He was a “wonderful kid.”
“A man of high moral character.”
“There was no reason to fire shots.”
“He had a great personality, a warm smile, and …a very generous heart” … except for when he was trying to murder three policemen.
After you read A.W. Morgan’s story on Danroy Henry at VDARE, and the linked “news” stories, if you have the time, read my essay on Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. (Gatesgate) and the paranoid, black supremacist, jailhouse philosophy of law, and tell me if you think that my responses to incidents like “Gatesgate” and the instant case are exaggerated.
In the case of the September 30 David Hartley murder, I wrote of how the federal government, led by the President, is obligated—indeed, that it is its primary duty—to enforce border security, in order to keep “the jungle” (anarchy) out.
In a free republic, as America was conceived by the Founding Fathers, domestic security is very different. Although police are the embodiment of what legendary LAPD chief Bill Parker called “the thin blue line” separating civilization from anarchy, in a free republic, the policeman is closer to the last, than the first line of defense. The first, and most essential line of defense, is the citizen. As John Adams, our second president declared,
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
A republic is a society ruled by self-government, as opposed to, say, rule by a dynastic monarchy, an imperial power, or a dictatorship. One of the fundamental meanings of “self-government” is self-restraint on the part of citizens.
The multicultural state is the opposite of a free republic. In the former, substantial portions of certain “diverse” racial and ethnic groups teach their children contempt for the law and for all self-restraint, and to violently resist all lawful authority. Not only do parents and legal guardians teach this lesson, but other adults with authority over children—teachers, social workers, ministers, even rogue counter-policemen hired under affirmative action—do likewise, as do the media. And then, when the predictable bloodshed occurs, those who fomented it are “shocked” and “outraged,” and depict the malefactors variously as “victims” and “heroes,” and the real heroes as “murderers.”
The social disorder characteristic of multiculturalism is not anarchy, because under multiculturalism “non-diverse” groups are obliged to exercise the very virtues that “diverse” groups are taught to violate, while the ever expanding government treats the self-governing groups, whose assets it increasingly confiscates, like criminals. The inverted moral order of multiculturalism is thus a case of what the late Sam Francis called “anarcho-tyranny.”