Have you ever witnessed a person who sees a shooting of an unarmed person and instantly sides with the government? Ever saw a prisoner who didn’t kill himself die by a sketchy suicide event and have that person who just believes the official narrative? Have you ever spoken out against drone strikes in foreign countries to always have that one person who questions your patriotism? How about that person who will call the police on you for the smallest of things? If you answered yes to any of those questions then you might have encountered a bootlicker.
Urban Dictionary defines a bootlicker as “someone who kisses up to their oppressors’ thoughts and feelings rather than being aware of their own communities’ needs to survive. Hypothetically licking your oppressors’ boot for basic human respect from them.”
While that definition is sufficient for a basic understanding of these types of people, the definition deserves an expansion.
Bootlicking describes several types of behaviors but the aim is always the same. These people use the strong arm of the government to achieve whatever goals they want. These goals can range from the feeling of personal security to vindictive desires. Bootlickers come in any skin color, cultural background, social class, gender, etc. It isn’t who these people are or what they look like that counts when it comes to bootlicking. “The boot” describes the boot of a government soldier. So long as the bootlicker achieves their goals through the government then the government’s strong boot is metaphorically licked with appreciation.
It isn’t enough to be a bootlicker who accepts every official mainstream media or government narrative. They must also compel you to believe exactly what they believe. If you offer a counter-argument to a narrative then you’ll be referred to as a conspiracy theorist. If you suggest the government, especially judges or law enforcement, has wronged someone then that person will face skepticism and suspicion that isn’t directed at those in positions of power with the same ferocity. Bootlickers carry a metaphorical hammer that will be used to verbally and socially beat someone over the head for not complying or adhering to a narrative with reciprocal absolute belief and absolute action or inaction based on that belief.
The name suggests self-centered subservience. A bootlicker could support local legislation that places fines on people for doing something they don’t like such as skateboarding or having a specific type of dog breed. Those people don’t care if that legislation affects them, their friends or family, or fellow citizens. Often, whatever the bootlicker desires to happen won’t affect them. Ever met that really old person who doesn’t like loud music and skateboarding? Well, that person could become a bootlicker and contact their local representative to bring about legislation that bans those activities. The really old person wouldn’t care because they aren’t likely to skateboard or listen to loud music as much as a younger person would. It’s an exercise in burning down a forest to spite an anthill.
One of the bootlicker’s main tactics to force others into compliance is social shaming. If you don’t believe an accepted position that originated from the government then you’ll usually be called a conspiracy theorist. The irony with these bootlickers and social shaming is that this behavior can sometimes overlap with ideologies. This is why a white bootlicking liberal can call a black conservative racist names and it’s okay because to the the bootlicker the ends always justify the means. It wouldn’t matter if socially shaming a black conservative online would mean that black person becomes another unemployed and homeless person of color. The ends always justify the means.
These people always pretend to have never supported bootlicking behavior or engaged in that behavior. Bootlickers will also cause problems but will complain about the problems they had a hand in creating. Let’s give an example that is pretty easy to demonstrate and difficult to refute. According to a 2005 ABC News poll, 59% of Americans supported the Patriot Act. After the Edward Snowden releases and leaks, the Pew Research Center found that most Americans had unfavorable views towards the U.S. mass surveillance program. If both polls are within a reasonable margin of error then there is a pretty good chance that there are a lot of Americans who initially supported unconstitutional mass surveillance but once that surveillance affected them then suddenly they’re against it. This is akin to setting a fire and then complaining about smoke.
Don’t expect bootlickers to be consistent in the application of their outrage. It is a known fact that President Barack Obama conducted drone strikes across the African continent while proclaiming to be an ally of black and brown people. If anyone brought up the point that President Obama was killing black and brown people, often innocent people, that person would usually be met with accusations of racism. It wouldn’t have mattered if the person levying the criticism at President Obama was a black person. The black person who dared to step out of line and criticize President Obama was usually labeled as a “coon”, “Uncle Tom”, race traitor, or were accused of trying to impress white people. Black and brown people became immortal and were unable to be killed by a drone strike so long as a black president was ordering the strikes. The ironic part about this is that the black person voicing criticism against President Obama over the drone strikes could have been doing so to protect black and brown people and yet those people were usually accused of hating their people.
If you’ve ever witnessed the types of people who listen to every mainstream media narrative then you’ve likely met a bootlicker. The mainstream media tried to convince people that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. Over time, more and more people became suspicious of the details surrounding the alleged suicide. There were people on social media stating that Epstein wouldn’t survive his prison stay and would be “assisted-suicided” before Epstein allegedly ended his own life. Yet, the bootlickers swore up and down that Epstein killed himself and to believe otherwise was to engage in conspiracy theorist behavior. While most people appear to accept that there are suspicious elements in the alleged suicide, we must not forget those who tried to convince others to throw away their skepticism.
Bootlickers often support anything if it fits their personal beliefs. Remember the 2015 shooting of Walter Scott? The reason why the former North Charleston Police Officer Michael Slager went to prison is that the shooting was unjustified. Scott ran from Slager who then gunned down Scott who was unarmed and posed no threat. One of the reasons why Scott ran was because of an arrest and time served in jail for missing a child support payment. Walter Scott was entered into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center list (NCIC) despite the fact this list is reserved for criminal offenses and not civil offenses such as missing child support payments. This is also even though in 2012 the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office specifically stated that nobody should be placed on the FBI’s National Crime Information Center list (NCIC) for civil offenses.
One would think that Walter Scott’s murder wouldn’t be justified by a bunch of people who feel that child support enforcement is more important than someone’s life, right? You’d be wrong if you thought there weren’t a bunch of bootlickers who believe that the strong arm of the government should be used to punish poor black men like Walter Scott. Go read the 2015 New York Times article about child support in South Carolina and how 1-in-8 inmates in South Carolina jails are in there for missed child support payments. Most of those 1-in-8 are black. One would think that since many of the people commenting on the article are such reasonable and sensible people that we wouldn’t see people justifying what happened to Walter Scott. If you read the comment section of that article you’ll see people arguing about paying child support and some saying that Scott deserved to be shot because he missed the child support payment.
If the above paragraph is hard for a reasonable person to believe then it gets worse. Do you remember Amber Guyger? In 2018, Guyger who was a police officer in Dallas, Texas entered the apartment home of Botham Jean. Guyger believed she entered her apartment. Believing Jean was an intruder, Guyger shot and killed the man in his own home. Since Guyger would go on to be convicted of murder this would mean that the bootlicker defense squad that came out in full force on Guyger’s behalf quite literally defended a convicted murderer. These people were pushing the idea of compassion for a murderer in the wake of this person murdering someone else. You’d have a hard time accusing a bootlicker of having consistent standards.
During the public spectacle surrounding the shooting death, people were looking for any potential criminal background information on Botham Jean as if him having a record would justify someone entering his home and killing him. It was as if there was no scenario where Amber Guyger was 100% in the wrong and Botham Jean was an innocent murder victim. Guyger was convicted of murder and was sentenced to only 10 years in prison for shooting someone in their own home. People were arguing that this was the appropriate sentence.
Would those same people say this if Botham Jean entered the home of Amber Guyger and killed her? Isn’t it interesting how some people rejoiced or thought the sentence of only 10 years for murder was appropriate and yet were not so emotionally invested in someone sentenced for longer due to non-violent offenses such as cannabis possession? Aren’t the priorities of some people really interesting? Wouldn’t it be interesting if this same energy were devoted to helping victims of the criminal justice system via incarceration due to non-violent offenses?
The bootlicker justifies state violence so long as it takes care of a perceived problem. Politicians take advantage of this which is why the bootlicker is the friend of an authoritarian power seeker. To a bootlicker, no legislation is too dangerous if it promises to provide protection, comfort, convenience, and/or punishes ideological opponents. To a politician, the bootlicker is a customer who can be sold products that provide solutions to problems caused by the salesman or issues in which there is no real solution that can be provided by the government. The relationship between the bootlicker and a politician is similar to that of a customer and a used car salesman.
If the government causes a country to go into a lockdown then the government will offer loans, taxpayer-funded bailouts, promises of safety, sacrifices of liberty for security, and/or false promises. The U.S. government is designed for slow legislation and actions unless there is a near majority agreement and even then that’s not a guarantee if you look at institutions such as the electoral college. Therefore, state and federal government requires that citizens willingly demand changes. There is no need to force people to undergo uncomfortable airport security screenings if people demand it without force. No authoritarian politician needs to sink an economy if people afraid of a virus will willingly destroy businesses that will never return. Neither Stalin or Hitler don’t need to return from the grave to keep tabs on citizens if people ignore drone technology being used on their fellow citizens for compliance with legislation.
The worst part about the bootlicker is that not only are they are a metaphorical customer of the authoritarian politician but they are also progressively gullible customers. Consider the following situation:
Gun control started with an attempt to disarm freed black slaves. People were convinced that these free slaves were dangerous individuals who were less than human. So, the masses accepted “black codes” which were laws designed to disenfranchise blacks by removing gun rights, restrict free movement, fair trials, and other fundamental rights. Over time, the gun control that was once applied to black people was now being applied massively to white people. The arguments are the same. Just replace words “mentally ill”, “PTSD”, “toxic masculinity”, and other terms with “negro”. It would be as if history were repeating itself. The actors are different but the play is still the same. The people that society fears the most are used as the boogeyman to convince the average American that disarming people is a great idea to provide public protection that the U.S. government has never been able to provide. To control the population, politicians and the mainstream media have to demonize and/or “otherize” another group to promote desired legislation. The mentally ill and those with PTSD are just the ni***rs of the modern era.
Bootlickers will always adhere to policies that only promotes the idea of protecting people from themselves. It’s one thing to be the boy in the bubble but it’s another thing entirely to want everyone to be the playground in the bubble. The bootlicker has no issue with the government passing legislation that controls what kind of vehicle someone can own, carbon emissions, their choice in firearms or having a firearm at all, what another person posts online, or even something as absurd as if someone wears a mask in public or not.
The bootlicker won’t be accused of being a master of self-awareness. These are the same types of people who will justify the murder of an unarmed man for walking through a construction site, will also call the police if too many scary-looking men are wearing the same masks they called for, and if those men are gunned down then they’ll justify any amount of government fumbling or corruption. Once the desired outcome is met, to the bootlicker, it doesn’t matter how the outcome has been reached. For the sake of faux self-preservation and the control of others, these people will sacrifice lives, friends, family, their economy, and social harmony if it means they don’t have to hug their pillow as tight when they go to sleep.