Question

"What happens to America’s big blue cities when The Establishment switches sides from the cops to the blacks? Our elites appear intent on trying that experiment once again..." - @Steve_Sailer

[vdare.com]

VDARE 8

Answer 1

I don’t know. I don’t like anything that looks like a hive mind. I guess I like reading about hive minds in my fictional stories, but I’d rather not have any hive minds growing in power around me. So I don’t like this idea of any power siding with one group identity over another group identity because all of those groups are just filled with good and evil individuals. I do have my prejudices now. Maybe it’s a self preservation thing, but when I see a cop around me, I get nervous because I’m expecting that cop to be a poorly trained, overly frightened or angry person, on a power trip. When I see a group of people that have body language that isn’t calm, (for example: a group of black men that are looking all around themselves and not sitting still and relaxing), then I get nervous because I think they may take one look at my white self and want to hurt me. Hm. Maybe I do participate in a sort of group think because I actually think blacks and whites would be happier if hidden string pullers would stop trying to force us to live together. I think friendships and multiculturalism can be great if they are organic and not socially engineered or manipulated. But, ever since high school, and seeing how violent groups of blacks can be to outnumbered whites, I’ve always wished that we would live apart. I can see that some of my opinions contradict other opinions I have, which isn’t good. It’s just something that I’ll have to address at some point. No, I would not want a power to side with any race group over any law enforcement group because it may instigate many atrocities towards individuals in a race group in the future. I’d rather every individual be held equally accountable, regardless of their group affiliations.

Answer 2

Race wars are not natural, not unless it is claimed that psychosis is natural.

Criminal insanity, an unnatural mutation, is behind Race Baiting. The obvious goal of those who are criminally insane is the accumulation of power sufficient to enforce a monopoly of power and profit; and often the criminally insane consider their victims as property.

The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins

"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World, both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both, a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which, at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."

"Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."

Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli
"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Answer 3

"What happens to America’s big blue cities when The Establishment switches sides from the cops to the blacks? Our elites appear intent on trying that experiment once again, although we have been through a couple of highly relevant historical examples that they ought to recall first."

The Establishment

If that is meant to mean the group of people who command the most power over everyone including the second most powerful group of people, then the current situation suggests that there is a battle going on instead of the Established Monopoly of Power and Profit (where people are considered hereditary property)

During the Establishing of the Establishment there was clear warnings:

To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802

"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.
"As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power."

Clearly the Establishing and the Maintaining of the Monopoly of Power and Profit requires control (monopoly) of the Major Media.

Warning:

Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has
been a long road -- how you regard -- what is
your explanation for the fact that there has
been such little national media coverage of
these -- of this trial and this evidence and
this event here in this Memphis courtroom,
which is the first trial ever to be able to
produce evidence on this assassination --
what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer
is not sounding but is in fact totally
silent -- almost totally silent?

A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be
deafening. Disinformation is not only
getting certain things to appear in print,
it's also getting certain things not to
appear in print. I mean, the first -- the
first thing I would say as a way of
explanation is the incredibly powerful effect
of disinformation over a long period of time
that I mentioned before. For 30 years the
official line has been that James Earl Ray
killed Martin Luther King and he did it all
by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing
like the short period when the line was that
the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for
30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King,
did it all by himself.

And when that is imprinted in the
minds of the general public for 30 years, if
somebody stood up and confessed and said: I
did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's
a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99
percent of the people wouldn't believe him
because it just -- it just wouldn't click in
the mind. It would just go right to -- it
couldn't be. It's just a powerful
psychological effect over 30 years of
disinformation that's been imprinted on the
brains of the -- the public. Something to
the country couldn't -- couldn't be.

Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial Transcripts

Warning:

"The Six Purposes of Schooling" - John Taylor Gatto
“How can you establish weather someone has successfully developed this automatic reaction, because people have a proclivity when they are given sensible orders to follow? That is not what they want to reach. The only way to measure this is to give stupid orders, and people automatically follow those. Now you have achieved function one.”

What happens with the Establishment (Monopoly of Power and Profit, where The People are considered hereditary property) is no longer a Monopoly?

What happens when the power of the Establishment is challenged by a powerful competitor?

"What happens to America’s big blue cities when The Establishment switches sides from the cops to the blacks? Our elites appear intent on trying that experiment once again, although we have been through a couple of highly relevant historical examples that they ought to recall first."

The Establishment then uses its power through the Media (Propaganda Organs) to continue to divide The People so that The People fight among themselves, and The People do not use the law to hold The Establishment to account for such crimes as The Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud, nor the Global Treasonous Riots.

People in power at The Establishment (Monopoly of Power and Profit where The People are considered as personal property) are not switching sides from "the cops to the blacks."

That is propaganda 101.

The Cops are at least 2 OBVIOUS groups now. Before NOW it was not obvious.

Cops Group A:
Those "on the take" using their power to follow orders from The Establishment, to divided, so as to conquer: Nazis

Cops Group B:
Those not on the take using their power to hold to account all criminals including other cops, and including the members of The Establishment who are issuing criminal orders to be obeyed by their Nazi underlings (just following orders).

Now look carefully at the Propaganda:

"...The Establishment switches sides from the cops to the blacks...?

In that message someone might be triggered to react as if all cops are bad, all blacks are bad, all cops lives matter, all black lives matter, all cops are good, all blacks are good, all people no matter what they do are guilty of whatever is done by the criminals in the groups that people are placed, and all people no matter what they do as individuals are credit worthy for everything done by the good people in their exclusive group.

Group-Think

This is a simple CON. This is a simple deception. The criminal intending to steal something at the crowded store points and yells "Thief!" While potential defenders are looking in the direction pointed out by the thief, the thief is free to steal something.

All Cops are bad, so good cops are bad too, so there isn't any way for a good cop to "clean the swamp," because "ratting on fellow cops" warrants the removal of that cop from the fellowship, as demanded by those in power at the top of that group: in the past.

Now, there is a new dawn, and the Monopoly is no longer a Monopoly, so there will be troubles during the adjustment.

All races (pick one, I can pick The Irish) are bad, so none of the Irish are any good, forget about them, they too have no way to clean out their own, because they too have been following orders issued from the top down, and we must blindly obey without question, all of us, as one.

You don't know the Irish if you think all Irish are bad, order following, Nazis.

The same CON applies to those who are good.

All Blacks are good (Black Lives Matter) no matter how bad one criminal (with dark skin at birth) is here, there, as the victims bodies pile up, the fact remains that All Blacks are Good. Everyone in the group is credited for everything everyone in the group does, no matter what is done by any one individual.

The CON has obvious side affects. While the thief uses this con to distract everyone, so as to steal from everyone, and while people are thinking these Group-Think thoughts, a side affect is that fewer, and fewer, and fewer people are crediting individuals who are guilty with the facts that matter in the case where the individual hurt some poor innocent victim. The group did it. The group did it. The group did it. The individual is free to do it again, no one is holding the individual to account for the individuals crimes.

That is motive.

What about the other side affect? Those individuals who are individually doing individual good things have their credit stolen by the bad people in their group. The criminals in their group TAKE that credit and use that credit as a Shield that covers up their individual crimes.

I know this may seem complicated, so spelling it out may help unmask the CON GAME precisely.

Bad people appear to be good. Not everyone in their group is bad, so the bad one's hide in the group, and the group takes all credit for everything good or bad.
Good people appear to be bad, by close association with bad people in their group: Collective Punishment.

Good people are no longer as good, bad people are no longer as bad, and those pulling the strings are long forgotten and therefore able to steal even more.

Answer 4

The Actual Opinion Piece is actually LOADED with Useful Information that ... at least the parts about the Greater NYC Area, I know to be True.

You can read it here. [takimag.com]


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

4 comments

Recent Visitors 27

Photos 516 More

Members 1,889Top

Moderator

Related GroupsMore

Share this post with your group