If a homosexual dies of AIDs, most white Christians feel sorry for him. It is truly a hideous way to die. But do we feel as sorry for the homosexual who has contracted AIDs as a result of his own behavior as we do for a man or woman who has contracted AIDs after a blood transfusion? Of course we don’t. The homosexual’s death from AIDs is unfortunate while the death of the man or woman who contracted AIDs from a blood transfusion is a tragedy.
The negro who was shot and killed by Michael Slager brought about his own death, because he fought with the officer and then attempted to run from the officer to avoid arrest. Despite all ‘paper’ laws, every criminal should know that when a man’s blood is up, a man who is charged with catching bad guys, death could be the price for resisting and fleeing from that officer. If criminals do not believe that, and most American criminals do not, the law will lose most of its force. You could make a case that considering who makes the laws, namely liberals, it might be a good thing if they were not enforced, but that is a discussion best left for another time. The main point I want to stress is that Michael Slager is the tragic victim in this case, not the negro called… I can’t bear to put that blessed name on a negro, so I’ll simply refer to him as W.S.
Slager was the victim of two modern mythologies, both of which stem from a secularization process that started long before he was born. The first mythology is the psychological mythology. In the late 19th and early 20th century, secularized Jews such as Freud and secularized Christians such as Jung gave us a new, non-Christian way of looking at life. That new view of existence is so entrenched in our society now that even the Christian churches, who should be the main opponents of psychology, refer all really difficult problems to the psychologists. The psychological myth, which says that men and women are not responsible for what they do because they are a hopeless bundle of biological impulses they really can’t control or understand, has replaced the Christian belief of our European ancestors who believed that a man was responsible for his own sinful behavior. Under the new psychological mythology, society is much more responsible for crime than criminals, because society creates the conditions that make criminals commit crimes. This is why we have “wars on poverty” and liberals such as Obama suggesting we stop terrorism by getting terrorists jobs. There is evil in the new world, but we’ll come to that anon.
The 1985 case of Tennessee v. Garner was merely a reflection of how the psychological myth has changed American society. Similar court cases have changed the other European nations as well, because the psychological myth is a product of post-Christian nations, and all of the European nations are post-Christian. The bare facts of the 1985 case are as follows: A black police officer shot and killed a young black teenager while he was fleeting from the scene of a burglary he had just committed. Under the existing laws, the police officer was doing his duty: He shot a fleeing felon. The family of the young criminal sued all the way to the Supreme Court. The majority of the judges on the Court – there were three dissenting judges – ruled that the shooting was justified under the existing law, but went on to state that the existing law, which permitted the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon, was unconstitutional. They argued that since our nation had evolved beyond the point where we used capital punishment for most felonies, police officers should not be permitted to use deadly force against fleeing felons. Under the new law, a police officer could only use force when his own life or another person’s life was in danger or when he thought that a fleeing murderer or rapist constituted a threat to others.
In between jobs in academia, I spent some time working as a police officer after the 1985 law went into effect, and it was not as clear cut as the TV lawyers say it is. Different officers had different interpretations. This should not be the case for such a serious life and death issue that a police officer has only seconds to decide on. For instance, I once had a man who was resisting arrest attempt to grab my gun. He didn’t succeed, and I managed to take him to the lock up, but afterwards I asked a number of my fellow officers what would have happened if, after trying to wrest my gun from me and failing, the prisoner had knocked me down and fled. The attempt to get my gun constituted attempted murder, because presumably the prisoner was not trying to get my gun in order to crack walnuts with it, so would I have been justified in shooting the man who had shown himself ready to murder in order to avoid arrest? There was no agreement among the officers. The consensus opinion was that I should hope such a scenario did not occur.
That exact scenario did not occur for Officer Slager, at least from what I’ve been told, because the prisoner was only reaching for the officer’s Taser, or perhaps even managed to discharge the Taser, but still, once disabled by the Taser, wouldn’t the officer’s life have been in jeopardy? That is quite a stretch, I know. I’m not trying to justify Officer Slager’s actions under our existing laws; I think by a strict interpretation of the 1985 law, Officer Slager is guilty of voluntary manslaughter (certainly not premeditated murder as the conservatives and liberal pundits are calling for), but I do not think Officer Slager is morally guilty of any crime at all, because the 1985 Court decision was an immoral one. The decision was immoral because the majority judges assumed that a police officer, who represents society, is just as guilty as the perpetrator of a crime and therefore has no right to violently deter the criminal. The Court did not take into account the fact that a police officer is bound to protect society and not the criminal who has chosen to commit the crime and to flee in order to avoid the proper punishment for his crime. The police officer is not exacting the death penalty for such crimes as theft, burglary, and aggravated assault — the criminal has exacted the death penalty on himself by fleeing. The Court also did not take into account the dangers of escalating felonious crimes, which are undeterred. No one can say that a thief who has no fear of being shot while fleeing from his crime will not become emboldened to commit more crimes, and then during the course of one of those crimes he might be forced, by some cruel home owner, to use deadly force: “I didn’t mean to kill him, but he came upon me suddenly.” And in point of fact, black crime has become so out of control in our major cities because of court decisions like Tennessee v. Gardner that most of our cities should be put in a state of martial law: “Looters will be shot on sight.” (1) But because liberals rule our nation and blacks are sacred to the liberals, we have a perverted form of martial law: “No violent action must ever be taken against black criminals; failure to follow this rule will result in immediate prosecution.”
This brings us to the second myth of modern Liberaldom, the myth of the Noble, Black Savage, or the Black Messiah. If the psychological view of existence liberals profess to believe in was followed consistently, then a white police officer or a white homeowner who shot a black felon would be completely exonerated: “We must understand his rage,” or “We must understand his environment,” etc. But such is not the case. In any confrontation between a black and a white, the white is always assumed to be guilty, despite the fact that we are all, from the liberals’ psychological point of view, supposed to be without sin. “Ah, there’s the rub.” The white man is not without sin: The white man is Sin Incarnate. No matter what crime the black commits, it is never his fault, it is always the white man’s fault. Are black police officers prosecuted for killing white felons? And why are blacks who murder whites seldom prosecuted, and when they do get convicted why do they receive pardons after only a few months of incarceration? It is because the liberals are post-Christians, and post-Christians must cling to an inverted Christianity. Sin exists; it resides in all white people, and there is a living God; he is the Noble, Black Savage. This case of the unjustly persecuted white police officer, who could be any of us, will be used by the liberals to further their agenda: The destruction of the sinful white race. Ironically, the all-black police state the liberals are striving for will be the most violent police state in the world, because black police officers will kill without the slightest regard for human life. And the remaining white police officers will know on which side their bread is buttered, so they will only use deadly force against whites. We can already see this in Britain where the police crack down on white nationalists and leave the Moslems and colored barbarians alone. And in the United States we are more likely to see police violence against anti-abortion protesters than against black felons. How could it be otherwise when such a hue and cry is raised by whites and blacks whenever a black man dies as a result of an altercation with a white police officer?
Some white nationalists have told us we must not support the white police officer, because it will make white nationalists ‘look bad.’ Do you really think a white nationalist can ever look good to a liberal who believes that the white race is intrinsically evil? And since when does a white man base his beliefs and actions on how they’ll be viewed by the liberals? If the facts are not as they appear to be, if Officer Slager simply stopped W.S.’s car, pulled him out of the car, and shot him, then Officer Slager is guilty of murder. But if W.S. fled after an altercation with Officer Slager, then we should support Slager no matter what the liberals say or think about us.
There is a harmful dichotomy in whites who still profess to be Christian. On the one hand, they claim to believe in the same God who the antique Europeans believed in, but on the other hand they act according to the dictates of the liberals’ two great myths, the psychological myth and the sacred negro myth. Wouldn’t it be more Christian to base one’s actions on the traditional Christian faith of the European people than on the new age faith of the liberals? How society defends itself against criminals is best left in the hands of bred-in-the-bone Christians. Until white Christians grasp that fact and wrest control from the liberals, the Haitization of the European nations will continue. +
(1) I think that the new “youthful sport” of negroes called ‘flash mob’ robberies and beatings has become so commonplace that all violent flash mobbers should be shot on sight. But of course that would mean we would actually have to admit that there are racial differences, that white criminals are going against their blood while black criminals are acting according to their blood.