The Police Are Not Our People
From Commander Rockwell to any number of Conservative™ demagogues cannibalizing nascent alt-right thought for their own watered down and commoditized interpretations of civilizational self-defense, the police have always occupied an uncomfortable position as tenuously consensual bedfellows to our cause. Some men trust the police, and so too some women fantasize about being raped. Ah well. To each his own.
Those who inherited with rapt attention their parents memories of the 60s and 70s will recall that there are literal rapists among distinguished office-holding policemen, who, unlike the pederast priest of yore, are protected by statues of limitations, unions of unfeigned petulance, and worst of all, the aforementioned Conservatives™ who are known best to our movement for saliently soliciting our categorical discreditation by constantly fumbling their position as the tip of the iceberg for the assertion of the natural order.
Be it via their own self-serving entryism into our ranks or the fallacious association of the standard issue Glock with those great and nonstandard men whose hearts beat defiantly in furtherance of the expression of force as the ultimate vindicator of righteousness, the police have always been a thorn in our side, and will be for time immemorial.
To be realistic about the role of the police requires one to be uncompromising in understanding their most virtuous expression is that of process servers averred against petty dysfunction in our society, and nothing more. A society in which police hold any greater power or respect is a society on the road to tyranny.
To Serve and Protect™ is an exculpatory idiom that exists in the mythopoeia of the most banal faith, the American civic religion, whose ends are not the defense of the people, but of the state. Those of you who know rendition unto God will know well the exhortation to render foremost unto Caesar what is Caesar's, however those of you who know the state know that no such man has lived for two thousand years.
The tiresome cultural cringe rears its head to argue perfunctorily at cross-purposes about the aim of the police: Libertarian Conservatives™ succumb to American cultural vampirism and defend police overreach as a guarantor of their own tyrannical aspirations, which are of course insidiously couched in ineffectual libertine dalliances, which the Left™ in turn correctly identifies as means-acquisition for discretionary fascist thought conspicuously draped beneath a foreign constitutionalist paradigm. Worse still, following this fair exhortation to tell the truth, the Conservative™ flees his post and sinks even deeper into untenably paradoxical libertarian totalitarianism and hyperforeign grand old party nostalgia.
This begs the question: how hard is it to have principles? Why do socially Conservative™ folk have such difficulty with uncompromising defense of their own traditions? Is it really simpler to tolerate police overreach than to ford the rivulets of ideological inconsistency? Why should anyone give a fuck what the Austrian School says above the abuses imposed upon their own people? I assure you, this pathology will be explored in depth in another article.
Conversely, the Left™ succumbs to this same vampirism and sets up franchises of US astroturf propaganda outlets (BLM, BuzzFeed, HuffPo, Antifa, et al) and agitates for discretion in a manner that ensures that it will never be achieved, by arguing transparently in favour of egregious discretion for certain parties. Trying to shoehorn in discretion for People of Colour™ and not for the host populace will beget sub-racialist reprisal from Conservatives™, which to no-one's particular surprise will only serve to advance the surveillance state to offset the kvetching about slain Youths™ until every interaction with police is recorded by police, with police discretion now extending additionally to the proof which can be brought to court.
If you weren't already aware police destroy exonerating evidence to secure convictions to boost their numbers, consider yourself informationally disenfranchised form this discussion. If you think the collection of evidence being executed by the police themselves will lead to greater police integrity, you are simply beyond help.
As demonstrated, this gridlock helps neither side and only ever achieves increasing powers being given to a police force that continually shows that the discretion they have firmly is beyond their capacity.
Moreover, this highlights the manifest failures of both sides to achieve even their stated means: the Left engages in the same conniving big-money journalistic silly buggers as the Murdochs and Baron Blacks of the world, and the Conservatives functionally cannot last a single round of charades when it comes to their newfound traditionalist ménage à quatre with liberty, individualism, and independence.
There may be men amongst them who sincerely believe otherwise, but sincere belief will not save you from being arrested, nor from unfair convictions. Only the confluence of finesse, fortune, and legal expertise can yield such, and you must never be so credulous as to think otherwise, for no magistrate in the land will ever be so credulous of your innocence, let alone the Sergeant of seventeen years and countless groundless arrests for which he has faced not even tepid admonishment. So it goes that sincere belief counts only for what sincere belief provokes, and the only provocation by police in anyone's memory is that of lads who've had too much to drink on a night out in Manly.
From the picket line to the unsheathing of swords for political action, the police have always been there to sabotage our movement, allied movements, and the self-interest and self-defense of any and all people, but most critically against our people to a degree that can only be warranted by the unique potential for our success in the event of a singularly unifying occurrence.
Some question of the wing-clipping of personal belief arises in the midst of the fray. Conversely, I posit that the ideological defense of armed men averred against our own circles is a milestone on the way to soliciting our own imprisonment. No such reciprocal defense is forthcoming, as this is outside the purview of process servers.
The question of discretion is definitional in this discussion. Anyone who thinks police are unable to show discretion in these matters is, to be frank, a disingenuous little weasel. Victims of crimes of all stripes have been rejected by police officers for reasons that range from casual disinterest to active disdain, and on the contrary, pursuers of vexatious police reprisal have been accommodated by armed desk ladies who operate without any real oversight. So it goes for us, the people, however anyone who has ever spent time observing police overreach knows all too well the egregious discretion cops and courts will show on behalf of other cops.
Anything that is within the power of the police to inconvenience you will be pursued, and it is not yours to reason why, for all such pondering will be derided as irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the most succinct summary is that the truth is of secondary interest to jurisprudence.
Some will bravely posit that we bear misplaced contempt for good men. This tired slander need only be exposed to the light of day to send the maggots fleeing deeper into the pits of decay. We do not hate the one in ten, or the one in a hundred, no, our fury is reserved for the majority of tyrants and tyrant apologists who vaingloriously march under a martial banner they are unfit to bear.
The answer? Total war against the system, via the system. Where they wish to exact judicial penalties against us, so too must we reciprocate, albeit only as a means to buy time before the unchaining of wolves. Make ethics complaints, and when the police ethics board does not uphold your complaint, follow it up with the state ombudsman. If you have witnesses, even better. Fabricate whatever is needed within the possibilities granted you by plausible deniability. To staunch a cop, you have to think like a cop. With enough guerilla reprisals and counter-partisan processes served, their spirits will break just like the spirits of so many innocents, sentenced pursuant of police malfeasance.
If the police choose to hide behind the shield of bureaucracy, so it must be that we confiscate their shield and put them before the mob, and there it is that they will come to a bloodied epiphany of what it means to pervert the course of justice. But at this late hour in a storied history of police overreach, I have little faith in the desire of the mob to show discretion.
So mote it be. Amen.
