. We could literally grandfather people in -- if all four of your grandparents were citizens rather than merely lawful residents, you're fine. If 2 or 3 were citizens -- and with at least 1 on each of your mother's and father's sides -- you can lawfully reside but not get citizenship. If only 1 or 0 were citizens, you gotta go back.

  9. Problem is that once they get here, a lot of "white Hispanics" pretend to be part of the same victim group as 5'2" wetbacks

  10. Misanthropist7/24/16, 5:32 AM

    Blacks Live Matter is a psyop designed to divide-and-rule opposition to the growing militarized police state along racial grounds (this ought to be obvious, but it seems people are too dumb and bovine to see beyond the simplistic dichotomies offered to them nowadays). By portraying police abuse as largely a race issue, it subsumes the issue of state power versus individual rights under the wider hivemind narrative of white racism. And by pressuring the police to back off in the very communities that are most prone to crime, the resulting crime will actually lead to more demands for aggressive policing down the track. The whole point of BLM is to define the anti-police cause according to the least credible and most crime-prone critics. It is classic controlled/false opposition set up to fail.

    BLM is basically the kike establishment saying to white America, 'if you don't submit to our jackboot police state, we will unleash the worst of black violence and anarchy on your heads'.

  11. "The whole point of BLM is to define the anti-police cause according to the least credible and most crime-prone critics. It is classic controlled/false opposition set up to fail."

    Lolling forever at the thought of people either too dumb (deray) or too gay prima donna(deray and jack) to get any real control being MANIPULATED AS FALSE OPPOSITION as a SUBSUMING STATE POWER PSYOP.

    Really, here's the process:

    George Soros the Uber-Jew starts shit in civilized countries so he can make money on the stock market bets on forces he controls far in advance of the market.

    Venal and/or dumb politicians will respond to these movements with the usual calls for regulation at random.

    Police get more mindlessly brutal and collectively ineffective as the random regulations and political cover for the criminal voting classes create perverse enforcement incentives.

    TRUMP SAYS NO TO SOROS AND YES TO LAW AND ORDER and the confounding element is crushed. Hopefully before it leaves too many bodies behind.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."