Considering Open Contempt For The American Police

Note 1: This post is in response to the article “Why Americans Should Reconsider Their Contempt for Today’s Police“, previously published at Return of Kings on July 3d, 2014.

Note 2: The image above was taken by Jeff Robertson in Ferguson, Missouri, site of several days of rioting and protests over a fatal shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer on August 9, 2014.

Recently, guest poster “Anonymous Cop” opined that Americans should reconsider their contempt for the police, arguing that

(1) LEOs aren’t trained to be bullies, that most are good guys doing a difficult job, bad apples give the profession a bad name and, besides, citizens just don’t understand what it’s like to be on the other end of a citizen-LEO encounter,

(2) Shielding from liability for mistakes, such as kicking in the wrong door or shooting an unarmed man reaching for a cell phone, is necessary to get anyone to sign up to be LEOs in the first place,

(3) The recent trend of shaming, challenging, or embarrassing LEOs and posting the videos on the internet only serves to make LEOs more cautious, less aggressive, and less likely to intervene in gray-area situations. The author cites another LEO third-hand, who reportedly said: “If life and death situations could land me in a coffin or prison, I will avoid life and death situations.” The result is more crime, not less,

(4) Higher-quality LEOs are leaving the force due to the rise in street violence and lack of public support for LEOs, leaving lower-quality officers behind. Moreover, the aforementioned working conditions will likely attract a different sort of LEO candidate, one better adapted to higher levels of violence and less concerned with the lack of public rapport, support, or appreciation for their work.

Not a bad start as an apologia for the police, as apologias go. I can empathize with the author’s sense of bewilderment as he observes a low level of support for law enforcement amongst the citizenry:

We used to enjoy the support of the educated, hard-working people of the community, but not so much anymore. The bad guys used to know that the cops were the extension of the values of the community and if you violated those values, you were on your own—and good luck with that. But those communities that upheld the values of the Ten Commandments for everyone now seem to only uphold the values of the Ten Amendments, and only selectively when it protects them or their group’s politics.

I myself wrestle with the tension created by my own natural empathies for police officers and my discomfort with media reports of LEO misbehavior and my own (mixed, some good, some bad) observations of LEOs in action. Thus, while I have been at times been both critical and supportive of police over the last few years, I do so out of a sense of love of country, of patriotism, and a hope that the citizenry will help the system right itself. As I wrote a couple of years ago, the American justice system

…has gradually morphed over time from one that protected liberty to one that erodes it. Indeed, as individual LEOs became “professionalized”, American law enforcement ceased being a system in which citizens secured justice for themselves, on a level playing field, facilitated by law enforcement and the courts, to a literal “us” versus “them” arrangement on a steeply tilted playing field where the massive resources of government are brought to bear against presumably innocent individual citizens. In other words, ownership of the laws and the law enforcement process shifted from individual citizens to an amorphous “the people”, thus divesting individual citizens from the justice process except as a collective (when enforcing the law), or as an isolated defendant (when targeted by law enforcement). This divestiture is so complete that jury nullification, that foundational right whose pedigree extends back as far as the Magna Carta, is viewed with contempt and hostility by those in the justice system and those who publicly profess this right are persecuted, pilloried, and/or proscribed from jury service. It is in this context which LEOs, people just like any of us, find themselves at odds with the interests of their neighbors while simultaneously being exposed to the worst pathologies of their neighbors.

Clearly, few are happy with the present system, except perhaps the criminal class which happily exploits the widening gulf between police and the citizenry to its advantage. With that in mind, the remainder of this post will explore some proposals intended to restore some of the lost liberties of the American people, narrow the gap between the interests of the LEO with the citizen, and maybe do away with some of that contempt for police that Anonymous Cop complains about.

Image source: New York Times

Decriminalization / Re-Legalization

First up: Far too many things are illegal, making full compliance with the law difficult or impossible. Mayhaps this is by design. Ayn Rand once wrote:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

While liberty is secured by a little bit of law, too much law threatens liberty. Of course, those who fancy themselves our masters, those who seek to grow government (and thus erode liberty), know this and write laws with the express purpose of controlling the lives of others (for example, Federal crimes are up nearly 1,500% since our nation’s founding) and increasing their power and influence. If one is successful at reducing the quantity of laws, at making fewer things illegal, it follows that not only will there be more freedom and more responsibility but there will also be fewer criminals…and fewer opportunities for adverse interactions between LEOs and citizens.

Broaden The LEO Base

Second, we should reduce the number of full-time LEOs, particularly at the local level where the bulk of law enforcement activities occur, and increase the quantities of part-timers, reserve deputies, and volunteers. The aim here is to shorten the psychological distance between citizen and LEO in a way analogous to the “citizen soldier” model of the National Guard, with an eye toward stemming a budding “us vs. them” culture and mindset by making “them” more like “us.”

Less Diversity Is More

Similarly, police should be hired from, and serve in, the communities in which they live. This may better invest the citizenry in the security of their neighborhoods, and transform their views of law enforcement away from alienated enforcers to neighbors assisting in maintaining law and order. Additionally, this would have the added benefit of reducing inter-cultural conflict (of the sort that the liberalist Left thrives upon and uses as a pretext to enact more “helpful” laws) and therefore increases the sort of interpersonal trust needed to effectively enforce laws.

Re-assert the Right of the People to Judge for Themselves

Fourth, jury nullification needs to be re-legitimized as a check on government power and the arbitrary application of law by LEOs and attorneys general. It is right and proper for the citizens of the community to decide for themselves whether or not a particular law should apply to an accused offender, or even if a law is valid at all—not a judge or LEO or any other officer of the Court. Assuming a citizen is literate, they can judge the law for themselves, as well they should: After all, it is they who suffer the depredations of offenders, and not well-paid government officials safely ensconced in gated communities.

Defenestrate the Warrior Cop Mindset

Fifth, the police need to resist the temptation toward militarization. They are not “blue infantry,” they are not in a combat zone. They should be discouraged from thinking that they are in a combat zone, should not dress as if they were in a combat zone, need not possess equipment meant for a combat zone, and should not frequently employ small-unit tactics as if they were in a combat zone. They are not, and more importantly should not think themselves as, to use Radley Balko’s characterization, warrior cops. Moreover, the Founders considered a large standing army to be hazardous to liberty; I submit that LEAs would do well to avoid becoming what our Founders feared, if for no other reason than self-interest: Not only was Tsarnayev, the Boston Bomber, located by a citizen and not LEOs after the city-wide security lockdown was lifted, but life is very dangerous indeed for government forces of dubious legitimacy working in and around a disaffected populace. Just ask the US military about their experiences in Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.

These are but a few modest proposals. Perhaps it is too late to reverse the decades-long trend of alienation between the citizen and LEO. It is possible forced diversity and cultural Marxism has degraded the culture so much that rebuilding the trust necessary for citizenry-based policing will be impossible. Maybe Americans have become so infantilized, so comfortable in the outsourcing of law enforcement to paid professionals, that taking ownership for the enforcement of their own laws is fantasy. I hope not.

Read More: Why Americans Should Reconsider Their Contempt for Today’s Police

306 thoughts on “Considering Open Contempt For The American Police”

  1. That new york times picture showing police throughout the years is just absolutely shocking. Truly terrifying what we have in store for us.

    1. I like it.
      All the liberal retards cant comprehend why voting for bigger government leads to control of citizens. Just think they also want to take our guns away…

      1. As a Republican you vote for big government too. Both parties do. Its only big government when its for programs they don’t like. Actually, militarization is something reps support, and which is at issue in this article.

        1. Look faggot,
          Militarization is artillery, missiles with 200lb warheads, it’s an auto cannon obliterating a building or chewing up a tank.
          It’s not small arms, rubber bullets, plexiglas shields, water cannon and body armour.

        2. Militarization is all the weapons civilians cannot buy, carry and use; but tax feeders can.

      2. Liberal Logic:
        –“We have a major problem with police brutality.”
        –“Only police can be trusted with guns.”

      3. According to I think what liberals(R-selected rabbits) want to do since they can’t compete. Is vote in authoritarian government so as to destroy their competition(K-selected) while they curry favor with government and hence be spared the carnage.

      1. No they don’t. They try to get you to dislike the police they so vehemently support, doing the occasional thing they don’t support. Big difference.
        They’re like Republicans. Screaming and complaining about government, except for when government does whatever they happen to fancy at the moment.

      2. Christ there is never a day on ROK that someone doesn’t make an ignorant Amti Semitic remark. Leave it out of the discussion. It is not relevant and just makes us all look like proponents of hate speech.

    2. Reading this comment, I cannot help but think you are a Leftie.
      The NYT is Pravda on Hudson.

  2. I think what is going on here is that police have been having to deal with increasingly sociopathic criminals who are increasing in number every day due to single mothers and govt assistance. The police then subconsciously think they have to become more sociopathic to deal with a higher number of ruthless criminals. This leads to police depts hiring lower IQ men and women who have a predisposition to lower empathy and are good at blindly following orders. On paper this sounds like it’d be a good idea. Sociopaths are the best at punishing other sociopaths. The problem is that the sociopathic police than start to prey on innocent people as well. That is what sociopaths do, they dominate people whether they deserve it or not.
    This is going to be a cycle that is going to be tough to break. On one hand, we need tough no bullshit cops to do deal with thugs that have no regard for anyone but themselves. But on the other hand, these cops cant seem to leave innocent citizens alone.

    1. How many shootings by white cops have occurred historically in Ferguson? Let’s take that high crime, high race conflict city as a good example of what you say is wrong.

    2. I think that’s the *perception*, but the reality is that crime rates have dropped dramatically since the early 1990’s, due mostly to the liberalization of gun laws in most states (liberalization in a good way I mean). The difference now is that we have the interwebs chatting at us day in and day out about crime so it seems like there is more of it. Our brains are hardwired for local perceptions (city/village) and thus we think the crime is all around us, even when it is actually located, say, three hundred miles away.

  3. Broadening the base is a great idea as local cops are the worst. I’ve had plenty of just fine interactions with staties, but anytime I have to do deal with a local cop, they prove over and over to developmentally arrested, power tripping high school jocks.

    1. I’ve had the exact opposite in my state of Virginia. Staties are worthless quota enforcers and city PDs only care about major violent crimes and are otherwise indifferent on minor harassment.

  4. Ah, Elusive Watupi. I remember you from the MRM days of glory.
    It’s too late now. All legal options for change in Murka have been exhausted or infiltrated. Civil war is inevitable, and the police will work for the USG.

  5. This is like a Zulu bitching about the 24th regiment’s unsporting use of Martini Henry rifles.
    It would ring true if vibrant communities in places like London, where police are customarily unarmed, respected the police force in any measurable way.
    The Governor of Missouri was a chickenshit and should have deployed the national guard on the second day of looting. Orders to shoot looters on sight.

    1. The governor of Missouri should either be out there doing something useful for a living, or simply not make a living. Taxfeeding isn’t useful work, no matter how fancy one’s title may be. Absent armed tax feeders preventing them from doing so, nothing is stopping those being looted from handling the shooting of looters on sight themselves. Cheaply and effectively. No need for tax feeders gumming up the process at all.

  6. I still cant believe blacks have blindly supported liberal big-government policies and are now scratching their heads as to why police/DOJ/gov can do whatever it wants to them. All the handouts are false dignity, the government owns them.

  7. “First up: Far too many things are illegal, making full compliance with the law difficult or impossible. Mayhaps this is by design. ”
    This is, by far, the biggest problem. Everyone has fear of the police now because, no matter what you’re doing, there’s a very good chance you’re breaking a law. There’s an article out there (which I posted in the earlier LEO thread) about how, on average, US citizens commit a few felonies a day. That’s patently ridiculous, if everyone is a criminal than nobody is.
    Solution to this problem? No victim, no crime. Remove the ability to of the “state” to press charges except in extremely limited cases (children and murder). Yes, that legalizes drugs and prostitution overnight, and, IMHO, that’s a good thing.
    By far the thing that makes citizens most afraid of cops is the ability of the state to press charges. If someone calls into the police and says I’m driving like an asshole, I should get a ticket and be punished. If the “state” feels that I’m driving like an asshole, they can go fuck themselves; if nobody is harmed/annoyed enough to press charges, there’s simply no crime committed.

    1. Remove children from those limited cases as well. Parents or other relatives are much more reliable guardians than any possible State. Just witness the mass kidnappings of Mormon kids in Texas.

    2. Return to the common law. Under CL there must be an injury for there to be a crime. Speeding does not injure anyone except the state, which is a legal fiction and therefore cannot be injured. You’re also truly innocent until proven guilty as the accuser bears the burden of proof. Jury trials too, no judges decisions. This was America until ~150 years ago, and it’s been downhill ever since CL was abandoned in favor of statutes.

        1. Theft creates an injury under common law and has always been considered as such. Property is an extension of the labor of the owner, and by stealing it you are in effect injuring the owner since you are confiscating his labor (the sweat of his brow) against his wishes.

      1. We’re saying the same thing. And anon, in a theft, there’s a victim. It’s really that simple, if you can’t find someone to stand up and say “I was hurt (financially or physically) by person XYZ’s actions” then there’s no crime. That means prostitution, drugs, most traffic “crimes” and several other things are no longer crimes because the state, in all those cases, is the “harmed party”. It would fundamentally alter our justice system and, IMHO, it would be a very good thing for all of us to help restore liberty. Our founding fathers would roll in their graves looking at what this country has become with the endless laws/restrictions on personal freedoms.

      1. Absolutely agree. I don’t mind a fee for service arrangement, but then only if they are few and the levy quite low, and voluntary. If you want a government service explicitly then you pay a very small fee and get that service, or you can opt to go it without the service and not pay the fee. Just like the private market works, which evidence shows is a fine and proper model for human interactions and exchanges.

        1. How would you deal with public goods that have already been built up by others and put out for use by people? Have a monthly subscription to allow you to utilize the roads or even step on a sidewalk (en lieue of the city and state taxes that we have now)? How would you enforce it? GPS tracking on your car and a nice little electronic bracelet on your ankle to prevent some from coping a “freebie” along the way?
          Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for greater transparency and more choice in just how much we choose to partake in “collective society” and how much we choose to opt out of, but how would the logistics for all this really work out?

  8. All these things that are brought up to support the militarization and violence used by cops don’t happen. The only time a SWAT team should be used is for things like hostage standoffs and bank robberies, but these are rare and the use of paramilitary tactics should be rare. Instead, they’re using them for things that don’t need them. They’re raiding old ladies’ houses or the house because someone posted something online using her wifi or raiding people who are thought to have marijuana. As I’ve mentioned before, SWAT teams have raided a barber shop for cutting hair without a license and a group of friends who were gambling on sports, which resulted in the death of one of those friends. Does any of that need military tactics, armored vehicles and automatic rifles?
    And all this stuff about how dangerous the job is is nonsense too. The BLS records these things. Police officer doesn’t even make it into the top ten of the most dangerous jobs according to the BLS’s statistics. The most dangerous job in this country is lumber jack, but no one ever makes a big deal about that job.
    Instead of whining about how the American people are upset with cops using unnecessary force and killing people, maybe the cops should get over their tough guy fantasies and stop abusing people. Abusing our rights, killing people who don’t need to be killed, standing down and watching as looters burn down a private business but go after peaceful protesters and journalists exercising their First Amendment rights and shooting family pets are going to piss people off. How hard is that to understand?

    1. “all this stuff about how dangerous the job is is nonsense”
      That is exactly it right there. Far too often cops are overreacting to situations that require far less force.

    2. The solution of course is to give lumberjacks full auto weapons, kevlar vests and armored personnel carriers. We’ll see how uppity those trees get when they see *that*! heh
      Instead of whining about how the American people are upset with cops
      using unnecessary force and killing people, maybe the cops should get
      over their tough guy fantasies and stop abusing people.

      Agreed. The problem is that many to most police forces are staffed with recent combat vets who learned the “hard lessons of life” in war zones and have in a way become uncivilized. They see themselves as the hammer, and everything around them as a nail.
      This is why I support Sheriffs, but abhor police departments. The Sheriff is accountable to the populace through popular vote, and he deputizes people from the county he is charged with maintaining. If he gets all butch and the people dislike their treatment at his hands, he’s gone. Additionally, many sheriff’s departments across the nation are far more friendly to the notions of classical liberalism (aka libertarianism/conservatism) than police departments. This is an organic and far more effective and community friendly way to maintain order than police departments can ever be in this day and age.

  9. If America was an all White country we wouldn’t need a militarized police force. Do Icelandic police have AR-15’s and bullet proof vests? Do they need them?
    Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
    The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
    Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
    How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

        1. Your descendants are the ones who brought all of these blacks here in the first place. If your white ancestors werent fucking lazy and picked the cotton themselves, this wouldnt even be happening right now.

        2. While you make a fair point as far as it goes, nobody was lazy in the 1700’s and 1800’s except for the most extreme of the rich. If you were a middle class sharcropper you didn’t just sit in your house all day drinking mint juleps, you worked hard day in and day out. Being lazy as a “lifestyle choice” in any age except the present was a sure prescription for a short, brutal life.

        3. Well first, my descendants aren’t here yet, but yeah, White people did go in for slavery, and that was a bad decision and a poor investment. But Whites also invented the cotton gin and founded Liberia, which pretty much evens out.
          But for the “descendants” (see what I did?) of blacks who stayed here, there’s ESPN, booty music, Air Jordans, and malt liquor. You can’t get ANY of that shit on the Dark Continent, so I don’t wanna hear any bitching.

        4. Especially the Air Jordans. What is it with those guys and expensive showy sneakers anyhow?

        5. Very true. However, a good amount of white Europeans immigrated after slavery was abolished and accommodated within a generation or two. So this statement doesn’t apply to all whites in the US.

    1. With the exception of the ‘Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white’ catch phrase, which is more non sequitur than catch phrase, I unfortunately agree.
      We’ve addressed discussed the pathology afflicting the lives of black Americans here ad infinitum so I won’t beat a dead horse.
      However, I will point out the world’s white population are not, by any stretch of the imagination, a tiny minority or threatened by extinction. Further, they are far more widespread than any other racial group. You can’t have it both ways.
      The reason Asians have maintained a closed culture is because they were content to live and let live and mind their own business. The Japanese in particular had a isolationist policy (sakoku) that spanned two and a half centuries and may be beginning to close their doors again.

      1. Having an isolationist policy is different than having a closed immigration policy. From the polling I have seen most Americans are more than open to trading with foreign partners. They just don’t want porous borders and government funding for non-citizens.

        1. Having an isolationist policy is different than having a closed immigration policy.

          Exactly. Under Sakoku, no foreigner could enter [nor could any Japanese leave] the country on penalty of death. I highly doubt a refugee would seek asylum in a country with such a strict policy.

          the polling I have seen most Americans are more than open to trading with foreign partners. They just don’t want porous borders and government funding for non-citizens.

          Same as above. You can’t have it both ways; You have to decide what’s more important. We [Americans] have a hard enough time keeping illegal guns from crossing the border; I highly doubt an ‘immigration policy’ will stop non-natural citizens from doing the same.

        2. What do you mean “both ways”? We absolutely could have open trade with foreign countries and strong border defense with minimal government programs incentivizing illegal entry.

        3. Sure, it’s feasible but in reality, it’s easier said than done. However, both of my comments were in reference to @4DerBeobachter:disqus’s original post

          The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

        4. You don’t need Sakoku all that needs to be done is stop giving illegals government assistance, jail and/or fine company owners and board members for hiring them.
          We had this figured out for almost two hundred years until the 1965 Immigration Act..

        5. True but I doubt anyone would seek asylum in a country who would end their life for doing so but ultimately, more Immigrants = more votes and Immigrants have a tendency not to vote for people who want to send them back to the place they are desperately trying to escape. That said, nothing short of political coup d’état will ameliorate @4DerBeobachter:disqus’s grievances.

        6. “Easier said than done.” It isn’t that fucking hard. Of course we aren’t going to prevent 100% of illegal immigration, but I’m pretty sure even stopping 50% of it would be a major increase over what we have now. ArierHase is taking an extreme position that is outrageously unrealistic. I don’t care where they come from. And neither do most Americans. I care that they make a contribution to our society rather than become a drain on it. It is not sustainable to allow immigrants enter who are a net decrease on the system.

        7. This is from my comment below:

          Immigrants = more votes and Immigrants have a tendency not to vote for people who want to send them back to the place they are desperately trying to escape.

          Politicians have absolutely no incentive to turn back the clock. The downtrodden are the progressives’ bread and butter, which leaves conservatives between a rock and a hard place. I have no doubt we’ll see an attempt to naturalize illegal immigrants in the near future.

        8. I know plenty of “conservatives” who have no interest in closing down the border. Both small companies I worked for were owned by stalwart Republicans and hired large numbers of illegals and paid them in cash. This bumped their profit margins substantially. Of course, as a Libertarian, I would argue the GOP isn’t anymore conservative than the Dems but I think you understand my argument. Players on both sides like the advantages of illegals. Dems get the voters and Repubs get cheap labor. Until the retarded American voting base recognizes that neither party cares about them, exploitation will continue.

        9. Players on both sides like the advantages of illegals. Dems get the voters and Repubs get cheap labor.

          I agree with everything you just said but it takes us back to my “you can’t have it both ways” comment. Which is more important? Humanism and cheap labor? or Rationalism and preserving the Republic?
          Women have voted themselves generous gifts from the public treasury; As have the African-American constituency. What makes you think Immigrants wouldn’t do the same?

        10. It’s most important that the model is sustainable. Currently it is not. I would rather something, even if it included naturalization of illegals, instead of doing nothing. And all these proposed policies of self-deportation, forced deportation en masse, etc. have zero change of being implemented so it is pointless in proposing them. At least make the illegals pay taxes since they are going to use the gubmint system benefits anyway.

        11. At least make the fuckers pay taxes since they are going to use the gubmint system benefits anyway.

          I agree but it’s a slippery slope. Aside from the obvious loss of American jobs and eventual overrepresentation in government, I see moral consistency as a bigger issue than sustainability. Think about it: Immigrant, leaves home country for one envied for its rule of law, then demand the gov’t grant exemption from that same rule law?
          That’s a bad start if you ask me. Americans face consequences for breaking minor laws (e.g. speeding in a car) illegal aliens should face consequences as well.

        12. Then provide a viable alternative. I have yet to hear of one and continuing with our current policy is proving to be disastrous. Being morally consistent doesn’t mean a whole lot if the country ceases to exist.

        13. Exactly. Under Sakoku, no foreigner could enter [nor could any Japanese leave] the country on penalty of death. I highly doubt a refugee would seek asylum in a country with such a strict policy.

          Did they have Samurai guards standing by ready to instantly behead anybody coming too close to shore lest they feel the pull of the mysterious foreign land?

        14. Then provide a viable alternative.

          It’s a complex issue but I would start by enforcing immigration laws. Not hiring illegals is one of those laws and has been for decades.
          However, the cheap labor lobby is willing do anything to avoid paying competitive wages and benefits. A number of employers won’t even consider hiring legal workers when illegal ones are available because if they hire legal workers, they have to pay overtime, workers comp and comply with OSHA regulations.
          As with most problems, this one is primarily about the dollars. The CEOs would rather retire with a 250′ yacht in lieu of a 25 footer.

        15. It’s not possible to enforce the current laws. Companies deliberately pay in cash to avoid any possible tracking. Furthermore, you would needs tens of thousands more government officials to investigate employment sources for illegals. It’s not realistic at all. And many small business owners more than exploit this situation so it is far from large corporations being culpable.

        16. It’s not possible to enforce the current labor laws. Companies deliberately pay in cash to avoid any possible tracking. Furthermore, you would needs tens of thousands more government officials dedicated to investigating employment sources for illegals. It’s not realistic at all.

          You’re kidding right? The only reason we’re not enforcing the immigration laws we already have on the books is literally because our president doesn’t like them. He has been very candid about how he feels about enforcing immigration laws and enables various departments to blatantly break said laws. e.g. In 2012 the DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] Memo, which not only stopped the deportations of illegal alien youths but granted them work permits.
          Further, we already have two departments ‘dedicated to investigating employment sources for illegals’ they’re called Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Why would we need “tens of thousands more government officials”?

        17. I specified as labor laws. Not immigration laws. We could reduce the border crossings with a massive increase in resources. To make the number crossing insignificant we would have to institute much harsher penalties than we have now.
          Have you ever spoken to any BP agents? You should. Predictably their morale is abysmal right now. You are right that Obama has made it worse but it was always a losing battle. Ask them about the likelihood of their current force in being able to prevent all illegal immigration given their restrictions. It isn’t possible without a massive increase in resources or a major reform in the legal environment to a level the US has never had. I advocate for an increase in those resources as well as a reduction in incentives for entering the country. We might not be able to prevent all able bodied individuals from entering but with proper adherence to laws we can at least prevent them from bringing and/or uniting with their families. That would mitigate this foreign invasion dramatically. You are also misinformed on the organizational structure of DHS.

        18. specified as labor laws. Not immigration laws. We could .reduce the border crossings with a massive increase in resources. To make the number crossing insignificant we would have to institute much harsher penalties than we have now.

          The two are entwined, we already have those resources [DHS, et al] and they’re being told not to do their job by the current administration. BP agents are not the only [and definitely not the last] line of defense.

          You are right that Obama has made it worse but it was always a losing battle. Ask them about the likelihood of their current force in being able to prevent all illegal immigration given their restrictions.

          Okay, now I’m confused. I said this verbatim a few posts backs. I played devil’s advocate because you so passionately disagreed with me but you’ve just proved my original point:

          We [America] have a hard enough time keeping illegal guns from crossing the border; I highly doubt an ‘immigration policy’ will stop non-natural citizens from doing the same.

          No politician is going to reform our immigration policy because there’s no political or financial incentive to do so. To think otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

          It isn’t possible without a massive increase in resources or a major reform in the legal environment to a level the US has never had.

          You’ll have to be more specific.

          You are also misinformed on the organizational structure of DHS.

        19. What do you mean by “border defense”? Are you concerned about an military invasion by Canada?

      2. Asians are not evil empiralist like the white devils. Genghis Khan was the epitome of a live and let live kind of guy…

        1. Muhammad and the Boyz of Arabia…nothing imperialistic about the spread of that Asian religion.

        2. Yup, only evil whitey is at fault here. Everyone else is simply one big happy Kumbaya family.

        3. More of an Eastern Med religion. It never really took off in Asia. The Greeks liked it and so did the Romans. Given that most of the Apostles died in Roman territory and mainland Europe the Asiatic character of Christianity is about an inch deep. Are there any Christians left in the Levant? Can’t be more than a million or two.

        4. Well, I guess the fact that it originated in Asia just like Islam is irrelevant even though there are still Christians there. We’ll also ignore the fact that muslims have been in Europe since 700 AD. As for Asiatic character… well Islam and Christianity are essentially the same religion.
          In your logic though, the location which has the largest number of adherants forms the character of the religion. As such then, Christianity is a North American religion and and Islam is Indonesian. Make sense?
          But really this whole discussion is pointless since religion only forms the pretext for aggression never the reason.

        5. Not adherents. More like early converts. The most fertile ground for Christianity in the first 50 years or so appears to have been mainland Greece and Rome. Paul himself was a citizen of the City of Rome and he targets Europeans of that era for conversion. The earliest surviving image of Christ is actually located in Devon in a Roman Villa ruin in a village called Hinton St Mary. It’s quite clearly a European religion.

        6. Did Jesus of Nazareth say it was strictly a European religion? It’s not in the gospel. And if what you are saying is true, why have Christians spent the last 2000 years trying to take back the Holy Land… in Asia?

      3. What is fascinating about looking at Ferguson Riots 2014 TM, is that they tell us what was really going on in places like Tulsa and East St Louis a century ago: whites getting their cosy townships burned down by militant black Impis. There is no way to edit down the footage. The riots can’t be easily turned into a byline in the NYT by progressives such as yourself.

      4. Let me help you understand International Law:
        Genocide may be: “(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”
        The Law is Very Broad.
        International Law protects Racial Groups: “A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.”
        “Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
        (a) Genocide;
        (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
        (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
        (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
        (e) Complicity in genocide.”
        My Race does not have to be a “tiny minority” to be Genocided.

      5. You have to laugh at his belief that an “All White” country would be all peace and harmony. Has he never been to Scotland?

        1. Did a Ginger Jock give you a Glaswegian Kiss o’ summat? Wee Muh Dik? Note that Scotland still provides a free ride in its first rate University system. That will not survive negrification.

        2. Scots rock especially the women. I find them really sexy in an aggressive “fuck me hard and fuck me now you Southern bastard” kind of way. You support free education? I didn’t figure you for a socialist.

        3. LOL! or Ireland and they’ve been fighting since the 60’s. You have to laugh even harder at the fact that they’re literally just charging dummies. Blacks could become the paragon of virtue tomorrow and these guys would just find another reason to be mad. Redirect that negative energy towards something constructive like building a ship in a bottle or some other shit.

    2. You are right stating that if America was an all white country, we wouldn’t need a militarized police. Neither would we if America was all black. All yellow, all brown, all blue, all green nor any conceivable mixture of the above. Noone needs a militarized police. Period. Heck, noone even needs a militarized military.

    3. This is not a RACE problem. It is a CULTURE problem. There is nothing inherently inferior about the black community because of the color of their skin or their features. What is inferior is the CULTURE that has afflicted the black community since the leftists essentially made them “wards of the state” through anti- poverty and ” great society” welfare programs that Destroyed the black family. Go back to the 50s and black families had fathers. Families were intact. Now we have more than half of black children born to single mothers recieving government benefits. There is no father figure or discipline in the home, so what happens? Gangs. Poverty. Violence. It is a culture problem not a race problem.
      Question? Why do you think Indian families ( and Asians) have such successful children? The reason is culture- hard work, duty, family obligation, and responsibility are all part of their culture. You cannot say that for the average post 1950 black American family ( or the majority of whites today for that matter- but that is a subject of another post)

      1. Agreed, just look at the difference between China and Myanmar/Burma. I doubt if there is much genetic difference between the people in these two countries, but the cultures are like night and day.

        1. They are so different. They all worry about food on the table, a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, shoes on their feet. They are all concerned with having a job that provides these material requirements. They all want to get married and have children and then work hard to provide a better life for their kids. Hell, they are so different its impossible for them to have a beer together at the local watering hole. They must be different species of Human right?

      2. Its been 50 years of pandering to blacks, and they’re no better off than their African cousins. Culture obviously stems from race, thats why every immigrant community resembles their origins for generation after generation.

        1. …yeah, the White man is weighing a brutha down with free money, admissions quotas, preferential hiring, and a never ending-string of second chances when muh-dik “expresses frustration” by raping a 9 year-old and robbing a liquor store. …it must be so rough for you…

        2. Culture is clearly a racial construct, or more precisely a biological construct.

        3. Want to destroy two sets of people? Give one group everything they want and make the other group pay for it.

        4. Daniel, that makes no sense whatsoever. There is no biological basis for race. Humans have had culture since way before the concept of race was created by a handful of Europeans.

        5. Have you ever met an African immigrant? I think you could benefit from reading a bit about actual African culture.

      3. Precisely, it’s been a degenerate culture which has been flourishing in the black community, precisely because of fatherless homes, look at crime statistic correlation with fatherless homes, the proof is all there, now instead of welfare programs being a safety net they are the norm necessary for a black family to survive.

      4. At least we can agree that Welfare destroyed the black family. The actual statistic is that 72% of black children are raised in a single parent home.
        Other than that, ugh, regurgitate those Cathedral talkings point over on huffington post. The only difference is “the color of their skin?” What year is it, 1960? Blacks having higher rates of the so-called “warrior gene,” which causes increased aggressiveness. They also have about 20% higher testosterone than whites, which also makes them more aggressive. They score 1 standard deviation lower than whites on IQ tests, which is considerable. It’s a myth that blacks are just white people with a different skin color. The superficial differences you see on the outside are the tip of the iceberg.

      5. Your logic is wasted on White Supremacists. Just laugh at him instead. its more fun.

      6. To say that there is no genetic variation between ‘black people’ and other races, after countless years of evolution, and to say that all the differences can be attributed to culture alone, is insanity, if you consider the evidence. Let me show you with a simple argument.
        The Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene, or ‘Warrior gene’ is highly correlated with impulsivity and violence ( (
        It was found that in the case of a 2 repeat allele (which implies a large amount of dysfunctionality, including a permanent chemical imbalance, leading to higher impulsivity, agitation and agression), that African Americans (black people) were over 9 times more likely to have this 2 repeat allele when compared with whites (0.5% versus 4.7%) (
        P1) The MAOA gene creates dysfunctionality in people
        P2) Particularly, the 2 repeat allele creates the most dysfunction
        P3) Dysfunction is not desirable (which I think is a given)
        C1) Therefore, this 2 repeat allele is undesirable
        P4) The 2 repeat version of the MAOA gene is found far more frequently in African Americans (blacks) than whites
        C2) Therefore, there is a undesirable, genetic (not a social construct or cultural) difference in blacks compared to whites

    4. Actually lots of white guys move to the Phillipines, Belize, Brazil, Thailand, etc.

    5. Taiwan has a very open society. In many ways people here have more liberty than in America. Low taxes and inefficient tax collectors. Very little zoning. No open container laws. Non-militarized, polite, easygoing police. No visa required for Americans (visa on arrival). Very low unemployment. Charity instead of welfare. Close-knit families. Low levels of crime and violence. But citizens can’t have guns. That’s not such a big deal because no one has one except the police (and some aboriginal tribesmen, for hunting) and that’s only when they’re on-duty.

      1. Visa on arrival for Americans? Why? Why don’t the People of Taiwan want to preserve their genetic identity?
        Not having guns is no problem if the people of Taiwan ever wanted to break out of a closed society. The Berlin Wall wasn’t brought down through violence.

        1. Because people don’t care about that stuff there. They like Americans and this dates back to WWII and the Cold War.
          A lot of people migrated there, from parts of China as geographically distinct as Finland is from Italy, because they didn’t like the Chinese government.

      2. i know very little of taiwan so this might be a stupid comment, but id say those big differences are due to culture. as i understand it a lot of asian cultures remain much more honor and duty-bound than american culture. taiwan can probably afford to be more loose with its rules because the populace has little temptation

    6. Dude a little bit too radical. I’m impressed, usually someone’s telling me I am going over the top

  10. Another well written piece by EW.
    The government has declared a war on everything, and everyone is a terrorist. The war on drugs has transferred a great deal of money from the private citizen to the police and prison industry, and they have zero interest in changing that cash flow. Our local police just received an ex-military, mine-proof, and bullet-proof vehicle. I see no solution except to attempt to starve the system and continue to show a contempt for this mindless expansion on the war on the citizen. This won’t last in it’s present form, and LEO’s like Anonymous Cop had better get used to the contempt or quit. With the pension and benefits that most of us battered, private citizens could never dream of, I expect AC will remain a cop until he become “disabled” at 49 1/2 and must retire at 50 with 1/2 his pension untaxed thanks to said disability.

    1. Let’s add up the tally. We are living in a police and prison state. Western women are worthless when it comes to being good mothers and wives, they’d rather have a pet and ride the cock carousel. The economy is propped up by another quantitative easing bubble that WILL burst within the next decade if not sooner. Law enforcement agencies are now arms of the military for all intents an purposes, and only too eager to turn that weaponry against the citizenry. The surveillance state knows everything you have done online and stores all your information in a database that will be used as a political weapon against you if you step out of line. Men are vilified and their lives destroyed at the whim of any woman who wants to make a bogus sexual harassment or rape claim against them. Around 70% of government expenditures are those of wealth redistribution, punishing work and rewarding sloth. We have a divorce-industrial complex that bankrupts people like Robin Williams and turns them into slaves of the alimony/child support/indentured servitude system. The list goes on and on. Why the fuck anyone would want to stay in a system like this that only gets worse with each passing year is unfathomable to me. I’m working hard on becoming the John Galt that Ayn Rand wrote about…getting out while the getting is good.

      1. Perhaps some simply like to feel the burn on a daily basis. There are more closet BDSMs out there than you would venture to guess. Otherwise, I remain just as clueless as you as to why anyone with two brain cells rubbing together and seeing things for what they really are is still here (assuming they really do have reasonable exit options).

        1. Lack of places to go where the corrupt West has no or little influence, I think.
          Say I move to Costa Rica (or pick your favorite third world country). Since 2001 almost all of the off shore expatriate nations have signed, under duress or threat of some sort by the U.S. State Department, extradition treaties with these united States, in order to “combat terrorism” (bah). Even if you peacefully manage to expatriate to one of these countries, your wages are still taxed as if you were a citizen here even if you renounce your citizenship, and anything you might have wanted to take out of country with you is subject to draconian, basically confiscatory, penalties and taxes. The IRS in effect claims dominion over your life for a full decade even if you are no longer a citizen, and if you refuse to pay then Senor Policia of the Costa Rican (or wherever) police is obligated to pull your ass out of your nice rural citrus farm and ship it back to these united States for prosecution.
          Second, if you live in another nation during the death throes of these united States, which WILL take down most economies across the globe when it happens, you will be seen as a foreigner from “the great satan” or ‘that police state threatening us with bombs” (or whatever). That never turns out well for foreigners in a strange land (ask the Japanese in America bout internment camps).
          Third, and this is basically my “thing” only, but I cannot go to any other nation and own firearms (except perhaps Canada or Israel, both of whom would extradite me at the flip of a hat). It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the notion that I lose the most effective tool of defense and liberty available to a free man by moving to another nation. Again though, this is a “me” thing.

        2. Thanks for reminding me why I’m glad not to be a citizen of the “land of the free” , nor even a “non-resident alien for income tax purposes” (you mean to tell me I only need to benefit from American employment income for six months for Uncle Sam to then own all my global future earnings for the next ten years to come? Think I’ll pass on that “generous” offer TYVM).
          While the initial shock following the collapse of the U.S. may send the global economy into turmoil, all the factories, lands, production facilities, and other capital goods built up around the world will remain very much operational – that is, unless a madman (or madwoman) in Washington decides to send off all the ICBMs as a final sadistic “farewell” to the civilized world, at which point I would not feel sorry at all if the Russians and Chinese chose to kindly “repay” the favor. Matter of fact, once the global financial system is restructured around the new emerging poles of influence, production and trade will resume as before, as it had for millennia before the very appearance of America on this little blue planet.
          You are wrong regarding your rights to firearm ownership in other countries. Many actually allow you to have them, though the restrictions and licensing requirements are usually significantly more stringent than what you may be used to. Even so, many other peoples around the world would probably view your association of the notion of liberty with the right to CC or OC in public somewhat strangely, though you would be surprised at how many would actually agree with the idea of the right to bear arms for self-defense and general hunting purposes.
          As for those places that usually restrict them severely. Well, spend some time in public in such places and get a feel for the culture at large, and you will quickly understand why the people are not exactly clamoring for the universal right to be armed (hint: it’s not necessarily because they have all become passive sheep who have given up all their rights to their rulers). You simply cannot compare parts of the states with heavy gun restrictions and the corresponding levels of violence and assaults that exist there with other such areas around the world. It simply does not work that way for a variety of reasons, most of which are predominantly cultural.
          Just my 2 cents here.

        3. Yes, the IRS does in fact claim ownership of you for a long period after you renounce citizenship and expatriate. Scary, n’est-ce pas?
          The firearms thing, again, is a “me thing”. I’m aware that you can “own” some kind of firearm with severe restrictions and licensing requirements, in other places of the world. I really do not cotton to such requirements and restrictions, and it’s a personal preference, hence why it’s a “me thing”. I am also well traveled and know that in many countries they are simply easier to get along with and crime is nearly non-existent thus significantly reducing the requirement to OC/CC (and frankly I don’t care how they view me doing it here). Simply put, I’m of no mind to give up one of my few remaining rights, or have it severely restricted at the request of yet another State.
          The foreigner-effect is very real. I doubt I’d be well received in Costa Rica if uncle Sugar decides he needs to start sending “drug interdiction raids” of apache helicopters to bomb the living hell out of the jungles there on a weekly basis. At some point tribalism (rightly) sets in and I’m that big tall white guy from the place that just bombed a small village down the road. That never ends well.
          But mostly, it’s the fact that uncle Sugar will consider me his pawn for many, many years after I flip him the bird. Then, I get to pay taxes to two countries! Wee!

        4. If you choose to move to a country that has a tax treaty with the U.S. you could drop your taxes owed to the IRS against those payed to your new place of residence. It wouldn’t exactly eliminate the stateside portion owed, and you would still need to file two income tax forms per year, but at least it would not be like getting a full double-wammy as you wait for Uncle Sam to finally unbuckle your choke collar.
          As for avoiding the foreigner effect, simply adopt your newfound national identity ASAP and avoid discussion your old one. That said, this would function much better in places like Europe than in SA ,for obvious reasons.
          Or you could simply stay put and hope that things smooth out somehow – though I still think it is good to have a concrete escape plan down the tubes if you can manage to set one up, just in case SHTF for real.

  11. I’ve been on the wrong side of the police pretty much all my life despite not being in the wrong legally; I can’t find it in me to trust authority figures. The cops chose their side. They chose to stand with big government and an oppressive legal system and have to face the consequences when the wrath of the citizenry turns against them. You can’t hate the government and love the cops. The police are the weapon that the state uses to keep its people in line, to maintain the fundamental threat of violence that all society is built on.

    1. I really don’t understand how this actually happens. I’ve never had any real problems with cops, save a few traffic tickets perhaps. What are you guys doing? Approaching them in a weird manner? Looking wildly around like a lost weirdo out on a bender? Hanging around strip malls leaning against the wall with a greasy haircut, leather jacket, and publicly flicking a switch blade in your hand? Giving them the “evil eye” as you pass them by? Giving off some sort of weird vibe? What is it?
      Seriously, if you dress clean and proper, move forward in a relaxed and confident manner, and go about your business like any normal person would, there should really be ZERO reason for them to single you out.
      Or am I missing something here?

      1. Seriously, if you dress clean and proper, move forward in a relaxed and
        confident manner, and go about your business like any normal person
        Sounds like a green light for being hemmed up for the very open interpretation of what is proper. Which, like the subject matter of many posts on return of kings, can lead to unproper things when that definition is at the arbitrary desires of people with some kind of power or influence.

        1. I beg to differ. I’m not talking about preppies or stiff uniform codes here. I’m sorry but if you look like a stinky, heroin-addicted bum with dirty hair, blood-shot eyes, and an upsetting gate, then I have no pity for you if you happen to attract undue attention. Not that this justifies coppers unduly manhandling you, but I wouldn’t exactly rush to your aid if they happen to be in the process of removing you from public premises.

        2. U said you’ve had a few minor traffic violations; u should really think about how they went down. Imagine the situation without preconceived labels – You were stopped under threat of imprisonment by Mr. Friendly for doing something causing absolutely no harm to anyone (10 over the speed limit for example). Mr. Friendly then forced you to give him $200 under threat of imprisonment. If you argue with Mr. Friendly he has the right to beat/kill you. You have no right to defend yourself from any physical violence Mr. Friendly inflicts upon you.
          Plenty of people drive down the road minding their own business and end up being mugged. Most people have to work at least a couple days to pay off a $200 fine. Now imagine you were doing 70 in a 35 on an empty backroad – $500 at least. We need to acknowledge there will always be gangbangers ruling society, that way we can keep them in check better.

        3. I don’t know where you live but nobody here forces you to pay your ticket upfront and you can always contest it in court if you believe the cop was in the wrong (it actually worked a couple of times and all charges and fees were dropped. And the judge was actually rather pleasant at that, given the circumstances). Yes, I do agree that many cops have begun to take on a much more authoritarian and unsettling approach towards “civilians”, but I have not seen them arbitrarily picking on people here as of yet, unless the guy was quite blatantly acting like a jackass and simply asking for it (and they pretty much let 10 over the speed limit fly. You have to go 20 at least to attract the flashing blue and red lights in your rear-view mirror – this is in kph BTW).
          As to your argument regarding speeding, I disagree. Speed limits were set in order to calibrate driver response time to road conditions in order to drop accidents and fatalities (slower among residential districts, faster on country roads, and fastest still on the wide open highway). I don’t always agree with the actual numbers set, but i don’t see them as some kind of huge constrain on my personal liberties or as somehow “taking away my rights” (rights to what? Screaming along like some knucklehead and killing some kid that just happened to jump out in front of my car because I was doing 100 in a school zone? I know that’s not in your example above but you get my drift) Would I like to enjoy being able to tear it up like on the German autobahn (where the highways are purpose-built for such speeds, being smooth as a table-top and actually tilted in the corners like a racetrack)? Sure, but you don’t see me crying over it.
          Then again, there are no quotas for police arrests and traffic violations around here, so that probably plays a significant part in my somewhat more relaxed attitude towards cops. From the looks of it, most of them simply wish to put in their day and go home. And whenever an overzealous officer causes too much havoc, the wave of contestations and even lawsuits cause the department head to tell him to mellow out a bit. Yes, people here are not afraid to leverage the legal system, and many judges, having an actual eye towards preventing abuse, even from police, will often side with the people.
          That said, I do believe to be living in a more or less civilized country in may ways similar to American but not completely so, and that probably plays a huge part in it as well.

        4. I’m in the South and practically half the small towns down here fund themselves by turning their stretch of the highway into speed traps. Many simply take advantage of some minor road work being done and place orange cones 5 miles down either side of the actual construction; a 55mph road becomes a poorly marked 45mph road. I was caught in one of these traps just a couple nights ago – bout midnight and just humming along keeping up with the one car in front of me. The moment we hit the coned area Mr. Friendly flashed the lights and got me for doing 55 in the 45. $150 bucks (and no they don’t demand it on the spot but does that really matter? You gotta pay within about a month) and I will contest it despite the fact I have no valid defense simply because I want to make sure as much of the $150 as possible will go into the cost of processing the ticket. Getting mugged is getting mugged, don’t matter if they are wearing a shiny badge.

        5. The irony in the example of Ferguson is that Captain Ron Johnson Rastus was a highway cop. His profession was handing out speeding tickets to white rural men. So they give him jurisdiction in Bell Curve City (Ferguson) and what did he deliver?
          A gangstah victory party and a week of looting. Meanwhile the real cops were protecting shops and chasing down looters.

      2. I parked my car on the side of the street in my neighborhood facing the wrong way. (North instead of South). It took up exactly the same amount of room and it is a quiet neighborhood street without traffic. I got a $40 ticket.

        1. Was it for parking the wrong way or because the cop thought you drove up the street the wrong way (a one-way street)?

  12. The police are happy to look in your car windows to see if you are wearing a seat belt. Cops are happy to collect taxes for the state and make sure you have all your proper tags, permits and licenses. Police are fine with regulating how alcohol and tobacco are sold. I mean police are all to happy to do undercover stings on almost every vice we have. People are tired of it.

  13. Wow I would have expected more logic and reason and less perfect world nonsense. Look at the facts, the social economic problems need to be addressed before you legalize drugs or decriminalize laws. Face it anybody who worked a beat, knows what demographic generates all the calls for service in there respective departments.

    1. It’s a simple demographic problem.
      Conservative whites found a township and build good schools. A few enrichers encroach on the Whitopia via bussing. Then the family moves in, thy create a mini wave of burglary, vandalism, theft. A few streets get taken out. Then the private schools open and the whites flood them. Soon the public school fills up with human waste. Soon the Whitopia is a black ghetto. At some point you get a flashpoint like the Wilson/Brown incident. Then YT completely vacates the area.

    2. Nonsense, the drug problem has been way worse SINCE criminalization of drugs. It’s the same stupid problem during prohibition. You didn’t stop anyone from drinking. You just drove it under ground, increased gang violence to a level never seen before, and increased the police state. People like you actually believe the drug laws stop people from doing drugs. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, it encourages a lot of young rebellious people. Moreover, your current marijuana dealer is also pushing crack, LSD, heroin, etc while if you were buying it at 7-11, you wouldn’t have that issue. Plus the profits would be going to companies and the government, not wanna be thugs/gangs.

    3. I’d suggest that ‘social economic problems’ are a poor excuse to keep liberty restricted. In fact I’d say that legalizing drugs would allow a nice Darwinian element to play out, assuming we remove the social safety net entirely (which we should) and also loosen the right to carry a sidearm in states that are strict about it (which is becoming more and more rare thanks to a growing 2nd Amendment friendly attitude). Allow folks to choose how to live their lives, and if you live your life as a meth head, who gets zero welfare money or any money whatsoever from government, then you get to die under a bridge alone, as it should be OR you learn and straighten your life out. Let evolution take its course and stop protecting the stupid from the consequences of their own actions.

      1. Could be a mafia family on the left. I’d need to know more though.
        Like was a movie made about them, were they romanticized in it, and then was it given an award?

      1. Fucking gen-y pussy cunt. Open your eyes. Is the country you live in better or worse now that it’s been infested by non natives (and don’t give me that, “well, technically we’re all non-natives unless you’re talking about aborigines,” even fucking aborigines aren’t natives, nah, the bacteria and algae were the first natives, if you want to go down that route, which all you “racism is bad” cunts seem to use as your back-up argument). Cunt.

        1. You’re flapping your lips but all that’s coming out is shit. You need a Scott roll and a breath mint.

        2. And you need a smack in the face by a black man, you need a dodgy second-hand car sold to you by an Indian person, you need to read some one-world propaganda dealt to you by a Jew… after he rapes you financially. You’re the type of cunt who will end up with a dumb, fat bitch and defend her saying, “Beauty’s on the inside.” You’ll grow up one day and understand that having your country raped by foreigners isn’t all that great. Until then, shut the fuck up you miserable cunt.

        3. Because cunts like you are too fucking vocal and have the support of feminists in the media and are making my life, and any sane person’s life worse, applying thought crimes on us, e.g sexism, racism, homophobia etc. Here’s a thought for you, “what’s so wrong about being racist?” And no, saying “because it’s bad,” doesn’t count as a valid point.

        4. Yes, I agree with the overall sentiment in your comments.
          Racially homogeneous are ideal, and not just for whites. Ideally, no country would have any immigrants, outside of travellers, of whom would enjoy the different culture and whatnot of the country, and then leave without trying to redefine the country’s culture.
          Of course, this is ideal, and I doubt could ever be reinstated, outside of a severe war. Immigration should and could certainly be lessened dramatically, but engineering a racially homogeneous country would be outright impossible.
          Not that I dislike other races, or think that they should be exterminated, just that we should be separated racially as much as possible. It’s the best for everyone. But, since the extreme goal will not be realised any time soon, I think the best we can hope for is tight immigration with freedom of association.

        5. Well said. My only disagreement is that it wouldn’t be possible to implement. It’s beyond easy to implement a separation of races, it’s just not on the politicians agenda. Would literally be as simple as saying, “30 days, we’ll pay for the boat.”

        6. Would you want to move from the land that you currently own? Imagine that you were given such a deadline. Imagine, if it is not the case, that you had been working hard for 15 years to get your current home, which you consider to be your dream home. How would you react to “you’ve got 30 days”?
          To quote The Castle (1997): “it’s not just a house… it’s a home!” Moreover, a home wherein fond memories are created, a home where you feel most comfortable. While yes, in the long run, it would be better if everyone would just move, but I would hate to move anyone, regardless of race, so forcefully like that.

        7. Yes I would. If it’s the right thing to do to ensure long-term survival, not just for me, but for everyone I actually cared about, then I would do just that.
          It’s like asking a young man, “If there was a war would you be prepared to risk your life on the battlefield to defend your country and people?”
          Stop thinking short-term, stop thinking selfishly and start thinking logically. This isn’t about emotion, and racism and discrimination, this is about survival.
          And many have pointed this out but it’s worth noting: Africa isn’t getting overrun with whites anytime soon. China isn’t either. Neither is India. Nor South America. Just saying…

        8. I sincerely doubt that the vast majority of people would share your sentiments, particularly those with lesser intellectual capacity. For such people, the baser instincts (e.g. the limbic system) would take over, similar to how cultural marxists, most women and feminists are over-run with emotion, rather than reason. They would be nigh incapable of thinking on your higher plane of reason.
          It isn’t a question of what is best, but whether it would easily be done. The world is not populated with critical, reasonable thinkers.

        9. Of course the majority will drag their heels kicking and screaming, but in the end they will thank me (fight club quote). But I don’t give a fuck about the majority vote, voting is inherently dumb when most people are inherently dumb. Totalitarian all the way, baby.

        10. If no one wants to comply, then are you suggesting that the police/military enforce this? Will even they want to comply with your fascist orders? There will most likely be bloodshed from this, and it will set a woeful precedent for violence and fascist rule.
          Politics cannot be conducted like this.

        11. Of course politics can be conducted like this… as long as the right person is making all the decisions. When the west thinks of a “dictatorship” they think of Kim Jong Ill, or Stalin, both of whom are fuckwits. What if Bill Gates, for instance were in control of decision making? I’d be fine with that, since he’s one cool motherfucker.
          And so what if there’s a little (or lot) of spilled blood. Look at the niggers whinging and rioting over a black cunt who charged a policeman after trying to take his gun, after slaming his own policecar door on him, after stealing from a shop. I wouldn’t have been using rubber bullets. Spill as much blood as it takes to sort this shit out, since softly-softly is doing fuck all.

        12. “The right person” assumes that:
          1) There are policies that are objectively good
          2) These objective policies can be identified consistently
          3) The bond between person in charge and his/her ideals will be consistent
          4) That the person will not change once in power
          As my list progresses, the problems harshen, particularly the 4th, as the counter is well documented throughout history. I challenge you to think of a single fascist leader whom brought long-term prosperity to his country.
          I myself will state that you will not find one, who did so without serious drawbacks. Serious power, which is granted in a fascist regime, corrupts the human mind. Whilst it may seem great in theory, much like Communism and Anarchy, these extremist ideologies have, historically, all buckled under the weight of reality, specifically the human condition. The selfishness inherent within humans does not allow for higher minded ideals to flow through these leaders, when there is that much power involved.
          As for your latter paragraph, violence like you described is not welcomed by the majority in any country, nor is it ideal in the long run. As I said, it sets a precedent, one of which implicitly permits violence. A paradigm shift like that will affect the population negatively, in that more and more people will become desensitised to violence as a means to an end.
          Keep in mind that you are dealing with non-criminals. Persecuting these people will never be tolerated by any sane person. I think your time would be well invested considering the heavy implications of your attraction to quick, bloody politics.

        13. The former leader of Venezuela was a socialist (not entirely sure what defines a fascist from a dictator or socialist, feel free to inform me) and, though the US propaganda said otherwise, he did good things for his country. He did not change after gaining power, he stayed true to his ideals till he “mysteriously” died of a heart attach in his mid 50’s.
          My penchant for quick, bloody politics formed slowly over time. I was, believe it or not, anti-racism and believed in equality at one point in my life (blame University). Over time I’ve seen how voting and debates result in little to no effect. I’ve seen how being tolerant results in shit-heads abusing your kindness. And I’ve seen black people (in particular) becoming more and more whiny little bitches who use any excuse to cry. Why? because we’ve been too tolerant of their shit.
          Right now it’s come to a point in history where we can continue banging our heads against the same wall, “multiculturalism rocks!” or we can own up to our mistakes and say, “fuck them all.” I’m saying, fuck them all.
          I don’t care any more about “fair” I only care about “right.”Think ahead two, three hundred years and picture your country e.g. USA, where english is the second language and white people are the vast minority, and ask yourself, “Was a little bloodshed really that badder option?”

        14. Socialism and fascism are compatible, as, for example, economic socialism can be achieved via fascist means. National Socialists, similar to Hitler’s policies, is an example of how fascism and socialism operated in unison.
          However, that is not to say that socialism is the same as fascism, as the extreme form of socialism is communism, which is not all that compatible with fascism (ruled by communes versus ruled by state). Moreover, socialism is not necessarily an extreme form of government, as you can have a socialist government without it being communistic.
          I’d agree with you that America has become far too tolerant of black welfare leeches, yet I cannot agree with your method of rectification. It is unsustainable; again, the precedent set creates a thoroughly destructive mentality amongst the population (a point that you do not seem to understand). Not only that, but you would never get a majority to agree with you, because the majority would be persecuted and slaughtered, and they would never be so stupid as to allow for their own destruction.
          Multiculturalism and affirmative action are terrible, yes, but killing people to rectify these issues is largely bad.

        15. Thanks for the definition. As for the rest, we’ll agree to disagree (for instance I’m not looking for majority support, since I think voting’s a waste of time… as has been proven throughout history). But it doesn’t matter, it’s all hypothetical. Anyway, cheers.

        16. No we will not. Such a phrase (“agree to disagree”) breeds complacency for close-mindedness, and annihilates your potential for improvement.
          You claim that voting has been proven as a waste of time throughout history. Before you even begin, you need to have a clear concept of what would constitute a “waste of time” (vague implications suggest a weak position). Then, to make this claim, you need to:
          1) For a direct democracy, argue why the majority’s support is always bad, or bad enough that it should be discounted
          2) Consider the voting implications of a representative democracy, which differs greatly from a direct democracy
          3) Consider the implications of a purely social type democracy
          No such distinction in rebuttal is evident in your very brief assertion.
          Furthermore, you need to:
          4) Suggest why overall, voting has mostly been a waste of time for every culture that has adopted it
          5) Actually address my argument that people will not become power hungry when given the rights to such enormous power (which, since it’s your style of argument, “has been proven throughout history”).
          6) Defend the notion that “it is all hypothetical”, when you, in the previous authorial comment, said that voting has been proven throughout history to be a waste of time. These statements contradict each other, and thus your case so far is self-refuting, in regards to looking for agreement in disagreement
          Your absence only lowers you back into the herd.

        17. Didn’t read past the first paragraph. Condense what you write, especially when you start with, “Such a phrase (“agree to disagree”) breeds complacency for close-mindedness, and annihilates your potential for improvement.”
          How do you think someone would respond when they had progressed beyond your “We are the World, we are the children…” frame of mind? They’d laugh at you and disregard anything you had to say. Much like I do when Christians chirp up. Much like I did when fat bitches tell me they’re beautiful inside. Much like I did with this post.

        18. “Didn’t read past the first paragraph.” – Your loss.
          “Condense what you write…” – No.
          “How do you think someone would respond when they had progressed beyond your “We are the World, we are the children…” frame of mind?” – You admitted that you didn’t read all of what I wrote, you you feel qualified to generalise what I wrote. Therefore, your arguments suffer from the hasty generalisation fallacy, wherein you have too quickly generalised without, as you admitted, fully reading what I wrote.
          “They’d laugh at you and disregard anything you had to say.” – I write mostly for myself; I care not what you think when you have laced your words with fallacy.
          “Much like I do when Christians chirp up.” – Association fallacy.
          “Much like I did when fat bitches tell me they’re beautiful inside. Much like I did with this post.” – More association fallacy.

        19. My points are extended due to your childish/womanly disposition making you unable to refute (you did read them, you liar). Your concession embarrasses only you.

        20. Hahaha. Seriously!? You think you’re that important that I’d be bothered to read a whole paragraph of, basically, shit? Trust me, I never read a word of your previous reply. It’s good you wrote a short one this time (i.e. playing to the beat of my drum).
          Honestly, I don’t even remember my initial comment (probably something to do with shooting rioting niggers? based on the title of the article) Well, if that was it, and you disagree, then you is dumb as shit. Shooting niggers does two things:
          1. Lets them know who’s boss.
          2. Gives them a choice: play to the beat of our drum, or fuck off.
          If it was about something else, then… whatever. I couldn’t give a fuck what you think.

        21. Ah, so you’re a racist, and by the sound of it, a teenaged one. Very edgy.
          “You think you’re that important that I’d be bothered to read a whole paragraph of, basically, shit?” – How could you know what I wrote was “basically, shit” when you haven’t read it? Again, you have committed the fallacy of hasty generalisations, something you would likely have learned had you understood (because you almost certainly read it) my longer post.
          When I get the time, I love following through on responses to people on the internet, regardless of whether they are a troll, a silly racist (like you) or legitimate. I often reduce them to babyish remarks or emotional fallouts (the latter for the trolls), like “tl;dr” or “are you a nigger?”
          People like you are not in the slightest bit worth my time, but I respond just to watch you crumble to babble. It’s especially amusing to watch people like you, who try to come off as intellectual, be reduced to these angsty-teenaged responses, and in doing so, so badly contradict your intentions, that the cognitive dissonance must confound you.
          Your character and intellect is wholly inferior to mine.

        22. Via your mental bankruptcy, this conversation has been reduced to: am I a “nigger”? (blatant Ad Hominem)-, from thought provoking notions of fascism, racial homogeneity and the right to private property. For the record, I am a white male. You are cognitively defunct and there is only comedic value in your idealogical thoughts. Goodbye.

        23. What does this article have to do with foreigners?
          Racism is wrong for the same reason equal opportunity employment is wrong. Rather than hiring people for useful traits, government intervention allows retards to flourish and breed. Choosing race over merit gives morons like you the ability to afford an ISP to hack away at fucked up and incoherent sentences.
          I’d take any Chinese, or Indian, with a degree over some idiot like you. Keep swallowing the racism shit the media throws in your direction in an attempt to get you to over look the fuck ups the government commits.

        24. ROK should start holding actual debates considering some of the people on here are extremely bright, and others are bright but haven’t even come close to fully considering their own positions. Or they don’t have the training to do this from a fully logical perspective.
          I have to say, Caploxion is far more versed in logic and argument and whether he is right or wrong, from a debating stand point, he wins this fight hands down.

        25. Because it already happened, its called colonization and its the reason the world’s so fucked up right now.

      2. You should write your own article, you could call it, “English Bob Knows Better: You’re a Retarded Nazi” .

  14. The average American now commits three felonies a day because there are
    so many laws on the books. The percentage of America’s population that’s
    incarcerated is the highest in the world in a supposedly “free” country. The jack-booted thugs that make up most police departments are only too eager to bust out their military gear and become soldiers against the citizenry each time they can find an excuse. Most of the people in prison are there because of the “War on Drugs” which has been a complete and total failure, and has destroyed far more lives than it
    has saved. For-profit prisons are required to stay at 90% or higher capacity in many states, forcing police to arrest people left and right to satisfy the corporate quarterly profits of companies like Wackenhut.
    The growing police and prison state is one of the primary reasons I am so disgusted with the country I once loved.
    Regardless of politics, the governor of Texas being arrested last week after bogus charges filed by an alcoholic DA shows how the system has run amok. It doesn’t give a fuck who’s lives it affects or destroys. I just needs an ever-increasing number of people arrested to justify its existence.
    Ayn Rand’s quote sums the situation up perfectly. The lady saw what was coming to the West, no doubt about it: “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on
    criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One
    declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for
    men to live without breaking laws.”

    1. There is quite a lot wrong with Rand.
      For example her acolyte and lover Alan Greenspan ran the Fed for well over a decade. His monetary policy put the US into this mess. I wonder what Auntie Ayn told him?

      1. She told him “Fleece the Goyim and enrich the tribe”…
        You notice she was anti-state but had no problem with supporting Israel and never questioned America giving Israel aid.

        1. All she said was the truth. I don’t care about Israel and don’t think it should exist but the flintstones are backwards savages.

        2. No, they aren’t. Palestinians are not receiving top talent in terms of terrorist trainers because even other Muslims don’t want to deal with them. And the only collection of flintstones that consistently perform at high levels are the Chechens. AQI and Haqqani network were both grossly overrated in skills. I am certain ISIS is a patchwork that is being overhyped as well.

        3. She certainly cared about the ethnostate. At least when it suited her. But she hated the ethnostate when a white man was running it.

        4. “Organized Whites?” Is that supposed to be some cult of white power that makes decisions in a deliberate and cohesive manner?

      2. Nathaniel Brandon was her lover, not Alan Greenspan. Wrong disciple.
        And if you actually studied Rand’s view on economics and government intervention she would have hated Greenspan’s policies.

      3. Greenspan hardly ran anything as a libertarian. He ran his entire time to enrich the banking elite. And yes, Rand led a flawed life. Unfortunately, like most politicians, they preach one thing but practice another.

        1. She never sought office. She was a Fauxlosopher. At least Socrates and Aristotle or even Aurelius lived out their lives in a way that comported to their own advice.

      4. You are pointing out her personal life proclivities, which in no invalidates what she said. That’s the classical Argumentum Tu Quoque fallacy. In other words, it’s an attempt to prove a person’s argument wrong by pointing his violation of his own words by his own actions, as opposed to refuting his actual words.

        1. Which in no way invalidates any of her philosophical observations. The truth is the truth even if it comes out of the mouth of a liar. Argumentum Tu Quoque is a fallacy for a reason.
          She was not right on everything, but she had enough correct and well backed up with logic that she has been the starting point into red pill for a lot of men (even though clearly she had no idea what red pill meant at the time).

        2. She did not believe in her own ideas. Nor act upon them. I’m tempted to think that she constructed them as a ruse.

        3. She stated nothing that Hume, Smith or Hobbes didn’t already cover. Highly unoriginal.

        4. No I’m pointing out a fundamental contradiction in Objectivism. Taxes should be voluntary! Yet she helped herself to coerced benefits screwed out lesser mortals. SS and Medicare. Would it be too much to ask a philosopher to stick to their main gun?

        5. Her personal life ought to have followed the central tenet of Objectivism. Taxation should be voluntarily given. It’s wrong to accept things that are neither a gift nor the result of work.

        6. Oh come now, no philosopher exists in a vacuum. She expanded upon their ideas in ways that were called for, if you ask me. There were too many assumptions built into the ideals of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason that needed fleshed out for a post modern audience.

        7. Incorrect. If I were a rapist, and I said the words “Rape is wrong”, does that invalidate the concept that rape is wrong? The short answer is: no.

        8. Ad hominem, disregarded.
          I’m pointing out to you, very painfully slowly, that your fallacy, which you keep repeating, in no way, shape or form invalidates the truth behind a lot of the philosophy she wrote down on paper. Continuing to try and keep it emotional and personal is not the domain of rational discussion.

        9. Let’s use a better example.
          Let’s say you are religious nut and you say sex is wrong. Full on celibacy. It then turns out you are having sex with an Amsterdam prostitute. Does that make having sex wrong? Generally? Or is sex with a prostitute especially wrong? Or is it okay because it is legal in Holland?
          Rape by definition is a legal issue. Even the law can’t find a reasonable definition of various acts. Talk about a social construct. In various places a rape accusation gets the female honour killed.

        10. I don’t think that rape is an especially good example.
          You’d have to take a category like sex or homicide then define various types of sex or killing and start to split hairs. Same thing goes with Tax. Some taxes are inevitable as Ben Franklin points out. Part of being alive. Some forms of taxation are wrong some are a good idea. Quite clearly a poll tax is a problem. Taxes on food staples are rotten. Taxes on cigarettes have positive and negative conotations.
          Ayn Rand was like a celebate monk who was banging a nun on the side.

  15. The following article is just one example of why people are losing faith in police:
    College girl buys bottled water, undercover cops pull their guns on her because she is under suspicion for the grave crime of drinking underage. What a brave bunch, these guys, saving the world from the possibility that an 18-20 year old woman gets drunk. Talk about criminalizing trivial events…. Why don’t we start fixing the problem by lowering the drinking age.

    1. ABC need to worry about major issues. You are right, this is precisely why people have a deep mistrust in the police. Harassing people for the sake of doing something.

  16. A lot of the younger cops are all ex military. Someone told me about ten years ago that’s the only type towns will hire.
    Local cops are arrogant is hell. And self righteous. I don’t see this changing.

    1. Depends on the PD. Most PDs recognize veterans with a hiring preference. So if you take a board exam you get additional points added on for the sake of being a veteran. It is a competitive advantage in the hiring.

    2. A white man will have his application dumped in the trash if he hasn’t earned points via military service.
      Same with FD applications.
      Without military service a black or a female is ahead in the pecking order.

  17. The situation with the police is merely an extension of the situation with our collapsing society. We can say it’s cultural marxism, or race, or whatever. It don’t matter. When everybody is a blackened little soul that wants to cherry pick what liberty is important to them and shriek “There should be a law….!” over everything they don’t personally like, and that level of hatred is on a death level, what do you expect?
    Up until Ferguson, the “left” was happy with “their” police because, as its revealed, the police state is more after the veterans and gun owners than anybody else.
    But notably, the “conservatives” have had their wakeup call as it was they who clamored for more police power (every time a baby-raping judge let’s criminals run free – hint hint… planned?) while thinking poor sweet law-abiding them would never be targeted.
    (side note: to be a law-abiding citizen in our lawless country is to be a total chump – might as well wife up an aged fat slut with bastard kids in tow to achieve that level of chump personally)
    So – everybody ready to grow the fuck up? No? Fine. Have fun not having nice things.
    Meanwhile I have taken great mirth at people hand wringing over the different results of Ferguson versus Bundy Ranch. “Where are the guys with guns?” they ask. “Look at the difference. Where are those guy? Raaaaaaaacismmmmmm!!!”
    Fuck you. It’s not racism. If the same treatment you see in Ferguson was being done to gun owners in disarmament roundups the same people spewing shit from their pieholes would be cheering. Because “their” liberty is important you see but most of them are indoctrinated with the disarmament line. Yeah people were calling for military strikes at Bundy Ranch and saying “this is the time to get these people!” and lo and behold, the “same kind of people” who signed onto that mentality are getting the bite in the ass from the same system they thought was theirs.
    So they can go fuck themselves.
    And the police can go fuck themselves too.
    But this is America after all, and thanks to American democracy, we have all already fucked ourselves and each other. If any sense emerges from the rubble it’s this lesson.

  18. This was a nice change of pace from that lone cop posting his idealistic — not realistic — pieces that claim we are wrong about cops, despite our seeing of local cops’ actions that are incapable of being vindicated.

  19. Never seen anybody look at the tensions between the public and a police force in the context of the history of the police force. The police have historically been a vehicle for carrying out the whims and policies of oppressive governments, individuals, denying civil rights, protection or collaboration of corruption.
    Whether it was a just following orders type situation, or if it was an individual who some how got to the position of being like a demagogue. From Bull Connor, Frank Rizzo, in South Africa, all the people who were disappeared like in Argentina and Guatemala.
    The ever present contempt and distrust for politicians as a whole, but there can be an individual politician that one is happy with, is encouraged for the sake of keeping an eye on them to make sure they’re doing their job. Partly because people feel it’s too easy for them to purposely not do a good job and get away with it. Not the same when it concerns the police.

  20. The cops are the criminals. If I look back over my life and think of the number of times a cop has helped, improved society/when he has actively harmed me or people I know, it is 95% the latter. Then you look at statistics like 75% of people in jail right this moment have never been convicted of anything you realize who really is committing the crimes.

    1. I am from an European country and never in the 20 years alive I have heard of one incident of a cop murdering someone for no reason or while detaining.
      The closest thing to ‘police brutality’ was when a socialist prime minister ordered swat teams to end an illegal techno party full of drug addicts who were partying on someone else’s property.

      This incident here: in the beginning of the video was talked about for around 6 months. That’s the only time I have seen police brutality.

      1. Ditto for Canada mate. The mood changes the instant you cross the border going down south.

      2. Do either of your countries have a fairly significant minority population that in hostile towards the majority?

  21. There’s no sense even discussing it. American cops are attempting to police a country that has imported the worst parts of every Third World shit hole. We have muslim instigators, black rioters, hispanic protesters, wealthy politicians tearing down borders, and jewish lawyers and reporters around every corner ready to escalate the situation.
    I’d say if police are armed to the teeth and only shoot one knife wielding looter every few days, they’re being a hell of a lot more patient than I would be.

  22. It is pretty clear to me that the rulers are deliberately putting a wedge between the police and the citizens. They want police who will obey unquestioningly when ordered to confiscate weapons, herd people into containment areas, even fire on peaceful protesters and citizens engaging in civil disobedience. If the police consider themselves “servants of their community” like they used to, well then, that might give them pause when the orders come down from on high.

  23. What’s up with all the racists and White/Black supremacists on ROK? I like this site but I don’t like all the racist comments on so many articles, though.

    1. You get that anytime an article talks about a hot-button race topic. Most mainstream websites are very heavy-handed and aggressively delete the comments. You’ve simply found a website that doesn’t do that.

  24. I’m terrified of police. If they drive by me or walk by me I become extremely uncomfortable. I know there may be some ‘good cop’ out there but what I’ve seen and experienced makes me mistrust them. I’ve seen many instances with my own eyes that were shocking.
    What broke the sticks on the camels back for was me was back in high school. Two cops in particular that patrolled around that area would regularly solicit high school girls for sex through blackmail, intimidation, and/or favors. I even caught a glimpse at night of a tranny hobo blowing a cop.

  25. This style of complaint seems to be “remember the good ol’ days when petty crimes generally weren’t enforced and if an officer didn’t catch you in the act then it’s pretty much legal?” Speeding has been illegal for a long time but technology has made it increasingly likely for drivers to be caught. Fighting has been illegal but only recently has CCTV made sure the police can do something about it. Drugs have been illegal for a long time but in the past few decades are police taking the “war on drugs” literally.

  26. I remember when this site’s commenters were reasonable men looking for advice on how to become better men. It’s unfortunate that this comment section has now become the racist cesspool it is. It’s like reading a fucking Stormfront forum. ROK mods, if you’re reading this, you should seriously do a thorough cleansing. These people are ruining the quality of this site (them in addition to all the articles talking about how feminists are bitches).

    1. This is true. Clear racist comments, which add nothing but insult have no place in a web site dedicated to the betterment of men. The Mods are seriously missing a trick by failing to clamp down on this highly ignorant behaviour.

      1. True indeed. I can understand an uncensored open discussion on race. I think that kind of discussion is necessary. But too many people here have crossed the line from open and honest discussion to unnecessary and unhelpful racist bigotry. They’re not adding anything to the discussion, they’re merely using this site as a platform to express their contempt. The mods used to be in the comment section quite often, but now it seems they aren’t. I think their passivity has encouraged the growth of this new racist element on this site. The quality of this site in general has greatly decreased over the past 2 years or so.

        1. Whats more bizarre is that an article on the police has descended into a discussion of race. Totally off-topic I think, especially as White people are abused by the police as well. But I suppose it serves the powers that be to deflect attention from the actual problem of the police.

        2. It is due, I’d think, to the reaction to Ferguson, MO. Also consider that, at least in these united States, if not Britain, we are bombarded night and day with the clear message from nearly all media sources, as well as government (Eric Holder smugly declaring that only whites can be racist, for example), that white men are evil, stupid, lazy, incompetent and in all ways a detriment to civilized life. That’s going to cause a high level of resentment for what is perceived as “the powers that be”. This vents over onto the internet.
          Prior to 2008 I think a lot of racist attitudes had been pretty successfully shunned out of polite discourse and public life. Since the Obama administration has taken its seat however it has done everything in its power to snark and sneer about racism as if somehow this were still the year 1920. This has, I think, created vast new swaths of resentful racist notions as a reaction to the prevalent messages coming from government and its media lackeys.
          Just my observations, I may well be missing the big picture of course, but still it’s something I really have noticed as of late. Lots of people who wouldn’t even breath the word “nigger” in real life are now saying it, and not quietly, to their neighbors over the fence or at barbeques. If this push keeps up, and as you can see on this and other threads it seems to be intensifying the resentment, this will not end well, at least in these united States of America.

        3. “these united States of America.” I like that! 🙂
          I think its one thing to be annoyed about being wrongly accused of racism. Its another to prove them right!!!
          But you can see what “they” have done? Abuse of White people by the police is essentially accepted by White people generally (i.e. the appalling treatment of people in Boston) whereas White people look at police abuse of Black people as “niggers getting uppity”. The entire discourse on the growing Police State is lost in bickering between Whites and Blacks when the State is screwing them both. How they must laugh!

        4. Boston is a terrible example of all “white people” though. The entire New England area are simpering sheep and easily demand to be controlled. I have yet to meet somebody who lives in NYC, or Boston, or New Jersey who was not an absolute blathering statist of the first order. What happened in Boston, would have met with organized armed resistance in Cheyenne or Billings or even Indianapolis.
          I think its one thing to be annoyed about being wrongly accused of racism. Its another to prove them right!!!
          It’s a chicken or egg thing I think. As I pointed out, you couldn’t pay a decent middle class white person to say the word “nigger” out loud prior to 2008. Now it’s popping up everywhere, and it’s not as if they were just holding it back prior to 2008. It is honestly my observation that the continual dumping on white men (in the u.S.) is starting to create what had up to this point not existed for decades, namely living breathing racists in the white middle (and higher) classes.
          That of course then “proves” that whites are awful and racist, but it ignores that they weren’t until the powers that be started getting snarky and highly racist towards them to create their attitudes in the first place. It’s a vicious circle, and the powers that be profit highly from it as they get to restrict liberty on blacks AND get whites to cheer for this, all the while creating a legal precedent that will be used to beat down whites in the future.
          ‘Tis all a mess.
          “these united States of America.” I like that! 🙂
          Heh, thanks. It’s the proper way of looking at the way our union should exist. Never was a fan of centralized government. Hell it’s all I can do to stomach local government.

        5. Just a clarification: I realise that not all White people would react the submissive way the Bostonians did. I think recently there was an armed stand-off over some cattle? Also if they rolled through certain parts of the ghetto like that I think there would have been fire-fights. I think Boston (and that area) was chosen as an example, where they knew they could get away with it, and demonstrate to recalcitrant White people what’s waiting for them.
          “these united States…” Yes I caught the reference. I am big fan of the principles America was founded on (thanks to John Locke, the FFs et al). About time our “dear leaders” started paying attention to them.
          One thing I do find interesting. I read a lot about White people being beaten down by cops. Funny how it rarely makes the news. If you can make police brutality a Black thing, well, why should anyone else care?

        6. A multiracial society inevitably complicates the technical and ethical issues involved in law enforcement and keeping the peace.
          Most whites will not have a bongo party to protect a criminal.

        7. Bostonians are post racial, post identity. They might as well be chained up to stocks and spitroasted by their new overlords.

        8. Bob’s blackness came to the UK no earlier than the Windrush migration/invasion. All of a sudden he wants to abolish the Police Constabulary. See a pattern there that he shares with the protesters in Ferguson?

        9. White Bostonians are the vanguard of self flagellating white guilt. Give them half a chance and they would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery in Zanzibar.

        10. I know of one man from Massachusetts who does not fit the mold that I’ve come to expect based on meeting many, many others of his fellow state citizens in my lifetime. Needless to say he left that steaming fetid lump of a state years ago and vows to never return. Votes solid right-wing so he didn’t bring the poison of his birthplace with him either. But otherwise, meh, they are the most snarky, ill tempered, wrongly opinionated bunch I’ve ever met.

        11. In the 1950s liberals could honestly say something this effect:
          “We have not tried equality and racial integration. It might work. We might have teething problems in places like London or Paris but we are better than those racist Yankees. We are certainly more civilized than White Southerners and it can’t go wrong here.”
          Well, now we know. Just like Bull Connor told us. Disaster.

        12. Agreed. ROK mods need to do some Thought Policing in here to keep people’s thoughts pure. We need to protect the easily offended.

        13. To me its about the police. So far it seems only Black people in America actually have the balls to stand up against this crap.

        14. It’s a chicken or egg thing I think. As I pointed out, you couldn’t pay a decent middle class white person to say the word “nigger” out loud prior to 2008. Now it’s popping up everywhere, and it’s not as if they were just holding it back prior to 2008. It is honestly my observation that the continual dumping on white men (in the u.S.) is starting to create what has up to this point not existed for decades, namely living breathing racists in the white middle (and higher) classes.

          Sounds like the Balkanization of America is proceeding on schedule just as planned. Divide and conquer indeed.

    2. Well, came across an old post about a writer hating multiculturalism because as a kid he got beat up by a Somali person. So the commentators are here because they’ve found some material they like. The inaction of the mods, if that is something that wasn’t the case at some point, you might have to take as purposeful. Wading through nonsense like Daniel McGrath’s reasoning about banning black people from owning property back in the 40’s, you do find some stuff worth reading and discussing.
      But I have been wondering lately if the “manosphere” and it’s related factions ends up being like what feminism has been criticized for turning into. Never ending quest for more once it’s goals have been met. If it ever achieves tangible progress, will it then be called to turn it’s direction to any and all males that are not white?
      Just like feminism has been criticized as not caring one bit about women who are not white and upper middle class, will the same be said, or even can the same be said for the “manosphere”

  27. The best way to deal with the police is to abolish them. The confusion that both Anon. Cop and this author share is in terms of the actual purpose of the police. The police were created in Great Britain, in response to the French Revolution. Their mandate, which has not changed since then, was to protect the rulers from the population and enforce their dictates. Because Anon. Cop thinks that his purpose is to “protect ” us from crime, he doesn’t understand why the public at large have contempt for him. If he were to consider that for most us, any interaction with the police is negative and usually involves robbing us at gunpoint (via “paying paper”) he would realise the truth. The reality is, the police do not protect anyone from crime and as Anon. Cop says, their primary concern is their own safety.
    And there is no clearer demonstration of who the police “protect and serve” than the paramilitary approach to protests, whether it is in Ferguson, or Occupy Wall Street (that was innocent White people being assaulted there), or the most egregious example of paramilitary police action, the Boston Lock-Down.

    1. Agree with your comment, mostly. The exception is the OWS movement. I agreed with their initial complaints about corporate payoffs from government (and man, did I agree with their anger over that, let me tell you), but they were quickly hijacked by the extreme left and in no time at all were openly shitting on cars in public, among other crimes against property. That, combined with the horrifying way they quickly absorbed and started to repeat, often in unison, the communist message put an awful lot of people off of them (myself being one of those people).
      Does that mean police should have beat them? I don’t think that they did, there was, as I recall, only a few pepper spray incidents, but I’ll admit up front that I stopped paying them heed when they went all Che Guevara on us. But to answer, no, of course not. However if you’re openly taking a dump on a car while sneering to the world about welcoming the dictatorship of the proletariat, well then, guess what, people don’t like that an awful lot and you’re probably going to find yourself in a showdown with a cop, and you’re likely not to offend the sensibilities of even libertarians, since property crimes are not welcome in most circles.
      Boston was a disgrace, clearly. The entire New England area, along with California, could slip into the ocean and these united States, not to mention the world, would improve immensely.

      1. I generally disagree with the OWS movement as well. Its really their right to speak and protest I support. I think in any protest movement you are always going to have some people out for trouble, or agents provocateurs. However, I think punishment should limited to those responsible for crimes. I have read of one young lady who was assaulted by the police and then sent to prison for defending herself. However, if you are an undesirable its easy for the State to get away with this. As far as I know, there are some 100 potential cases of abuse from OWS.
        But the point is really, whether it is Black people, OWS, Bostonians, whomever, the police do not protect and serve you and I. They serve their masters.

    2. That’s a narrow definition of Po-Po my not so English friend.
      The Peelers were much better as an option than Yoeman cavalry who would charge crowds and sabre women and children for stealing bread.
      You are also ignoring the role of Sheriff.

      1. Is it a narrow definition? So what?
        Yeomanry cavalry? This is a red herring.
        What role of the Sheriff?

        1. Believe it or not I am not all-knowing of all things, which is why it is beneficial to have these discussions.
          So what you are saying is that it is either have the army massacre innocent people or have the police in their current form, who have been known to massacre people on occasion and who regularly shoot and kill innocent people? Interesting logic. I am also fascinated that you think that policing should be based on one-off incidents.
          What’s this civilian controlled Constabulary you refer to?

    3. The best way to deal with the police is to abolish them.

      And replace them with what?

      1. It could be said that given what I have said about the actual role of the police versus its official role that the police do not need to be replaced.
        If you mean, “who provides protection from crime?” the answer is simple. You do. Self-defense laws should be more liberal, meaning you have greater scope for defending your home, life and family (i.e. better weapons, armour, and a legal capacity to use them). Should you need additional protection over and above what you personally can provide, you should be at liberty to hire armed security guards to protect your business. Without being robbed via taxes you will have additional funds for this expense.

  28. See these measures will never be implemented the government is has two options to get what they want out of the ferguson situation. They can crucify that poor cop who did his job to appease the people or they can let him off and pass more laws enlarging government. Or they can do both a Combination throw cop to wolves and pass a thousand word law that has all sorts of hidden wording in it. This is chess not checkers the government will get what they want they use everything to their advantage they don’t care about that cop getting his face beaten in the report only certain parts to incite hate and divide us. While we are out in the street marching for some thug who didn’t deserve to make it out of bed they are plotting passing laws to limit us and two years from now when you’ve forgotten all about it that law will go into effect slowly eroding your liberties away. They police are a problem only because the government is they are just trying to pay their bills. And half the so called outrages supposedly committed by them in ferguson are standard procedure. See America was doomed from the start. We are to divided as a nation to ever stand united. To many past wrongs to make up for. Some people are looking at ferguson and wondering why are those people acting like that and the truth is because it is because they are black. Why would I say that? You have a group of people who only recently as a whole were treated like actual citizens and you wonder why they don’t behave. It is the same with Mexicans they move here and say this was their land first. What if their were more Indians here the native ones I mean can you imagine the conflict between them and the government. Sure some of people of those races have forgiven and forgotten but every slight reminds and reopens the wound. And that is why there will never be peace races were not meant to live together and that is the truth. But we are here now and there is nothing that’s going to make us go away. The bed has been made.

    1. Let’s be clear here. They can throw the white cop to the black population who demand a blood sacrifice to atone for what looks like an act of self defence on the part of the cop. If the city and state elders do this Ferguson might as well be burned to the ground anyway.
      The underlying root of the crisis is demographic. St Louis used to ban (as late as 1948) black purchasers of property. As soon as a solid ethnically white street goes black:
      This almost always seem to be the result:,-90.244794&spn=0.18,0.3&cbll=38.667263,-90.244794&layer=c&panoid=-Nq6-RZ6RrnmtRONuYdp1A&cbp=,208.56,,0,8.029999&output=classic&dg=ntvb

  29. Dude your preaching to the choir here. I’m with ya. Everyone knows the welfare state the government created is the cause of 90% of the problem. We as a society need to call it out for what it is and quit blaming the cops everytime some poor democrat gets his ass beat or shot in the ghetto. I’m for the second amendment I think people should have the right to bear arms. Everyone that comments on this article knows truly where the problem lies, its not with the police, its the msm, politicians, race baiters.

    1. …where the problem lies, its not with the police, its the msm, politicians, race baiters.

      Exactly. In Salt Lake City a white kid was recently killed by a black cop. No media outrage. No 24/7 news coverage. The MSM is a propaganda machine for the Left.

      1. Briefly, what is also missing among other things until all the details come out, are the great numbers of people using his criminal past, his felony warrant that he had at the time, and this quote credited to his family member,
        “Family said Dillon had had struggles throughout his teenage and adult
        life, including a criminal past, after losing his parents at the age of
        12.”, as a reason that he deserved to get shot.
        So, seeing how it’s appears you want him to get the same treatment as a black male would get, please, let’s have your exaltation for his demise.

  30. Higher-quality LEOs are leaving the force due to the rise in street violence and lack of public support for LEOs, leaving lower-quality officers behind.

    But it’s the responsibility of any and every coherent group to work at policing itself. This is especially important in a trade that possesses coercive powers and privileges. If the good ones are leaving rather than disciplining or expelling the bad ones for the good of their shared occupation, they’re demonstrating a degree of faithlessness far more serious than private citizens’ withdrawal of approval from the police.

    1. The current racial situation is virtually ungovernable. The only solution is the erasure of white people from the affected municipality.

      1. In cases where the racial residency ratio is tilted away from whites, definitely — and you’ll note that that’s exactly what’s happening in places like Detroit. However, there may be more difficult cases “along the margins.”

        1. We are in a bizarre situation where a dead man’s juvenile record is under court interdict.
          Mike Brown is dead, he has no employment prospects I’d like to see what kind of record his posthumous protectors want kept hidden. Transparency Gnomsayin? If he is the kinda teen who regularly assaulted people (black white brown yellow) the people ought to know. No Juvenile Justice Record! No Peace!

  31. Every town needs a local civilian militia. Just like it was in the old days. Why do I have contempt for the police? Because these thugs dont care about protecting civilians. They protect themselves. And the government of course. Todays cops are the modern equivalent of the British “redcoats”.

    1. If the ontological reason for the cops was simply to protect wealth, we would be much better off.
      I don’t get the Redcoat concept…King George was hell of a lot less of a burden than the current black, brown, femme, tribal über caste that modern America is ruled by.

  32. The profession draws the wrong personality type: macho, lack of nuance, aggressive, arrogant and probably on the wrong side of the IQ bell curve. Many of them should be digging ditches and paving roads, not wielding weapons in public with unaccountable authority. God bless the good ones.

    1. Saw a movie called “Svartur á leik, translated means “Black’s Game”.
      Based on true stories about the drug trade in Iceland.
      Good movie.

    2. “Iceland is so free of conflict that the nation was shocked last year when a police officer shot a man to death. It was the first time police had killed anyone in Iceland in 70 years. Most police in Iceland don’t carry guns. But that happiness comes at a price … Iceland has one of the most homogeneous populations in the world — everyone looks the same. And they deliberately keep it that way.”

      Great article. Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire are the most peaceful states in the USA. They are also the whitest.

  33. You don’t ask the totalitarians bludger to stop swinging. It does what it does, and there’s no chance of things getting better. Especially with a generally pathetic and apathetic population, it’s going to get a lot worse.
    Expect serious crap in the next 5 years.
    Of course anyone who stands up will be labeled a “domestic terrorist” and indefinitely detained in obamas gulag

  34. Most LE is comprised of narcissistic sociopaths, pathological liars, violent psychopaths and troglodytes with double digit IQ’s. They’re criminals wearing badges.

    God bless the police. Putting away the fucking scum of the Earth away for good.

Comments are closed.