Why do I hate cops?

So I grew up in a police household. My father was a cop, and my godfather is a cop too. In spite of his obligations, he still looks after me. Makes sure I'm doing all right, he's one of the nicest people I know and I love him like family.


So imagine the conflict when one is faced with the realities of the police. How can I hate cops in this circumstance?


I thought about it for a long time, and the reality is very simple. Cops obey and enforce the law. If the law told my father to kill me, then he would have to do that. Doesn't matter what he thinks of me, if the state tells him to pull the trigger then his purpose is to pull the trigger. Same goes for my godfather, and all other cops. I'd like to think that they'd disobey the rules at that point. But fact of the matter still is that they did, on some level, pledge this obedience to the doctrine of the state.


Headline after headline comes out talking about how cops are more likely to commit domestic abuse, and is that really so strange? Given how somewhere, the uncomfortable truth is that the state, much like God himself, occasionally demands its followers to sacrifice a son to prove their loyalty and commitment to the doctrine. How can you get close to your loved ones then? When this hidden barrier of hate stands between you and them? Namely the fabric of your uniform, and the metal of your badge.


I begin to see people and cops as separate entities, because they are.


When a cop takes off the uniform at the end of the day, he becomes a person. That's when the free will appears, and the person makes their own decisions. When a person goes on duty, when the shift arrives and the uniform comes on, that's when they become a cop. Their actions are no longer their own. The doctrine of the law dictates their being like automatons. No exceptions, no debating, no rationality, you just do whatever you're told regardless of how you feel about it.


And that's not my dad, nor my godfather. That's something else. That's a cop. I'll never trust a cop, and I do for a fact hate cops.


Cops kill people, they beat them, they abduct them and torture them. Confine them into tiny spaces, take away their freedoms, treat them like animals, pit them against one another in human zoos, they abuse, mistreat, violate, trespass, murder and kidnap. They commit the worst crimes to prevent petty misdemeanours. They instigate as much violence as they suppress.

They are a tool of a government that hates me, that hates me because I'm poor. That hates me because I'm disabled. That hates me because of my world view. That hates me because of my civic status. That hates me because of my sexual orientation. A government that deprives me of food, that purposefully and consciously traps me in ghetto economics. That punishes me for living. That protects people who bully and belittle people like me. That would punish me for defending myself against those people. That provides police escorts to fascists who advocate exterminating me. That sends riot police to beat and kidnap and kill those who advocate my freedom and democratic rights.

A government that makes every effort conceivable to assure that my life is as miserable and undignified as humanly possible. So why is it so controversial that I then proceed to hate them?

individualism

Individualism, or "my needs" is typically regarded as this notion of freedom. Mainly because it appropriates individuality, which is very important.

You want to know what the freest society was by individualist standards?

Mussolini's Italy. It had the most liberated individual in the world. Namely, Benito Mussolini.

Along with several others. Saudi Arabia is a great individualist country too. Those Saudi Princes couldn't have more individual rights if they tried. The US, Great Britain, Germany, France, all incredibly individualist. They have individuals in those societies that are so free they're above the law itself.

If you measure freedom by the freedom held by an individual, then every dictatorial nation provides every single liberty possible. It's only worth a damn when everyone has those opportunities and rights.

balaclavas

So I had an argument with a Unionist about the IRA. This was in the context of the British use of police brutality at IRA funerals. He argued that the IRA were terrorists, and as such it was vital to disrupt all their activities, no matter how benign.

I challenged this, and he made an interesting reply. He argued that if they weren't terrorists, then they wouldn't be attending the funeral wearing balaclavas.

That's the distinction. What made it interesting.

It's not the bombs.

It's not the rifles.

It's not the civilians in the crossfire.

It wasn't the snipers in South Armagh.

It wasn't the Provos in Belfast.

Or even the molotovs in Derry.

No, it was the balaclavas.

Reason for this is because he wasn't talking like a person at this point. He was talking like a state. I wasn't addressing him, he left the picture the second we started discussing. It was his doctrine I addressed. The state speaking through him with ideas drilled into his mind since childhood.

And the state is fine with gunfire, burning, explosions, internment, torture and all kinds of brutality. The state looks the other way when Unionists would detonate pipe bombs targeting Catholic children. They don't care.

So we have the state. Internment camps, firing squads, press censorship, torture, sectarian violence, child abuse, you name it.

Then you have the IRA. They armed themselves and they fought back like a military. I won't pretend as though there is a good side in a war, but they had no internment camps, or press censorship for instance.

But they did wear balaclavas. So that's the terrorism. That's the dividing line that could be fabricated.

But I'd like to assert the following. If someone can't even attend a funeral without feeling compelled to hide their identity in an effort to avoid persecution, then whom, pray tell, is the real terrorist?

I'm writing about this now because the same pattern is being repeated all over the world, with several insurgent groups and resistance forces who are defending their homes from western occupation. From Palestine to Syria. I'm even talking about the Cubans, who drove out the Batista regime. About the Sandinistas and Zapatistas too. They're all in the habit of wearing balaclavas.

And in the words of Fidel Castro: History will absolve them.

the science of anarchism

Is anarchism a science? I would like to say it is. People describe it as a praxis, but the scientific process is also a praxis. To understand how anarchism, much like science, is about providing observable results which may be replicated, we most examine the scientific principles that premises social analysis.

First of all, psychology, and the relationship psychology has to evolution. The following is an hypothesis, but it is an hypothesis which could be very important.

Psychology is a relative phenomenon. If we were to imagine a quantification of psychology, then on one side we're looking at stimuli response, and on the other side we're looking at free will.

An insect lacks psychology, and is simply programmed to respond to stimuli in the most basic of ways. It has no memory or self awareness, it simply is.

Whereas a being with memory and self awareness, when faced with stimuli, has the capacity to assess their own situation, and run through information that might be relevant, and then develop a response. We assume this capacity to be free will. However, this also means that our will is only as free as our biological, or possibly psychological limitations.

I believe psychology is an evolutionary measure that arrives to a being capable of travel. That isn't just a static being with perhaps divergent genomes all over the planet, but rather a being who will constantly change environments throughout its life. This is why I believe the habits of our nomadic ancestors is what bestowed us with the most complex psychology on this planet.

So on this quantifying scale, where do we fit? It's impossible to know, because we have no idea to what extents memory and self awareness will actually take us. But I would imagine we're closer to free will than to stimuli response. But what is important is how we're not at full free will.

Things like addiction, fear, hunger, thirst, pain, sorrow and other stimulus would not affect us if we had complete free will. Hunger is not actually dangerous, it is simply a warning of malnourishment that most of us require massive amounts of willpower to freely resist.

So these factors do for a fact govern our lives to one certain margin or other, and will influence our choices. This margin is what we have in common with the insects of the planet.

And I believe this margin is what makes anarchism a science. Because I believe there is a universality in this margin. That, if we establish two societies on opposite ends of the Earth, with the same politics, same culture, and same language, the beings, no matter what ethnicity, will behave identically as a people, and would be able to seamlessly migrate between these two places without naturalisation. The only divergence which would build overtime would be caused by more random factors like natural disasters, conditions of birth, and possible power structures.

But all in all, you would be able to replicate the results of a society. Which is visible. As for instance Canadians and Australians have more in common than perhaps Canadians and Hungarians.

And when anarchism is used as a praxis, we begin to understand these patterns. How language, culture and politics define a people far more than any other factors. Because these three regulate the stimulus we face regularly. Anarchism is therefore the praxis of removing as much of the limitations imposed by stimulus as possible, in order to allow human beings to have a higher free will and have all of their needs met.

And in doing this, one must conclude, that sooner or later there will develop a homeostasis in an anarchist society, which will provide an objective formula for how to make societies in the future.

In this aspect, I would conclude that anarchism is a science.

empathy for the bourgeoisie

If you propose a revolution to a liberal, then first thing they will retort with is "But what of the bourgeoisie? Are they not people too? Have some empathy! Be kind to them for they're just people like us!"

A laughable remark. Because it is the bourgeoisie we empathise the most with. The bourgeoisie hate us, and they will, with every facet of information, with every medium, teach us to hate ourselves. When we try to feel what the oppressor feels, then we feel that hatred. The same hatred they feel for us. We feel doubt in our actions. We feel deserving to be under the boot. We feel ashamed of our humanity. We can thank the bourgeoisie for that.

They rule the world around us, and it is their sentiment of us that is projected through the world. The alienation, the smallness, the constant idealisation of themselves to make us feel inferior by contrast. That is empathy for the bourgeoisie. That is feeling the exact same thing they feel.

They might be human, but all they foster is an inhumanity towards others. To feel what they feel is to feel the inhumanity we always feel. I can't think of a better way to win through to oneself, to understand the value of class warfare, to see the immediate and acute urge to fight and overthrow the bourgeoisie than to empathise with them.

If the bourgeoisie would ever surrender to us and demand mercy, then stay as far away from the sobering reality of empathy as you possibly can. Try to pity them, maybe they're pathetic enough for that to work.

Or don't, they'd certainly have you dead the moment you become an inconvenience, and the liberals demanding nonviolent action would be nowhere to be seen when it's about to happen. Although they might just appear on television afterwards, belting out a vague sentiment of police reforms that they then never pursue. Because liberals have a stake in this matter too. Marginalised and oppressed people killed by the bourgeoisie are a fine pity project for those sanctimonious vultures.

That's why they'd never have you defend yourself, and instead ask that you slavishly surrender to their soothing notions about reformations and referendums that will never see the light of day.

language

If there is one way to see the footprint of any empire, it's through its language. Spreading as far as their territories. Language is a powerful thing, because it tells us how we think. If we have no word for a thought, then that thought becomes new. However, if we have been taught words for such a thought, then that thought becomes those words, unless we learn new words.

That's the poison of an imperialist language. It teaches us words to make certain thoughts forbidden. To make us fear those thoughts, and fear ourselves. And when we fear ourselves, we become our own enemy. So we remain silent, and we fight ourselves on their behalf. Constantly repeating the mantras of oppression until the questions become silent.

Right now, the fight of language has begun. We see a new generation of revolutionary ideas meet ourselves, and their language is fighting it. This is a fight that's been going on for almost a century. Before, people didn't understand the value of language. Our rulers had only the smallest clue of its influences. Today it dominates us with great invasiveness. It manufactures a reality that justifies bleakness. It presents ideals to make that reality necessary. The biggest victory in is fight, is the victory of the self. To understand ourselves and what our needs are. To understand how the bourgeoisie have taken those needs and replaced them with their own. When we speak to a reactionary, then we speak to a tragic being. A being that's bound by the language of his masters.

It is only through the realisation of this language, through critical thought and self reflection that we can begin to develop a revolutionary discipline. It is only then that we see how they hold ourselves, and our loved ones hostage for toil and servitude. When we see that law is not an argument from moral identity, order or rational thought. But rather an argument from the gun hanging at the oppressor's belt. There is no debating the law. There is no understanding the law. The law is pitiless to people who have no choice but to break it. The law says that the gunpowder of the state is holy retribution, and the gunpowder of the people is a poison of terror.

When a reactionary hears this, their language tells us that the law is there for our benefit, and that the law keeps an order for us all. The only context in which this applies, is in the context of words spoken by the state. It is their law, and their order. Poverty, war, colonies and repression are not order at all. This is manufactured chaos. Chaos that can't be justified as a misfortune or accident of nature. But a chaos far more dangerous, that's been designed to perfection to kill and silence anyone who stands in the way of the law.

This is where new language is formed. When we examine the law in this way, we quickly begin to realise that the law is anarchy, the highest anarchy. Where no inhibitions of any kind, justified or otherwise, hold back the destructiveness of mankind.

And so to reconcile this anarchy, this state of being, there is only one natural conclusion. Namely the praxis of anarchism. Which is to adapt a circumstance of anarchy, into a circumstance of us. A praxis in which we examine anarchy and see how we influence it to fulfil our needs. The state is simply the amplified institute of a merciless nature. Where the predators are given fangs, and the toothless prey is fenced in for their taking.

So, in my synthesis, those are the two words I want to teach today. Law is anarchy, and anarchism is the discipline of anarchy.

laughter

When I was a young boy, coping with mental illness on my own I didn't have imaginary friends. Instead I had an imaginary therapist. Namely, Sidney Freedman. He was the therapist from M*A*S*H, and much like I had imaginary conversations with him, so did he write imaginary letters to Sigmund Freud.

In this context, he mentions a quote. "Comedy is anger turned sideways." A reference to the Freudian quote I mentioned earlier in my post about depression.

I think that's the best explanation for my own sense of humour. I deflect a lot of my anger with comedy, and it's when I hold it in, typically for posterity or at the demand of others, that I become depressed.

Often my jokes are seen as insensitive or inappropriate. Because to others they invoke anger, and they mistake my reaction as something else. Today I want to talk about how ableist that kind of thing is.

What really triggered this was when I was thirteen. I was sleeping in a chair next to a hospital bed. Inside it was my dying father. He had barely minutes left when I was shaken awake by my mother. "It's time now.", she said. I didn't need any explanation. Even mere seconds into groggy consciousness I knew what it meant. My father was in his bed, pale as a ghost, tubes sticking out of his nose and arms. Raspy breathing and crescent eyes. Each breath becoming more struggled than the last. He had been living on IV drip and nutritional substitutes for the last few weeks, and his ribs poked out from under his greying skin. Yet, in spite of looking so weak, he was holding death's door open as he waited for me to tell him I love him one last time. It was the greatest display of strength I've ever see a human commit. Once he had gotten that final hug, and heard those words, his eyes closed and his heart stopped. Just like that.

About a week later I was going to the corner store. The lady at the till had become a friend of the family almost, as we had been shopping there for over a decade. I never knew her name, but I knew her as a person. A familiar face I had grown accustomed to. She asked me how my dad was doing, and I just started laughing. It felt so absurd to have to tell someone how this person that was always there for as long as I had known existence itself, had been blotted out forever in just a day.

The first time I laughed after seeing death, was at death itself. Since that day I've never stopped. When there's injustice, cruelty, murder and atrocities, I laugh at death. I laugh at the oppressor. I laugh because they want me to cry. Because otherwise I'd never be able to wake up in the morning. Because that's how I express my anger.

That's my choice, and my habit. And I'm sick of having sleepless nights, sitting in the dark, smoking a cigarette feeling ashamed and self-conscious just because someone else felt entitled enough to dictate to me how I should express my emotions.

I'd yell at them, but alas, usually I just make it worse with another joke.

That's kind of my thing.