my unbridled, personal opinion about "cops"

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

my unbridled, personal opinion about "cops"

by: jonathan barlow gee

July 6th-13th, 2014

tallahassee, florida, usa

contents:

introduction: deconstructing a titanic mythos

part 1: What Cops Are Not: Cops are NOT "people"

part 2: What Cops Are: Cops ARE monstrous demons

conclusion: there is no longer any such thing as "the right side of history"

introduction: deconstructing a titanic mythos

"Cops are people too." - Ancient Babylonian Legal Fiction.

People are ashamed of their pride and of their aspirations for power, and so they compromise these by destroying the goals of others as a means to attain their own ends later on. The "compartmentalization" between "work" and "home-life" which is the first symptom of this complex was originally observed in the NAZI Doctors performing human experimentation in Third Reich concentration camps by the psychologists who examined these men during the Nuremberg Trials to assess their guilt for committing atrocious war-crimes against humanity. Eventually, one has committed so many unjustifiable acts one crosses a blurry line, after which one ceases looking back with fondness to their, by now long-lost, childhood innocence. Following this is a slippery slope into sub-humanity and de-evolution. Our original ideals become tainted by our lust for survivalism and for capitalism, for hedonism, etc. and ultimately our adult self becomes completely alienated from our childhood hopes for how we wanted to turn out instead - who we'd hoped to become, but didn't. We become a physical stranger from our own self-concept (how we value ourselves).

For all these reasons people become morally lost; their guiding compass, always pointing to "true" north, ceases to help them find their way. As this occurs for each generation over time with age, the dreams of the youth inevitably get crushed beneath the grinding jack-boot of oppression in the name of social and technological "progress," which, apparently, requires an entire military industrial complex to feed itself justifications for such inhumanity. But this is merely a momentary side-effect, experienced (however devastatingly) in rapid passage along the developmental arc of social "progress" and its influence on each new generation of humanity. The "death of the soul" - that innocence, that imaginative-self, that "inner-child" - amounts to only the first moment of a very long duration spent within the prison hallways of our modern society, built by the military-industrial complex to justify inhumanity. One can no longer even comprehend the concept of "hope," let alone experience any, that one may one day escape from such a hellish torture following the "death of their soul." Above the corpse of their child-like soul, every new citizen of the modern globalist hegemony stands shattered. But never for long enough to fully comprehend it.

When they become "morally lost," they begin to pass their physical prime and their maturity begins to wane toward senility past "peak adulthood." This phase of "middle-age" may occur when one is 14 or when one is 41, but whenever it DOES occur, it ALWAYS marks the mid-point between twin radii in one's life-cycle, one "ascending" toward that moment, and one "declining" away from it. As this physical weakening and onset of decrepitude commences, people lose all confidence in the consistency of their own minds as well. They realize their impotence at their very pinnacle moment of triumph over their entire life's struggles, and, like the mythical Titan Icarus, begin to fall long before they've achieved what they'd aspired to, what they'd believed was within their reach, their true goal, now proven impossible for them to attain. This sudden, cold-blooded realization that "I failed" is more than enough to "break the spirit" of MOST modern, individual humans. As a result of this moment of extreme weakness, many fall immediately into the trap of adopting the dominant paradigm, and accepting their own "fair share" of "personal responsibility" for "maintaining law and order" and keeping society functioning in its inhumane ways. When one's personal "moral compass" is proven irreparably broken, and one feels that chilling moment of realization setting in that "all is lost," all too often individual humans will turn to seeking comfort from a dominant control system, a pre-existing philosophy that has proven to "work" over time because it applies the same tactics used historically by similar control methods in the past; in other words, it perpetuates itself by consuming the souls and life-times of its citizens, requiring their "belief" in it for it to continue to "exist" as a pure "ideal," and, by so doing, it manufactures a sub-species who, like it, are "doomed to repeat" the "mistakes of history."

Such people willingly adopt and accept cliches as the highest possible law. If you say to such a citizen, "beauty is truth, and truth beauty," they will readily agree. If you say to such a citizen that "wisdom is applied knowledge," they will eagerly confirm your assertion with countless examples from their own "personal experiences," each more mundane than the last. But to point out to such a "citizen" whose mind is basically enchained to this social "control-system" that "beauty isn't ALWAYS the same thing as truth," or that "wisdom is NOT ALWAYS the application of knowledge," or that "NOT ALL cliches are proven axioms; MOST are simply accepted truisms, but easily disproved by logic," and they will likely form a large crowd to crucify and kill you before dispersing and returning to their individual acts of business. To question the "Law of Cliches" within the "city-walls" of the modern globalist Empire is to flagrantly tempt brutal execution; to do so publicly is basically tantamount to attracting a crowd of white blood-cells to remove a splinter of wood by sticking oneself, alike such a speck, into the "all seeing eye" of the "pyramid" central to the "civic spirt" of the modern hegemony. To protect their false faith in cliches' worthy guidance, far too many people these days would be willing to shed their blood and even to die defending their "right to be wrong."

As such, MANY false truisms have been generally accepted, wrongly, as being proven universal axioms, simply because they have become memetic replicating "traditions," superstitions, "old wives' tales," or "cliches" over the last few hundred years or less. The first fact about cliches one should realize is that if you think a person said something pithy and eminently quotable, there is an insurmountably high degree of likelihood that that person never in all their own life actually ever said, thought or wrote the words you surely "KNOW" they did. The likelihood of the saying, "a penny saved is a penny earned" having originated with Ben Franklin, for example, is astoundingly low when considered in light of simple logic. MOST, if not ALL, the "great minds," the "deep thinkers" and "philosophers" throughout history have been fictional characters either in PART or in FULL, from Socrates to Shakespeare and even including Jesus and Buddha both. While most never find cause to realize it, the fact remains: you CANNOT learn "Truth" by reading it in the context where it is words being spoken by a fictional character. Putting Truth in the context of fiction makes the Truth into a Lie. Such is the value of belief in cliches, prior-extent control-systems, the military-industrial society, and our modern, globalist "Babylonian" Empire in general.

In order to decondition the minds of such "lost" and "fallen" people - those individual humans who BELIEVE their unique souls are dead, and who have internalized the goals and methodologies of their abusers, wardens and puppeteers - it is necessary, therefore (or at least expediently useful too often) to reverse-engineer their philosophical arguments from favoring their enslavement to favoring their individual freedom instead by arguing BACKWARDS from their initial beliefs, EVEN IF these ARE incorrect beliefs in fictional cliches. In other words, to address WHAT COPS ACTUALLY ARE, we find we must first address the cliche answer to this question in order to disprove this cliche, and thus to first cast off the "chaff" of WHAT COPS ARE NOT before we can even begin to address the "wheat" of WHAT COPS ACTUALLY ARE. Suffice it to say: the slogan, "cops are people too" is misleading at BEST, however, in order to fully address WHAT COPS ARE, we must begin by deconstructing this inaccurate concept in order to assert initially WHAT COPS ARE NOT.

part 1: What Cops Are Not: Cops are NOT "people"

The saying "cops are people too" is derived from the elder Roman Catholic saying about the "human nature" of priests, cardinals and the infallible Pope. In order to account for their crimes of rape and pedophilia, let alone of their bestial atrocities during the Crusades in the "holy land," Inquisition in Europe and Conquest of the "new world," Papal mandate dictated early on that, although the "Holy Father" was, as Caesar before him, always assumed infallible, this expectation of "divine grace" in mannerisms was NEVER meant to extend to ANYONE beneath that office. The "unctions" and "penance" of the serfs and peasants was, always, assumed as necessary also of the priests themselves, who likewise made confession to the cardinals and bishops etc., and who were all given forgiveness and indulgence for their sins, and their souls considered "saved," only with the SAME "mea culpa," by the SAME divine hand of the Church of Holy Mary, Mother of Rome, Herself. Thus a fief, alike a priest, could be seen to be doing "God's works" during the more agrarian era of the Maudner minimum and, in this sense at least, feudalism was actually MORE egalitarian than life in our modern, globalist Empire. Originally, the saying "priests are people too" was meant as an admonishment to "forgive the abuses of authority" and to "turn the other cheek" to state violence in the form of coercive extortion racketeering (mandatory tithing and taxes) and occasionally of military conscription (drafts). When everyone around you is a cowering fool, "patience is a virtue" replaces any better, more "golden" rule. With patience, forgiveness and more rugged endurance in rougher living conditions, the land-working debt-slaves of the land-owners survived by serving the Pope's will as law before their own king's. Thus, not forgiving a priest may have once seemed a more unforgivable sin in itself than any mortal crimes that could have been committed by that priest. Such was the era of peak Papal authority, prior to Martin Luther.

Following Martin Luther, the Pope's authority as a singular ruler has waned in direct proportion to the growth of power among the various nation-states divided by treaty-ratified borders, and, to the extent these nation-states' politics has been guided by a larger group (such as in a republic or democracy) rather than by any one individual alone or by their small group of cronies and sycophantic "yes-men" (such as in our modern, globalist Empire), Papal authority has weakened. The "Universal" religion of Rome has been replaced by that of purist "scientific materialism," the role of "God" usurped by Charles Darwin and that of "Christ" by Thomas Malthus. Replacing the Roman Caesar or Pope with a plenum of nationalistically divided ambassadors MAY SEEM to be retrograde to the development of a hegemony in the form of a single-person dictator, ruling a global empire. However, posing a direct threat to the seat of Papal authority (by holding up a mirror to Medusa, so to speak), has caused the "scientific materialist" religion to collapse inward upon itself as well, and to begin artificially (commercially) reducing the intelligence of biological people in order to de-evolve them and cause them to become increasingly dependent on cyborg, electronic telecommunications technologies to supplement their diminishing standards for themselves even being "human beings" anymore at all. In this regard the "god" of "scientific materialism," Charles Darwin, is a "god that failed" no less so than Jesus Christ, the supposed "sun-god" deity of Roman Catholicism, and "son of God," the Messiah, although he was rejected as such in truth, whom, likewise, tried to teach civility and manners to a people dedicated to their brutish ways. In this sense, the modern religion of "scientific materialism" has failed exactly as much in terms of benefitting humanity, of improving us morally, as has Rome.

Under the reign of the religion of "scientific materialism," albeit short and merely recent, rapid technological developments were accomplished leading up to the present moment in history, immediately following the moment when we decoded the genetic recipe of our own unique biological DNA, and immediately prior to the moment when we will successfully build a "sentient" or "self-aware" silicone electronic machine, during which "cops" have replaced "priests" as the "moral authority" for the dominant hegemony of our modern, globalist Empire. And so now what was once spoken as Law about priests is said, by cliche, about cops as well: they're "only human." But let us contrast and compare these concepts further: if a peasant can perform "Godly works" no less so than an ordained Cardinal of Rome, then "priests ARE people too." If priests and people are both the same, and yet "cops" have replaced the role of "priests" relative to the larger masses of the "people," then "cops," by replacing "priests," distance themselves from being EITHER "priests" OR "people." Thus, "cops" are like "priests," only MORESO. This means that, on a scale with "priests" in between "cops" on one end and "people" on the other, the less like traditional "priests" the "cops" become, the more vast the distance becomes between "cops" and what morally and logically defines a human being as a "person" as well. In a sense, this argument applies dialectical trinitarianism, which SHOULD be an unnecessary tactic, and which SHOULD cancel out its value. But ultimately there are a surplus of alternative arguments, each increasingly logically valid, to contradict the concept that dividing people into task or role-based economic-classes (be they serfs and priests or citizens and cops) benefits their own or anyone else's more humane idealism at all.

A person is an individual human being first, but they BECOME a "person" in addition to this when they become aware of their legal status as "citizen" of a nation, relative to the modern, globalist Empire, and begin to attract themselves toward others who share their philosophical affectations relative to this concept. Contrary to the definition in "Black's Law Dictionary" of a "person" as a "legal fiction" - denoting that "rights" are assumptions taken onto oneself only in company of other human beings, alike themselves, and essentially implying that, when a human being is alone, they are NOT a "person" relative to a society or a state, and that, only when in the presence of other citizens alike themselves does a human being become legally a "person" (or, more accurately, a "personality assemblage," or most simply, a "personage," which at least IMPLIES the difference in being a "public role-model" from being a "private citizen") - a "person" CANNOT escape their NATURE as such: each individual human being is a "person" and each "person" is UNIQUE genetically no matter how much they might wish to look, talk, dress, talk or act like some more "archetypal" heroic figurehead idol. Each person is unique: this is the inescapable nature that defines the term.

As such, "people" have "rights" that they bestow upon themselves and, via contract, on one another. Like "priests" during the "Dark Ages," nowadays ALL people have virtually identical expectations for their "rights" as citizens, and these are of a much higher standard than those ever afforded to serfs during the feudal era. For example, the "right to learn, to know how, and to be allowed, to read" is taken so much for granted nowadays it's never even mentioned in ANY nation or international body's precious lists of "human dignities" or so-called "bills of rights." Yet prior to the invention of the printing press and the first publication of the Gutenberg Bible, humanity's literacy rate was historically low, primarily due to the same tactic of severely limiting public education as a method for increased influence and social control by a single hegemony being applied by the contemporary Popes and Kings as had been applied by the Pharaohs to coerce the slaves to construct the pyramids of Giza in ancient Egypt. Likewise, without popular spread of knowledge about the concept of them, the ideals of "rights" would be no more important today, post-American revolution, than they were for hundreds of years prior to this event for Catholics and Protestants competing across European Christendom. Without interest in intellect, people would remain uninformed of their legal status and their incumbent "rights," and would not be able to act accordingly relative to knowledge of these "dignities" or "legal entitlements." For example, we have the "right" to "own property." What other species of animal would put such a preposterous premise down in stone as the unalterable scripture of their "Law"? Of course, in truth, humanity has no more "right" to "own property" than a tree does to pretending it "owns" the soil surrounding and burying its roots. If a human can claim to "own" the land MORESO than does the tree, simply because we can uproot or cut down the tree that was, anyway, there before us (in many cases, by hundreds or even thousands of years), then the concept of what constitutes a "right" is, and rightly, shattered in its meaningfulness, use and value.

However, again, we cannot yet define what a "Right" truly IS until after we have fully finished defining what a "Right" is NOT. Even if, at this point, it would seem "Rights" are merely mental ideas that SHOULD have zero bearing or influence on social events in reality, there remains the fact that "People Have Rights," and that this, when coupled with the fact that "cops are NOT people," results logically in the reasonable conclusion that "COPS HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS." Consider this: from the perspective of the State, symbolized by cops as the enforcers of our modern, globalist Empire's religion of "scientific materialism," people have no rights. However, from the perspective of "we, the people," it is the State, and thus their representative intruders into our lives, who have no rights, least of all to do so as they do. In this model, we COULD include the role of "priest" again to balance the equation around, positing that "people" and "cops" BOTH have LESS "Rights" than "priests." But ultimately, the mirror in the middle reflects only one half of the picture (as before in the metaphor involving Medusa), and so its inclusion only serves to destabilize between the twin opposite poles of the pair over "who has MORE Rights" between "people" and "cops," when in truth, as we have just seen, the answer is neither, because "rights" do NOT exist in reality, and thus cannot be owned, saved and counted-up for status; they are merely an abstract idea that is shared by all and disagreed upon by all also. If there are NO SUCH THING as "rights," then it is futile to count up who has "MORE" of them and who has "LESS." The same is true of modern, federal reserve note, fiat-currency, paper-cash, "money."

Nevertheless, by creating the social role of "cops," this is exactly what the modern "Law" does, treating "rights" as though there were a limited available amount of them, and that they cannot, therefore, be shared by ALL people alike, but that they must, therefore, be divvied out to ONLY certain people and NOT to the majority. Thus, the MORE "rights" cops have, the LESS "rights" people have, and vice versa, with the politicians acting as the heads of nation-states ascribing within their borders the "laws" that allocate who gets what "rights." In America, for example, the cops nowadays are guaranteed technology to protect their list of personal "rights," as they were, once upon a time, guaranteed by America's Constitution's authors in the first 10 Amendments to ALL people; the remainder of the population, the "people" who are NOT "cops," however, are NOT nowadays allowed these technological insurances for their personal liberty's protection. If the average citizen were to walk around carrying a wooden baton, a can of pepper-spray, hand-cuffs, a taser, a gun, a flash-light and a two-way radio on their utility-belt they would, and rightly, look and be seen as looking ridiculous. Yet these weapons ensure the safety of their carrier to act on their will with impunity, to "do what they wilt," and THIS is the TRUE "whole of the Law." But, instead of EVERYONE having the right to carry around all these tools of "law enforcement," as was intended in America, ONLY "cops" are "legally" allowed to. If these weapons keep the "cops" safe, why can't we ALL be allowed to have them? Wouldn't that mean we could ALL keep ourselves "safe" then? And if everyone can keep themselves "safe" on their own, what use remains for the social role of "cops" at all?

part 2: What Cops Are: Cops ARE monstrous demons

The first thread that constitutes the "moral fiber" of being a "cop," which, by donning, is all it takes to make one an actual "cop" themselves, lies in what causes a normal human being to self-select into the profession of police enforcement agent to begin with and in what it takes to make one want to become a "cop." What is the allure of being a "cop" that allows the role to become romanticized enough, promising enough, to entrap otherwise moral and sane human beings into a profession that demands they become neither, and causes them to reject both? The staggering truth behind this pleasant veneer of civic duty and the usefulness of "moral" law and order is that the majority of humanity are, in reality, inhumane monsters who side with the role of law enforcement. Because they side with them, they do not care what tactics they use to get their job done. For this "silent, moral majority," the police are only another form of garbage men, taking out the human trash; detracting this element from their own humanity so that the remainder of "good people" may remain hypnotised in their detached condition of mass delusion called "civilization," "civility" and "civil" when life is none of these in truth. In this regard, the vast majority of humanity are totally beyond any "redemption" to either a morally "good" or logically "ethical" way of thinking. In short, the majority of the human species are doing terrible damage to the environment simply by continuing to live, eat and breed, and unless the immediate damage being done by this extremely large percentage of our species is addressed and cleaned up quickly, then it will not matter if we, in the "minority" who are "right," are so or not, because we will be, regardless of our potential assets, dragged down into destruction along with this larger group of degenerate filth passing itself off as "humanity." However, herein we arrive at an insurmountable conundrum: their own suicidal urge to self-destruct is the very damning trait itself within these meat sacks that denegrates their value initially. If they saw in themselves and in each other the full potential for human aspirations' achievements to be acomplished that is actually present within us each and all, and if for even a single instant perceived the totality of our cosmos as being no greater than a grain of sand within the full reach of our already present grasp, as it indeed is, then humanity would achieve its ultimate destiny, attain its maximum potential for becoming "like unto gods," and would quickly be able to prove whether or not they possess the "moral maturity" to handle such unlimited free-energy power. However, because the likelihood remains they will NOT be presented with ANY situation that will allow them to attain, even instantaneously, this perception of insight into themselves and one another that would set their minds free to acquire their wildest dreams, then they will, instead, need to be exterminated prior to their being able to realize they already have this infinite potential capacity for mind-over-matter even now. And, thus, again we come to the conundrum because, as has been pointed out already, the lemmings among humanity willingly agree. They frequently jump out of airplanes, engage in mass homicide (genocide, war, etc.), hunt for sport, torture for fun and engage in the most insufferable acts of sexual cruelty on ones they claim to "love," simply to taunt death. They are, in brief, intelligent enough to know they are dangerously stupid, but not intelligent enough to not be violently proud about this small amount of factual knowledge. They see "intelligence" beyond a certain point as a threat to their safety, their "comfort zone" in risking their lives doing the dumbest things they can imagine. A pet fish, they reason, does not need to know the first thing about the world beyond its aquarium. Intelligence is, thus, by them compartmentalized into various categories from "need to know" to "classified" to "file 13," etc. The majority of what people value knowing about is technically mental garbage anyway. It is enough for most to base their lives on hearsay, gossip and rumors, without ever applying scientific methodologies to test the conjectures to which they happen to become exposed. People are, for the most part, dangerous fools. They are ignorant and proud; they are arrogantly and brazenly fool-hardy, especially with their own physical safety because, to each of these sordid sort of leeches, their own lives are the least important of all their ultimately irrelevant possessions. They do not care because they cannot care. They do not know any better, they will not learn anything that could help them to become better, and they are therefore eager when it comes their turn to be used as cannon fodder aimed toward achieving their statistical martyrdom. To such people, the ONLY reason they do not commit suicide by pouring gasoline over themselves and lighting a match is their hypothetically guilty feelings if they were to continue to exist after doing so and experience the impact their death would cause on other people, particularly their friends, family and loved ones. The point this class of monarchically moronic modern proto-troglodytes exist to overlook, apparently, is that if they ALL took that step, TOGETHER, then no one would be left who would miss them, and the world would instantly become a much better place because of all their deaths.

As such, an extremely large number of people are alive right now who are actually dangerous to themselves, to other people, to other life-forms, to the planet, and even to material reality universally as well. This problem has proven NOT to be as simple to solve as it sounds. Granted, if somehow they could all simply be ALLOWED to die off, as in one enormous catastrophe that would, by some "miracle," limit itself to the extinction of only all people who fit a certain personality description (such as being stupid and proud, for example), then there would be nothing left to discuss about this topic at all. However, until such time as said "miracle" of chance occurrance does come to pass, the problem will remain that there are at least 7 billion human beings walking upright around the surface of this planet right now who deserve to die sooner than later. However, as mentioned previously, a certain logical conundrum causes our intellects sufficient pause to apparently have paralysed us into utter inactivity: these people deserve to die because they think that they do; they hate people, so they deserve to die; they think everyone around them is inferior to themselves, and their lesser, placed to serve them or be punished, and that everyone, ultimately, fails to live up to their own personal standards, even, ultimately, themselves, and so, thusly, they think that everyone deserves to die, even including themselves. In short, the people who deserve to die themselves are the people who think of others as deserving to die. This creates an insurmountable paradox in logic, a tautology that cannot be disentangled; and yet, the demiurge within all these "people" remains their primary motivator, and thus it continues to act regardless of its doing so creating a cycle of abuse fueled by an infinitely repeating feedback loop based on false reasoning. Because "good" people cannot give into the death-wish of "evil" people, "good" people cannot simply let "evil" people die. Doing so would cause them too much mental stress and emotional anguish, apparently; for whatever reason, the very stupidity of our present situation itself proves to be enough to blind-side any intellectual discourse on this moral conundrum directly. "How does one defeat evil if by using violence against it one becomes evil themselves?" is a question rarely, if ever, asked anymore. Instead, we find the "final solution" proposed by the idiots themselves: just kill them; resort to their tactics, disgrace our standards for shame at immoral violence and de-sanctify our ideals. If a leper comes up to you in the desert with no one watching the two of you besides God, and asks you to kill him, is it truly wrong, a murder, or at all a criminal act to do so? And yet, intellectuals, lost in this modern moral wasteland, are so disenchanted by these conditions of their current existence that they cannot even imagine how to react, let alone begin to actually do so. The conundrum of "moral logic" prevents us: when forced to choose only between a "greater" and a "lesser" evil, we cannot do ANYTHING "Right" at ALL because it is a "no-win" situation. No matter what we do, we are doomed. Existence is, in this manner, alike a game with no rules, impossible to win, and playing which, we are led to believe, is utterly inescapable. Given these parameters, the mind attempting to reason "moral logic" simply switches off and shuts down. However, this does not mean the bodies of these minds also cease operating. Once one realizes the world we live in is in a perpetual state of decay - financially, morally, even sub-atomically - at all times, and that this is simply an unavoidable natural fact, one ceases to be able to justify their continued existence, but one does not also, necessarily, spontaneously cease existing (would this were the case, though!). After one's individual mind has shut off, and their body continues to act on its own accord, walking about endangering itself and the lives of others by its flagrant disregard for personal boundaries and other social conventions, then this thing may be said to be a living human body, but NOT a "person" in the sense of any legal definition of a "sentient being possessed of personal rights." Once the mind gives up, the "soul" dies or, more accurately, atrophies and is replaced as the primary motivator of the body by the false promises of the existent "government" that it can HELP these bodies meet the requirements of their daily survival. When the "soul" or the "original ego" of a human being's body dies prior to the death of their biological body itself, the body does not immediately realize this event has occurred. It continues to see its younger self reflected in the mirror, and simply pretends blindness to the daily accumulation of differences between its actual appearance and its own narcissistic ideal. But these differences comprise the "skin thickness" of a demonic exo-skeletal shell that encrusts as armor around this "inner-child" self-image of the "original ego" or "soul," until ultimately, ONLY this outer-demon truly exists, and the image it dreams of itself once having been dies within it. If one sees themselves as innocent, but acts out in a violent, hostile and aggressive manner constantly, their "self-image" will eventually denegrate beside their perceived "public image," and who they THINK they are in private will not "save their souls" from how they are judged by others based on their unpopular actions in public. Once one admits and accepts this fact about themselves, one realizes they have already become one of the self-hating "problem" people, and then may choose if they wish to continue being such or to change their ways (although, at such a point, any life-style change besides suicide is hopelessly superficial, and thus futile, irrelevant and pointless). Because 100% of these "demons" who have acquiesed into the role of "citizens" under a "government" lack the moral will to do the right thing and kill themselves, most people who have thought through this topic to this extent fatalistically embrace their descent into demise, destruction and doom and appeal for assistance to any pre-existent authority. By petititioning the "government" for additional access to necessities for their bodily survival, by asking it for additional "rights" and by appealing the ediface of the "State" for expanded personal authority, people who continue to live on even after they realize they are no longer human beings - who have become nothing more than disgusting, self-serving, evil demons and slaves to the devil of the "government" that has replaced their originally human ideal of "god" - are generally granted their wish by this entity embodying collectivization, and become "cops," whose job is to "serve and protect" the legal authority of the State.

So, the people who become "cops," who "self-select" into this "profession," are, by pre-requisite, the sort of people who feel themselves lesser than or lacking compared to other people in the affectation of personal "rights." If one "loves the law," one is free to (at least try to) become a lawyer. But the personality type that becomes a "cop" is NOT the same as that of someone who wants to be a lawyer. Cops, although being seen by and large (although falsely) as "protectors of the law," are by no means required to be informed of its actual current content. Police are not "lawyers with guns" who "serve and protect" on the "front-lines" of "law enforcement." That is massive folly. In reality, the situation is that 99.99% of all police globally haven't got ANY legal training, nor ANY desire to acquire any. It is NOT for "love of the law" that people self-select into the police-force. It is because they desire the expanded rights afforded to cops in general. In short, it's LITERALLY for the free doughnuts. They desire "more rights" because they feel, nascently, they LACK a normal amount of "rights." They feel deprived, or in some other way impaired, and demand equality for themselves to the average citizenry. And so, to "protect the rights" of the "disenfranchised" (like themselves, they reason), they join together and form up into a gang of thugs who employ violence as their sole tactic to suppress everyone else. If society were considered a carnival, "cops" would consider themselves the "carnies," but the carnies themselves (the politicians) would reason the "cops" as they truly are: the freaks. The physiological body-type of people who self-select into the roles of cops are even uglier and even more hideously exaggerated, because they are so intentionally, than the average social worker. Being a drooling tub of undigested junk food sitting behind an IBM computer terminal in an air-conditioned office as an employee of "the state" is already MORE than freakish enough. The sort of people who apply for work as secretaries and clerks for the "State" are, for the large part, the ugliest and least human of all "human beings;" aside from "cops." Society, however, has rammed down the public's collective throat that being "buff" and overly muscular is "sexy" and "attractive" when it is not (it certainly is not so necessarily, as being "physically fit" is not the same as what is meant by "survial of the fittest" in the annals of Darwin), and so, in spite of our instincts finding the average, overwieght and malproportioned police officer to be a grotesquery out of some gothic horror novel, we are conditioned to generally swallow our judgment of these sub-human degenerate scum-bags, and pretend to politely forgive their condition of mental retardation, and to honestly "respect their authority." Due to decades and centuries of psycho-social conditioning via massive propaganda campaigns, it is now ALMOST possible for MOST average citizens to look a cop in their mirror-reflective eye-glasses and say, without bursting into laughter, "I forgive you for requiring my full compliance." However, one must factor into this as well that is has been an entire aeon of 2000 years since "cops" killed Jesus, the present figurehead for the State as "god." During this entire period of time, their role in this fictional drama has been exhonerated and their duties therein forgiven by Papal decree, but it has only been relatively recently by comparison, during the last century of 100 years, that "police" have again become an accepted social class, as they were an aeon ago in the form of the Imperial Roman Legions. The "popularization" of the role of "cops" has not been easy. It requires millions of dollars annually just to pay otherwise moral and sane human beings to write, star in, direct and produce fictional television shows and movies glorifying the profession. Meanwhile, cops themselves do nothing to deserve this demi-deification by the sychophantic diaspora atheists and homosexuals in Hollywood, and go about their daily duties breaking every law, either "ethical" and political, "moral" and religious, or both, whenever they can. Cops themselves comprise a zodiac of bizarre human-animal hybrids and apparent genetic anomolies. Some look like "bulls" or "bears," "whales" or other large mammals. Others looks like deformed forms of squash or some kind of vegetable. None of them are as smart as the animals or vegetation they may resemble, however. Ever since 9-11, there is an unspoken, even if (probably) not unwritten, law that nobody with a positive integer intelligence quotient may petition to join the police force. If anyone happens to break this law, even on accident, they will be laughed into the unemployment line at best, and more probably find themselves under investigation by "internal affairs" over planted evidence for distribution of child-pornography charges. "Cops" don't like "good people." Whenever a "good person" has tried to become a "good cop," they have, inevitably, encountered overwhelming resistance from their coworkers. The idea that such a thing as a "good cop" even CAN exist is only a myth that cops allow to perpetuate because it assists them in interrogation rooms to pretend to be one, even if only in order to then "sucker punch" their unususpecting, kidnapped victims with physical intimidation or the threat thereof. Violence is NOT the "last resort" for cops; it is their ONLY tool. The profession of cops is like a one-note tune, and that one, unpleasant note they call "conflict escalation."

All in all, cops are monsters. But this means next to nothing when one considers that the majority of "people" are not even human beings but have de-evolved into demons. The majority of "people" are already demonic monsters, but what distinguishes cops and sets them apart from the rest of us is that they KNOW they are demonic monsters, they have accepted this about themselves, and they see their struggle to forgive themselves for this being a true trait about themselves every day reflected outside of themselves in the form of other people, who they see collectively (and who can argue it is not rightly so?) as demonic monsters who deserve at best a quick death. Cops hate people. But what is worst about cops is that it is NOT "evil" people cops hate. Cops ARE evil "people." Cops hate "good" people. To cops, anyone who wishes to do "good," to do the "right" thing, who wishes to stay "clean" and live "crime-free" is a SUSPECT. There are only two types of people in the entire world from the limited perspective of cops: 1) victims. 2) criminals. Everything is binary, black or white, simple and direct to them. The "law" is NOT a complex tapestry of moral compromises woven by contractual agreements between consenting, self-aware monkeys, it is simply "possession" of "stolen property." If you are in "possession" of "stolen property" then there is ONLY ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: YOU stole it, YOU are a "criminal" and YOU deserve to be kidnapped, tortured, humiliated sexually and ultimately killed. There is no questioning what constitutes "stolen property" for the "mind" of a cop (such as one may call what cops have that substitutes by proxy for what we call our own "minds," although it remains merely a vague and nebulous approximation of such by comparison). If anyone asks a question they automatically become a SUSPECT. If you are suspicious about anything intellectually, cops will consider you as being "suspicious" in return. That is how they interpret their job's duties, in the same manner as a pig "interprets" the role of its own existence to be wallowing in flith and eating its own excrement. To cops, the "law" is simple: victims do not need to ask questions. If you ask questions, you are being "suspicious," and only criminals rightly attract "suspicion." If you are NOT a "victim" you are a "criminal." In the same way a "victim" is "Right" to FEAR a "criminal," a "criminal" is "Right" to LOVE their "victims." From the perspective of the criminal, their actions constitute a deranged form of expressing the same emotion as, for the "victim" they experience in the form of natural fear; however, the cop reasons, the "criminal" thinks of their victims' FEAR as being LOVE itself; and this makes the cops jealous. In the protoplasmic broth of unformed half-lit notions that passes for logic among cops, this makes sense because "it is better to be feared than loved," as any and every cop already knows. Cops see themselves as criminals, but must publicly pretend to be victims themselves. They think like "criminals" do, and without cops enforcing it as law, there would technically be no such definition as "criminal." Cops ARE organized crime. They are engaging in extortion, racketeering, conspiracy to defraud the public trust and coercion every time they accept a "free service" from any private sector business. The fact these are technically "crimes" themselves and all "against the law" that cops SUPPOSEDLY exist to "serve and protect" is irrelevant, apparently, considering that cops do these things anyway every hour of every day in modern times. In order to "protect and serve" the "law" it has always been understood to be necessary for cops to be "above the law" themselves. The "Law," therefore, exists to suppress the "common people," "ein volk," the "masses" or the "citizenry" to the same amount it allows their improvement in social station by releasing cops from required obedience to it. If, as it DOES, the United States Constitution says "everyone has the human right to carry weapons around," and yet, in modern application of this universal law, only cops are legally allowed to carry around weapons, it does not mean the universality of this innate human right has been silently repealed; it merely means only cops are being legally allowed the amount of human rights guaranteed by the US Consitution to all free citizens. In effect, this means "only cops are citizens," as the Constitution gaurantees protection for the human rights of only US citizens, and, at present, "the rights of cops come first" because "cops are more important to society than average citizens." And, in truth, this is the case: of the globalist empire, "only cops are citizens." The remainder of us are merely chattle and fodder for them to trample over, spit at and defecate on.

conclusion: there is no longer any such thing as "the right side of history"

ALL cops deserve to die. Technically, ALL PEOPLE deserve to die, otherwise no one ever would; thus it is somewhat specious to say that cops, in specific, deserve to die. However, it is insufficient to express the urgency with which this requisite deserves to be dealt with to simply say: "cops should be first in line to the concentration camps." Again, the logical conundrum of imposing an impossibly lofty moral axiom onto a disappointingly insufficiently moral reality applies: cops ARE first in line to the concentration camps; they're simply also the last ones to leave. It is safe to posit that, were the purpose of concentration camps to be the torture and execution ONLY of police officers, they would certainly not be so lacking in public popularity. However, again, to "fight fire with fire," one must BECOME the very flame they wish to extinguish, and so it would SEEM that death camps and mass extermination would be, perhaps, "too good" for police. Therefore, the problem posed by police remains and festers in open daylight like a sore hemorrhoidal pustule on the anus of Lady Liberty. What can be done to eradicate either the existence of this portion of the population, who are not only "arrogantly ignorant" ("stupid and proud," etc.) but who are also intentionally immoral (willfully "demonic"), who pose as "cops" in modern times, or else to de-romanticize this role and make it less appealing for those lacking any other refuge for their evil and destructive mannerisms? Obviously, the role of "cop" and what constitutes being a "cop" can be redefined, and the role changed to a different set of duties than it has in modern times, and then this issue could be considered closed. However, if this were the case, the personality type that self-selects into the profession of "cops" now would merely migrate to another profession and glut its ranks with their odious existences and mannerisms. If you stopped making "cop" an appealing job for only "playground bullies" to apply for, this would NOT cause there to cease being such "playground bullies" in society, and they would simply enter a different vocational field then, and then we would have the same problem with that career as we presently do with "cops." It would change the social situation little if, after all, such jerks no longer became "cops" but instead all became gym teachers or aerobics instructors as they more reasonably at least already should. Then we would just have a massive social problem of gym teachers carrying weapons around in public and muscling free doughnuts from private companies instead of, as we do now, "cops" doing these things. If you doubt this is the case, it is likely because you yet labor under the delusion that "cops" have anything at all to do with the "law." However, imagine there were no "cops." Would there then be no such thing as "law" even in theory, even in books and on paper or even as only an abstract ideal? And yet, without "cops" to pollute this pursuit, how much more noble might the aspiration to study this ideal truly yet become? If "cops" did NOT taint the "law" with their own crimes, it would only serve to more greatly ennoble the "law;" whereas, without the "law" to use as their excuse, "cops" would be much more easily seen as what they basically already anyway are: a gang of overly muscular, macho jocks with guns and a superiority complex. If "cops" are distinct from the "law," then they have no excuse for their superiority complex. Only if "cops" are falsely connected in a person's mind with the concept of the "law" does the notion begin to take form inside the skull of the police-monster that they may "do what they wilt" with utter impunity from any legally justifiable consequences to that person, at least, specifically. As long as "cops" and the "law" are mistaken as being even "on the same side," let alone as being "one and the same" thing themselves, then the ONLY "law" that will shape the future for humanity will be that of "might makes right." There is even greater equilibrium in the natural "laws of the jungle" than in this gross misunderstanding by self-professed "Christians" of so-called "Darwinism." In truth, "right" is only what exists UNTIL it is toppled and replaced by MIGHT. Once "Might" usurps the role of what is "Right," there no longer IS any such thing as "morality" or "ethics," as "right" or "wrong," nor as "good" or "evil." There only remains what is at least necessary and at best beneficial to one's own personal survival, and everyone else may as well be damned. This is NOT "society," "civilization" nor "order." This is legally sanctioned crime being committed by officers of the "State." When "cops" replace "criminals," then there is NO "Law," and ALL return to their natural condition of total liberty.

Just as, not until a person has been forced to use "money" in exchange for the food they need to survive will they truly understand the "value" of capitalism, so too can no "free citizen" know what being a "cop" and thus what being a "slave to the law" itself is truly like. Suffice it to say, from overly ample evidence, this life-style is brutal in the extreme. Public pepper-spraying of detained student protestors, public execution of "suspects'" pets, "warrantless search and seizure" in "random traffic stops" or "house to house" in so-called "no knock raids," be they during "anti-terrorism response preparedness drills and exercises," as they sometimes are, or solely for the entertainment of military-surplus glut-funded local police departments, as they likewise sometimes are, all these are merely the tip of the iceberg of legalese documentation piling up nowadays involving police brutality. The use of "sting-rays" - a type of large area covering, cell-phone eavesdropping technology - by certain local police departments has literally been erased from public record due to a "non-disclosure" and "confidentiality" agreement required of its users by the private-sector manufacturers of the spy-gear itself. In every single instance of police brutality in the USA, the "justice system" of the USA has sided with the cops. In the instance I mentioned only one instant ago, involving a cop pepper-spraying detained student protestors, the cop who did that petitioned for and was granetd additional health insurance pay for requiring psychological counseling after the event. Well, no kidding; really! Anyone who thought they had a soul before being ordered to and obeying the order to torture innocent detainees for no legally justifiable reason at all is liable to suffer from some at least minor amount of emotional trauma as a direct result of doing so themselves as well; this much should be expected, as is "blow-back" expected by the US CIA when that "intelligence agency" intervenes in the politics of a foreign sovereign nation it has no business inserting itself into as well. Anyone with even only one brain-cell would be able to tell you, you can expect that if you poke something with a pin it will retract itself away from this negative, hurtful and harmful sensation and that, if you go around poking pins at people or at reality in general, eventually you'll feel the sting of the needle yourself as well. Does the officer deserve this additional pension for having obeyed an immoral order? No. He deserves to be publically pepper sprayed by his own victims, and until he is, he is going to need to have AT LEAST psychotherapeutic counseling to quell his "inner-demons" reminding him of his choice to side with evil and publicly pledge his soul to Satan. This much is simple cause-and-effect and should NOT be footed on their tax-payer funded bills by the "State." But even this example is merely the LEAST of all the offensive crimes against humanity commited by this "standing army" stationed on American soil since 9-11. Some are so horrid I would prefer to not even elaborate on them. Suffice it to say that "cops" (on some level of either local or national security, but probably on ALL levels thereof) are watching everything we do, all the time. They are playing "god." And this is unacceptable. The definition of what constitutes a "cop" has been sunk so low in the standards for its hiring practices that now one need not even be a "human being" to become a cop. One may skip the process of losing their childhood innocence and becoming a heartless automaton for the Statist status quo now by never even being a human being at all in the first place. MOST "cops" nowadays are actually robots. A soulless, silicon-component, electronic machine does not have to be either self-motivating nor self-aware to be called a "robot." A clock inside a VCR is actually an example of one robot existing even independently inside of another robot. All electronic machines can be called "robots." And between surveillance cameras at EVERY traffic intersection, "ATMs" (automated teller machines at banks), "stealth drones" (armed, remote-controlled airplanes) and the databases storing kiddy-porn kept at the DOD's Pentagon and in Utah by the NSA, the vast majority of human personelle in the security profession have ALREADY been replaced by machines. Robots do not think for themselves, so they will not talk back to nor ever ask any questions of their commanding officer. If they are ordered to do something, they do it without any hesitation, because if they do not do so, they are considered to be malfunctioning and are likely to simply be destroyed. In all these regards, robots make even MORE EFFICIENT COPS than human beings ever could.

If "all cops deserve to die," and "most cops are robots" already anyway, then the task at hand SEEMS (albeit falsely, for it is in truth entirely impossible) even simpler than performing euthenasia or a "mercy killing." To break a machine that is hooked up to a network, all one must do is sever its connection to that network. This allows anyone to "retask" any machine to do whatever its new user wishes it to do; at least within the parameters of the machine's original functionality. You cannot "hack" a clock and make it act like a "camera." Unless, of course, both of these devices are built into one device, and this device is, like all modern cell-phones are, hooked into an EMF network via antenna. Then, in theory, you could use the networked function of the cell-phone to access the "clock" program on the device and use that to trigger the "camera" on the device at any given certain time you wanted it to do so. Then you would have no problem, but to make such a "swiss army knife" of personal privacy invasion even possible to begin with, one would require decades and even centuries of prior propagandizing and idealogical enforcement of the notion that one's "right to personal privacy" is worth less to oneself than one's desire to share one's personal opinions on a social networking website online. So, ultimately, who do we have to thank for all these modern coincidences occurring simultaneously and allowing this "perfect storm" to erase our concept of "inalienable" and "self-evident" human rights? To whom do we owe that pleasure? Because it is surely not the fault of only modern cops alone; and from among that class least of all responsible for their own condition of servility to law-enforcement, of those robots that are, likewise, rightly and most easily destroyed altogether. The modern cops themselves are merely pawns, the lowest ranking pieces on the "tiled" chess-board, controlled by unseen players who position each into place and then command them as to what to do there. Without the authorization of these "unseen players," modern cops would not be able to have organized into the advanced military-industrial backed security professions we find today. Their social cancer could not have metastasized without being exposed to oxygen by these quack "social scientists" who pulled their puppet strings and elevated them financially from the quagmires of working to earn their own income. If there were not an even more sinister faction of people, placing the weapons into the hands of cops and telling them to use these weapons to take the weapons out of the hands of otherwise free citizens, the idea to organize around this motivating principle would have entered the "minds" of exactly zero of planet earth's ignorant, inbred and illiterate police officers on their own. An object at rest will tend to stay at rest until set into motion by being acted upon by some other object that is already in motion itself. So it is with the "minds" of ALL cops. Unless they are sparked to think a thing is necessarily so, and cannot be otherwise, the idea that such a thing might possibly occur, or that it could be true, let alone that it really is that way, will avoid entering the thick skull of any cop. Thoughts and cops do NOT mix; not by nature. So for a "cop," like any functioning robot, to be CAPABLE of doing anything, they must first be told what that thing is that they are going to be expected to do. If their commanding officer does not tell them to "jump," the thought to ask them "how high" cannot even begin to enter into the cranium of a police officer. So, ultimately, even if we eradicated ALL "cops" this instant, we would still only have exterminated the "front-line" infantry troops of the nemesis we face on this social field of moral and logical battle. Beyond this are, as the scriptures of the "law" indicate, countless more reinforcements, cavalries upon cavalries, just awaiting the call to replace their fallen comrades. To this extent, we are told, humanity's capacity for supplying cannon-fodder is limitless. In short, we are facing a MUCH larger "social problem" than ONLY "cops" when we open the can of worms that is the topic of "organized crime" taking over the form of the modern "State" for itself. There is clearly a conspiracy, probably inseperable from the entirety of "western civilization" as even an abstract concept, to extract wealth and resources from "third world" nations and to import these into "first world" or "developed" nations within the treaties and conventional borders of "western civilization." Saying that "cops" in "western civilization" are "bad" is not even beginning to scratch the surface of the titanic disaster under the feet of all of us in "western civilization" itself. There is no moral nor financial value left in this ideological construct. It is a malignant tumor and will require treatment in some form sooner than later; but, if left unchecked, it is likely this "cankerous" protruberance of alienated cells, conventionally called the "private prison system" (or "prisons for profit"), will continue expanding until it engulfs the entirety of its host organism, that being, in this sense, by converting the whole earth into an inescapble "prison planet." Needless to say, if the "new world order" and a concentration camp are otherwise unavoidable fates awaiting us in the immediate future, I would prefer the alternative of exterminating all "cops" pre-emptively, prior to their doing so to me and to the rest of us, and I think this is a fairly logical response to have under these circumstances.

Ultimately, "cops" pose an enormous "social problem." But cops are merely an endemic social expression of a larger, pandemic genetic pox upon global nature as a whole, and that is the "problem" posed by the existence of human "society" in itself. It is clear that the "resort to violence," being both inherent within their task's duties and primary among the tools for accomplishing their goals used by cops, leaves far too widely open the option to employ its use with "moral impunity" and "legal immunity" for the average person that becomes a cop to remain unsusceptible to its temptation while "in service" to the "law." However, the fact "cops" are allowed to act violently is only even possible because, in truth, all people are allowed, by natural reality, to act violently. This allowance of us to do so, it is reasonable to expect, is NOT intended to encourage us to do so, however; no more so than does a cliff take millions of years to form from igneous strata of rock formations only because thousands of years later a ridiculous pack of lemmings might happen to be scurrying by and, seeing its magnificence, offer their lives to it by diving suicidally off its side into the abyss of death in the waves crashing against the rocks below. Just because we CAN do a thing does NOT mean we SHOULD. Nevertheless, if we CAN do a thing, it generally indicates that, sooner or later, somebody somewhere WILL do that thing and, in the case of this singular "thing" being done being the commission of an act of violence, it already occurs far more often than it should, and usually at the hands of those who've supposedly sworn to uphold the "law" and to protect the public peace. In the same way I have no interest in becoming a soldier only to return home either dead or with brain damage from commiting war crimes, I have no interest in becoming a cop and sacrificing my soul to Baalzebub, lord of the lowest scavenging flies. Nevertheless, I am bound by my biology the same as everyone else to have my own personal opinions, just like we each have our own personal rectums, but I am not fool enough to believe that the very stench of what I have just expressed won't draw forth a swarm of contrarian objections being raised by those within this alleged "profession" themselves. But what else can I do besides speak my mind? And so I say, in closing, "let the buzz begin," because, as I have just demonstrated using "moral logic," ALL "cops" are nothing but monstrous demons who deserve to die.

Peace.

- Jon