Victims Must Unite With Their Oppressors

A spate of shootings of innocent black men by white police was followed by a mass shooting of 12 policemen in Dallas. Afterwards, Very Reasonable People assured us that it was up to “both sides” – blacks and the police who oppress, abuse and kill them – to put their differences aside and compromise to achieve peace. Actually, it’s always up to the oppressors to stop oppressing.

24 thoughts on “Victims Must Unite With Their Oppressors

  1. Most white people are killed by white people, so I guess by that standard it should be OK for police to get in on the whites-kill-whites-game too.

    Jews didn’t resist their oppressors in Germany, believing that compliance with them would protect them from violence.

    “See how nice they treat us? They are providing showers for us. Let’s all get in line.”

    • Glenn, it’s not the case that Jews did not resist the Nazi regime in Germany, there were no few incidents in which Jews used violent means against the regime, even prior to the outbreak of WW II in Europe on 1 September 1939. What does seem to be true, however, is that Jewish business leaders in Germany, for example. opposed the anti-German boycott organised in March 1933 by Jewish groups abroad, understandably, as the Nazis replied on 1 April 1933 with a boycott of all Jewish businesses in Germany….

      As usual, events were rather more complex than our recollections of them….


      • I won’t dispute that my statement about Jewish resistance may imply a Jewish monolith, but I reject the existence of this monolith.

        Huey P. Newton distinguished between revolutionary suicide and reactionary suicide.

        My first approximation is that no monolith exists until its existence can be demonstrated. And this has never been demonstrated in references to races or nationalities to my satisfaction. There is more variation within groups than between groups.

        Examples of variation within groups abound in Victor Klemperer’s “I Will Bear Witness”, his diary during the Nazi occupation of Germany.

  2. The race war you’re stoking is likely what TPTB want as an excuse finally to enact martial law. Ordinary police, as well as yet again, the naïve Left, are being used. They’ve got you thinking you’re fighting them when all you’re doing is playing right into their hands.

    • Yep, the trolls were cued all right.

      Just in case you haven’t noticed, the race war in this country has been going on for nearly four hundred years – and it wasn’t the left that started it.

      YOU, my bridge-dwelling, gullible fool, are the one playing into the oppressor’s hands. YOU will hand them the power that will one day be used against you. You’re even worse than a sheep being lead to the slaughter – you’re helping to build the slaughterhouse.

      And on the day they shoot you, you will still be insisting that it’s all the left’s fault. “Naive” doesn’t even begin to describe it.

      • Yeah, the “conservatives” in this country do this amazing thing with their brains. It’s like they live in Bizzaro World.

        They keep saying that they don’t trust the government, but they’ve got no problem granting the government the power to torture, murder, and detain people indefinitely without any oversight whatsoever (let alone archaic rituals such as a speedy trial). They have no problem with the government tapping their phone, but throw a fit if asked to register their guns.

        I’ve heard them argue that peace protesters cause wars and condoms cause AIDS.

        They so often insist that down is up I wonder why more of them don’t simply walk off ten story balconies. (But I haven’t given up hope.)

      • CrazyH,

        Someone once said that conservatives / reactionaries are all for the “right hand” of the state – the police, army, courts, prisons – the repressive institutions of the state.

        What they are against is the “left hand” of the state such as a social safety net, welfare, helping poor people, affirmative action, etc.

      • Agreed, Prolecenter.

        “Why did the conservative cross the road?”

        -> Somebody told him to.

        “Why did the liberal cross the road?”

        -> Somebody told him not to.

    • Jack,

      For your mind to even conceive of, let alone entertain the real possibility of a “race war” where battle lines are drawn up between armed groups of whites against blacks says a lot about you and how twisted your worldview is. You’ve got to get over that paranoid, white supremacy bullshit, man. It’s poisoned your mind and your soul.

  3. Again. As with the “guns are the problem” knee-jerk simplistic response to all the shootings, the solons are insisting that the solution for all the water pouring in through the ceiling from the hole in the roof is to buy more buckets.

    Why do all these cops keep shooting innocent black men?

    Before you answer, let me ask you this in way of a hint: Why don’t you murder people?

    It isn’t because of your “moral compass.” It isn’t because you “prefer to use your words and indoor voice.”

    The reason you don’t kill is because you will be punished if you do.

    Now, revisit the issue of why cops shoot innocent black men and let me know if you’ve reassessed your position.

      • Head of the class, Henri.
        And here is how you stop it:

        1. If the police don’t have a video clip because, gosh, it disappeared somehow, then the entire police side of the case is ruled inadmissible. Ditto if some shopkeeper’s store footage is taken by the police and later found to have gone missing. If the police have no case, it’s an automatic finding in favor of the plaintiff.

        2. If the cop is found guilty, the cop goes to prison, for many years. Just like when a non-cop murders.

        3. The cop’s pension? That goes to the victim’s estate.

        4. The police department? 10% mandatory reduction in budget and salary. Upper-level management is fired automatically. (Also, replacement management cannot come from lower ranks in the department and cannot be any police officer who was fired from another precinct due to a similar case.)

        5. On the federal level, any time a cop kills someone like this, the feds are required to confiscate ALL items purchased with federal “war on drugs, war on terror, war on whatever” funds. That means bullet-proof vests, armored SUVs, copy paper, the nice two-ply toilet paper in the bathroom, all of it. Also, federal funding is denied for a 10 year period.

        Now, before anyone tells me how draconian all this is, and unreasonable, and so forth. The draconian, unreasonable thing is a cop shooting a man and killing him because the cop either doesn’t know how to do his job or because the cop is so racist that he sees every black man as being a mortal threat.

    • May I add a further point to your five, alex_the_tired ?

      6. All so-called «civil forfeiture» laws are to be declared null and void. Assets can only be seized upon the decision of a court of law, and no assets seized may be used to add to the budget of the police, the district attorney’s office, or any other organisation which played a role in their seizure. Assets which, after a legal decision in a court of law, have been seized, shall be placed in a foundation at the federal level, to which organisations such as school districts in impoverished areas, can apply for special funding….


      • Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional anyway. “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.” (or words to that affect, don’t feel like looking it up)

        Alex – I like all your list *except* the budget reduction. Part of the problem is that Police aren’t paid enough, so the only people who sign up are those for whom shooting someone is a perq, reducing budget even further won’t help.

        I’d also make penalties for cops who commit crimes on duty 3X those that are imposed on civilians.

        Many judges won’t send cops to jail because *gasp* the cops might meet someone they put behind bars. The proper fix for that is “don’t commit a crime in the first place, pig”

      • My most abject apologies, CrazyH, I read your remark to the effect that «Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional anyway» as indicating that its legal status was so obvious it didn’t require being placed on alex_the_tired’s list. I see now that you intended just the opposite….

        Since you and I – and I hope and trust, alex_the_tired as well- are all agreed, all we need now is for these six points to be implemented. Alas, I can’t hold my breath as long now as I could back in my SCUBA diving days, so I shall have to abstain…. 😉


      • «pax» As long, CrazyH, as you’re not calling for a «pax americana» of the Ms Clinton type – which, I must confess, I generally tend to read «pox Americana» – I’m with you all the way…. 😉


    • I would like to see how a police force draft from members of a troubled community would change community relations with the the police force.

      Draftees and Lifers would both have to have the same training, weapons, arrest powers, and body cameras.

      I’m sure there would be some new perspectives coming out that integration between the community and the police force.

      Whether, and how long it would take for the draftees to become socialized to the perspective of the community as the enemy of the police force would be interesting.

      • «Whether, and how long it would take for the draftees to become socialized to the perspective of the community as the enemy of the police force would be interesting.» «[W]hether», is not, I suspect, in question, but one might want to take odds on the length of time it would take. Perhaps the ratio of «old timers» till «new recruits» – and not least, the age of the latter – would play an important role here – how long does it take a minority of drill sergeants to make killers of a majority of ordinary 18 year-olds in countries in which compulsory military service is in effect ?…

        «Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional anyway.» I quite agree, CrazyH :

        «Amendment IV

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.»

        but that’s hardly the point ; it seems to be widely employed. That is why I suggested that it be included in alex_the_tired’s list….


      • I quite agree it belongs on Alex’s list, Henri, that is why I posted my post.

        The alleged drug dealer has a Porsche and an old truck he allegedly drove drugs around in.

        The Porsche is well within his means with his visible income.

        The cops can’t prove their case, the alleged perp walks, but they still keep his Porsche.

        In my area, we’ve got a nicely tricked out Mustang that’s used as an unmarked car, and a beautiful Corvette they ruined by painting DARE logos all over it.

        Is that really the message they want to give to kids? “Don’t do drugs – but if you sell drugs you might get a bitchin’ Corvette…”

      • Shit. Fat-fingered the italics tag. Meant to italicize only the word “that”

        Kinda loses the impact. :: sigh ::

Leave a Reply