DEI, and policing during the switch from Republics to communist states

1. Steven Pinker on DEI

Although overall Steven Pinker is somewhat left leaning, his book, The Blank Slate is an excellent read for a properly Socratic deconstruction of Marxist/Hegelian/Leftist thought. He breaks down most leftist lines of reasoning to three major logical fallacies. The Ghost in the Machine, The Blank Slate, and The Noble Savage. It is insightful and also available as an audio book.

2. Please click through to read Natasha’s full Tweet on this act of policing which is clearly the result of a major policy shift in Western Civ today. That policy shift is where the focus has to be. Not on the actions of police per se, other than where the police show excessive or violent zeal in enforcing this new paradigm.

And the new paradigm is: “Harm reduction”. 

To get all jargonish for a moment, “Harm Reduction” is a dialectic, or intersectional line of attack against known things which actually work to preserve civilization.

In exactly the same way the mass line narrative attack, “Diversity is our strength” was used as a dialectical weapon against the eternally truthful: “United we stand, divided we fall”.

Harm Reduction is a way to get the police to operate for the destroyers of civilization instead of in its preservation. This is true wherever it is applied that I am aware of.

“Harm reduction” as an official policy, and as it pertains to drug use, was to stop prosecuting its use at pretty much all levels and try to ‘reduce the harm to addicts’ by supplying them with everything they need to ruin their lives, the lives of those around them and those who care about them, and society as a whole. It has resulted in the total ruination of entire neighbourhoods. It has contributed massively to changing society from high trust to no trust. It has turned recreational drug use from a societal problem to a WMD against Western Civilization. Theft and forced prostitution are rampant now. You won’t see this in China, Muslim countries or Russia. And not because they are better. But because they are not self destructing. Or certainly not at anywhere like the scale we see in the West in cities like Vancouver and San Francisco.

In the case above, this site has watched with careful detail, how for a couple of decades now, police have arrested or removed law-abiding civilization-oriented law-abiding people who were countering a clearly illegal and violent or, dare I say it, ‘violence adjacent’ protest by anti-civilizational forces with the reasoning that it is to ‘protect the law abiding from the violent’.

This has the staggering effect of:

Police actually destroying any freedom of political speech laws that every country has. The 1st Amendment most famously in the US, but post WW2, most western nations have some form of guarantee of freedom of speech. Harm reduction, or whatever police call this policy of arresting opponents of Islamic jihad or communist revolution, was a major turn-around with a simple dialectical turn of a phrase. The police now work for the enemy.

This is not new. We have seen groups of Pro-Israel folk singers be arrested and removed from a demonstration they had applied for, and received a permit from the European city within which it took place because a larger group of rabid anti-Israel leftists and Muslims showed up with no permit and waged a threatening counter demonstration. This was over 12 years ago, and if I recall, was in the aftermath of a previous Israeli response to an attack from Hizb’allah or Hamas.

The problem may lie with the police depending on your orientation. If you believe police, like soldiers, are individuals and should act on their conscience, then those police that engage in harm reduction are guilty I suppose. But that is a really really big ask and in fact, fully obscures the real responsibility. The pawns are moved by an invisible hand above the chess board. They have little agency. And while individual police do, the ones who act in concert with the written law and in opposition to destructive policies are extremely rare because of the price they will have to pay to defy a state narrative.

There is after all, a reason this site and others put so much effort into creating awareness of the Helen Grus case in Ottawa. Because officers like her are extremely rare, and all can see the enormous price she has paid for doing her job, to enforce the law. Which of course is a deterrent to all other police that think about maybe acting with the law instead of state diktats.

Same goes for soldiers for that matter.

So the problem lies at the policy level. Critical theory attacks have made it extremely unappetizing for honourable civilizational-minded and competent people to run for public office. Not to mention that said people can usually make a great deal more money and retain more privacy in the private sector. Alinsky rule 13 has seen to it that should a counter-revolutionary person run for public office, they will be destroyed with factual but exaggerated or out of context unrelated events from their past life, or in every possible way, while those working for the revolution can and will be as corrupt and sociopathic as they want to be, and enjoy no public scrutiny to speak of. (Letitia James hopefully being the first exception!)

The cost benefit of running for public office for the counter-revolutionary people has been made extremely difficult, and then went up a solid notch when Charlie Kirk was assassinated. He had not even run for public office. But the hope amongst non-communist Americans was that he would. Even expectations were that he would. Not to mention the numerous assassination attempts and successes against other counter-revolutionary politicians in the Western World.

Solutions require an understanding of the problem. And most of the time, we tilt at windmills our enemies make for us to tilt at. Allowable Counter-narratives as Stephen Coughlin would say. Or Controlled Opposition which is equally accurate. Blaming the police makes sense. But has no value. The policy of replacing rule of law with ‘harm reduction’ or whatever the official name might be for police removing the law abiding and peaceful as it incites the illegal and violent, is where the problem lies. This likely comes down from a supranational organization like the EU, UN, or WEF, Bilderberg etc. The same place as “safe and effective”, the “religion of Peace” and other dialectical spell-craft phrases have originated.