The above video is a microcosm for the relations between neurotic people (leftists) and psychopaths (rightists)—to be precise, psychopathy and neurosis are extremes that provide the clear polarities that reveal the majority position; and so they are both pathologies in extreme forms, yet as a shorthand stand for characteristic behaviour by both sides.
Personally, I’ve always had a soft spot for New Age travellers, and perhaps that’s because I went to a Steiner kindergarten and so met many children whose parents had Rainbow Warrior posters and “Save the Whale” stickers; i.e. the type whose parents would sympathise with New Age travellers. My Steiner kindergarten was my favourite school full stop—all but one other were worthless; and I later met some people who were schooled Steiner all the way—they were far and away the most mature and best-educated people I have ever met (they thought for themselves). The Steiner principle involves lots of, frankly, tree hugging and the construction of little stupas and dams for the spirits—and no exams, either...
Anyway, gypsy romanticism aside, New Age travellers sound better in principle than they are in actuality—I’ve been to the actuality, not of travellers but people like them. It is, well, sketchy. The New Age travellers have died out now, but they basically stole land on which to hold free festivals (cost to tax payers to clean up said “free” festival: £150k). They sponged off the state and were a general nuisance to farmers. So, not good people—as you can tell from the above interchange.
What you see in the above interchange is a neurotic leftist, the man in the cab, engaged in projection. For the neurotic, life is moralised and emotions come in strong and negative. Hence when a policeman tells him to move his bus, even politely and without the threat of force, we see a moralised outburst. The neurotic’s emotions centre on sociality—they are about the collective impression, partially they are narcissistic (“What will everyone think? Am I a good person?”). The precise neurotic nature is laid out in the table below, from it you can doubtless see that the man in the cab has many neurotic traits.
So the worst thing a neurotic can imagine is social humiliation—and in this case he imagines social humiliation as a dominance exercise, as sadism. So he claims the officer “gets off” on his power over him; actually, this is projection—the officer is unlikely to derive emotional satisfaction from power over other people (although it is not impossible, some officers do—however, it is unlikely and marginal). The reason it is unlikely is that police officers are conscientious rule-followers; they “get off” on task-completion and obedience to rules (as you would expect). The actual rules followed do not particularly matter; and this is why policemen are similar in type in London, Pyongyang, and Tehran—they are people who like to enforce rules; and the truth is that the British police would as willingly enforce shariah or Marxism as the English common law (if that is, indeed, what they enforce today).
In other words, the type of person who becomes a police officer—as with the military—has low emotional lability. He does not feel things strongly—he is phlegmatic. He is not about to have, as the driver has done, an emotional outburst (an act the policeman recognises, objectively, as a gambit not to conform to the law—a test as to his resolve to enforce the law). Does such a man “get off” on power over others—on “humiliation” enacted on helpless hippies and New Age woolly folk? Not really, since that humiliated-exulted dynamic is about narcissism and sociality—neurotic traits—not conscientious rule enforcement (psychopathic trait).
In fact, it is the New Age traveller who would, if he had a little power, humiliate someone else—people always threaten you with what they themselves fear, hence the guy in the cab would, if we reverse this formula, relish the humiliation of others. Indeed, this is what we see on the left—just think about the Cultural Revolution and all those teachers (and policemen?) in dunce caps. Humiliation.
Now, the psychopath can enact “sadism” on the neurotic—yet it is not conscious. The neurotic is female, the psychopath male: imagine a husband and wife who go on a cliffside walk—the husband stands right on a cliff edge, in a typical act of daring exploratory behaviour. The wife is almost tortured by his act: “Don’t go so close to the edge!” she cries, neurotically. However, the man is not actuated by a desire to cause psychic distress in his wife—he just wants to explore, do his own thing (psychopathically, autistically). It is true that some men, those with a genuine sadistic streak, would smirk at the wife and demonstratively go right to the edge—do it the more she screamed (oh, Matron!); however, most would not—and it is rare that the original impulse that caused that man to explore was to “sadistically” torment his wife. Basically, psychos do things—please themselves—and some of the things they do cause psychic distress in neurotic people, hence just “by existing” men are sadistic towards a woman’s psyche. Yet this is not the same as calculated sadism.
Hence the police officer in this case, per the video, does nothing to make the interchange more difficult or uncomfortable than it has to be for the man. What he asks, in the context of the full video, constitutes a reasonable request. It is only unreasonable to people who intend to skirt the law’s margins and engage in borderline illegal activity—such as crashing into a farmer’s field for the night, so that they cannot be evicted without legal notice. Hence the traveller, when his narcissistic bubble is punctured, reacts explosively to reality’s black leather hand—acts as if “they’re literally beating me to death on the pavement with rubber truncheons”; and, for his psyche, that is how it feels—reality feels “like sadism” and it violates “me rights, me human rights” (except, in fact, it is he who intends to violate the rights of others).
So a policeman just wants satisfaction from a job well done—just like, as an Air Force cadet, I had to shine boots (“bull” the boots, they called it) until I could see my face in them. I was too lazy to do that, but that is a job a policeman would relish—and that is not because he has a sadistic relationship with leather (Matron!); rather, he just likes a job well done. It’s nothing personal—psychopaths are always impersonal, if charming (perhaps charm lies in the impersonal—cold charm).
This is relevant in another direction: during the 1930s, Sir Oswald Mosley’s blackshirts were on the march in London—and they marched in uniform, in the blackshirt. The left said the police were secretly for the blackshirts; and in the sense that the left regards any order or hierarchy as “fascism” that was true—at the emotional level the police and military always have some sympathy for fascism, and this is obvious.
However, concretely, the police disliked Mosley’s blackshirts. Why? Because they wore uniforms—and who, per the rules, wears uniforms in Britain’s streets? The bobbies on the beat. It was professional capture crossed with amour propre: “Who do these buggers think they are, parading on our streets in a uniform to promote law and order—bloody cheek of it.” And, indeed, most police memos about Mosley’s fascists were about the fact that they went about in uniform (they failed to follow the rules)—street violence (mostly Communist) was a secondary consideration.
This gives a useful insight into the police mind—now seen with both left (travellers) and right (blackshirts)—and what it reveals is not sadism, rather it is a commitment to rules; and, as noted, those rules really could be anything—it is the autistic maintenance of order that the police mind adores; in a sense, it inclines to the right because the right stands for hierarchy and order—and yet the police would as well enforce any rules (especially those that pertain, as with uniforms, to the police as an institution).
The “sadism” neurotics complain about exists in their heads—it is just the pain they experience when they butt their heads against reality; and it is they who—as with bitchy women—would love to enact sadism and humiliation on a hopeless subject (as seen in various pile-ons by the woke against “racists” discovered among them, with no cutting or “sadistic” language spared). In short, men *exist* —neurotics, “It’s sadism!”.