Police Brutality

We cannot bring any more certainty to the incidents of “police brutality” in this environment, and placing the burden solely on the police is irresponsible and dangerous. While they could become desensitized, they are indeed the ones keeping society from imploding while everybody else feeds the flames of “Discordia”. Harassing the police and asking for reforms is not a solution for the problems that might exist, although it is how we seem to approach everything, with a thousand politically correct cameras, when a more intelligent approach is necessary.

 

In the middle of a cultural war liberals promote their own brand of ethical exceptionalism, bringing down the establishment becomes the only concern. Caught in the southern ark it has committed the mortal sin of the obscene generalization where the political leaders become apologists and play right into the soft bigotry of low expectation. The left continues to split and becomes incoherent promoting diversity and the immaculate integration at the same time, a cult with a general message of no coexistence.

 

Equality in this environment becomes near impossible. These incidents are usually triggered by the social pressure only to proliferate and exacerbate the problem. The historical hunger, the predominant instinct to consume makes us feed of the juicy poisonous fruit and use them to collect old debts, erasing big chunks of reality in the “inflation”. In reality if we stopped mass migrations, we would all be able to move around freer. If we stop the escape of money, we would all have more money, and if we didn’t lose the factories, we’d have more jobs.

 

The politically correct color re-stabilization approach that looks to change the balance of power at any cost is not going to work either, the lowest common denominator reconciliation that sets us up for the fall. Look at the lynching mobs on the streets assaulting the police on the bridge to chaos and the masses coming across the border. This is the result of an egregious commoditization on the part of bottom feeding ideologs that has nothing to do with unifying but rather destroying. We repress because we engage in the pervasive consumption where we become prey of misguided leaders and irresponsible media that continue to commercialize the obscure reason in the form of rights, commercialized the pain.

 

This is not an exoneration of the justice system by any stretch of the imagination, but the bigger truth is that law enforcement playing the arbiter in a political conflict and balancing the world in the point of a needle. We need to stop agitating to then consume our own pollution, over two hundred police officers die every year in America, and ten thousand were killed in the line of duty in the last forty years. We cannot just attribute these conditions to bigotry and racism in the high-pressure environment we’ve created, and is not as simple as proclaiming civil rights or human rights. The cost implied as a result of the commoditization of the historically oppressed and the African American diaspora negates the whole concept, the new sins used to shame people into submission.

 

What we need is a separatist movement from the dogmas keeping us locked in conflict, the useless redemption game brought about by a history of oppression and slavery. We continue to confuse social justices with retaliation and insist on the siege of America in a religious manner that is causing much of the tension. We could in fact overcome other deficits but not the moral deficit this brings about, because we’ve been traumatized by the fascist, by the KKK, by the Tea Party member carrying an AR-15. Generally, progressives today are pedaling a disease that is the result of a gross overreach by the Civil Rights movement and a double face passive aggressive attitude intended to wrestle down the white beast. The bigger problem we have is the inconsistency, pushing in two directions promoting multiculturalism and (subcultural) integration at the same time.

 

The culture has proven to be recalcitrant; we promote guns and violence and complain about the killing, we try buses in cities made for cars, and collectivism in a world of Hollywood and superheroes. We promote diversity and individualism, and demand political correctness and unity. You can give me speeches and a million reasons, and I’ll tell you why the buses are not going to work, why liberal collectivism is a disaster. And that is the predicament of enrichment, because in the end you need the buses to work, sort of speak. It’s swim or sink and you can’t swim forever. Public transportation can only work as part of an all-encompassing civil approach, they work better if cities are smarter and the distances more reasonable, if gas is less expensive and technology wiser, but also if we are courteous and clean, if society is better educated and the culture friendlier.

 

 

The Price of the Dual Morality - Double Trap Door

I’d have to say that in the most absolute terms collectivism wins the argument against individualism though. The individualistic hubris is negated every day by the elder, the children, the handicap, the sick, population growth. and the less fortunate, while reaffirmed by a system that increasingly depends on personal initiative and sells “discordia” as progress.  A person driving down the expressway seeing all the new constructions and beautiful developments would have no reason but to think - This is progress - While somebody else might see the pillaging of the environment. If they try to stop it however, they become repressive (in the measure they can’t produce the results). That is our sad reality, in fact most people will see it as progress, and this transcends to all aspects of our lives speculation and individualism are the manifest answers. First it proves that we need solid institutions and government, that people have a limited understanding and cannot produce the performance by themselves. That we have walked ourselves into these untenable situations because of the economic dogmas and apocalyptic policies where collectivism becomes an assault on tradition, logically. Sometimes we get closer than others but almost always end up back on the fork in the road and the internal conflict.

 

The inadvertent utopian would be right in principle about health care for all and free college tuition for instance, but would probably end up being more destructive to society in their rush to judgment. It would probably end up bankrupting the economy if we don’t consider the impact due to the levels of enrichment and the high demand for money. Logistically it might not even be possible throughout such vast distances, not to mention the policies that constantly attempt against the kind of commitment that is necessary. We could argue that it is within our reach but would probably end up taxing people on one side of the continent to pay for programs on the other side, completely disassociated from actual socioeconomic relationships which can become counterproductive.

 

Going back to the question of what territorial integrity means in the digital era. Isn’t it precisely the apocalyptic connections now taken to a digital level that poses the problem, or should I say spiritual level? One of the biggest dangers of our times is the delusional left with their speculative rights and political correctness; the wrong way to address economic problems and restore the culture of work and sacrifice. I think they just added too many elements of discordance when they started promoting ethnic conflicts and religious resentment as diversity and inclusion, when equality became racialized and about same sex marriage, and they promoted fatherless and motherless children, and late term abortion. When they started supporting illegal immigration and doing gay parades in children’s parks, and people started getting fired for speaking their minds in their own private time. When we were all accused of being bigots and they started selling marijuana opening a new portal to the decadence, when they really should’ve been talking about the financial scourge and corporate exploitation, big business and political corruption, Wall Street and the Heartless Vegas Tycoon, the glorified thieves, the Rockefellers and the J.P Morgans, the wise guy betting on somebody else’s life from outside the ring, the gangster, the made-man, the scheming scum lurking in the City Hall or the Court House to pick up the spoils of somebody else’s misery, the house they lost to foreclosure. The truth is that by now both sides have to be repressive to some degree, that’s the predicament of enrichment, but how do we know where the balance is today? Who’s integrating the environment better, here and now, the crypto communist promoting the immaculate global emancipation or the one placing tariffs on imports and talking about national integrity?

 

That is why I’m not in a hurry to change my cultural heritage, because it should not be anybody’s minimum wage caught in the grinder of the critical weight and the rush to judgement, especially when we are doing some many things to add to tension and undermine ourselves. I am all from maximizing the potential for a greater integration and there are things we can do, like speaking a common language, sharing in the same legacy, educating children, elevating the culture, and promoting moral values. In that context we might be able to recognize a legitimate demand, but the apocalyptic rights in the context of the liberal economic policies is a weapon of mass destruction, the pined-up frustration of oppressed people that now measure their success in a global scale and want to ride the singularity taking everybody down with them, the sins of the past.

 

When Cuban complained about financing at the Organization of American States and the silence it was receiving from the United States in 1964, they were facing the phenomenon of double morality and the internal conflict as well. Cuba which supported national independence and opposed corporate internationalism ended up grinded between a moral axis and the absence of economic viability, the inability to integrate the environment. The fact that the moral axis between socialism and democracy was disputed at the time is almost irrelevant to this point (and the hidden agenda), in any case it just added to the tensions. It’s a double trap door, there is irrefutable evidence that most other countries in Latin America burned under the glare of the absentee landlord and the economic evil as well.

 

After the fall of communism in 1989 the left shifted to a new form of collective supranationalism, causing the rollover and establishing the new left-right paradigm between globalist and conservatives, international financiers and industrialist nationalists. Something similar is happening to the United States today, getting caught in the grinded between the Moral Organizations we owe devotion to and economic pressures brought about by the displacing axis of globalization, convulsing in its own internal conflict and a decadence that now floods from the bottom up. 

 The internal conflicts generated by the liberal paradox are too many; asylum or no asylum, rights or no rights, tyranny or democracy, independence of dependency, currency, trade, tariffs, affirmative action, white privilege, and a million others (nationalism has obviously been stigmatized). The people most resentful and less concern with real cultural diversity are the ones that have it their way, they’ll soon forget about statistics and demographic and even their own desire for integration when they take your place, defining progress in the conquest caught up in the apocalyptic demand of the white man they are supposed to hate.

 

It would seem unfair but if Latin American countries cannot govern themselves and stop the mass migrations, we must also assume that they have entered into a complete state of anarchy and cannot enter into any trade agreements either. The next time Mexico wants to talk trade or aid we would have to send them back to the United Nations. We are too old to fall prey to the double morality and the right/left grinder. Today is about those poor people crossing the border nobody can do anything about and tomorrow is about cultural pride and fanatic regionalism.

 

If you are waving flags and coming as Latinos what do you expect from others. If you are presenting yourself as African American exclusively, what do you want, dispossess others of their identity by appealing to a common humanity at the same time? If you want to talk about cultural diversity I applaud it, but if you want to run over the town, I deplore it. I’m sad to say that Spanish Television and radio stations during the recent elections covered Latino candidates and Latino vote almost exclusively as if we lived in an alternate reality, but they won’t use the same language went it comes to the caravans of immigrants and things that require a general understanding, which is very subversive.