What Do You Want from Cops?

Via Secondcitycop.

It’s time for the American public to decide what we want from law enforcement. Warriors? Counselors? Guardians? Priests? Social workers? Magicians? Do we want the cheapest cops possible? Or, do we want well-trained and well-screened cops who are equipped with every tool needed for every possible eventuality? As long as cops get recruited from the human race, they’re going to be exactly human, with everything that means. Or do we want the beat cop from grandaddy’s hometown, with nothing but a smile, a wheelgun and one set of cuffs?

Really, we want it all. Admit it, we do – and we want it all without paying for any of it.

Every officer needs to be an empathetic, well-spoken, SEAL-trained ninja, with double majors in psychology and social work, who considers the job a calling, and has no bills to pay, no nerves to fray, and enforces the law completely objectively while also using discretion at all times, unless it’s going to result in arresting – or not arresting – the wrong person at the wrong time, for the wrong thing, in the opinion of every member of the public.

If that person existed, he wouldn’t work for you. So we’ve got to deal with what exists, and what exists are humans.

Go read it all A letter to the American public: Why you must decide what you want from cops.

This is so very true, I’m enough of a leader that I can, to an extent, put myself in another’s boots. But I cannot know everything that goes through a cop’s (or a soldier’s) mind. I understand enough to understand that I don’t understand, and this is the real-world basis of Matthew 7, 1 and 2:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

I can judge electricians and linemen, I know their jobs well enough and have years of experience, but cops, especially street cops in big cities, I can empathize (and I do) but I don’t know what they go through.

The linked article is pretty good, I think, but it is not 5 years in the environment. And this is the problem we see so often where we see someone who had a half-second to decide, judged over hours and days my (mostly) lawyers and managers who at best haven’t done the job in years, sitting in airconditioned offices. They will never know, they simply can’t. Probably not as much as I can.

That doesn’t mean that cops never screw up, they do. You get exactly a human being. Like me, they make mistakes every day, and the higher the stress, the more they make. And if you’re shorthanded and work them until they’re stupid, it’ll get still worse.

Answers are few and far between, the main one being that we the public must decide what we want from cops, just as the article says.

Edmund Burke, George Will, and the Duke of Sussex

Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri notes in The Federalist that George Will was his introduction to Aristotle and Edmund Burke. I can’t say that but like Senator Hawley Will was for years a must read for me. Too bad that he changed, from Senator Hawley:

Will’s fulminations are typical of a certain set of Clinton and Bush-era commentators who call themselves “conservative” but sound more like a cartoon version of libertarianism. Will shrugs at the decline of the working class and the loss of the communities that sustain them. He celebrates instead the “spontaneous order of a market society,” by which he apparently means woke capital, offshoring, and the growing corporatist alliance between big government and big business.

Will advises working families displaced by lost jobs and neighborhoods to shut up and move, like the Joad family in Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath.” Packing up all their belongings and abandoning their family farm demonstrated the Joads’ “dignity,” Will opines. Interesting. He might want to re-read Steinbeck.

Or Edmund Burke. Will casts himself as a champion of individual liberty, but his reduction of individual freedom to market choice—the right to buy cheap stuff from China—wouldn’t have made any sense to Burke. (Or the American founders. Or the voters who cast their ballots for Donald Trump.)

Burke understood that individual freedom is formed by culture and community, and you have to work to defend both. The “little platoons,” Burke said—home and church, school and neighborhood—are where we grow, where we learn to love, where we find the strength and support to make something of our lives. And they are where we forge the common bonds that sustain our national sense of purpose.

In a nutshell, that sums up much of the never Trump nonsense, doesn’t it? I can’t say with complete confidence that it is choosing one’s paycheck over one conscience, but it sure looks that way. In fact, it stinks of selling out, for a price, to the globalists, who seem to think that the most important part of trade is a cheap workforce. Of course, it also provides a way to prevent competition from other smaller companies (and individuals) who might just find a better way to make things in America (or Britain for that matter). And that’s even better for the corporatists.


A Time for Choosing

Gavin Ashenden has a few comments on the plan of the Sussex’s ‘to carve a progressive role’. I couldn’t agree more with him when he says:

There is a tragic element to the blinkeredness and immaturity that mistakes a bid for independence as ‘carving a progressive role.’It isn’t that at all of course. In reality it is choosing between two competing philosophies or ethics. One, which the monarchy is founded on and depends on, is a Christian one in which doing one’s duty on behalf of others takes priority over self-interest. The other is a concentration on self-interest and self expression (however it is justified) at the expense of self-sacrifice and duty.The problem for the Sussexes is that they  have chosen to put their own self-interests before their public  duty and family. It has been tried before both by ordinary people and by prominent people like Edward 8th. The tragedy is that it almost always ends in a growth of self-pity and sadness.

I can’t say I’m especially surprised, Meghan (or should that be ‘Me Again’?) like most actresses appears to have more ego than sense, not to mention an overdeveloped sense of entitlement, and an addiction to saying ‘Me, me, me!’ incessantly. Harry if he read his family history ought to know better though, and has shown some real leadership at times.

If one were to look at his grandmother’s and especially her mother’s life, one would see just how hard a taskmaster duty can be, even when it comes in a gilded carriage. But as General Lee often noted:

Duty, then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.

It is a very high and hard standard, in both stories today. But nothing less is acceptable in free people.

Looking Back; Looking Forward

So, We made it. Happy New Year! That may be overoptimistic, but maybe not if we keep our eye on the ball, and attempt to do what’s right. I think we’ll start the year with some videos, some looking back in gratitude, and some looking forward in anticipation.

Seventy-Five years ago the Anglophone countries were liberating the world. Fifty years from now, they will still be the guardians of freedom.

Back first, from those great veterans at Black Rifle Coffee.

And

And one more

Isn’t it nice to see a company doing something like this, rather than the crap we’ve become used to!

And then there is the future, with the proper perspective reaching back to Nelson, Drake, and beyond.

Well, sailors will be sailors, I’ve seen ours behave far worse.

And now, Back to work…

A glitch, overcome, and on to New York, once the scene of the second largest British amphibious assault, now a very friendly city, and a chance to show how soft power follows the flag.

 

Hms Queen Elizabeth and soon after that HMS Prince of Wales will form the heart of two Carrier Battle Groups almost as strong as those built around our CVN’s This is a huge move back into power projection for the British. As you saw a bit of in the videos, they have had the cooperation of the USN, but it goes much further. Capt Jerry Kid, RN commanding HMS Queen Elizabeth was also the last commanding officer of HMS Ark Royal when she launched the last Harrier at sea, eight years ago, just before being decommissioned.

Eight years is a lifetime for the knowledge needed to operate a carrier, let alone a CBG. The USN has worked very hard to keep the ability current in the RN, to the point of embedding key personnel directly into USN squadrons.

Obviously, there are advantages to the US in the re-development of the strike carrier in our closest ally’s navy. But it is inconceivable that we would have done this with anybody but the British.

Our trust extends to the point that on occasion entire USMC squadrons are planned to be assigned to these ships, under British command, something we have never done.

Brittania may no longer rule all the waves, but she will where the Queen Elizabeth class is on-site. And that is an excellent thing for the free peoples of the world.

A queen in New York

 

Hell Hath No Fury

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
 When the English began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.

Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the State.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.

It was not suddenly bred,
 It will not swiftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.

[Feel free to substitute American for English, both are quite valid these days]

This has an accurate feel to it, for me, from Brian C. Joondeph at American Thinker.

We’ve all heard the expression, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and most of us have witnessed it at some point in our lives. It typically refers to betrayal, especially regarding love, when a woman is spurned and replaced by another.

It could also explain the righteous anger and rage one would feel if their greatest effort and achievement were taken from them, even more so if it was taken under false pretenses and through illegal subterfuge.

Is anyone surprised that President Donald Trump would be royally pissed off over how his political opponents have treated him during the first three years of his presidency?

In a way, I can’t say how Trump feels about it but can certainly infer from his actions that he is not pleased. What I do know is how I have felt the several times that I have been unfairly persecuted, especially by those with some petty power over me. So, I’d guess do all of you. Like me, you likely held your tongue, swallowed hard, and did what you had to do. But you know, while I don’t much believe in revenge if I caught those a***holes doing something illegal still today, I’d laugh at them on the way to jail.

That’s me, a cog at most. Trump is the central engine leading an American resurgence, care to guess how he feels about it? Yeah, me too.

Trump was branded a modern-day Hester Prynne with a “Scarlet I” for all eternity all because he had the audacity to beat the deep state’s chosen candidate and threaten the corrupt global order. After assuming office, he had the further gall to quickly accomplish what so many Republican presidents promised but couldn’t deliver, and what Democrat presidents said could only be achieved with a magic wand.

And now he is rightfully pissed off. His greatest achievement, winning the presidency as an outsider and proving all of his detractors wrong, continues to be taken from him, through any means necessary, from the unethical to the illegal.

He has been accused of cheating and winning the presidency fraudulently, ignoring his focus, persistence, and hard work. His family has been impugned and threatened. He has few true friends in Washington, DC. But he has 60 million plus loyal supporters across the fruited plains.

Trump supporters have faced their own derision, from losing jobs and friendships to strained or alienated family relationships. They are spit on, attacked, denied service, and called names like deplorable, racist, or Nazi. […]

As Dov Fischer recently wrote, “Those pathological haters and congenital liars impeached not only President Trump on Wednesday night. They impeached us.”

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse describes this as “Cold Anger”

There’s a level of anger far deeper and more consequential than expressed rage or visible behavior. Cold Anger does not need to go to violence. For those who carry it, no conversation is needed. You cannot poll or measure it; and even those who carry it avoid discussion. And that decision has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of correctness.

President Trump and his supporters have had enough. His greatest life achievement, something no one else could come close to doing, is being smeared and taken from him. His supporters are being tarred as mind-numbed jack-booted brown shirts.

Now that the build-up to impeachment is behind him, expect Trump to release the hounds of hell on his deep state persecutors. His daughter Ivanka says “Impeachment energized her father and his 63 million supporters.” Welcome to cold anger.

Indeed so. In my reading of military history one thought lept out at me, American soldiers always sang on the march, until 1942, then the singing stopped until the job was over. Oh, they listened to it and danced with the pretty girls, and such. But the marching columns were pretty silent intent on the job.

That’s how America feels today, the fun times are over, this is the last chance for the politicians to solve it, or it will move beyond their power forever. Between December 1941 and September 1945, 46 months, the allies destroyed Germany, destroyed Italy, and destroyed Im[erial Japan. That is less than on Presidential term. Now is the time for the disruption to begin.

Solzhenitsyn and Alfie Evans

This leads into tomorrow’s post but also harks back to 2018 when we (many of us) anyway re heartbroken at the enforced death of Alfie Evans. Everything said here is still true and now there are more examples of the cold disdain of the NHS (in fairness, there are also some good stories out there). And yet, a near clone of this heartless machine is what some of our presidential candidates want for Americans. That is all the reason I need to vote against them.

Well, it’s been a bit over a day since Alfie went home, and perhaps we can start to draw some lessons. For me, personally, it has been a long time since I have been called both ignorant and stupid, within two sentences. I found it rather funny, in truth, since I know what I believe and why. It has been built up over many years and does not change with the wind. And besides, I understand that some Britons believe the state to be god, and the NHS its religion, so I’m an apostate. I’ve learned better, as has anybody that has studied American history.

Over Christmas in 2013, Jessica undertook to analyze in part Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Commencement Address at Harvard in 1978. Applying it to Alfie’s ordeal is illuminating, I think. As Jess indicated, many expected it to be a paean to the west from a man who escaped from the Soviet system. It was anything but. He deplored the Soviet system, but he saw very clearly the flaws in the west, those cracks have widened considerably since 1978, and now threaten to tear us asunder.

In her post entitled The Exhausted West?, she quoted this:

Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime, and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counterbalanced by the young people’s right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

It’s a theme we hit hard and often here, libertinism opposed to liberty with its duties.

The West was, he said, ‘spiritually exhausted’. The ‘human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today’s mass living habits, introduced by the revolting invasion of publicity, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.’

The origin of this decadence lay, Solzhenitsyn suggested, in the anthropocentric views of man’s destiny which came in with the secular thinking of the Enlightenment. Man was at the centre of all things, and the ends for which he was meant were material ones:

As an aside, I believe and Melanie Phillips wrote convincingly that:

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Returning to Jessica’s point.

Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our day there is a free and constant flow. Mere freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones. 

All very very true, and phrased better than I could have then or can now. In her next post, Light from the East?, she continued the thinking with this:

in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.

When America’s Founding Fathers separated Church and State they did not do so because they were atheists or thought Christianity wrong, they did so because they did not want one Church to dominate in their society; they do, indeed, seem to have assumed that man would be bound by the responsibilities which the Christian faith laid upon him; realists, they did not think man would always live up to these, but they did not see freedom as license; can we now say that of ourselves and our leaders? What is it which binds us? […]

Solzhenitsyn’s critique is a Christian one:

There is a disaster, however, that has already been under way for quite some time. I am referring to the calamity of a despiritualized and irreligious humanistic consciousness.

Of such consciousness man is the touchstone, in judging everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes that were not noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our day we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity, which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

I doubt that I am the only one to see this applying to the NHS certainly, but also to the lawyers, and judges of the British legal system. My question for them is this, “What besides self-pride, drove you to remove Alfie’s parent’s God-given responsibility for their son, even to prevent them from choosing another caregiver, futile though it may well have been. What were they so afraid of that they were willing to risk a storm from Europe, especially Italy and Poland,  and the United States? I think it was exactly that exacerbated by the fact that the Italian hospital is supported by the Vatican. How shameful if Christians could help this little boy when the minor god-emperors of the NHS could not. Remember this is the health care system that was hubristic enough to proclaim themselves, at the 2012 Olympic games, as the best in the world. While providing 2d world, at best, care to their inmates.

For a true understanding of man’s real destiny, God is essential:

If humanism were right in declaring that man is born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.

But if we refuse to recognise this, or think it of no importance, then we shan’t see any reasons for exercising any self-restraint save for that imposed by the law – and if the law is the only guide we have, then we have become a society without a spirit of self-sacrifice or restraint:

People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting, and manipulating law. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law, and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required. Nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice, and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. 

And that is the root of the decadence in our societies, and why they will not last as they are. How they will change, is not in sight, perhaps they will reform, under duress, as they have before, perhaps our societies will be subsumed in Islam, perhaps something else, but what cannot continue, won’t. And that is the lesson Alfie has for us.

 

Anglo Saxon Resurgence

Conrad Black wrote in American Greatness last Monday about how after the British elections, we, working together, have a great opportunity to make the Anglosphere great again. Let’s look at it.

The greatest significance in last week’s decisive and seminal British election is the victory it contains for the solidarity of the English-speaking peoples and the strength, coherence, and legitimacy of what Europeans frequently refer to as the Anglo-Saxons. […]

But the substantial detachment of the United Kingdom from an integrated Europe so it may retain the primacy of the political institutions and the legal system it has developed over many centuries, and align itself, implicitly, more closely to its senior Commonwealth associates, Canada and Australia, as well as to its sometime senior partner in the modern world’s greatest crises, the United States, is a geostrategic development of the first importance.

He goes on to compare it with Bismarck’s unification of Germany after the Franco-Prussian War into the most powerful land power in Europe. It’s an apt comparison, and it is also the last time Germany acted in a responsible manner, falling under the spells of Wilhelm II and then Hitler. It had a resurgence as West Germany but essentially has booted it since reunification. Leading to the ramshackle, crumbling EU.

It’s true enough that the US has often encouraged a somewhat loose trade union in Europe, but I don’t think any of us (other than perhaps the left) had the totalitarian empire that we see rising in Europe in mind. In fact, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump have all had (or have) reservations.

The United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia together have a GDP twice as great as China’s and 150 percent of the ramshackle post-British Europe. They are no longer losing economic ground to China. None of the Anglo-Saxon countries has to unwind absurd socialist overindulgence amidst endless strikes and minor mob violence as France is trying to do. As a bloc, it has good economic growth rates and thanks to the Americans, (but the British are pulling their weight), it is armed to the teeth.

In a word, the hackneyed nonsense of recent decades about the post-Reagan-Thatcher decline of the Anglo-Saxons—beloved of the Chinese, French, Russians, Arabs, and Iranians—is shown, yet again in modern history to be bunk. Three of the G-7 are now floating together and the EU has suffered a loss as great as the loss of all the Pacific Coast states would be to America.

One of the things that have fascinated me, as I’ve spoken with Americans and our cousins over the last few years is how we have motivated each other. We cheered on Brexit, seeing in it much the same conflict as led to our revolution. Then we took heart from that victory, and that has something to do with Trump’s victory. And then Trump had some influence last week on Johnson’s victory. Yes, the urban elites hate Trump in England just as they do here, but talk to the British equivalent of the Deplorables and you’ll hear a different story.

The reason goes back to something that David Starkey covers in the video below. The corporatist elite, including the civil servants, are definitionally the anywheres, as are the clients, on benefits, while the workers are somewheres, proud of our countries and our history. And yes, I used the singular history, American history is after all English history until   1776 and right on down to the present they have almost always been intertwined.

Like the dire threats of economic calamity with a Trump victory, Project Fear, a farrago of blood-curdling Jeremiads from treasury and central bank officials about post-Brexit gloom, will prove to be just hot air. As in Elizabethan times (16th-17th centuries), under Walpole and Pitt (18th century) and under Palmerston and Disraeli (19th century), Britain has again chosen immersion in blue water rather than Europe. They are right again and the United States will benefit from it.

Yep. And here is David Starkey giving a very clear explanation

And here is the question and answer session after his lecture, which is outstanding

On his first meeting with a British leader, Theresa May, President Trump said, “a strong and independent Britain is a treasure to the world.” The times and personalities are vastly different but the geopolitical realities are not so much changed: Trump and Johnson should get on as well and benignly as did Roosevelt and Churchill and Reagan and Thatcher.

%d bloggers like this: