Keynes and the Art of Stealing

John Maynard Keynes did understand economics in a sense. At least a very specific, though large, branch of it concerned with "force and fraud". "Government", for short.

See, there is an art to robbery. Yes, it's evil, but there's an art to it all the same. Like anything else, it can be done well or done poorly.

And it's a quite in-depth art, even a science, and it's been perfected - and is still being perfected - since the first supertribes called "cities".

Take the first person to desire practicing it as an art, and not just random hitting people with a club and taking their food. Or otherwise tricking them, which you can really only do once with a nomad.

What if you initially aid them in coming together to practice agriculture? It'll be a tough sell, as the average nomad ate better and for less work than farming.

But say you convince them. After a generation is raised knowing nothing else, they are wedded to the land. A nomad that you seek to rob may run - but a farmer cannot leave behind his invested labor.

It's still not just a case of "let the robbing begin!", though. If you went to each farmer and said, "I'm strong, you're weak, give me a tenth or I'll kill you and take it anyway!" then that might work briefly, but they'd nurse grudges, meet in private, and conspire to kill you.

You have to give them a face saving reason for letting themselves be put upon. So you do not flat out say that you'll kill them, but you speak extensively on the dangers of "random nomads". And you give them a reason for passing over the food - good reasons, of course.

That you'll save it for times of famine. That you will use it to raise up a group of special protectors called "warriors" that will do nothing but keep the peace and keep the nomads at bay.

You offer what can be a real value, and as the person overseeing it, the portion you take would be modest.

Some may honestly find it to be a good deal - and in various times and places, it may even have been a good deal.

Yet even then, you are easing it over into a "required", not a "voluntary" payment. You do this by the simple act of pointing out to those who do contribute voluntarily, that one is not. They find that unfair, and agree to your proposal that all who in any way benefit "must" pay.

For them, that is no hardship, they are paying anyway. And by the time they have a crop failure, and you still expect the same amount, the rule will already have been established, and they will not wish to look a hypocrite, and so will, grudgingly - and somewhat for seeing what your warriors did to the hold out - pay.

A loved cow gives more milk.  Don't beat your cow - too hard.

Now you've a government. Now you've "perfected", for that time, the Art of Stealing.
 

For now all know they must pay, they each tell themselves the soothing story to settle their outraged manhood, and they will of themselves enforce against others with persuasion - or force - because misery loves company, and if they must pay, then all must.

Fast forward six thousand years. An industrialized democracy is not the same as an agricultural village. And we've money now, which along the way, other Artists of Theft learned how to inflate.

Yet still, sometimes the game goes too far. Sometimes rulers of old took too much, and the people rose up, or ran off, or simply starved. Other times, like in Roman times, a partial inflation went well, but then they got greedy and inflated too much, and all collapsed.

The point of the Art of Stealing is to be able to get as much as you can, for as little effort, and for as long as possible.

There is such a thing as a "social surplus", though Ayn Rand (author of "Atlas Shrugged") would disagree. And such does not really belong in a Lockean sense to any one specific individual, even a Hank Reardon*. That surplus, above and beyond the group of individuals efforts, has always gone to the elite. The thieves.

Yet explanations must still be gave. Why a pyramid with that social surplus instead of another irrigation canal? Why does Lucius who is cousin to the Emperor always get the aquaduct contract instead of Gaius who has proved time and again that he is better at it, and cheaper? Why the social programs advocated by the President's wife instead of the more constructive aid - with less graft - that others have proposed?

These questions need answering appropriately. If the theft is to continue. And new ways of theft, unfamiliar to those robbed, must also be sought. Because greed is insatiable, and while you can squeeze a bit more taxes, or give a bit less services, or even inflate a bit more, it all must come to a final maximum point at some time, unless you find a new way.

Inflation, by the way, was such a new way of old. Later, in the middle ages, there are things you can do with banking - like the fractional reserve system - that allows more looting. In each case, the deficit is made up with the people working a bit harder, and for a bit less, that the few might have a lot more. Even the concept of "private property" can be manipulated so that social surpluses can be drained off. Disparities of property ownership allowed the great Lords of England to dispossess many of their tennant farmers, driving them to the cities to work the new factories or starve. This may have been better for such who survived in the end...but was a crap deal all the same, and some died from it.

The elite thieves of the mid-20th century had seen the result of the Federal Reserve system in the market crash of '29 and the following depression. Seen and not particularly minded, since that was the specific plan, it worked perfectly, and they were better off than ever.

But they'd seen that plan gone awry, too, in Czarist Russia and the Weimer Republic of Germany. Which while Ayn attributed those to ideologies, had a lot more to do with the game going too far, and the people starting to starve. Andrei Taganov did not rebel against the Czar because he was a Communist. He was a Communist for wishing to rebel against the Czar.

The trick then, the real art, was spoke of by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. How much do the people need to be content tax-slaves? They had wildly different answers, one based upon raw force and fear, the other on providing mindless hedonistic pleasures. Both were extremes to make a point, the real answer of how to steal, how the art works, is of course, in the middle. Where much may be debated, of course. And is debated. By those far above us who own us.

See, you want your slaves educated enough to provide real goods and services for you. But then they too often see through the game. And want some of that social surplus to come back their way. Or even just want less taxes. Taxes, you handle purely by fear and the dodge that it's everyone's duty for that social good that does exist. From the dawn of agriculture, that has never got old! But the social surplus created by that very social good you just told them about? Ahh, that has always been more delicate.

Because they'll notice that most large surpluses do not go to social service programs. Taxes pay those. And they'll see through inflation nowadays, with our education and knowledge of history. So how to drain the surplus without them getting uppity?

Here's where Keynes came in. He was the codifier of the rules of how to attack and whittle away at that surplus in a dozen more ways than previously known of. Or if known of, not systematized. And he knew how to squeak more out the social machine of a nation than before, building off of the old tricks of inflation and fractional reserves and his baby, "deficit spending". That was his talant, that was his, sad to say, "genius". In learning of, discovering and writing of those ways.

And bear in mind strongly the dark brilliance of it - he had to write it not as a "Guide for the Despot to Milk his People", but as a work of goodness in how a nation as a whole could be better! And for most, who are not economists, thinkers or philosophers, the work has enough sophistries and such to utterly baffle them at best, and at worst, even convince them of the justness of their own robbery!

All the rises and falls, the bubbles bursting, the crises - these are not for the criminal elite being stupid, this is them being smart. Evil, sure, but smart. Has everyone been tricked into stashing their retirement funds in a 401k? Great - time to arrange for a stock market crash so that we can scoop all that surplus up at once, while telling them to stop whining, "You win some and lose some, not our fault!". Has everyone been tricked into thinking that housing and real estate never loses value, but only increases? Yes? And they've all their surplus in there? Great! Time for that bubble to burst, and since we're the ones bursting it, they'll be hurt, but we won't be!

Has the game been played a bit much, and now it's time to get things back on track - for us? Sure, no problem! The social surplus does not exist as grains or gold any more, but by calculations on what a given population can afford, productivity-wise. The figures say several tens of billions? Then we will "quantitatively ease" ourselves, with money printed up which the workers of the nation will have to be good for! And will be good for! True, it inflates things, but calculations show that they'll still be able to keep their refrigerators powered and their internet access current, and the sociological boys assure us that there'll be no armed uprising while those two things hold true! But we'll keep militarizing the police just to be sure!

The Conservatives of America love to preach a "hands off" approach, such that helping no poor person, in theory ushers in capitalism and that famous - and utopic - "rising tide" that "lifts all boats". The reality is that when you stop helping the poor with government money, or don't grant raises in the minimum wage, you may be 100% sure that the rich thieving elite are STILL skimming that social surplus off, and so while the poor see none of it, the thieves still see all of it! And the "rising tide" only raises them up, as with the enormous anchor of regulations, taxations, inflations and burst bubbles tied firmly to the middle classes, the middle and lower class boats are held under by the weight of all that, and rise not at all!

Thus the increasingly large distance between the 1% and the rest. Which under real capitalism could not happen.

Keynes, you can see now, was a genius. Just a really mean one. He's why each generation is not now better off than the previous, except perhaps in access to technological toys. Which are really only allowed because they have not invented Soma yet, or the other fun stuff of Huxley's "Brave New World". But iPhones serve as well as Soma. And we're allowed them for the same reasons. Focus on the tiny screen, and forget the big picture.

This is why, by the way, that while I am a "capitalist" in the sense that Ayn Rand described, I am also as practical as Fred Kinnan* was. I know these thefts are the norm, I know they will continue. Thus I advocate that while they do that - and they always will - that yes, some "come back" in the form of welfare programs and minimum wages. Not for being a "socialist", but for pragmatically recognizing that while they steal trillions for themselves, that tossing some hundreds of billions to the least is appropriate. The CEOs have their billion dollar bailouts and yachts. They can afford to drip some of that down to the singe mother who wants food stamps and Top Ramen.

"Oh, no, that's socialism, end it all!"? Uh huh. If "ending it all" is an option, I choose that, of course. But that option has NEVER existed, and is never going to exist as long as some wish to steal. They are stealing. They always will. I'm simply then up for negotiating the terms of our captivity, and for me, I'd as soon see a more comfortable slave cabin, instead of everyone in tents while they build a third wing to the Plantation house.

* Hank Reardon was a capitalist creator in the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Fred Kinnan was an amoral, but wise and practical Labor Leader in the same novel.

Are cop-defenders consistent?

I'm making a list of everyone who whenever there's a "black lives matter" post immediately must comment "ALL lives matter".

Then, next time I see them complain about any problem or issue at all, I'm going to do the same to them. I'm sure they won't mind.

Example:

Mary Smith: I'm having such trouble finding a reliable person to mow my lawn and keep it looking nice!

Me: ALL lawns matter.

See how that works? They'll be sharing what they believe to be a real concern, and I'll leap in to belittle it and point out the obvious fact that all other similar concerns equally matter, so they should just shut up.

Example:

John Jones: My grandmother was just diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and I honestly don't know what to do.

Me: ALL grandmothers matter.

I know, there will be some that think that rather mean of me. But not those who defend cops at all costs, at all times, no matter what. They know that any time a minority group expresses their frustration at a problem that even many police acknowledge is real, that they need to be pounced upon and have it made light of. So they'll want the same done to them.

I might also do that thing where no matter what the problem, I'll come up with reasons for why they're the problem instead. I'll use all the same tricks and razzle-dazzle that those who love defending any cop on Earth use.

Example:

Jane Doe: The teacher spoke harshly again to my Lucy today, and it made her cry. I think I'll go to the School Board.

Me: Those teachers are the true heroes, and the thin line between our nation and barbarism! If you knew all they had to go through, you'd not be such a teacher hater! Besides, how's Lucy's past history looking? I heard she had been shooting spit balls last semester! And besides, didn't the teacher say that Lucy didn't stop the first time? Lucy should learn that if a teacher says something, you just comply! At once!

Then after that, I'll post a lot of pro-teacher memes, with the implication in each one that if you don't back teachers no matter what, in all cases, that you hate teachers, education and apple pie.

Example:

*picture of Lucy's teacher playing with another child*

*picture of another teacher teaching*

*picture of a teacher at a soup kitchen*

I'll show pictures of teachers being fired, teachers unfairly punished, I'll come up with armbands with a color reserved for teachers. Perhaps I might grudgingly agree that it's possible for a teacher to err, but I'll never admit that of the teacher under discussion.

See? That way everyone will know what a lousy parent Jane Doe is for excusing her ungovernable brat against any noble teacher charged with educating her!

Nothing wrong in that, eh?

Good. Because I'll also start citing inapplicable studies to show everyone how the teacher can't be the problem because I can find another problem! Like that study from the Bob Howard University that shows that the majority of kids are yelled at - by other kids! Given that, how is the mom worried about one teacher? Why isn't she complaining about the other kids? Eh? Eh?

I'll also start arguing from the extreme. And making a ton of oyster soup from a single oyster.

Example:

Jane Doe: But the teacher really did speak harshly to Lucy!

Me: What about that one time, when this one teacher in the Bronx didn't react when the kid sassed him, and then later, his tires were slashed!? It's a war out there, and teachers are losing while you're asking that your spoiled monster be coddled!

Jane Doe: But Lucy is only 7!

Me: Good! Then there's still time to give her some discipline! Teacher speaks, she obeys! If you point a straw with a spit ball in it at a teacher, and get screamed at till you cry, you're only a victim of your own stupidity!

Jane Doe: But she didn't have a straw, she was reaching for a pencil!

Me: The important thing was that the teacher got home un-spit-balled. That's all that matters.

Police Propaganda?

I'm seeing all over the net - and for some time - pictures of cops giving shoes to a homeless person, pictures of cops hugging black women, pictures of cops helping inner city kids, pictures of cops doing all manner of happy feel good things.

Do you know what I'm not seeing all over the net?

Pictures of taxi cab drivers, bank guards, liquor store clerks and prostitutes giving shoes to homeless people, pictures of them hugging black women, pictures of them helping inner city kids, pictures of them doing all manner of happy feel good things.

Do you know why?

Because people in those professions - which all are MORE dangerous than police work - are not killing over 1,000 citizens per year due to shooting first, and asking questions never.

You see, the point of propaganda is to change how you feel about a thing, a cause - or a group of people.

Thus Soviet propaganda would show the Red Army soldier as a liberator.  Why?  Because they weren't liberators, but the government needed the people to believe they were.  Hence posters of Soviet soldiers helping an old lady cross the street, or taking bread to a peasant.

Thus Nazi propaganda would show their police and soldiers playing with children, doing good deeds, etc.  And Hitler himself in a room full of smiling German children!

When you see then a picture of a cop bringing milk to some woman in Boston - after putting that city under martial law that only ended when someone defied their orders, left their house, and thus found the guy the cops could not - do not think, "Oh, see, cops are wonderful!"

Some no doubt are - but what you should be thinking is - why are we having to be told so? 

You see too many pictures that tend to try to persuade you that barbers are kind?  Or that iron workers aid the poor?  Or that hotel maids do good deeds?  But can you doubt for even a second that roughly the same percent of each of those groups does as much charitable good as the police?  A given percent of humans enjoy aiding others, and you may find that percent in any group you look at.  Even the meth-dealing Hells Angels participate in Toys for Tots!  Yet of all such groups doing the same amounts of good, we're only asked to look at certain groups!

Also remember that even such as Soviet soldiers and Nazi Gestapo did have that same percent of individuals doing good.  They believed in what they were doing, wrong as it was, and it did not interfere in the least with their church attendance, charitable outreach or loving their kids.

Do I thus compare American police to Nazis and Soviets?  NO!!  Not in the taken to the extreme sense of "they're taking over whole nations and exterminating six million Jews."  But I do compare them to those two hated groups in the sense of...

...oh, yeah, the same methods used to sell those two hated groups are now being trotted out to sell us our own police! 

Some might disagree.  They may say, and with sincerity, "We aren't trying to persuade people to think of cops as good because they are bad.  We're trying to persuade people that they're good - because some few hate on them and try to hurt or kill them!"

Perhaps.  Though perhaps previous governments could have claimed the same - and did claim the same.  Soviet posters extolling the virtues of the Red Army liberators did not say that they did so because those soldiers were killing Kulaks and thus needed their reputations white washed!  They said that they needed that propaganda campaign so as to educate the people, in that some few hateful Kulaks were trying to hurt and kill the People's police and soldiers!

Likewise, it would be absurd for the government - or any pro-police group that aids the government for free - to admit, "Yeah, we know that a good number of folks are fed up with how poorly our police conduct themselves in the disproportionate killing of minorities!"  So it is natural for them to instead say, "We are trying to educate people because some few haters like the BLM are trying to get folks to hurt or kill cops!"

Please notice that in all cases, it involves the group doing bad to a certain number of people, those people and others becoming aware of it and growing angry, and the government responding with a propaganda campaign designed to quell that anger and shift feelings over to love.  AND a dislike of the very group being victimized!

It also has the effect of reinforcing the views of the majority not being oppressed, so that if they start to be concerned, they can see in the propaganda, "No, it's okay, those Jews aren't being singled out!  Our brave boys round up all such types who betray and sabotage our Fatherland!"

Or, "No, it's okay, it's not that Kulaks are being targeted specifically - it's that our brave boys fight all such enemies of our Motherland!"

Or, "No, it's okay, it's not that blacks are 12% of the populace but 33% of those killed by police - it's that some criminal thugs are endangering our brave boys, who nobly put their lives on the line each day for our Homeland!"

And in each of those three cases, posters - nowadays internet pictures - of the Soviet soldier, the Nazi Gestapo and American police officer with the smiling child, the grateful poor person, the crippled vet, the elderly and infirm.  Or even - trust the Nazis to come up with this - kittens!

Oh, I know - I leaped to "Hitler", I leaped to "Stalin".  Generally a "no-no" in making a point.  But could they have made it any easier for me to do so?  I mean, it's like the grandchildren of the Soviet and Nazi propaganda poster makers could legitimately sue these modern meme makers for Intellectual Property infringement!

Identical posters.  Identical ideas being put across.

And for identical reasons. 

Otherwise?  Where's the deluge of posters about those brave taxi drivers aiding the poor?

The Danger of Sharia

So now it's not just Donald Trump.  Here is what Newt Gingrich recently said:

“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door.”

When asked how we could know if they had given that up, he replied:

“The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they’re doing on the Internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke. Where do you think the primary source of recruitment is? Where do you think the primary place of indoctrination is? You’ve got to look at the madrassas - if you’re a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country.”

Before debating his goal, let's be clear on what's being called for.

A repeal of the 1st amendment.  Because now religious tests would have to be gave to all citizens, they'd have to describe their deeply personal views to a government examiner, and be quizzed over whether any aspect of their faith was "incompatible" with our "civilization".  Which means a tossing out of the 5th amendment, too.  You know, the person's right against self-incrimination.

Our free speech would have to be monitored and overseen to make sure we were not speaking or writing in a way to suggest that we were holding "wrong" thoughts.  So I guess that's the 4th amendment tossed out, too.

Back to the 1st amendment, though also the 4th, Churches would be places where surveillance, either audio/video recorders, paid agents or both would be there to insure nothing improper was being preached from the pulpit. 

Private religious schools would also have that treatment, to make sure nothing was being taught inappropriately.

Now.  There's the price.  What's the goal?  What do we get for that rather high price?

To apparently keep the minute percent of Islamic citizens from taking over our nation, and re-writing all our cherished laws so that we could not speak or worship in privacy!  To make sure that they didn't set up some system where there was no protection against search and seizures and self-incrimination!  To avoid living in some Islamic hell where we would be required to give up our Constitutional rights!

Hmm.

Apparently then Newt Gingrich is worried about our rights being murdered, so proposes we commit suicide on those rights first!  If we kill ourselves, the Islamic folk can't murder us!  If we give up all our rights now, then a Caliphate can't take them away later!

No, thank you.

I know - some of you may honestly believe that some here are shooting for a Caliphate, and you worry about that. That's fine. But we must all surely agree that however we combat that potential danger, that we do not vote ourselves into a certain danger in the meanwhile!

Our nation of 330,000,000 being taken over such few Muslims are here - around 3.3 million - is highly unlikely. Mormons, who make up 2% of the population, or between 6 and 7 million, once tried a war of virtual secession (The Utah War) and lost. So it's just improbable to the point of impossibility to assume the Muslims can succeed not in simply seceding some where, but in taking over the whole of the nation!

So we are being asked by Newt to 100% give up our freedom - to avoid the infinitesimally small chance of the Muslims taking our freedoms later!

That's a poor bet. And expressed as a bet, it would be like Newt asking you to pay him $1,000 now - to protect you from any small infant who may in the future try to rob you of...$1,000! Or paying an insurance company $100,000 so that if your $100,000 house is hit by a meteorite, they'll give you a $100,000 house!

It's a suckers bet, and the man offering it is not stupid, but only hoping you are. He wants your freedoms - because that means he has more power. He wants you to be scared enough to give up those freedoms, so he can exact his authority over a group he does not like. Men like Newt don't always hold specific office, but they are always in the corridors of power.

It is NOT the case that he simply wishes to save us from tyranny - or he'd not have proposed tyranny as the solution!

All Lives Matter?

Do all lives matter?  Yes.  Of course they do.  Though I dislike the premise that there is such a thing as a "blue life", as if a person in a certain profession is some how a distinctive class of citizen.

Ever wonder why the phrase "All Lives Matter" annoys some?

Well, picture if you posted a post about how the lives of the unborn mattered.  And someone immediately jumped in to say ALL lives matter.  What would that mean?

It would mean they were being dismissive of your concerns.  By stating an obvious truth, that "all lives matter", they are making your specific claim of a specific type of life mattering seem small, or not relevant.

Yes, all lives do matter, but when addressing the issue of the unborn, we are only talking about fetal lives - not "old lives", "middle aged lives", "youthful lives" and/or "child lives".

Pointing out that the young, middle aged and old also die is then, in that context, meaningless at best, dismissive at worst.

Same with the "All Lives Matter" response to those who say "Black Lives Matter".

"Black Lives Matter" is a movement born out of those who were frustrated at the disproportionate killing of blacks at the hands of the police.  This may or may not be an issue that you care about or agree with, but that was their motive.

The same motive that any pro-lifer has - to draw attention to a specific segment of the population that they feel (correctly) was not getting enough attention.

To say back to them that "all lives matter" is to dismiss them.  To belittle their concerns.  And the truth is, minorities are more likely to be killed by police than whites are.  There is no doubt or quibble on that one, and it doesn't matter if more Chinese kill Chinese or more Irish kill Irish or more African Americans kill African Americans.  Or for that matter, that more whites kill whites.

More blacks are killed by police than whites are killed by police.  That is a fact, it is not denied.  What it means may be debated, but that it is the case cannot be.

We can try to solve this problem by denying it.  We can try to solve it by trotting out black policeman to deliver scripted soothing sophistries.  We can try to solve it by that "all lives matter" dismissal.  We can try to - and apparently are - solve it by brute force.  We can even pretend to offer police jobs to the very ones complaining - such of them that are still alive, and have not been gave an automatic record over trivial offenses that no upper-middle class white youth is ever in danger of receiving.

Or all of the above.

Yet we could try and solve it another way.  We could first acknowledge the obvious - that it is, right or wrong, justified or not, true.

We could mandate button cams for all cops, with the footage in any shooting to be released at once, by law, to the public.  If they've nothing to hide, right?  At least I know that such is what the police always tell us.

We could mandate that prosecutors must treat cops like the civilians they are, by convening a Grand Jury to indict them every time one of them shoots and kills a person.  Just like we already do with we regular folks who shoot and kill a person, no matter what our stated reasons are.

We could apply the same rule of thumb to cities that we do with businesses.  Which is to say, that just as the burden of proof of "non-racism" is on the business that has no minority employees, so too the burden of proof of "non-racism" must be on cities that have police that kill minorities in disproportionate numbers to the killings of the majority of the populace.

And really, if a city that is majority white is having the police kill more minorities than whites, then shouldn't everyone - black and white - wish to get to the bottom of why?  You know, so as to then solve it?

We could give all cops a 20% pay raise - but with the understanding that there is a new accountability in play for the first time in history, and when the police department or city loses a wrongful death case, that monetary award will come from the cops involved, and/or their pension funds, not the very tax payers that were their victims.

We could require that all cops be veterans of the armed services, that they all be at least 35, and that they all have college degrees in a law enforcement related field, that they all be fired the first time a Protective Order is awarded a spouse or significant other of theirs.  Or at least some of those requirements.  Or at the least of the least - any of those requirements.

Instead, I suspect, we'll keep up with the propaganda memes and the mantra of "all lives matter", as if any had ever disagreed with that, and as if "all" lives are equally threatened.

Pictured:  Yes, "All Lives Matter".  But some lives seem in a great deal more danger than other lives.

Blocking roads is inappropriate?

The issue as far as those in the movement Blacks Lives Matter are concerned is the disproportionate killing of African Americans at the hands of American police.  It's okay if others, or you, wish to think it's not true, but that is the motive that is spurring them on.  Probably for them knowing so many family and friends who've had bad - or deadly - encounters with police.

Or for that stuff where a person gets pulled over for a DWB - Driving While Black.  Or that whole thing where if any of them shoot a person, it's an automatic arrest and Grand Jury indictment, while if a policeman kills person - or person after person - he's given a paid vacation then re-instated.

But hey, if they have a complaint, why don't they protest appropriately?  What's with this blocking roads stuff?  That's just asking for trouble!  The police are then justified in attacking them the more, in full battle regalia, and with chemical weapons and sticks and shotguns and sonic weapons and armored vehicles!

Really?  This is over BLM not protesting "appropriately"?  I wonder, what would an "appropriate" protest look like?

I suspect I know. 

That would be where they meet quietly in their homes, drink some fruit juice, tell each other how bad it is, and go home.  Or maybe apply for a permit to march, and at a time and place chose by the very leaders they disagree with, then walk quietly down that street, without disturbing any peace at all.  Or, wait, how about if they just meet in a "free speech zone" on the nowhere side of town and stand around for a bit before going home?

Yes, I'm sure all those would be regarded as wonderfully "appropriate" protests.

And also completely ineffectual in getting any kind of public attention to this or any other issue!  Which, in case any forgot, is kind of the point of a protest!

It is a hilariously sad commentary on our times that those who would be the first to claim that they'd have marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are the first to cry out in anger over African Americans taking to the streets now.

It's "I'd harbor fugitive slaves in the 19th century!" and "I'd hide Ann Frank in the 20th century!" but never a doing of anything now in the 21st century.  When it would matter.  I guess we'll have to take the person's word on how brave they'd be 75 or 150 years ago.

Protests MUST generate a response.  They MUST draw attention.  And so for that, they must be inconvenient.  They must cause a bit of trouble.

Appropriately?  Of course they should be done "appropriately".  Which to me only means that no innocents are harmed in it, nor property destroyed.  But people inconvenienced?  Delayed?  Made to give attention to a segment of the populace that seems disenfranchised?

There is NOTHING more appropriate than that!

We live in a nation where a group of wealthy white ranchers could - while armed - take over buildings on Federal lands.  And the same people upset with BLM were outraged that any of them might die in the removal of them.

Support those ranchers and their right to protest by seizing property if you must - though I find it a bit extreme.  But do not then support them, but turn around and post memes about how those driving down a blocked road should "run over" the BLM protestors.  For the "crime" of delaying them or making them take another route.

Pictured:  An "inappropriate" protest in 1770.  And as will be usual, the black guy is killed first!

The Knight is your friend?

You know those knights of old? Who wandered about the country side rescuing damsels in distress and being ever on guard against any Hunnish menace or Islamic hordes who might invade to take away the King's peace?

Okay - you're also aware that such was just the propaganda, that mostly those knights, no matter how swell personally, were there to make sure that the peasants stayed on the Lord's farm, doing the Lord's bidding and not rising up against the Lord in the name of better conditions?

You are aware that back then, the gravest offense - besides killing a Lord or any of his status - was to kill a knight, or even to resist him in anyway?

That whatever that knight ordered, the peasant must do, and to fail to do so in anyway would lead to unimaginable heartache for that peasant and his whole family?

Okay. Just wanted to share that. Seemed like it was something that needed to be said.

‪#‎peasantlivesmatter‬
‪#‎knightlivesmatter‬

Pictured:  The Knight is your friend.  Instead of being concerned about that brutal quelling of peasants striking for a 70 hour work week, be happy at this Knight posing with a child!

A War on Police?

In 2015, 37 police officers were killed by gunfire. And that is a tragedy.

Also in 2015, 1,186 citizens were killed by police officers. Not arrested, tried, found guilty and executed - killed right on the spot by the police.

In this then "war" in which police wish all the sympathy in the world for how oppressed and put upon they are, they are killing 32 times as many people as the alleged criminals are of them.

Yet the cry is to arise at once - "It's a dangerous job, they can't take any chances!"

But truth is, their job is not even in the top ten of most dangerous jobs. Taxi cab drivers, they are in the top ten - and if they were killing 1,186 passengers per year, do you not imagine what news that would make?

And why do cab drivers not kill as many armed robbers? Well, cab drivers have to be very careful. They aren't allowed to kill a passenger just for feeling in danger. And if Haji from Pakistan tells the NYC district attorney that he thought the passenger's cell phone was a gun, it will cut zero ice. And taxi cab drivers don't get to investigate themselves and then release a report six months later saying they found that it was - yet again - a "good shoot".

Taxi cab drivers have standards. They have accountability. They work a dangerous job, their loved ones want them to come home, but they are mature adults who know that this should not give them a free pass to kill first, and ask questions later - if at all.

Taxi cab drivers are not above the law. If they kill, it is nearly a 100% certainty that a Grand Jury will be convened to look into it. If a cop kills, it's nearly 0% that such would happen.

I dream of the day when these police "heroes" - and which of them is ever not a hero, according to the pro-police memes? - are held to the same standard as immigrants from overseas. Held to the same standards as the guy who drives you to the museum. Held to the same standard as those who can barely speak English.

Can that be dreamed of? Can we have a day wherein cops are no longer unaccountable masters, but fellow citizens with no less - and no more - rights and privileges than the rest of us?