Sunday, September 6, 2020

Laying Out The Dynamic

     Beware, Gentle Reader. I’m about to make extensive use of the word they. I’ll be using it without saying explicitly who I mean by it. That will make what follows sound somewhat...conspiratorial. Even a trifle loopy. But you’re easily bright enough and well-informed enough to know of whom I speak. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here in the first place, right?

     They prefer the isolated, undefended target:

  • The establishment with no security;
  • The organization that welcomes all comers;
  • The isolated and apparently undefended home;
  • The unarmed individual going quietly about his business.

     You can read about such incidents in innumerable stories heavily bruited about on the Web. The pattern is surely clear by now: if you’re isolated and unable (or unwilling) to defend yourself, you’re a choice victim and therefore more likely to be targeted than the large, coherent group or the conspicuously armed citizen. The cases where they have met powerful, numerically superior, or armed opposition serve to highlight their tactical preferences.

     What do they hope to achieve in this fashion? Why, the same as any terrorist anywhere or anywhen: terror. First, they seek to paralyze normal social and commercial interactions. That induces a first-stage atomization that creates more targets. Second, they seek to intimidate and subjugate: both those whom they target overtly and those who envision themselves as likely targets-to-be. Third, by their seemingly unopposed advance, they seek to create the impression that they cannot and will not be stopped. That induces some among the powers-that-be to think in terms of “negotiation” and “compromise.”

     (Let us pass for the moment over the folly of negotiating or compromising with them. Other governments have done it many times. There’s no reason to think ours is somehow protected against that variety of madness. Indeed, were another man in the White House, we might have seen it already.)

     And they have allies. Their allies aren’t necessarily explicit about it, though being not too terribly bright, they do occasionally let the mask slip. Those allies speak in “reasonable” tones. They strive to make a degree of surrender sound like “the most prudent course.” And they “but” quite a lot: “Of course, no one condones this violence, but...”

     Allies with political altitude have already assisted them substantially. The police stand-downs and reductions in funding for police departments make the allies’ allegiance plain. The lockdowns and related mandates have parted us from one another – and from one another’s support and defense – to a highly convenient degree...convenient for them.

     And they are exploiting those allies’ assistance to the fullest.

     Quite recently, I wrote that:

     ...we’ve seen one demonstration after another of the power of a militant minority with a short, coherent agenda. That militant minority is capitalizing on the diffuseness of its opposition: i.e., us. Their aims are few, while ours are many. It’s easier for us to say “I can’t do anything about it,” or “someone else will take care of it,” than to engage in the struggle. Thus we cede the initiative to those who seek to destroy what we claim to cherish.

     There may not be a solution. Decent persons at a distance from such scurrilities are difficult to rouse to action. They have their own lives to live: their own responsibilities to discharge, their own bills to pay, and their own worries to worry. Rallying the majority of the population of the nation against the hatred and lunacy the Left has unleashed is difficult even to imagine. It didn’t happen in Revolutionary times – the consensus among historians of the era is that no more than 10% of American colonials were enthusiastic supporters of the Revolution, much less actively engaged in making independence from Britain happen – and it’s less likely in our current era.

     As I wrote above, they are a mobile force that preys on conveniently isolated and / or undefended targets. They have a planning corps, a source of funds and other resources, a scouting apparatus, and sufficient mobility to strike anywhere in these United States. We’ve all seen the pictures of their fleets of buses.

     They have the initiative. We’ve been playing defense – to the extent that we’ve been “playing” at all. That’s why they continue to advance.

     And so it will be until we seize the initiative, seek them out wherever they are, and destroy them — and all their political allies – to the last man.


SWVAguy said...

Such insanity might well be dealt with counter-insanity. Don't want it, don't want to see it. There's a BUT though. We live in a culture that the worst thing you can be accused of is being a RAYCISS. Pedophiles, rapists, murderers are far down the list of socially unacceptable ills. Don't deny being called a rayciss either. That only proves you are.

Jess said...

The biggest source of help is the media. Until those involved become responsible, the terrorist have a huge ally to help with their fear campaign.

Master Guns said...

I would draw your attention to Chapter 15 of the above book. It was written by Colonel Rex Applegate of WWII fame and an expert on riot control. The Left's whole plan is outlined in that chapter. Nothing has changed much but the technology in the last century of communist takeover.


I always have to laugh.

I never knew I was a racist, but because I cleave to MLK Jr's noble statement about content of character... rather than BLM... I'm a racist.

I never knew I was a racist, because I'm married to a beautiful non-white woman with whom I have two bi-racial children whom I adore, for whom I'd walk into a blast furnace if it meant saving them... but because I don't obsess about BLM, I'm a racist.

And so on.

Linda Fox said...

Thanks for the link, Master Gun. Sometimes, in my writing, I need to refer to things I know little about (military, riot control). This will be a valuable resource.