Grrlbusters: lamer than expected

That’s not offensive to men, it’s just stupid, predictable, and not even a little bit funny.

When the punchline of your very expensive Grrrl Power movie, designed to prove that Women Can Too Be Funny in spite of the evidence to the contrary consisting of the entire written history of Man, builds up to a visual riff on… wait for it, wait for it… A WOMAN KICKING A MAN IN THE CROTCH, I think it’s safe to conclude that it’s going to fail.

And do so in a positively epic manner.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you’re dumb enough to let SJWs infest your organization. The problem isn’t that it’s going to be a failure. One has to take risks from time to time. But this failure was guaranteed from the very moment it was conceived.

As Stickwick observed, girl power is literal Idiocracy. A large collection of women spent $154 million to make a Ghostbusters-flavored OW MY BALLS.

Democracy debate part 1

Konrad Razumovsky challenged me to a debate in response to my contention that direct democracy is superior to representative democracy. This is his initial statement.

“My opinion, as I have previously expressed, is that the problems of “mob rule” of which the Founders so famously warned have proven to be considerably fewer and less problematic than the problems of establishing a political elite that uses the illusion of democratic approval as a protective shield. Now that technology makes it viable for larger polities, direct democracy is a moral imperative in any society with a government that is justified by the will of the people.”
—Vox Day

For the purposes of this, I am using a slightly modified version of the definition of democracy from Merriam-Webster: a democracy is “a form of government in which the people choose leaders, or specific laws, by voting”.

I do grant, and cannot reasonably dispute the following: one, representative democracies or democratic republics do limit the impact of the will of the people, by intention or accident is irrelevant; two, the most dangerous thing for a nation, in the long run, is a political elite which is divorced from the common man, a political elite who believe they are justified and also able to sell their chicanery to said common man with a gross misrepresentation of the intent of a particular government; third—and finally, technology does many exceptional things, with respect to man’s ability to influence his condition including the methods by which government can be built.  That said, I have no real issue with direct democracy in theory, or in practice, but I am forced to dispute the implicit claim that a democracy is an appropriate form of government for a larger scale polity, with or without technological intervention and irrespective of its moral gravity.  That is to say that a direct democracy has a number of internal issues which render it ineffective, if not outright detrimental, to a civilization of a certain size.  Briefly, these are: one, no amount of technological development is equal to the task of preventing the poor use thereof; two, democracies derive their legitimacy from the collective people of the nation, which would be fine if governments existed to care for the people, which they do not; three, economics applies to voting just as much as everything else; fourth—and finally, though mob rule is, indeed, a historical falsity, something very similar to it does exist and is exactly the thing which placed the silly political elite into power in the current era.  There will then need to be some minor legwork done on historic democracies to determine if the theoretical framework matches the practice.

While it must be admitted by all reasonable men that modern information based technology has certainly made it possible for a democracy to function on a scale significantly larger than previously possible, in terms of both geography and population, these advances do little to address the frailty of the ballot box.  In the more traditional rendition of a democracy, there are legions of little vote counters who, being human, can each be induced by their own ideologies or the machinations of others to forget or misplace certain votes; there are instances of the dearly departed or even pets casting votes; and there is one supreme holder of the ballots who could, were he so inclined, read a different name than the one at the top of the chart.  I freely admit that technology removes the human element from these scenarios, the vote counters are machines who are incorruptible by their own bias and cannot be blackmailed; a machine is compelled to follow its programming regarding the necessary certification that a particular voter is eligible to cast such a vote, thereby reducing the rate at which Spot or Aunt Mildred interferes with mortal affairs; and a machine is honest about who is where on the final printout. 


All of this rests on the assumption that the machine(s) administering the vote enjoy a state of being free of that kind of harassment designed to cause a shift in the eventual outcome of the vote being so administered.  Obviously, direct and physical tampering with these Democratic Servers is undesirable, so steps must be taken to remove the possibility of such.  I see two feasible solutions: one, the voting process may be moved entirely to the cloud, divorcing it from a physical existence; or two, the physical Democratic Servers must be fiercely protected against intrusions.  The problem with the first is that everyone on the planet would have access to the voting system, regardless of the level of authentication required to vote, a machine is only a machine—it is easily fooled by anyone with sufficient knowledge of the systems which compose it.  In other words, the account security for these voting systems would need to be impregnable, not only from foreign agents, but also from those running for office.  Due to the grand and illustrious history of impregnable vaults being busted, unsinkable ships being sunk, irrefutable evidence being refuted, and unstoppable armies being crushed, it strikes me as a point of absurdity to assume that any such system built today will last any serious amount of time.

The solution to this seems simple enough: just appoint a certain group, a set of experts—if you will, to continually update the security protocols.  Of course, this puts the entire democracy at the mercy of these programmers for its integrity, which undermines the entire point of a democracy in the first place, in that the government is derived by the will of the people.  We would be better off simply making the computer programmers the oligarchs of the new world order from the get-go to avoid all of the inevitable build up to that point.  Which leaves the second option: defending the physical counting machine.  This is also a doomed scenario because the defenders of the machine become like the programmers in the first scenario, able to unaccountably pick and choose what inputs the machine receives thereby determining the outcome.  Ultimately, this is not a new problem: every democratic system, above a certain size, will have a praetorian guard of some sort.  None of which is meant to say that technology has no place in a democracy, simply that technology does not solve the problem of the concentration of political power into the hands of a few over time.  So, to put a finer point on it, technology does not preclude in any way, shape, or form the establishment of a political elite who use the illusion of democratic approval as a protective shield, either as the wielders of legislative or executive powers.

Strip away every piece of government and political theory, until the very first portion of it is obvious, and we will see that government cares precisely not at all about the people under it because they are not its purpose and concern, in the West at any rate.  This singular purpose is the recording of property beyond that which is unquestionably within an arbitrary individual’s control.  Indeed, the entire function of government is to provide the threat of violence necessary to keep the integrity of property lines.  I could go into considerable detail regarding this facet of government, but this is neither the time nor the place for that.  Suffice it to say that physical property which is too large to conveniently command as an extension of oneself is the thing which demands the fomentation of a government of any variety.  To put it bluntly, a democracy, even if that democracy functions perfectly, places political power in the hands of all living members of a particular society regardless of their standing in terms of property which requires the existence of a government.  If all members of this democracy share a portion of this property, there is no problem as each member of the democracy ultimately has the same interest: the protection of the integrity of property as defined by the legal code enacted by this democracy; if only some members of the democracy enjoy the privileges of property ownership, then there becomes a schism in the end goals of the populace due to one group having property and the other not.  In times past, I would probably feel compelled to simply dismiss this schism as the product of the basest portions of human nature and therefore an ignorable affliction in an enlightened society, however, the past few decades serve as ample evidence that even the mightiest and most careful cultures can be brought low.  The moral standing of property envy is irrelevant at this point, it exists and must be countenanced and thwarted in some more robust manner than an appeal to fragile culture.  Until such a time as men become wholly divorced from their envy and petty jealousies, such that those without strive to achieve the same status as those who by grace have instead of simply using any and all possible leverage—including the use of government force—to deprive the latter group from their holdings, allowing such men, those who do not bear some interest in the ultimate good of the nation—and, by extension, the weight of property, dilutes or undermines the ultimate point of the establishment of a government in the first place.  Therefore, a democracy will eventually destroy itself.

Economics, the study of rational choice, is most assuredly a matter of concern for the democrat, simply because it is the ideal means by which men do their voting.  Obviously, the hope is for every voting member of a democracy to make his choices rationally, but the decision to vote is, itself, subject to a rational tradeoff.  It is a common observation that a vote in a democracy above a certain size is functionally useless.  A single vote in a nation of one hundred is worth considerably more than a single vote in a country of millions.  Granted, technological advances can make the costs associated with voting, leaving work early, time consumed casting the ballot, among others, much smaller but does little to ensure that a particular vote is actually worth casting in the grander sense.  Consider California, where it is not uncommon to find men of the right choosing not to vote simply because there is no point in doing so.  The analysis by these men is a simple one: there is a significant number of individuals within the State of California, to the point where an individual vote is insignificant, and the vast majority of Californians simply disagree with these right leaning voters.  A callous solution would be to instruct these people to move elsewhere, where their neighbors tend to agree with them, but this is an implicit admission that the discrete vote matters not at all.  Were the large scale democrat to admit that his ideology necessarily ignores the trees for the forest, I would have considerably less of a problem with the whole system of thought as the link between an increase in large scale democracy and the decline of individual rights could be more adequately documented and discussed.  To put it in a slightly more direct way, if a democracy exceeds a certain population threshold, then the democracy ceases to be able to effectively operate in a manner which is consistent with classically liberal thought.

Mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority, does not exist, in any meaningful form, but its close cousin, let’s call it the tyranny of geography, does.  For example, communities on the edge of the ocean have considerably different concerns than the community on a mountainside.  It would be unreasonable to expect the mountainside community to build houses on stilts to avoid tidal flooding, and the seaside community to have steeply sloped roofs to more effectively shed snowfall.  Such dichotomies can be found everywhere, with certain areas developing a particular solution to a problem which does not exist elsewhere.  Now, geography and climate can certainly cause people to behave differently discretely, but it has not been established that this would impair the ability of the aggregate of such localities to enact an effective democracy.  Indeed, if the total population of the seaside community and the mountainside community are virtually equivalent, then neither party would be able to force every house to have stilts or steep rooves, instead getting what seems not disagreeable to both.  The only problem is that such an arrangement simply does not happen in reality.  Let us examine New York State.  There is a collection of a few cities along the coast which dominate the entire policy of the state despite the rest of the state being of precisely the opposite political affiliation.  In other words, a concentration of people, brought about by geographic concerns, such as the suitability of a particular place to function as a port or commerce hub, may very well have certain governmental needs which do not exist outside of the densely populated areas, a governmental solution which could very easily eliminate the livelihood of these rural or suburban communities, and a democracy places complete authority over these potentially suffocating policies in the hands of those who choose to live in hyper concentrated areas without providing ser
ious recourse to those in the boonies.  In a democracy, cities warp the political landscape to their own benefit, sometimes costing the smaller and more numerous communities which share its jurisdiction greatly.  If the wholesale ruination of the nonurban is permissible, then a democracy with a large footprint is acceptable; if not, then democracy must be limited in geographic size.

To briefly reiterate, a successful democracy would be fairly small in size and scale, encompassing a small area geographically and inhabited by a certain, relatively low, number of residents.  Bold claims to be sure, but not without historic precedence: I would draw your attention to both the Iceni tribes of pre-Roman Britain and the Her Majesty’s Privateers of the colonial era.  Both cases are successful democracies, successful in that they enjoyed social stability and developed cultures which further lubricated the systems put in place, with the community placing authority in an individual, either chief or captain, whose concern ensured that the democracy as a whole was benefited.  Should this figure of authority be found wanting, he did not have armies at his disposal to put down a vote of no confidence because his army consisted of his neighbors and friends who had a real interest in the good of the community as a whole.  In short, if the chief or captain failed to perform their duties in an acceptable manner to the people of the democracy, then removing them was an almost trivial matter: the army which did the removing was the army who followed his orders was the people who did the voting.  Of course, these examples merely show that a democracy does work on a local level but fails to evidence an inability of the system to meet the needs of a larger populace, in terms of both raw numbers and territory.  For this, we should investigate the history of Athens which, after having demonstrated its superiority in every possible field to its harshest critic—Plato, quietly fell apart due to internal issues between the various voting groups as these groups matured past their nascence within a few generations.

None of which quite addresses the most obvious point of a pure democracy: the laws or leaders enjoying the vote.  How precisely does the leader enact his will?  If historic trends are any indication, then a democracy is simply a form of government used to legitimize a dictator.  Does the democracy then choose to be of the form where every proposed law is voted on by the general populace?  If so, then one of two eventualities arise, either: one, the populace appoints, presumably by democratic means, a body of persons who propose laws, which is the establishment of a political elite who are naturally compelled to use their power for their own purposes; or, the laws are crowdsourced in some fashion, which would probably result in charming little laws akin to the naming of certain Antarctic Icebreakers.

All of these issues combined, or any one of them—really, is sufficient to fully dissuade the serious political philosopher from accepting democracy as some great panacea for the ills of society.  There is a place for democracy, to be sure—as it is very good at what it does under the appropriate circumstances, but its structural integrity is built solely upon its locality.  If a democracy reigns supreme over too large an expanse of people or places, then it will eventually destroy the very livelihood of those different people and places simply due to the nature of the thing.  This is an observation noted by the Founders, and was solved in their day by establishing requirements beyond that of mere life for voters and building the United States Senate upon the legislatures of the various states.  In fact, there was a little war fought over how ineffective these precautions were in thwarting the tendencies of democracies from 1861 to 1865, with numerous potential solutions being offered by one of the sides in that conflict.  More than any other factor, the spread of the belief of the justness of a pure and true democracy has contributed to the decline which is now so apparent throughout the West.  Insisting that more of the same is the solution is to argue that the United States, and nations like it, should cease to be one nation; a perfectly acceptable assertion, to be sure, but very different from the initial conceit of an objectively superior form of government for a nation of any serious size whose government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people.

I will post my response here sometime in the coming weeks, but I will note that Konrad appears to have completely missed the target by attacking the concept of democracy itself instead of defending the superiority of representative democracy to direct democracy. I have no intention whatsoever of defending the core concept of democracy itself, as my argument is neither theoretical nor idealistic in nature, but entirely practical, eminently possible, and directly relevant to the present political situation.

Narrative collapse

John Derbyshire contemplates the way in which the media is no longer able to reliably sustain their chosen Narrative following a nationally-covered incident

The specter of Narrative Collapse hovers over all these kinds of incidents now. The Narrative favored and promoted by black race activists and Main Stream Media Goodwhites is of heartless white authority figures doing violence against helpless, harmless blacks. The MSM do everything they can to reinforce that narrative. That’s why the most-publicized photograph of Trayvon Martin, who was 17 years old when George Zimmerman shot him in 2012, was one taken when he was twelve years old.

In all too many cases, that initial MSM Narrative collapses when all the details come in.

Of the three dead black guys here, two were clearly not harmless. Delrawn Small had a long rap sheet listing 19 arrests. He served three prison terms between 1996 and 2010, for attempted robbery, attempted drug sale to an undercover cop, and a stabbing. Not harmless.

Alton Sterling likewise had a rap sheet showing felony arrests. His court-appearance history across the last 21 years includes battery both simple and aggravated, public intimidation, carnal knowledge of a juvenile, domestic violence, burglary, receiving stolen goods, robbery, theft, drug possession, resisting arrest, possession of stolen firearm, sound reproduction without consent, and failure to register as a sex offender.

The third shootee, Philando Castile, may have been harmless: His only criminal offenses have been low-level traffic misdemeanors. Of all three cases, this is the one you’d have to say is least likely to suffer Narrative Collapse, although on the knowledge we have so far, it’s not impossible the shooting was justified.

The underlying issue here: the very high levels of violence and criminality among blacks.

The differences are really enormous. But government and the MSM do their best to play them down, for fear we Badwhite peasants will march on the ghetto with pitchforks and flaming brands. So ordinary citizens are startled, even disbelieving, when you show them the numbers.

My colleague Edwin S. Rubinstein has crunched those numbers, with references to official sources, in his booklet The Color of Crime. Here’s a couple at random:

  • In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder
  • A black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

 Etc. If you remove Hispanics from the non-black category—which is hard to do, as the authorities would prefer you didn’t—the differences for homicide are even greater.

In a society where blacks are living among non-blacks, it’s natural and reasonable for blacks to be regarded by the rest of us as dangerous. This isn’t as much a factor for us middle-class types moving among well-socialized middle-class blacks. But for cops, who have to deal with the underclass, it’s got to be on their minds in every encounter. No wonder they’re on a hair-trigger in arrest and traffic stop situations.

There isn’t much to be done about this.

Derb is correct. Contra the decades of denial and equalitarian propaganda pushed by the blank-slate Left, the core problem is not one of poverty, racism, government destruction of the family, or any of the other excuses offered for uncivilized African behavior. The problem is simply that Africans are not yet, on average, entirely civilized.

This is not their fault nor should it surprise anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge, as they simply haven’t had enough time to work through the thousand-year process of systematically having their uncivilized members removed from the breeding pool as the formerly-uncivilized Germans and and French and English and Scandinavians did. No people can accomplish in 400 years what took everyone else 700 to one thousand, especially when their incentives have been dyscivic for much of that time.

Before you start shrieking “racist” at me, note that the same thing is more or less true for the American Indian, although the Indians were at a higher level of pre-civilization, the Indian genetic makeup and behavioral proclivities are different, most of the Indian population was genocided, and many of those that remain are safely segregated on reservations, so the Indian lack of full civilization is less apparent to most white observers.

To understand how Indian sub-civilization tends to manifest, look south of the border.

Help a sister out

Old school Dread Ilk Wendy is running for office.

Hey everyone,

It may have been a long time since you’ve heard from me but I’m reaching out for help.  Some of you may know me as a military supporter and others may know me as a personal friend.

I’m currently running for treasurer of my county.  I’m the most qualified candidate with a double major in math and economics and I’m taking classes to sit for the CPA exam.  I’m close to completing my course work and it adds to my ability to do this job well for my local community.  I have lived in Rock County for over 20 years and like many of you, I had or have a desire to serve the public in some way.  This is how I’d like to do it, by using my knowledge, skills, and abilities to serve Rock County in the Treasurer’s office.  It is going to be a very tough race for me because of the demographics of the county and the strength of the field I’m running against (there are 5 of us going into the primaries in August).

I’m running an online campaign fundraiser.  If you know me well, you know how difficult it is for me to ask for money, but even if you just share my contributions link on any websites you may own, that will help. My website is here.

Below is the link for an interview I recently had, so you can listen and judge for yourself on whether you personally think I’d make a good treasurer for my county, and also the link to my campaign contribution website.  There is also more information about myself at the home page of my website.

My recent interview. My contribution page.

If you’d like to personally donate, any little bit will help if you can do so.  Because of campaign finance laws, we cannot accept donations from businesses or anonymously, but we will keep your information private and all monies will go towards the cost of yard signs, banners, and campaign literature to hand out as I travel across the county and reach out to over 150,000 residents.

I know this might be coming out of the blue and even if you’re not interested in the campaign piece, I’d love to hear from you and catch up.  I’ve had a very busy couple of years, as you can tell, and I haven’t kept up on a lot of relationships but I’m reaching out to you because I regard you fondly and wish you well.  You’re more than welcome to email back and just reminisce about the old days or if you’d like to call and chat, hit me up and I’ll send my cell # if you don’t have it.  I wish you the best.

Regards,
Wendy

It’s so cute

It’s always rather charming when New York Times reporters attempt to pose as political independents and pretend that they are somewhere in the middle between Republicans and Democrats:

In barely two weeks, Republicans will converge in Cleveland for the Trumpocalypse, a fact-free and hate-filled gathering likely to be as scary as it will be entertaining. A week later the Democrats will assemble in Philadelphia in a focus-group-tested pander fest, as tightly scripted as the visualize-world-peace answers at a Miss Universe contest.

If you feel left out, you have plenty of company. You can search across the fruited plain and nowhere will you find a political convention for the affiliation that more Americans identify with than any other — independents. According to Pew Research, the share of indies now stands at its highest point in more than 75 years of polling: 39 percent. And although other surveys slightly disagree, the point is the same: a plurality of voters has no place to call political home.

This large island of independents is a habitat of shruggers, doubters and contrarians. There’s room for nuance in their thinking. Millions of these middle-grounders are actually leaners who sorta, kinda, maybe like most of what one party stands for — and then find out that they share a label with Sarah Palin.

As someone who thinks Democrats are ossified on education and afraid to speak out against the P.C. censors in their midst, and who finds Republicans horrific on science, guns and nearly everything else, I went online looking for a party hookup. In one quiz, after answering a dozen questions, I was found to be a moderate Democrat.

A pox on both their houses! But mostly on the one that is horrific about everything and is nominating the younger son of Satan himself.

I don’t know about you, but I’m totally convinced that Tim Egan is just another “political orphan” who has no idea whether he’ll vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump at this early stage of the campaign. “We political orphans”. Oh, Timmy, what a scamp! Don’t you just want to pinch his cheeks?

“I just can’t decide who I like better. On the one hand, Trumpzilla the Thrice-Damned, who is stupid, smells bad, and raped his own daughter, whose tiny hands are dripping red with the blood of slaughtered women, children, and immigrants, isn’t afraid to speak his mind. On the other, St. Hillary the Pure-in-Heart is a brilliant and beautiful woman who has an amazing grasp on exactly what this country needs in order to move ahead, but I’m concerned that her ideas about charter schools on Indian reservations might be a little dated. Like every other political orphan out there, I’m still trying to make up my mind!”

I wonder which way he’ll lean in the end?

The 4GW challenge in America

What many people who were either upset about my observations concerning Dallas or are completely mystified by my assertion of the need for the US police to demilitarize and deescalate fail to grasp is that the current approach of intimidation and overwhelming force is absolutely doomed to failure in the situation in which they find themselves.

While Bill Lind’s perspective on the police is, understandably, outdated, it only underlines the vital importance of the police ceasing to act more like occupying military force and less like the traditional Officer Friendly.

Remember, this is the guy who literally wrote the book on USMC tactics, and if we apply his observations, it is eminently clear that the US police are doing nothing more than setting themselves up for defeat in the long term.

From “Understanding Fourth Generation War”, 4th Generation War Handbook.

In Fourth Generation warfare, the weak often have more moral power than the strong. One of the first people to employ the power of weakness was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s insistence on non-violent tactics to defeat the British in India was and continues to be a classic strategy of Fourth Generation war. When the British responded to Indian independence rallies with violence, they immediately lost the moral war.

Operations David and Goliath show a strong military force, with almost no limits on the amount of violence it can apply to a situation, versus a very weak irregular force. The weaker force has the moral high ground because it is so weak. No one likes bullies using their physical superiority in order to win at anything, and unless we are extremely careful in how we apply our physical combat power, we soon come across as a bully, i.e. Goliath.

Most important, we see the central role of de-escalation. In most Fourth Generation situations, our best hope of winning lies not in escalation but in de-escalation (the “Hama model” discussed in the next chapter relies on escalation, but political factors will usually rule this approach out). De-escalation is how police are trained to handle confrontations. From a policeman’s perspective, escalation is almost always undesirable. If a police officer escalates a situation, he may even find himself charged with a crime. This reflects society’s desire for less, not more, violence. Most people in foreign societies share this desire. They will not welcome foreigners who increase the level of violence around them.

For state militaries in Fourth Generation situations, the policeman is a more appropriate model than the soldier. Soldiers are taught that, if they are not achieving the result they want, they should escalate: call in more troops, more firepower, tanks, artillery, and air support. In this respect, men in state-armed forces may find their own training for war against other state-armed forces works against them. They must realize that in Fourth Generation war, escalation almost always works to the advantage of their opponents. We cannot stress this point too strongly. State militaries must develop a “de-escalation mindset,” along with supporting tactics and techniques.

There may be situations where escalation on the tactical level is necessary to obtain de-escalation on the operational and strategic levels. In such situations, state-armed forces may want to have a special unit, analogous to a police SWAT team, that appears quickly, uses the necessary violence, then quickly disappears. This helps the state servicemen with whom local people normally interact to maintain their image as helpful friends.

Proportionality is another requirement if state militaries want to avoid being seen as bullies. Using tanks, airpower, and artillery against lightly armed guerrillas not only injures and kills innocent civilians and destroys civilian property, it also works powerfully at the moral level of war to increase sympathy for the state’s opponents. That, in turn, helps our Fourth Generation enemies gain local and international support, funding and recruits.

De-escalation and proportionality in turn require state-armed forces to be able to empathize with the local people. If they regard the local population with contempt, this contempt will carry over into their actions. Empathy cannot simply be commanded; developing it must be part of training…. Each of these points touches a central characteristic of Fourth Generation war. If we fail to understand even one of them, and act so as to contradict it, we will set ourselves up for defeat.

Remember, for any state military, Fourth Generation wars are easy to lose and very challenging to win. This is true despite the state military’s great superiority over its Fourth Generation opponents at the physical level of war. Indeed, to a significant degree, it is true because of that superiority. In most Fourth Generation wars, state-armed forces end up defeating themselves.

What is very difficult for most people, even those with considerable military experience, to understand is that 4GW is a different type of war and it utilizes very different metrics. As Lind and LtCol Thiele point out, the central dilemma of 4GW is that what works for you on the physical level often works against you at the moral level.

“It is therefore very easy to win all the tactical engagements in a Fourth Generation conflict yet still lose the war.” 

The US police are in very much in the same position as a state military occupying a foreign nation. Therefore, 4GW principles and tactics very clearly apply to the situation.

One can summarize the core anti-4GW strategy in a single sentence: Either kill them all or don’t kill anyone.

Reason enough to vote for him

Ruth Ginsburg fears a President Trump:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes “everything” will be up for grabs if Donald Trump is elected president and has the opportunity to appoint several justices to the high Court.

“I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs,” Ginsburg said of the presumptive Republican nominee succeeding in his bid for the White House in an interview published Friday by The Associated Press.

The 83-year-old justice, who belongs to the court’s liberal wing, said it’s “likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make.” Ginsburg is the oldest of the eight justices currently on the bench, while two of her colleagues – Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer – are closing in on 80.

If the Left is more afraid of Trump than any Republican nominee since Reagan, isn’t that alone sufficient reason to support him? Trump isn’t a Good Republican like Chief Justice Roberts, who will fall in line when the global elite snaps its fingers.

What he is, we don’t really know, but at least he isn’t that.

The predictive model

As William S. Lind predicted it would in his book ON WAR, 4GW has arrived in America and is targeting the police. Because the police have militarized and lost their moral authority, they are now deemed legitimate enemy targets by a growing number of armed individuals.
– December 20, 2014

Demilitarization is without question in the material interests of the police as well.  They have started a war of escalation and attrition that they cannot possibly win…. It does not take a master logician to observe that all the “whatever I need to do to get home safe” mentality guarantees is that abusive police homes will soon be unsafe.  And the growing Hispanic population means that there will likely be more Latin American-style infiltration, assassination, and terror directed at the lower levels of law enforcement. 
– July 20, 2013

I am not at all surprised that the police are now being targeted for murder due to nothing more than their membership in the Badge Gang. And there isn’t a soul in the country who can reasonably argue that the police haven’t collectively begged for such targeting, considering how many innocent Americans they have killed with shameless impunity in the last two decades…. Some protest, some shoot. If the police don’t abandon their present
path of violence and start prosecuting police killers instead of
protecting them, they can expect more of the latter and less of the
former.
– May 31, 2011

No doubt some readers will have the usual hissy fit that my utter lack
of regard for the police means that I’m some kind of liberal hippy. But
for those who are inclined to believe that, I’d merely ask: what is so
conservative, what is so very freedom-loving, about a police state? When
the police put down the machine guns, stop dressing like Darth Vader in
a Wehrmacht-style helmet and start behaving politely again instead of
knocking down doors and shooting pets, I’ll be happy to reconsider the
issue.
– February 21, 2007

In the aftermath of the Dallas police shooting, it is understandable that many Americans are shocked, scared, and upset. The post-Civil Rights Act America has not turned out to be the society they thought it was, indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that those terrible racist Southern segregationists were correct all along. Targeted assassinations of authority figures are not a sign of a stable, well-ordered society.

But I have neither patience nor sympathy for those who have been emailing, commenting, and Tweeting to say that they are shocked by my comments with regards to Dallas and the overly militarized US police. I have said nothing I have not said many times before. My position has not changed one iota on the subject for over a decade. I have repeatedly predicted such events would take place, nor am I alone in that, as William S. Lind repeatedly warned about it as a consequence of 4GW coming to America in his book of collected columns, On War.

I am neither shocked nor surprised that the events I predicted are taking place, any more than I am surprised that the post-1965 demographic changes have led to a less intelligent, less prosperous, and less stable country.

So, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not inclined to pay any attention to the emotionally incontinent ravings of people who are not only surprised, but observably shocked by what recently took place in Dallas. I told you this was going to happen and I even told you why. If you didn’t do the same, if you can’t point to ten years of correct predictions, then I suggest that you learn to shut up and listen when more perspicacious individuals are explaining the situation to you. Ask questions if you don’t understand something. But regardless, understand that your emotional reaction in the heat of the moment is simply not as relevant as the cold and logical analysis of those who have been thinking calmly about the subject for more than ten years.

Now, as for the binary-thinking idiots who think if you don’t support the cops means you are a murderous BLM-supporting Black Panther, let me explain something to you. Nothing the police do – nothing – is going to turn America’s blacks into whites. They cannot keep a nonexistent peace. History clearly teaches there are four ways to permanently resolve the current situation: amalgamation, segregation, deportation, and elimination.

Which of those do you support? If you don’t support one of them, you’re not serious and your opinion doesn’t count. Yes, they’re all terrible options. Yes, they’re all ugly and awful and horrific. So is history.

BLM is the proximate cause. But I didn’t predict that the police would become targets because I knew, back in 2007, that BLM would one day come to be. I predicted it because the police abandoned the moral authority that rendered them untouchable, and which protected them much better than any body armor, bigger guns, or “shoot when scared” rules of engagement.

If you want to virtue-signal or strike dramatic poses about how you’ll never read this blog again or buy any of my books, that’s fine. No one is going to try to convince you otherwise. But you should understand that it is completely apparent to everyone here that you were never paying very much attention in the first place.

The solution to police violence in America

I think I have stumbled upon the answer to US police committing unjustifiable homicides: have the FBI train them:

The F.B.I. Deemed Agents Faultless in 150 Shootings

After contradictory stories emerged about an F.B.I. agent’s killing last month of a Chechen man in Orlando, Fla., who was being questioned over ties to the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, the bureau reassured the public that it would clear up the murky episode.

“The F.B.I. takes very seriously any shooting incidents involving our agents, and as such we have an effective, time-tested process for addressing them internally,” a bureau spokesman said.

But if such internal investigations are time-tested, their outcomes are also predictable: from 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The last two years have followed the same pattern: an F.B.I. spokesman said that since 2011, there had been no findings of improper intentional shootings.

Considering its spotless record, I can only conclude that the FBI’s much higher standard of training is responsible for its agents incredible inability to avoid ever making a mistake when shooting citizens. I therefore recommend that its budget be enlarged sufficiently to permit all US state and local police to undergo rigorous FBI training.

This would not only save American lives and increase police professionalism, but also reduce the level of outrage in America evinced by Black Lives Matter and other groups of concerned citizens.

Mailvox: a police officer’s perspective

A former police officer writes in response to my post on the Dallas police shootings:

The short:

Good article and overall I agree with it.

The long:

In regards to the “Us Vs Them” mentality; unfortunately, it was ingrained in us from the beginning at the academy and if you do not guard against it you will find yourself moving in that direction after a short time working as a police officer.

Tribe was ingrained in us from comments such as “there are two kinds of people, those in jail and those that should be.”  “In God we trust all others we run through NCIC”.  NCIC is the national records database.

As you started working something happened to me that I was not prepared for one of those unintended consequences, everybody lied to you.  And I mean everybody, about everything.  It did not take long where you fell into “my tribe” mode.  When you make the call that you need help and all your tribe show up – that is a powerful feeling and reinforces, good or bad, my tribe.

Military affectation.  True.  When I joined, Desert Storm had just ended and the DOD was giving away the store.

As far as these current rash of shootings caught on camera – people do not want to see the bad side.  I believe that most people think that when a shooting goes down it is “Hollywood”.  Good vs Evil – clean – sanitized.  One thing people do not understand is how fast events can turn.  And I have been in situations where things went from mild or this aint’ so bad to someone did or was going to die in milliseconds.  People can not even begin to understand the violence that can happen in situations.  This is not an excuse I just offer and explanation into the mindset.

And if I can use NAPALT.  I only recall one instance of behavior that was wrong coming from a police officer.  I had a prisoner in cuffs and this officer came up to the prisoner and threatened to “kick his ass”.  If this officer would have laid a hand on my prisoner I would have protected my prisoner.  It did not get that far. Then again, I was being interviewed for the county sheriff’s department and was asked if I would take revenge on a person in cuffs if they had resisted arrest. I told her no, once cuffs are on and there is no resistance there is no reason. To this day I do not know if the look she gave me was one of disbelief or “this guy won’t fit in with us because that is how we roll”.

I agree with your statement “that being scared is insufficient justification for shooting a member of the public” and “start holding killer cops fully accountable for their actions”.  However, just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a danger.  In one situation I had a guy reach for a gun and as I was getting ready to shoot I saw he was reaching for a Maglite flashlight.  This guy’s intention was Suicide by Cop.  My intention was to save my life and my partner’s life. Unfortunately, my partner was shot and killed 6 months later.  He stopped an unarmed man, the man started fighting with him, took his gun, and killed him with it.

People see these videos and project their feelings, fears, biases into them.  Once the evidence starts to come out the story we end up with is usually different from what we began with.

As I mentioned in my response to him, my opinion is largely informed by my personal acquaintance with police officers in several countries. I get along quite well with cops, in fact, at a recent get-together I was the only male non-cop there. I’ve had cops for sparring partners and weightlifting partners and friends.

But that doesn’t make me blind to the institutional and structural problems with the police in America. Nor does it mean that the lessons of 4GW which Mr.  Lind and LtCol Thiele teach in 4GW Handbook don’t apply to them. Ironically, one of those lessons is that an occupying military should behave more like traditional street cops, while what we’re seeing is the traditional street cops being trained to behave more like an occupying military.

Policing is a serious and important societal role and it ought to be treated as such. Police officers should be valued and respected, but they, in turn, must always behave in a respectable manner. They should never be deemed above the law or unaccountable, to the contrary, they should be held more accountable for their actions than the average untrained individual.

And no free man should ever descend to licking a boot or a badge.

And if you want to know what a badge-licker looks like, this is it:

John Sanders ‏@Platniumblum
@voxday outed himself as a closeted SJW. Blacks have no agency, no responsibility. The cops had it coming. #Dallas #disavowBLM

So virtuous! I expect he’s preening in anticipation of all the likes and retweets from noble police officers ever so grateful for his support.