White People Worldwide:

Resist or regret
Work for what's good for our people
Help stem the dark tide
Stand tall or be beat down
Fight back or die



Monday, July 11, 2016

POLICE VIOLENCE -- THE OFFENSIVE, INSULTING, AND JUST PLAIN WRONGHEADED VIEWPOINTS OF PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival
(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible -- do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media -- pass it on and spread the word)

by Val Koinen
July 11, 2016

Note to readers:  I was prepared to post this analysis/critique first thing this morning, July 11, when I noticed Dr. Roberts had posted a follow-up to his article of July 8 (the subject of this critique). Some good stuff in that one; some not so good (in my opinion, of course).  On balance, I decided my observations and criticism remained valid regardless of Dr. Roberts' latest article on the subject (which I would urge you to read here), so I am posting my thoughts at this time, as written before I read that second post and without any discussion of the points he made therein.

Under the doctrine of 'fair use' reproduction of copyrighted material in order to facilitate critical review of and commentary on said material, I have reproduced the below article which was originally posted by Paul Craig Roberts on his website on July 8.

It seems to me that Dr. Roberts has 'gone off the deep end' in this article.  Frankly, as a law-abiding White American citizen, I find some of his concepts and word choices, and particularly his inappropriate generalizations and his analyses of police officers' responsibilities to their own well-being and to their families, as opposed to their responsibilities to (oftentimes Negro) perpetrators and their families, to be misguided, offensive, and insulting.

He persists throughout the article in failing to distinguish between the majority-White American 'public' and the lower IQ, lower impulse-control, and more criminally inclined (behaviorally deficient) Negro underclass.  He makes no distinction between the way the police relate to the 'public' at large and the ways in which they are so often forced to respond to, and the ways they are (usually wrongfully) accused of relating to, the black criminals (and, by implication, the terrorist and insurrectionist 'black lives matter' contingent of that group).

He overgeneralizes and exaggerates the wrongful behavior of the police when dealing with (implicitly) Negro mobs, rioters, and out-of-control individuals; and offers no proof, or even any real evidence, of any such wrongful behavior.

At several places he seems to be parroting (trumpeting?) the bogus complaints of the Negro street crazies.  And by doing that, I'm afraid he may be 'aiding and abetting' the riotous behavior of the black mobs, and even running the risk of encouraging yet more violence directed at the police (possibly even including more killings of policemen).

Another consideration, in view of the timing of this piece: spreading this implicitly violence-justifying drivel just now, virtually on the eve of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, could well encourage the un-American black riffraff and their White race-traitor accomplices to cause some real problems (and even casualties such as serious physical injuries and deaths) at that gathering.

Let's face the facts:  These riotous and felonious Negro mobs and individuals are, for the most part, low-intelligence, low-impulse-control, high-criminality, civilly disobedient and in large measure relatively uncivilized, riot-inclined destroyers of lawful and peaceful society.  They have proven themselves, on average and as a group, to be genetically unfit and intellectually unqualified to share, to participate in, our Eurocentric, Western-Civilization-style culture and society.  They have had more than 150 years to become productive and constructive members of American society and, by and large, they have failed miserably.

Police violence and police brutality against the 'public' are not the real problem, even though those kinds of things most certainly do happen far more often than they should, even with regard to the White population. The racial (biologic/genetic) shortcomings of the Negroes, their hatred for White people (as constantly stoked by the complicit and culpable Jews), and their criminal behavior, are the problems.

I just wish Dr. Roberts, with his education, experience, and background in high-level government positions, would keep these things in mind:  (a) we don't always know exactly what was going through the minds of police officers involved in shootings and other violence directed at members of the 'public;' but (b) we do have a pretty clear idea of what the black rioters, criminals, and suspects who deliberately refuse to obey police officers have in mind.  And (c) we damned well do know what the intentions of cop-killer Micah Xavier Johnson were in Dallas this past Thursday evening.

Here, then, is the link to the original article:

Why Dallas Happened by Paul Craig Roberts

And here is Roberts' article with my annotated comments [in red]:

Is the Dallas police shooting a false flag affair in behalf of gun control?
[Always possible due to our Jew-controlled, substantially Marxist, anti-White, anti-2nd amendment government.  But I think it is highly unlikely in this case (even though the government will most assuredly use this incident to push for more gun control).  We can't always explain everything with a 'conspiracy theory.']
Is it the result of a war veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder?
[Other than his military training, do we know that the perp was a 'war veteran' in the true sense of the term?  Considering that he was never involved in combat, what basis do we have for thinking he might have been 'suffering from post traumatic stress disorder'?  Is Roberts just making lame excuses for the actions of this murderous Negro?]
Is the shooting the beginning of retribution for thousands of wanton police murders of US citizens in the 21st century?
[Yes, there have been lots of police killings, probably a good many too many, but I'm not so sure there have been 'thousands' (pl.) of 'wanton police murders' since the year 1999?  And, just what classes of people is Roberts including when he refers to 'US citizens'?  It sounds to me as though he is saying, or at least implying, that 'thousands of wanton police murders' justify this kind of 'retribution' on the part of blacks, the 'black lives matter' screechers and civilization-wreckers, and/or other non-Whites.]
Or is there some other explanation?
[Yeah, maybe that's the answer -- maybe it's because so many of these 'victims' (at least the ones we hear about over and over, day after day) are savage, criminal, low-IQ Negroes, with histories of past arrests and convictions for serious violent crime;  more often than not encountered when in the process of violating the law and/or when disobeying reasonable directives of the policemen, or even threatening the cops with serious bodily harm or death when they were shot.]

We will never know. The perpetrator is dead. The authorities will tell us whatever suits the purposes of authority.
[Sure, maybe so.  But Roberts implies that it is unfortunate, in that it is convenient for the authorities, that the shooter is dead.  And he makes it sound as though it is a given that the authorities will automatically tell us lies rather than tell us what he is implying is usually the 'truth' about the way the police just wantonly murdered the poor, 'innocent' black perps victims.]

We could say that the police have brought this on themselves by their undisciplined and violent behavior toward the public.
[Or, we could say that the victims, especially when they are Negroes or other non-Whites, 'brought this on themselves' by their illegal, uncooperative, or dangerously threatening behavior.  In any case, what 'public' is Roberts talking about?  Isn't his over-generalization here a little disingenuous?  Is he talking about the majority-White 'public' at large, or the savage and criminal black underclass of the crime-ridden, devastated black cities?]
On the other hand, we can hold the police chiefs, the police unions, the mayors and city councils, the governors, prosecutors, and the Justice (sic) Department responsible for failure to hold accountable those cops who murder and commit gratuitous violence against the public.
[Same comments and questions as above.]

When police execute someone
[There he goes again -- the police don't shoot criminals to stop/prevent crime or in self defense; they 'execute' them],
the excuse
[more accurately, the reason?]
is always something like this: "He reached under his shirt to his waistband. I thought he had a gun.
[You're damned right -- absent proof that the cop is lying when he relates these circumstances, that is absolutely justification for subduing the perp, including, by shooting him if that is the only reasonable and timely option available.  Is Roberts implying otherwise?]
I didn't want to leave my children fatherless and my wife a widow."
[Is Roberts suggesting that (a) the cop in a significant number of these cases has time to ponder these things before taking action; and (b) when he does get the chance to mull this over, it would be better (more 'fair') if he were to decide 'oh, what the hell -- I can afford to take a chance here -- I can most likely afford to let considerations such as these deter me from shooting this guy in order to stop him, get him under control, and protect myself and others.']
The murdered victim's wife and children, if any, are of no consequence.
[Nor should they be, Dr. Roberts -- not if, as is almost always the case, the 'victim' is in the process of threatening/assaulting/wounding/killing the cop who was, again, just doing the job he was trained to do.]

Conservatives, especially those taught to be fearful of crime, have scant objection to police murders. Their view is always: "The police wouldn't have shot him without cause."
[Maybe because in 99 out of 100 cases that is clearly the truth of the matter, you think?]
The same bias in favor of the police is why conservative jurors always convict.
[Oh, right... like they convicted O.J. Simpson?]

The liberals tend to interpret the shootings as racism, so they want to combat racism.
[I know Roberts is referring here to the killing of black 'victims' by racist White cops.  I just have to wonder -- after the murder of five unsuspecting cops by a black sniper in Dallas on July 7, would the liberals consider that to be a 'racist' killing spree?  Or the cops' subsequently killing the shooter with an explosive device a 'racist' action (taken at the express direction of the black chief of police)?] [b.t.w. -- since Roberts brought it up -- this is the sentence that makes it clear his entire article has to do with (usually White) police officers shooting and otherwise visiting violence upon non-Whites (generally Negroes).  This, together with his starting the article by referencing the shooting of mostly White police in Dallas by a Negro, at the scene of a Negro (BLM?) 'protest' demonstration generated by the recent shootings of Negroes by (mostly) White policemen, is the basis for my stressing  the racial angle and the prevalent Negro involvement, which I think are implicit in his entire essay.]

The real problem is that public authorities do not protect the public from gratuitous violence.
[What 'gratuitous violence' is Roberts referring to -- the violence of the police, or the gratuitous violence so often committed on the public and the police (and on each other) by black perps?]
Therefore, hatred and disrespect for the police are growing.
[Not with me, mister.  The reasonable, rational, and well justified hatred and disrespect growing in my brain are directed at the Negro rioters, perps and killers, and the BLM terrorists and insurrectionists.]
Routine murders by police -- several each day, almost all of which go unpunished -- are generating the kind of anger that causes people to snap and to reply to violence with violence.
[No.  What Roberts is really talking about here, whether he realizes it or not, are generally justifiable killings (not murders) by police of savage, criminal blacks.  And once again, he is placing the blame for the violence in our society on the police rather than on the predominately black criminals where it belongs.]

If the criminal justice system applied also to the police, the police would think twice before they wantonly murder.
[Before they do their jobs, stop criminals, prevent crime, and rightfully protect themselves against being slaughtered by savages?]

Being a police officer is not supposed to be risk free.
[Nobody ever said it was.  But that doesn't mean a cop should be stupid or indecisive or without regard for his own safety and the safety of the public when he is trying to do his job.]
A police officer should be concerned about the public, not merely his own family.
[Merely his own family?  And again, in comparison with the 'public' of black mobs and out-of-control perps?]
We cannot accept gratuitous police violence on the grounds that the officer's behavior is dictated by his concerns for his own family.
[Damn, I'm getting tired of this.  Roberts keeps hammering on the concept that (at least I think this is what he is saying) the police involved in these mostly completely legitimate shootings should take the time to prioritize which people should potentially be subjected to the most damage, and that the cops themselves and their families should automatically be put at the top of the list, even though it is the (usually black) perp that has generated the problem in the first place.]
If an officer cannot accept the risks of being a police officer, he should find a different occupation.
[Yes, but 'accepting risk' does not mean the same thing as being stupid, negligent in protecting oneself and members of the public, or sacrificing oneself to Negro brutality, stupidity, criminality, and savagery.]

Police violence is out of control because mayors, prosecutors, and governors are failing the public by refusing to put a halt to it. According to conservatives, punishment deters crime, but they do not apply this to the police.
[Here, it seems to me that Roberts is taking up the insurrectionist 'cause' of the BLM terrorist mobs.  In the first place, it is not so much 'police violence' that is out of control, it is the uncivilized black killers and rioters that are out of control.  And to the extent police violence is 'out of control,' I would guess that is 99.9% due to police being forced constantly to respond to the violent criminality and mob insurrection of the black marauders.]

Police violence is also out of control because of the revolution in police training which teaches police to protect themselves and to subdue the suspect regardless of cost.
[What an idiotic and irresponsible statement!  Of course the police are taught to protect themselves and to subdue suspects.  But 'regardless of cost'?  I seriously doubt that is, literally, what they are being taught.  Are they being taught to subdue an armed robbery suspect on a city bus by shooting at him when he is surrounded by innocent passengers (an example of subduing the suspect 'regardless of cost')? ]
A number of former police officers have written to me that the reason they gave up the occupation is that today police are being trained to be killers like soldiers.
[So you say, Roberts.  But even if there is some truth to that (and, admittedly, I too have some concerns about that being the case) I'm pretty certain they would be receiving that kind of training as part of a government plan to control the general population -- and in particular the patriotic White population, in the case of a constitutionally legitimized uprising against a tyrannical, Jew-dominated government dedicated to White dispossession, racial subjugation, and eventual genocide -- not to facilitate the gratuitous killing of a few random Negro street criminals, which is what we are talking about here.]

If a former police officer or someone knowledgeable about this training would describe it and its history, where it originated and why, I will post it on the website.
[But no, I am not going to hold my breath until Roberts posts this rebuttal on his website.]

2 comments:

Gem Junior said...

Koinen,
Fantastic job. Great rebuttal points in red, couldn't have said it myself. Yes, Paul Craig Roberts has been slippin IMO about things. He has always been a favorite writer of mine, but this made me fume. Where the hell has this guy been?? You should make sure he gets a copy of your notes, because he really needs schoolin.

CptnCZ said...

PCR has always kept himself from identifying racial behaviors. Maybe a political reflex. It's too bad because when you read him, he sure understand his subject, but then fails (or avoids) to draw certain obvious conclusions, for whatever reason.