The Very Act Of “Policing” Is Itself Divisive And Violent

To be a “police officer” means to exist for the purpose of anticipatory violence.

What is the purpose of a “police force”? To uphold the law no? This is why it’s also referred to as law enforcement. They must enforce the law.

According to the definition of enforce:

to force somebody to do something, or to make sure that something happens

So the element of “forcing” is constantly present. The act of “forcing” is itself a violent act.

Let’s look further into exactly what this means:

The basic structure, form, or pattern of a law is one that automatically divides and therefore allows for the creation of conflict. Laws say “do this”, or “don’t do this”. Let’s now look at the form of “do this”. “Do this” itself implies “… and don’t do this”.

So to generalize further and for the sake of explanation let’s just arbitrarily say “do this” is “go left” as in the direction. So let’s just say for the sake of argument and explanation that all laws say “go left”. What this does is automatically create “right” because you can’t have the direction of “left” without also having the direction of “right” as this is a property, or characteristic of the nature of thought itself.

So in this way all laws create division, and also as a result of this property all laws must be “upheld”. That is a sustaining force must be employed to hold the direction of “left” and keep from the unwanted direction of “right”. And this is where the conflict comes in. As long as there’s a “left” there must also always be a “right”, and thus the potential and possibility of sliding back to the “right side”, the “undesirable side” of the division, and where there is division there must inevitably be conflict.

This is how we live on this planet. Under a system of laws which themselves breed division and conflict by their very nature. Every law can be generalized, and boiled down to the form of either “go left”, or “go right” and therefore requires enforcement to hold compliance in one desired side or another. The problem with this is that once you now have a police “force” made up of “police” who also happen to just be human beings like everybody else, created by our wretched society with all the vile, violent, brutal, and ugly characteristics of our warped and twisted societal culture, we now have the problem of making sure the “police” behave the way that “police” are “supposed” to, or intended to behave.

This then creates the situation of “self-policing” and we all know how effective it is. Therefore, who polices the police? The department of “internal affairs”? Civilian oversight boards? The Department of Justice? Who then oversees these groups to ensure they’re behaving “the way they’re supposed to behave?” Where does the “oversight” end? With whom? This problem goes on ad infinitum and therefore is fundamentally, inherently, and logically flawed.

It is because all of the laws, the police, the oversight agencies are all creations of human thought, and so what we’re suffering the effects of unknowingly is the very nature, characteristics, and properties of thought itself.

The very nature of thought is “divisive” as this is the only way it functions. It forms the basis of it’s very substance as the act of conceptuality itself. So naturally, anything that thought does in the realm of human relationship will inevitably breed division and conflict. Until we “see” this fact we will continue to repeat the same conflicting, contradictory, and destructive behavior.

Let’s take a moment and look together at exactly what it is we’re asking police to do:

The very nature of the “role” of a policeman is to maintain order and the rule of law. Now, what exactly does this mean? It means to uphold the law meaning ensuring that people abide by the laws of the land, meaning people act, behave, and conduct themselves within the limits and boundaries set forth by the system of laws that are in place at any particular time. What does this now mean for someone in the role of a police officer? It means they must stay vigil and alert and look out to make sure everyone and their property are safe from any harm, as well as look out for any non-compliance of the the law. That is remain on the constant lookout for anyone why may break the law. That is, look for anyone who may be operating outside the law. Therefore, in order for them to do this, they themselves must be able to operate outside the law. So they must uphold laws while being allowed to break them themselves in certain circumstances. If this not the very definition of “contradiction” I truly don’t know what is.

Furthermore, imagine your in the role of police officer. It now means that the mode, or modus operandi/mindset that must be maintained is one of constant vigilance. Now, what exactly is implied in the act of vigilance? It means keeping a constant look-out for any perpetrated infractions of the law. The nature of the act of being vigilant requires that one be in a constant state of being ready to act at a moment’s notice. And the manner and form in which this action must occur is to initiate a forceful activity in order to force, or enforce compliance with the law they swore to uphold. So it’s like being in a constant state of being “ready”, on the edge of one’s seat and keeping a constant eye out for anyone who steps out of the governing line of law and must forcefully either be, put back in line, or punished. The very nature of such an act is itself violent, and therefore breeds violence. So the very nature of the act of policing is a forceful one which can only breed violence and conflict.

Let’s just look a little bit further to really hone in on what exactly it means to be in the role of a policeman. This means that as police interact and have relationships with civilians, they must both look at others as potential people they might have to protect from any sort of potential harm, as well as constantly maintain a state of mind where these other people might also be potential law breakers.

So they must constantly be looking at people as both, subjects that they swore to protect and serve, and as subjects who might potentially have to use force on because they also swore to uphold the law.

Now let’s just remain with the acknowledgement of this fact for a moment so that the implications of this situation will next rise to the surface of our awareness and our consciousness so that the implications of such behavior become apparent. So that we might “see”.

So a human, while in the role as a police officer, must exist in this constant state of internal conflict. This state of having to view people both, as potentially harmed, and potential harm itself. What does this do to a human mind? Might it twist and warp its perception at all in any way?

Therefore, given this insight one then might easily see why most policeman appear to have a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. It would appear that to just assume everyone is potentially a criminal it would be a lot easier on the brain instead of having to constantly context switch mental mindsets back and forth from “protect the people”, to “protect the law”. It would appear that due to just the mental fatigue/strain/pain created by this constant mental shifting, that the default mental setting could just be set to one mode or another. This behavior would basically amount to a subtle form of “self preservation”.

It would then appear that the very act and nature of policing means conflict, as it forces the human occupying the role of police to remain in, and maintain a constant state of conflict within themselves. It means maintaining a constant state of contradictory desires. To exist with both the desire to be a protector of people, and the desire to be a protector of the law which then brings them into conflict with the people they’re also supposed to be protecting.

So it first breeds conflict within the human mind. This internal conflict, then goes on to create all manner and manifestation of external conflict as it does in any human mind that experiences this same state of confusion.

Indeed, it is the source of all conflict on this planet, as it has been from time immemorial. But, just because this is the way it may have always been, does the accumulation of time behind this fact have any right in dictating that things way? In other words, just because this is the way things have always been, does that mean that this is the way they will/must always be? Is the past the precedence for the future?

No wonder we have not yet had a transformation in our collective consciousness, because what is required by this is something beyond the repetitive, mechanical, divisive nature of thought.