In the end, liberal identification with criminals leads to the police knowing that the politicians don’t have their backs and to a reduction in effective crime control. It’s not an accident that liberals disagree with Giuliani’s “Broken Window” policing philosophy, since liberals don’t seem to care about the victims of “petty” crimes.
We need to tell the American people, our friends and neighbors, the truth that liberals aren’t like honest folk instead liberals identify with criminals and therefore support laws that favor criminals over victims and society.
Tom Trinko
October 31, 2015
Why Liberals Identify with Criminals
[H/T to Ed Driscoll.
There is far more to this than Trinko elaborated on in his post. In The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956 by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn there is extensive reporting of how the criminal class was the natural ally of the communists because the criminals would steal from and murder those with property. I.E. those who bettered themselves above the “common person”. Also political heresy, ideas contrary to communist thought, was considered more dangerous than thieves and murders to the communists and were treated as such.—Joe]
Interesting point.
I read the /Архипелаг ГУЛАГ/ in high school. Along with Harlan Ellison’s writings, it is seared into my memory.
The /Gulag/ in paperback consisted of three massive volumes, and to this day I recall in vivid detail the stories of the criminals operating in concert with the organs of state security, especially the NKVD (НКВД) People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs.
There is a common thread here: cultivation of hatred towards wealth and property. Think also of the Khmer Rouge, who despised the professional class.
Those intolerant souls in the /Progressive Left/ who are currently clutching to power in the U.S. are not however able to devolve this ideology into genocide against political foes for one reason, and one reason only: the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and 357 million firearms.
And let’s not forget the jihadists, toward which the American Progressives seem to have a tolerant if not cozy attitude. Sharia law now seems to be more welcome than constitutionalists.
Is that because Sharia would be compulsory and imposed from the top? Leftists love compulsion. Leftists are the Sinn Fein for the Islamist IRA.
I don’t know. My sense is that the left mostly just admire the power of coercion, mistaking it for strength. They worship it. Thus government-controlled is better than privately controlled, gangs are interesting, gang leaders are admirable, and cut-throat jihadists are downright fascinating.
I liken it to what I call the “pet dragon syndrome”. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you had your very own pet dragon? The dragon is the ultimate predator. It can intimidate the most powerful among men, it can take revenge for you, and it can kill for you at a whim. But it’s your friend. You may thus be powerful by association, but you are not doing any violence. Your dragon, by his nature, is more than willing to do violence on your behalf, but you yourself are removed from it. You may thus remain “passive” while your dragon takes care of the “aggressive” bits. Your good friend, the dragon, says, in essence; “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done” but you can operate in the shadows and blend in with society because the dragon does all the intimidating for you.
I think that’s every leftist’s dream, essentially. Though the “pet dragon” is replaced by government, gangs, jihadists, pirates, a false concept of “the greater good” or whatever thug or gang of thugs, or blindly-followed celebrity-authorities, should become available to further the cause.
In simple terms it is the authoritarian system, wherein pressure, intimidation, and compliance with doctrine replace liberty, intuition, inspiration and cooperation. It’s the chain-of-command of bullies and cowards, wherein every bully is a coward before greater bullies, and every coward is a bully before lesser cowards, each vying for his share of the booty and his position in the chain-of-command. Anyone who thinks outside of that system is correctly seen as a mortal threat, and so such people must be attacked.
Hereby we delve deeply into Biblical constructs. Sorry, atheists, but there it is for anyone to see who cares to look. The Scribes and Pharisees saw Jesus (who threatened no one – quite the opposite in fact) as a threat to their position and influence, so they had, in their weak minds and blind eyes, “no choice” but to have him killed. They told one another; “If people see that they don’t need us, our very way of life is over.” Blindness, fear, intimidation, resentment and a sense of dependency are required to keep the authoritarian system going, to keep the house of cards standing for another day. This sort of thing repeats itself throughout history. The very appearance of courage-in-principle is the thing the authoritarian fears and hates more than even the greater authoritarian. That system is probably acting in some form within your own family, too, by the way.
If that is the case, and I believe it is, then it is our duty to stand on principle without fear or concern for what others may think or say about us, and without resentment or rancor, and come what may.
I don’t remember whether is was Rand Paul or Ted Cruse, but one them, when asked about how much the Republican Party is going to hate their guts if they become president, said (I paraphrase) “The truth has a power of its own…”
Another example of liberal identification with (or support of) criminals is the fact that liberal policies are designed to ensure that only criminals are armed. In other words, to make the streets safe FOR criminals.