”Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions.” - Joyce Carol Oates
I started seeing this flag about two years ago and was wondering what it was. Since that time, it’s become increasingly prevalent, and you’ve no doubt seen it yourself – flying in front of homes, depicted on T-shirts and car stickers, etc. I now see it every day around my neighborhood, and I think it’s worth considering what this flag represents...
It’s called “The Thin Blue Line” flag, and it’s purported to represent support of police. The phrase which often accompanies this symbol describes police as “The thin blue line which stands between order an anarchy.”
The statement itself is partially true, though the connotation is a perversion of the truth. Police are, in fact, the primary barrier to an anarchistic society, but anarchy in this context implies chaos, lack of order, and carries nebulous notions of rampant violence and looming danger. The term anarchy actually implies nothing of the sort. The root meaning of the word is “no rulers” (just as the word monarchy means “one ruler”). And what does it mean to have no rulers? It means that you are free.
Anarchy and Order
Anarchy literally means freedom. And yes, police are the main barrier between the people and freedom, as politicians have no means by which to manifest their fallacious power without others who are willing to blindly enforce their commands. Anarchy does not imply lack of order, however, as all the world is guided by a natural order, and people may create voluntary systems of order of various kinds. In fact, they do it all the time…
Sports teams, book clubs, theater companies, businesses, charities, intimate relationships, website communities, etc., all operate under a system of voluntary order. No one is coerced by violence to participate in these communities and follow the system set forth. And yet, such organizations are successful, prosperous, and fulfilling, all over the world. Freedom does not obviate order.
Contrary to prevalent beliefs, the particular type of order (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with anarchy. Anarchy does not imply every-man-for-himself, communism, the lack of voluntary hierarchy or any such particular societal condition. It’s simply a recognition of the irrefutable truth that no individual has a rightful claim to act as an external authority over another. No one has the right to ignore your consent and make commands which you must obey under threat of punishment. There is no such thing as a valid ruler or master. Anarchy means there is no valid slavery.
A Flag of Our Own
What’s most notable about this police flag is that it presents an alternative to the American flag. Why do police have their own flag? Aren’t they supposed to be upholding the Constitution of the nation (and states) represented by the red, white, and blue version? Why are they symbolically differentiating themselves from the rest of the nation? Are they not to be included amongst “the people” in the “…of the people, by the people, and for the people” scenario?
It’s a bit disconcerting that the police force (purported to be protectors of the people, made up of the people), is beginning to adopt its own symbology. I'm reminded of the nazi Schutzstaffel (literally meaning ”protection squadron”), commonly known as the “SS”, who also had their own symbology, and who – like modern police forces – became increasingly militarized as the nation moved toward tyrannical oppression.
A red flag would be if police began employing use of "The Thin Blue Line" flag in an official capacity. As of now, they have yet to add this to their uniforms or police vehicles (to the best of my knowledge).
The Dark Symbol
And what of the specific nature of this police flag? It depicts an American flag with all the color drained out of it – black and grey (or white), save for the single blue police line. What does this desaturated aspect typically represent?
I remember watching Transformers the Movie as a child. It was notable for the fact that the main hero character, Optimus Prime, died. It was a big deal at the time. In an era without internet spoilers, many children were blindsided and traumatized. And how did the creators of the film handle the difficult-to-explain theme of death in a film targeted at young children? How did they indicate that Optimus was dead, and not merely temporarily deactivated? As the life slipped from the noble Autobot leader, all color was drained from him. His usual red, white and blue coloration was replaced with shades of grey.
Historically, dark colors like black and grey are associated with lifelessness… death. And for those who suppose this is a merely a style choice, or concoct other explanations for the decidedly dark nature of this flag, let’s take a look at the second-most common variation of this symbol – the death’s head police flag.
Protectors or Death Cult? Which is it?
This is not a unique one-off representation – it is very common and has numerous variations (some of which you can see here). I’ve seen this myself countless times within just a few miles of my home.
The popular version shown above uses “The Punisher” skull symbol, made famous by the comic book character of the same name. The Punisher is known for two things: being armed to the teeth with pistols, machine guns, knives and explosives, and brutally punishing criminals with no due process, often unto death.
Darkness, punishment, death – is this what police are to represent in our society? Their stated mission is “To Protect and to Serve”. Here in New York City, the side of their car says “Courtesy, Professionalism, Respect”.
Are these the things that come to mind when we see the symbology they’ve adopted for themselves?
In an era of tense relationship between police and the general population, wouldn’t a well-intentioned police force want symbology that heals the divide and warms public sentiment? The chosen symbology seems to indicate that that they’ve taken a far different approach – inspiring fear, and demonstrating antagonism toward all who would oppose them.
Personally, I view this symbology as deceptive, offensive, and aggressive. Deceptive because police (in their current form) are not protectors from chaos, but roadblocks to freedom. Offensive because it implies a differentiation between police and the people they're sworn to protect, claiming unique rights and privileges that average citizens to not have. Aggressive because defining yourself by punishment and death is expressly violent and does not make me feel safe in your presence. I will not shop in stores that display this flag, or willingly embrace people who depict it on their clothing, or fly it in front of their house.
Symbols are not arbitrary - they mean something. They're created with intent. Consider both the overt and subtle aspects of the chosen symbology and decide for yourself what’s being spoken by this visual language. In any case, it’s recommended that we keep our ears to the ground, and maintain a keen eye toward emerging patterns. Are our claimed “protectors” earnest in their pledge, or are they merely agents of power-mongers employed to subdue and control the people?
Truth will out, so keep your eyes open.
Thanks for checking in!
Brian Blackwell
Relevant articles supporting a deeper understanding of the ideas presented above may be found here:
Great piece. Beautifully well thought out. So many people look back at major totalitarian events and say, 'Never again', without the slightest understanding of any of the red flags to look out for.
This is a big one.
Thanks Matt. I could see how many would just see it as way of showing support for friends and family members on the police force, but it's encouraging to hear that others share my interpretation. This stuff has to start somewhere, and if it was blatantly obvious, people wouldn't fall for it over and over again throughout history.
I see a similar, ominous trend here in Australia. There's a constant push to have higher penalties for assaulting police, ambulance workers and even public transport drivers.
It's like a little bonus they can offer public sector workers.
If somebody attacks you they face much stiffer penalties than if they attack a commoner.
Of course, all the regular folk think it's a great idea (as opposed to just increasing the penalty for assault across the board).
Think about that... the faux-rationalization is that these people are at higher risk, and so stronger deterrents serve to mitigate that danger. But what kind of can of worms does that open? What's the logical conclusion of that line of thinking?
Aren't women more likely to be assaulted than men? Aren't people in urban communities at higher risk? Do we need a scale that describes the risk level for each citizen, and the associated punishments? Each citizen will be given a rank from A-Z based on risk... and then what? And then the people who have lesser punishments associated with them will become preferred targets! But wait... wouldn't that make the lower risk people at higher risk??? Maybe we didn't think this through...
The whole thing goes haywire - you know why? I know you do. Because it's not rooted in principle. It's just another asinine attempt to shovel the shit around on the effect level and ignore the causal factors. And the people at the highest levels of control know all of this, but can sell it to the rabble because they've been tenderized through a lifetime of inanity and dissuasion from critical thought.
I found me a wordsmith :)
haha! I second that. Good wordsmith you are, B.
Bah! Hahaha
Thin Blue Line, eh? I didn't know this kind of thing existed until now. Thanks for informing me. This is a really good article and highly relevant today. Good job, B.
Oh for sure - you didn't know? The next time you walk outside and there's not buses crashing into houses, and armed gunmen high on PCP shooting the squirrels, thank a police officer. Even though they're only 3% of the population, they're what's keeping the whole country from going bat-shit bananas.
Ah, bro (I know you've heard this one already but for the sake of other viewers...) -
Congratulations @bbblackwell, your post has been selected by the @asapers for a resteem and a feature in our brand new curation post. Issue 100
What does this mean for you? Well first an upvote from some members of the team, we are no @curie or @ocd but who is going to be unhappy with some extra upvotes. Also each post featured in the article will receive a 10% share of the SBD generated from the curation post.
Keep up the great work and please consider supporting the @asapers with an upvote and/or a resteem on the post you feature in. Please wait seven to ten days for payout.
Your friendly @asapers
Giving back A.S.A.P
Much obliged, to be sure!
Great post.
Just a thought.
I think pledges don't do anything either. It's a ritual, and symbolism as well. ( and something the same as cursing someone)
The pledges only put an idea in the minds of the slaves, something like.......oh they did a pledge now they are gonna dedicate their live to being honest, protection and justice etc. or something along those lines.
I (we) live in an Orwellian world of giant proportions. And it is not that that starts now or a while back. I (we) were born in it and it has been always that way. We are mindfucked from birth. (excuse the language ;)
Luckily there are still people who get out of the giant echo chamber.
Peace
For sure. The whole notion of pledges and oaths is ludicrous. First off, consent is an ongoing process. This becomes clear in the case of date rape, or some such situation whereby a person says "Yes" than change their mind and say "No." The "No" counts and the "Yes" is negated because consent must be renewed in every moment. So what's it mean to say "I will always do XYZ?" It's contrary to how consent works, and thus irrelevant at best, and immoral at worst.
Also, to hold someone to such a pledge, considering the above realization, would be to say "I reserve the right to override your consent because XYZ" (where, in the case of oaths, XYZ is "You spoke words 6 years ago"). It is never the case that you have a right to override consent (nor should you want to - how weird is that desire?) except when it pertains to protection of rights.
A relevant aside: If someone is attacking an innocent person, their consent to being physically stopped is not a factor. Their attempt to deny another person their rights obviates their own rights in this regard. Their right to consent is not being ignored or overridden - it ceases to exist. Were such a right/freedom to exist (the right/freedom to hurt innocent people, and consent to being stopped), that would mean that one freedom could infringe upon another. This is impossible, lest freedom in the aggregate become both "A" and "not A" (freedom in general would include both the attacker's freedom to attack, and the victim's freedom to deny consent to that attack). This would make freedom a concept with no definitive content, as it would include both a particular action and its negating opposite.
So as you say, pledges are mere ritual. They have no validity because they're redundant when continued consent is present, and invalid where it is not.
BBB, when you write about politics, the powers that be, try the ashtag informationwar.
Oh, ok, thanks EC!
This is a very strong and thoughtful piece 👏 👏. Every organisation puts a lot of effort and thought in creating it's symbol. It may seem like a simple symbol to us but a lot of time is consumed in deciding the color, the pattern and the name of it.
I found your interpretation of this flag very accurate and to the point. If this is, what it is. Then everyone needs to keep themselves aware and all ears and eyes. Thank you for sharing. I absolutely loved this.
Those are some kindly words, and much appreciated. I'm happy you found value in these observations. I'm thankful there are others, such as yourself, who are able to discern the submerged portion of the iceberg, and are not merely mesmerized by the waving flag planted on top.
Totally agree with @mattclark Awesome post. Well deserved recognition from the @asapers i wonder what the people's reasoning is to fly this flag? Divide & conquer is sickening in these troubled times. I am with you on this. If i saw that the flag was being displayed it would be a symbol to go the other way. Oh i pray for peace on earth and beyond. Peace and harmony among God's creations and all life. Keep posting high quality, thought provoking content!! Have a fantastic day!
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you so much, Jill. I share your prayer.
I think some fly the flag to show support of friends and family, and police themselves use it as an act of insecurity masked as solidarity. It's easily understood when you consider gang mentality. It's no different than any such colored rag.
I shall now proceed to have a fantastic day, as you have commanded ;)
Thanks again!
Haha! I hope your day added to your fun filled memory bank! ❤🙏😊 real pleasure to meet you!