To the 2018-01-12 RA Caller

To the Radical Agenda January 12, 2018 caller who was ranting about Matthew Heimbach calling cops pigs, Jesus Christ did you piss me off.

It’s not that I considered it hypocritical to defend an entire profession of people though clearly some in it are good and some bad, then to denigrate an entirely different profession of people called district attorneys, or multiple groups of ethnicities; people can have their preferences. My problem is that it was counterproductive signalling at its worst.

Policing is a profession, it provides a service. Ideally that service is the provision of a peaceful order in which individuals and the nation as a whole can prosper. Realistically, it’s often about law enforcement for a paycheck and a “sick fucking dental plan” or enforcement of the law simply because it’s the law. I understand and support the alt-right position on peaceful order being a good thing relative to chaos. I do not understand nor condone support for law enforcement regardless of the content or nature of the laws being enforced. I do not understand nor condone support for individuals who are “just following orders” as if they are robots with no autonomy.

The defining feature of statist thought, to me, is that of double-standards. Few hold hitmen to be innocent when they are just following orders, even if those orders actually promote peace and stability. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that at least some mob hits on other mobsters promoted the stability of the organization and the prosperity of those within it. It is entirely possible that Ross Ulbricht’s decision to hire a hitman to protect The Silk Road, presuming that charge is true, would lead to less chaos and greater peace overall in the drug market. We blame the Don calling the hit, and we blame Ross for hiring a hitman, but we also blame the hitman even though he’s just following orders, doing it for a paycheck, or might actually believe (and be correct about) his hit being pro-peace and pro-order from a wider perspective.

While we can’t know counterfactuals, it remains a fact that the event in Charlottesville turned  violent because of the actions of police officers. Blame the city council, blame the police chief, fine, but do the individual officers have no agency? If that’s your claim, then why not place them in the same moral category as a weapon which someone is wielding? While a gun or knife isn’t to blame during an attack, you’re free to break or disable a gun or knife that your assailant is welding without moral consideration. If that gun or knife is attached to a semi-autonomous machine, you’re morally free to disable that semi-autonomous machine. If you’re placing police officers in a role where they have no agency, you’re placing them in the category of semi-autonomous machine, and I assert that they can then be destroyed or damaged with no more moral consideration than destroying a machine. I doubt you’d consider that valid, and that’s the dissonance from your statism interfering with rational thought.

What’s it called when one acts in a way which signals something that often counters their purported goals, or those that an in-group majority considers more important, over those goals? I seem to recall there being a term that was popularized by the alt-right for such behavior. That’s right, A CUCK. If you signal for LAW and order, regardless of whether the law creates order, or whether the order is conducive to the goals you purport to hold more strongly, then you’re a lawcuck. Law doesn’t necessarily lead to order, and there are many orders which aren’t conducive to prosperity of individuals or the white race; North Korea is an orderly hellhole.

If you are a lawcuck you’re my enemy as an actualist and you’re an enemy of the alt-right. The reason is simple: laws are words given power by others. They don’t need to be consistent or make sense. If obeying the law is your highest standard, then you are at the whim of those who can ensnare you with legal language, typically those with a (((HIGH VOIBAL IQ))). How’s that been working out, white man?
I’m not saying it’s tactically wise to attack the police; I understand the need to get behind the axehead to punch the person wielding it, but I don’t see people calling for those kinds of attacks either. A temporary police absence or reduction in enforcing certain laws isn’t chaos as was shown after the deaths of Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

You’re also my enemy if you think that individuals enforcing laws which lead to peaceful order, whether they’re written by legislatures or “natural law,” are wrong and that only the institution of police should have this power. This is the difference between saying that only licensed plumbers should be able to solder two pipes together versus licensure as certification for certain insurance or contract purposes.

The alt-right is going to have to step up and begin enforcing a different form of order than the institutions have been enforcing for the last several decades. Capturing the institutions is one way of doing so, but there are many roadblocks to doing so, and it might be necessary to operate outside of institutions as well.
Those who undermine attempts to have a peaceful, orderly society with freedom for whites to prosper is the enemy. Any police officer doing so is an enemy by a different name… pig.