“Defund the Police”? The Method to the Left’s Madness
Jun 8, 2020 10:20:47 GMT -8
timothylane likes this
Post by schoolofselwyn on Jun 8, 2020 10:20:47 GMT -8
“Defund the Police”? The Method to the Left’s Madness
by Selwyn Duke
Dismantling the police, a measure already proposed in Minneapolis, makes about as much sense as eliminating doctors or farmers and would likewise lead to pain and death. But if there is method to the madness, and I suspect there is in some Machiavellian quarters, it’s perhaps this: Certain leftists want to eliminate the police because they want to become the police.
Or, at least, they want their foot soldiers to fill that role.
Oh, there are other motivations, too, ranging from raw, misguided passion to formulaic devotion to a perverse leftist creed to wider efforts to destabilize the country. Remember, though, if you’re a power seeker, you attack those whose power you want for yourself. And upon attaining police power, enforcing a political agenda becomes much easier.
Any leftist with a few brain cells to rub together knows not only that dismantling the police would lead to anarchy, but that anarchy is never a permanent state of affairs. People would be desperate for restored order, and some controlling force would step into the breach and secure it — though it might be a disordered order.
Of course, the Left isn’t currently calling what would replace nixed police “police”; that wouldn’t fly, and, besides, the pseudo-intellectual lunkheads in question just love euphemisms and utopian language too much. So in Minneapolis, at least, they’re labeling what would replace their cops “a transformative new model for public safety.” Uh, yeah, whatever.
What would this actually look like? Maybe the Crips or Bloods, social-justice warriors, ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter types or perhaps a combination of the preceding. But one could easily foresee this “transformative” group quickly transforming into de facto police, with guns, batons, handcuffs and the works — and a really bad attitude.
One could also envision them enforcing laws selectively, in accordance with a “woke,” leftist agenda, and mainly against groups deemed “victimizers” (whites, Christians, etc.) while turning a blind eye to crimes against those groups.
The foot soldiers would have the perfect rationalization, too: Since they’ve bought the lie that white police abuse minorities, they’d figure that “turnabout is fair play” — and relish the opportunity for vengeance.
Police brutality, actually long in decline, could then become the norm. Don’t expect that the EneMedia would report on it, though. As long as the “right” people were being brutalized and the “right” agenda implemented, it wouldn’t be “newsworthy.” The abused could still approach the ACLU, however — and be told, “Sorry, we don’t help people with ‘white privilege.’”
Eliminating local cops could also facilitate the nationalization of police, something discussed during the Barack Obama administration. This wouldn’t happen under President Trump, but it could become a reality if the Democrats recapture the White House.
Of course, this would make the police far less answerable to the local community. It also would ensure that a leftist law-enforcement paradigm was imposed on localities uniformly nationwide. Hey, how else do you deal with those America-loving, conservative sheriffs elected by the flyover types?
In fact, remember the “Civilian Security Force” Obama proposed during the 2008 presidential campaign, the one he said would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military? Don’t think that idea couldn’t be resurrected, and don’t think such an entity would be just about “security” — unless it’s to secure the implementation of an agenda.
Moreover, the unrelenting attacks on the police could if nothing else degrade them incrementally, ultimately providing a pretext for completely remaking them. After all, if cops continue being handcuffed and forced to treat thugs with kid gloves while they get abused, get vilified and charged with crimes when they allegedly violate what could becomes unrealistic “rules of engagement,” and consequently begin “de-policing,” what will happen to morale? Will good people still want to become cops?
So that’s a logical, albeit nefarious, reason to defund the police. This said, one logical reason to make hay out of an isolated case of police brutality, the George Floyd incident, is different. It’s about defeating Trump.
It hasn’t escaped the Left’s notice that Trump’s approval rating has been as high as 40 percent among blacks, according to Rasmussen, no less. Even if this is an outlier result, it terrifies the Democrats. For they know that if just 20 percent of blacks vote for Trump in November (the Dems count on getting their usual 90-plus percent of the black vote), it would likely spell their electoral doom. So they’d like to use the Floyd incident and the myth of a police war on minorities to scare blacks back on to their plantation.
Democrats do historically, after all, have great experience running plantations. As for having experience running effective and just police forces, well, not so much.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
by Selwyn Duke
Dismantling the police, a measure already proposed in Minneapolis, makes about as much sense as eliminating doctors or farmers and would likewise lead to pain and death. But if there is method to the madness, and I suspect there is in some Machiavellian quarters, it’s perhaps this: Certain leftists want to eliminate the police because they want to become the police.
Or, at least, they want their foot soldiers to fill that role.
Oh, there are other motivations, too, ranging from raw, misguided passion to formulaic devotion to a perverse leftist creed to wider efforts to destabilize the country. Remember, though, if you’re a power seeker, you attack those whose power you want for yourself. And upon attaining police power, enforcing a political agenda becomes much easier.
Any leftist with a few brain cells to rub together knows not only that dismantling the police would lead to anarchy, but that anarchy is never a permanent state of affairs. People would be desperate for restored order, and some controlling force would step into the breach and secure it — though it might be a disordered order.
Of course, the Left isn’t currently calling what would replace nixed police “police”; that wouldn’t fly, and, besides, the pseudo-intellectual lunkheads in question just love euphemisms and utopian language too much. So in Minneapolis, at least, they’re labeling what would replace their cops “a transformative new model for public safety.” Uh, yeah, whatever.
What would this actually look like? Maybe the Crips or Bloods, social-justice warriors, ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter types or perhaps a combination of the preceding. But one could easily foresee this “transformative” group quickly transforming into de facto police, with guns, batons, handcuffs and the works — and a really bad attitude.
One could also envision them enforcing laws selectively, in accordance with a “woke,” leftist agenda, and mainly against groups deemed “victimizers” (whites, Christians, etc.) while turning a blind eye to crimes against those groups.
The foot soldiers would have the perfect rationalization, too: Since they’ve bought the lie that white police abuse minorities, they’d figure that “turnabout is fair play” — and relish the opportunity for vengeance.
Police brutality, actually long in decline, could then become the norm. Don’t expect that the EneMedia would report on it, though. As long as the “right” people were being brutalized and the “right” agenda implemented, it wouldn’t be “newsworthy.” The abused could still approach the ACLU, however — and be told, “Sorry, we don’t help people with ‘white privilege.’”
Eliminating local cops could also facilitate the nationalization of police, something discussed during the Barack Obama administration. This wouldn’t happen under President Trump, but it could become a reality if the Democrats recapture the White House.
Of course, this would make the police far less answerable to the local community. It also would ensure that a leftist law-enforcement paradigm was imposed on localities uniformly nationwide. Hey, how else do you deal with those America-loving, conservative sheriffs elected by the flyover types?
In fact, remember the “Civilian Security Force” Obama proposed during the 2008 presidential campaign, the one he said would be “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military? Don’t think that idea couldn’t be resurrected, and don’t think such an entity would be just about “security” — unless it’s to secure the implementation of an agenda.
Moreover, the unrelenting attacks on the police could if nothing else degrade them incrementally, ultimately providing a pretext for completely remaking them. After all, if cops continue being handcuffed and forced to treat thugs with kid gloves while they get abused, get vilified and charged with crimes when they allegedly violate what could becomes unrealistic “rules of engagement,” and consequently begin “de-policing,” what will happen to morale? Will good people still want to become cops?
So that’s a logical, albeit nefarious, reason to defund the police. This said, one logical reason to make hay out of an isolated case of police brutality, the George Floyd incident, is different. It’s about defeating Trump.
It hasn’t escaped the Left’s notice that Trump’s approval rating has been as high as 40 percent among blacks, according to Rasmussen, no less. Even if this is an outlier result, it terrifies the Democrats. For they know that if just 20 percent of blacks vote for Trump in November (the Dems count on getting their usual 90-plus percent of the black vote), it would likely spell their electoral doom. So they’d like to use the Floyd incident and the myth of a police war on minorities to scare blacks back on to their plantation.
Democrats do historically, after all, have great experience running plantations. As for having experience running effective and just police forces, well, not so much.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.
