Necromongers: The State is Always a Police State by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: This is my 400th post at ZeroGov and I wanted to thank all the readers and supporters who have made this possible.

“You can’t boil the ocean.”

That’s why I try to drill down deeply on singular topics. Borrowing from the giants like Spooner, Tucker, Rothbard and Higgs and countless other voices in the wilderness carrying on the anti-slavery and abolitionist tradition in spite of the overwhelming floodtide of government supremacist idolatry that permeates human thought for millennia. At the cosmic level, I do spend a disproportionate amount of time parsing out the implication of the American police state.

Recent life events have severely curtailed my writing output hence the relative infrequency of essays and extended the timeline for the publication of The Cancer Club but fear not, it will not suffer the fate of Absolved. We’ve moved locations in the American Southwest and my day-job has monopolized more of my time than I am accustomed to. 2016 has slowed my literary and podcasting roll to a near full stop.

I have a longer commute until we move into our new house next week and while I listen to books on MP3 frequently, I occasionally tune to the radio and the talk radio is abysmal on the airwaves. The Beck show is especially loathsome with its constant drumbeat for this collectivist notion or that government band-aid in addition to the mewling for superstitious intervention in the affairs of man. His posse of co-hosts at the Blaze prove the notion that the sycophancy of his crew obviates any ability to have a rational conversation. Back to Neal Stephenson’s brilliant Baroque Cycle on MP3.

My books that are published remain on Amazon and a veritable library of media appearances can be found in Media and Interviews in the tab above.

And no, I have not followed the election nonsense very closely and remain convinced that Bernie Sanders is every American politician for the last ten generations on truth serum. The pursuit of the Offal Office is nothing more than a subtle change of the guard for the looting of the Helot plantations and the careful trimming of dissident and samizdat voices in the bloodthirsty but incompetent “whack a mole” behavior that is government violence. -BB

My friend D. Brian Burghart:

“And that list doesn’t even get into fundamental errors in attitude toward police killing—for example, the tendency of large outlets and wire services to treat killings as local matters, and not worth tracking widely. Even though police brutality is a national crisis. Journalists also don’t generally report the race of the person killed. Why? It’s unethical to report it unless it’s germane to the story. But race is always germane when police kill somebody.

This is the most most heinous thing I’ve learned in my two years compiling Fatal Encounters. You know who dies in the most population-dense areas? Black men. You know who dies in the least population dense areas? Mentally ill men. It’s not to say there aren’t dangerous and desperate criminals killed across the line. But African-Americans and the mentally ill people make up a huge percentage of people killed by police.

And if you want to get down to nut-cuttin’ time, across the board, it’s poor people who are killed by police. (And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men.)”

He maintains the database at Fatal Encounters. It’s filled with gut-wrenching anecdotes of the government sponsored killing spree executed by its low information security legions.

The police forces that prey upon the American population are simply the political face of every society weaponized. Cosmically, no human can have any vestige of their liberty and freedom reduced absent the institution of government policing.

The singular point I want to get across is that political policing is one and the same. Politicians at the end of the day are simply violence brokers. They are the suits and ties that determine how the stolen goods and hijacked production is apportioned to the politically connected who are plugged into the plunder system.

All political systems are de facto and de jure police states.

Terrorism is politically motivated violence against non-combatants and innocents. Government can’t function absent a terrorism modality to its everyday actions. If the police weren’t present to threaten and actually cage, maim and kill; no one would obey the various edicts, diktats and nonsense spewed and vomited from government offices and their willing colon connoisseurs in the media and education complexes. The enormous penal population serves as not only a punitive sanction against the weakest elements of the captive population but provide a warning to others on the price of disobedience.

Most of these unfortunates caught in the nightmarish Kafkaesque construct that is the American legal system end up there because of confidential informants. And whether you like it or not, one of your friends and family either are now or will be. Informants, of course, are the life blood of fabricated crimes and prohibitionist legal regimes. Like torture, it rots and hollows out the moral core of everyone involved.

Claudia Rusch, quoted in Mary Fulbrook’s book, The People’s State:

“That was the real strength of the state security; to produce the effect that millions of people behaved towards one another with anxiety, self-control and suspicion. They ensured that if you told a political joke you automatically lowered your voice. Anticipatory obedience spread through every sinew of society and intimidated a whole nation”.

Yet another reason that prison populations should stop demarcating themselves into a factionalism that favors the state and start behaving as prisoners of war especially on the Irish example in the twentieth century in the UK system. At the Federal gulag level, the lion’s share of prisoners are genuinely political in nature who have trespassed the state drug cartel prohibitions on essentially non-violent behavior in offenses in which the only victim is the state. In this case, the third party of the state steps forward and claims a grievance wholly manufactured to serve its malum prohibitum pretensions as a component of rule and control.

It’s no more simple than that.

The recent season finale of The Walking Dead portrayed how government works adroitly and succinctly; almost as elegant as Robert Higgs’ description of modern policing.

“The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone’s anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.

We need only consider the following:

(1) A cop’s job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
(2) Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
(3) Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops.”

Do you ever ask yourself why the police are virtually never punished for wrongdoing that puts normal humans behind bars?

Do you ever make the connection that if America’s pioneering cross-dressing community, judges, were to treat the provocations and violence of police equal to the disproportionate savagery exercised against Helots that come before them without a badge, the courtrooms would quickly empty when the police would stop enforcing?

Do you realize that all American policing is political and that the gulags under Stalin pale in comparison by sheer numbers and in some cases naked savagery?

Do you ever wonder why the incidence of violence in the black hole that is American incarceration never leads to indictments or conviction of government “corrections officers”?

With the exception of Netflix’ Making a Murderer and The Wire, the media uniformly portrays the thin black and blue line as a system that “gets its man”. It does; it wrongly kidnaps imprisons and murders every year whether in the streets or the gulag. The government malicious and incompetent puts hundreds of innocents to death in cage system, whether through the death penalty or the cruel machinations of the government employees running the human incarceration system.

And they do indeed. More than 93 percent of all criminal complaints are pled down in the prosecution complex and the remaining ones that go to trial are receiving a 90 percent rate of conviction for the prosecution. The inference is that everyone the police catch is guilty thanks to the keen insight and gumshoe due diligence performed by the thin black and blue line. The fact is that everyone is guilty in the uS of committing crimes against the state as ably documented by John Whitehead and others.

The only reason the media is unable to maintain this monolithic idolatry of the power of the wood shampoo is that the advent of expedient video technology on portable devices has robbed the police of the primary means of committing their misdeeds. The pervasive culture of lying and deception that saturates every aspect of American policing. Part of this is the cultural instantiation seeing and reinforcing their own perceptions. The police forces have the dual responsibility of being both revenue agents and the primary kidnapping mechanism serving the political classes. If you doubt this and perceive an injustice, what is the primary response from the low information badged government employees?

The Nuremberg defense.

American is and has been an occupied country. The mandarins in DC are nothing more than an alien lamprey class that has landed on a willing host and are using the police to ride herd on the Helots to drive compliance and make example of a few every now and again.

The police don’t stop crime. That is an impossibility. They are the ones sent to uphold the rule of law. Another impossible mission much like the chimerical myth of limited government.

One can do a thought experiment. If one demarcated malum prohibitum from actual malum in se crimes, how empty would the groaning legal bookshelves be, how empty would the gulag system be?

Imagine a world where there was no illegal vegetation, all men were held accountable for the initiation of violence against another and no one could lay claim to one’s resources through mere magic words on a parchment or modern paper by suits and ties either elected in majoritarian tyranny or straight-up honest dictator gangsterism.

Magic words never signed onto as a conscious contract. Go figure.

In the end, every time you see one of your fellow sufferers pulled over by the very expensive and most likely unmarked police vehicles, someone else has joined the enormous population of folks who not only smell something wrong in policing but realize that is nothing more than a very sophisticated Stockholm Syndrome experiment. That is nothing more than highway robbery. Theft clothed in official regalia and dressed up to appear to have a legitimacy it never possessed.

History proves that governments must occupy through force to conduct the necessary evils implicit in their agenda and police are a linchpin to the enterprise. The suits and ties codify the threats and their police supplicants do what they are told. They always do what they are told no matter how immoral and debased.

Police are the pointy end of all politics. They are, in essence, the business end of government that folks are exposed to on a daily basis and prove the point that no government will always be kinder and more humane than any government imposed outside private agreement.

That cop on the beat (or beating) is the closest you will ever come to meeting your political masters.

Send a message.


“Maimonides taught that it is better that 10 criminals go free than let one innocent man be executed. The Innocence Project represents that point of view.”
 – Norman Lamm

29 thoughts on “Necromongers: The State is Always a Police State by Bill Buppert”

  1. Pingback: Buppert: Necromongers – The State is Always a Police State | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  2. An interesting article till I got to this line “…state drug cartel prohibitions on essentially non-violent behavior in offenses in which the only victim is the state.”

    I call BS. Yes more harm than good has been garnered by the ‘Drug War’. But please don’t classify drug use as a victimless crime. It is not. I lost a family member to a drugged out bastard.

    1. The act of ingesting a substance into one’s body is a victimless crime. What one may do to gain access to that substance is where the actual crime takes place. A person who uses heroin but never robs, steals, or otherwise imposes themself upon others is not a criminal. An idiot, perhaps, but their crime is only to their own body. A person who uses theft and murder to buy or control sales is a criminal who creates victims.

      1. “A person who uses heroin but never robs, steals, or otherwise imposes themself upon others is not a criminal.”

        And if that same person then gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and kills someone, is he/she still not a criminal? Fact is the person participated in wilful murder. Oh said person did not intend to impose himself on others, but they did.

        1. “And if that same person then gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and kills someone…”

          What’s the problem here? You don’t know what “if” means? I know it’s just one letter, but “if” isn’t “is.” That’s why it’s called the subjunctive; it only exists in a mind.

        2. People enamoured (for whatever reason) with the war on drugs are typically hypocrites of the easiest stripe to identify.

          If drug induced car wrecks are some sort of indicator of a substance being unsuited for mere mortals to have access to, then surely one would be a hypocrite not to demand the prohibition of all alcohol and pain medication stronger than paracetamol.


        3. Understand what you are proposing here. Just in case someone might get into an accident, the entire War on Drugs fiasco is justified – including the financial incentive to get people hooked on drugs.

          At some point, people need to get control of their fear. Live your life, knowing that you may be struck by a drunk/drugged driver or by lightning. Inevitably, we are all dead in time, anyway. Don’t let the fear control you, and turn you into a slave. The state is not interested in helping you overcome your fear; on the contrary, it seeks to increase it.

        4. You aren’t listening. Jim said “or otherwise imposes”. Then you said that “said person… did impose.”

          You said Jim said the thing that he specifically didn’t say, right after quoting him not saying it.

    2. Prohibition creates and shapes the conditions for malum in se crimes much like the US drug war is responsible for part of the mess that is Mexico.

      Drunk driving may lead to tragedy but logically it is a prosecution of pre-crime. It’s fortunate that the government does not use its drunk driving industrial standards against self-defense weapons.

      I’m sorry for your loss but using this as a defense for an active government pogrom on behaviors esp when it comes to altering your consciousness is a slippery slope. Next we’ll be blaming the guns and weapons for the violence instead of the humans that wield them with ill intent.

      1. Nope, weapons are just inert objects. What people do with them is the issue. But there is a difference.

        To state the drug or alcohol abuse is victimless is false on its face. It engenders the idea that ANY result of such abuse is victimless when it is clearly not.

        Nor do I want the current regime it is just a heinous. But the truth is the laws are too lax. I am not talking about possession or distribution. I am talking about the actors in such crimes. You under the influence kill a family member, I should be permitted to take every last dime, your home, your cars, everything you possess and if appropriate your life.

        Might be draconian but it is where I am parked.

        1. “To state the drug or alcohol abuse is victimless is false on its face.”

          No, it’s true on its face. That’s why you can’t produce a victim until the abuser does something. All you got is what you “figure” that he’ll do. That’s in your mind; crimes against people are all in physical reality.

          Sorta like you being parked in place. That’s in your mind too. Lucky you’re not held to your own standard, eh?

        1. I’m sorry for your loss–I’m sorry for anyone’s loss–but you’re writing falsities on a public blog and presumably trying to persuade people. Unless you’re now arguing that victims have special standing with regard to the truth, the fact stands—“That’s why you can’t produce a victim until the abuser does something.”

          You also might want to consider that had certain drugs not been outlawed, thereby creating an entire criminal subculture driven by insanely high profits, your loss may not have happened. I know that doesn’t lessen your loss, and it shouldn’t, but it might give you pause in publicly arguing for more of it. Seems kinda relevant to the topic, yes?

    3. drdog09, my sincere condolences on your loss. However, you misunderstand the term “victim-less crime”. It’s not the “use” that is criminal; it is the “ABUSE” that happened after the “USE” that is (was) criminal. Prohibition by “the state” is an act of violence in itself. Nor will such “state sponsored violence” prevent the loss you suffered. That much should be clear. We will never achieve “Utopia”. The sad truth is that “S – – – Happens.” In far too many cases, the best we can achieve is restitution and/or some form of retribution.

      Bless you Sir.

    4. drdog09,

      My sympathy for your loss.

      Drug use IS a victimless crime. The demonization you impart upon the drug that was abused by a person, a human, is no less a justification for continuing the illicit “War on Drugs”.

      Your assigning blame to the inanimate drug is akin to the statist declaring firearms, the left’s “gun violence” mantra, as the reason for violence committed with an inanimate object, the gun. The human perpetrator is absolved, excused, forgotten in their transgressions against another human being. Rather, we assign blame to an inanimate object.

      Your loved one was not killed by a bottle of pills or liquid barbiturates. Your family member was lost to the choices and subsequent actions, of an irresponsible and indifferent human being.

    5. DOB (Drugged Out Bastard) hurt your family, and he did it because of the drugs, so force us all in on your pogram against drug users to eliminate DOBs because drugs cause people to hurt others.

      If non-DOB hurts your family what then? Pogram against mothers so no one gets born because they might hurt someone? What if a DOB doesn’t hurt anyone? Still punish them just because you made a rule against DOBs and we all gotta follow your rules?

      Thanks, don’t call me I’ll call you if I want to donate to your cause. Which of course is the whole problem, because police force these kinds of “services” on me and then force me to pay.

    6. Please don’t allow bastards to use drugs as a scapegoat. You lost a family member to a bastard. End of story.

  3. “Police are the pointy end of all politics.”

    Understates the case if anything, because it’s only that point that actually DOES anything. Without that pointy end, politicians and bureaucrats are like the drug abuser…foolish beyond belief maybe, but irrelevant to the rational person. IOW…

    “The State is Always a Police State”

    “The State is Only a Police State.” Says the same thing, technically.

    And more…either they change their minds, such as they are, or they have a nightmare coming that will be even worse than ours. This is easily demonstrable and is a word to the (hopefully) wise.

    It’s obvious already. We know with certainty that in the absence of extinction, the end state is going to be liberty, and so what physically stands between here and there will be the focus. “Don’t be that guy.”

    1. Jameson,

      “….please explain….the reason you use vulgarity….”.

      Why should Anonymous@1201 explain his choice of words for you ? If you take umbrage with his remarks then don’t ingest his commentary. That or counter his remarks with an opposing remark or comment

  4. Are you saying you’re a cop? You state that you “have been prepared to die every day for 2 decades.” Really? Your job is not that dangerous – to you. It’s dangerous for the public you come into contact with. You’re not even in the top ten :

    Also, you state that you “live this.” Seriously? You drive around in your safe unmarked car with your buddy looking for helpless citizens to destroy. Kids. The elderly.

    “Works both ways motherfuckers.” That’s the thing : it hasn’t been working both ways. It’s been working your way. But more people are waking up and cops’ families will eventually be on the receiving end.

    Things are going to get sporty.

  5. Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 04/11/16 - Macedonia: Hundreds hurt as migrants confront border police - Thomas L. Knapp -

  6. “And they do indeed. More than 93 percent of all criminal complaints are pled down in the prosecution complex and the remaining ones that go to trial are receiving a 90 percent rate of conviction for the prosecution.”

    At some point people will realize how much the deck is stacked against them, and respond the way players in a poker game do – by pulling their guns and shooting the miscreant, or by beating the shit out of him. At that point the criminal “Justice System” is short-circuited, and cops will find a safer line of work. The current realities all point in the direction of going to war on mere arrest, or attempt thereof; and finally toward war against any cop whether he creates a provocation or not.

  7. In a just society, YOU, would take the life of the criminal who murdered your innocent family member.You are a westernized domesticated weakling who needs Big Brother to do your heavy lifting. You are probably a woman.

  8. Just for fun, here is an example of the saying that you can’t make someone understand something if their job depends on not understanding it.

    My friend’s sister’s boyfriend works for a small town police department, and at a party he heard me complaining about the nonsense of victimless so-called crimes. He said he could produce an example of one. A drug dealer hires someone to deliver some drugs, and that person then gets busted by police who cause him trouble. This makes the drug dealer the person who committed the crime against the other guy, apparently because he knew he was putting the other guy at risk of getting hurt by the police.

    I was dumbfounded and speechless at the time, but later realised how it must have been for the politicians who passed the “law”. One of them might have complained that they can’t pass a law against an action that has no victim, and the other might have replied not to worry, because the law will create the victim!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top