The Missing Lesson from Norway: Never Trust a Man in Uniform

 Roughly a decade ago, Al Pacino starred in a movie entitled S1m0ne, a cyber-eraupdating of thePygmalion myth in which a film director creates an uncannily realisticdigital actress. Despite the fact that “Simone” was a computer-renderedcomposite fantasy, the lustrous blond enchantress becomes a global pop culture sensation – a profitable illusion sustained through increasingly desperate actsof misdirection on the part of the director. 

It’s tempting to think that accusedNorwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik is a S1m0ne-style digital fantasy drawn to specifications provided byMorris Dees’ so-called Southern Poverty Law Center. Breivik used socialnetworking sites to create a cyber-persona seemingly made to order forleft-leaning “watchdog” groups. Available photographs depict the blond,stereotypically Nordic Breivik as if he were a dress-up doll, his face oddlyunmarked and expressionless as he poses in a variety of guises – includingFreemason garb and a scuba outfit. 

In similar fashion, his recorded ideological pronouncements –the quotes attributed to him in the aftermath of the killing spree in Oslo andUtoya, and his bloated “manifesto” – could be the work of someone determined toembody every detail of the familiar caricature of the right-wing “hate criminal.” 

Breivik may be exactly whathe appears to be – a murderousnationalist ideologue determined to precipitate a European culture war thatwould end with the expulsion of Muslims from the continent and the massliquidation of “cultural Marxists.” Breivik’suncredited borrowings from the “Unabomber” manifesto underscore thepossibility – however distant – that he, like Ted Kaczynski, could be a product of aCIA-style “behavior modification” program, or a pawn in a false-flagoperation. 

Whatever we eventually learn about Breivik’s background andmotivations, one detail of the killing spree he allegedly perpetrated offers atimely and critical lesson practically everybody has missed: We should never trust an armed man wearing the costume of a police officer. 

According to the narrativeprovided by Norwegian investigators, Breivik detonated a remote-controlled bombin downtown Oslo before traveling to Utoya, site of an annual summer retreat for young activists affiliated with the Labour Party, manyof whom had parents or relatives who had been employed at the governmentoffices targeted in the bombing. 

When he arrived a few hours after theblast, Breivikwas disguised as a policeman. This allowed him to gain access to thefacility, and the confidence of his victims: Trained to defer reflexively tosomeone wearing the insignia of “authority,” theyoung campers were psychologically disarmed when the assassin told them he hadbeen sent to check on their “security.”

By the time a SWATteam managed to arrive an hour and a half later, Breivikhad mowed down at least 86 scores of innocent youngsters. “It was a slaughter of young children,” onewitness said following the massacre. They were sheep who had fallen prey toa wolf wearing what the victims had been taught to perceive as the attire of a “sheepdog.”

The uncomfortable but unavoidable fact is that every state-employed “sheepdog” is a potential murderer, and should be treated assuch. We have this on the unimpeachable authority of “Jack Dunphy,” anactive-duty officer in the employ of the Los Angeles Police Department. 

 In every encounter between a police officer and a “civilian,”Dunphywrites, the officer is “concerned with protecting his mortal hide fromhaving holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in assertingyour constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail todo as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.” 

Whatthis means is that a Mundane who displays anything other than abject servilityis perceived as a threat to “officer safety” – and, by Dunphy’s calculation, is asuitable subject for immediate termination.

As is demonstrated by the actions of PatrolmanDaniel Harless of the Canton, Ohio Police Department, that assessment isnot hyperbole.

In a June 8 traffic stop that was captured on video, Harlessrepeatedly threatened to murder the driver, William E. Bartlett, for carrying aconcealed handgun for which he had obtained a the appropriate permit. At thetime, Bartlett was attempting to comply with the state ordinance by notifyingHarless that he was carrying a weapon, and displaying his concealed carrylicense. Bartlett was composed and deferential; Harless’s behavior was that ofa borderline psychotic eagerly seeking an excuse to kill somebody.

“As soon as I felt your gun I should have took [sic] twosteps back, pulled my Glock 40 and just put 10 bullets in your ass and let youdrop,” snarled Harless. “And I wouldn’t have lost any sleep.” Thus did Harlessslay the diligently propagated fiction that police officers are burdened with abone-deep dread of pulling their firearms.

After threatening to “put lumps on” a witness to theincident, Harless told Bartlett, “I’m so close to caving in your f*****g head….You’re just a stupid human being…. F*****g talking to me with a f*****g gun.You want me to pull mine and stick it to your head?” He later threatened tostop Bartlett every time he saw him, towing – that is, stealing – his car andtaking him to jail. 

After the video was made public by the civil liberties groupOhioans for Concealed Carry, Harless was put on paid vacation. 

“Obviously, whatever transpired on that video was anisolated incident,” sniffed Bill Adams, commissar of the local police union.The “whatever” Adams blithely dismissed was aggravated assault with a deadlyweapon: Rather than continuing to receive a paycheck for sitting at homeswilling beer and consuming internet porn, Harless should be in jail awaiting trial. 

Furthermore, this incident was an “isolated” one only as that term applies tothose individuals and that particular location; it is anything but atypical ofthe behavior of the State’s thuggish enforcer caste. 

Harless merely threatened to pull his gun and stick it toWilliam Bartlett’s head. According to the eyewitness testimonyof his former partner, Officer Sergio Vergillo, that’s what PhoenixPolice Officer Richard Chrisman did to 29-year-old Danny Rodriguez justseconds before he gunned down the family’s dog and murdered the unarmed man.

 Chrisman and Vergillo responded to a call from Rodriguez’smother, who was upset with her son’s behavior. Rodriguez demanded that Chrismanpresent a warrant. Drawing on the same lexicon of public service used by PatrolmanHarless, Chrismanshoved a gun against Rodriguez’s temple and sneered, “I don’t need no warrant, mother****r.”

Within seconds Chrisman had shot the dog, which – according to his partner –exhibited no threatening behavior. This left Rodriguez understandably upset.

“Hey, why did you shoot my dog?” Rodriguez bellowed at theintruder. Five seconds later, he was dead – thereby validating Officer “JackDunphy”’s warning that summary execution is considered condign punishment forany Mundane who annoys a member of the Exalted Brotherhood of Coercion byasserting his rights. 

Chrisman, who had previously been captured on video plantingdrug paraphernalia on a homeless woman, was fired and charged withsecond-degree murder. Significantly, the local police union, the Phoenix LawEnforcement Association (PLEA), helda barbecue at its headquarters to raisemoney onbehalf of Chrisman. Following Chrisman’s arrest, PLEA commissar MarkSpencer commissioned a fishing expedition into Vergillo’s background in thehope of impeaching his credibility as a witness. Even after the net came upempty, Spencer publiclydenigrated the character of Officer Vergillo, who had violated the mostimportant canon of police conduct by telling the truth about a fellow officer’scriminal conduct – in this case, aggravated murder. 

In New Orleans, the trialcontinues of five police officers accused of murderingtwo people, and grievously injuring four others at the Danziger Bridge inthe wake of Hurricane Katrina. The victims were unarmed refugees seeking toflee to higher ground. Thepolice officers responsible for this atrocity concocted acover story – complete with planted weapons and fabricated “witnesses” – inwhich the victims supposedly opened fire on the police and were killed inself-defense.  

Oneof the victims, a 40-year-old disabled man named Ronald Madison, received ashotgun blast to the back of his head, and then was shot at least three moretimes while he was face-down on the ground. LanceMadison, an eyewitness to the murder of his brother by the police, was arrestedand charged with “attempted murder of police officers” – a charge that waseventually dismissed. 

While the murders at Danziger Bridge differed in scale fromthe bloodletting in Norway, it was also a fatal ambush in which theperpetrators were attired in a costume signifying “authority” -- and they behavedwith the same pathological ruthlessness displayed the perpetrator of massacreon Utoya. 

Whenever an innocent person is confronted by an armed stranger in what appears to be agovernment-issued costume, one danger is that he is an imposter. An even moredangerous possibility is that he isn’t. 

By the way....

...  here's a link to the second hour of last week's Pro Libertate Radio program, which features a discussion of the demented Daniel Harless and other distinguished defenders of public order.

My thanks, once again...

... to everyone who has donated to Pro Libertate, and for the patience many of you have displayed in awaiting your copies of Global Gun Grab, which will be arriving within the week. Thank you once more, and God bless!

 

Dum spiro, pugno!