Saturday, September 5, 2020

The “Peaceful Majority” Tactic

     Many people think it impossible for guerrillas to exist for long in the enemy's rear. Such a belief reveals lack of comprehension of the relationship that should exist between the people and the troops. The former may be likened to water, the latter to the fish who inhabit it. How may it be said that these two cannot exist together? – Mao Tse-tung

     From Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit comes this bit of reportage:

     Don’t believe your lying eyes.
     Believe the fake news “journalists” at the Washington Post.

     This is the crap salad the far left WaPo is serving today.

     Now you know why no one trusts the mainstream media.

     About 93 percent of the racial-justice protests that swept the United States this summer remained peaceful and nondestructive, according to a report released Thursday, with the violence and property damage that has dominated political discourse constituting only a minute portion of the thousands of demonstrations that followed the killing of George Floyd in May.

     The report, produced by the nonprofit Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, also concluded that an escalation in the government response to protests and a sharp uptick in extremist activity means the United States faces a growing risk of “political violence and instability” ahead of the 2020 election.

     It calls to mind a brilliant video that features one of my personal heroines, Brigitte Gabriel:

     The “peaceful majority” shields the militant minority that undertakes the “work” of “revolution.” It is always that way. Never in history has a revolutionary movement comprised more than about 10% of the population among which it operated. The Antifa / Black Lives Matter forces rampaging through our cities come to far less than 10% of the population of this nation.

     The “peaceful majority” tactic shielded the Nazis as they rose to power. It shielded Lenin’s Bolsheviks as they rose to power. It shields Muslims as their jihadis ravage Europe. And it is shielding the violent revolutionaries doing their damnedest to terrorize Americans into surrendering their rights to the Left.

     Herewith, have two widely contrasting opinions on “what is to be done:”

     There is no question that dispatching military forces to quell the violence in the afflicted cities would have grave consequences. Those consequences might take decades to play out completely. And Schlichter has a powerful point about the unfavorable operating environment the military would confront in such places as Portland and Seattle. Arresting rioters and turning them over to civil “authorities” unwilling even to hold them, much less prosecute them, would be pointless. Events have already demonstrated that.

     But as Will Briggs points out, there are other methods, including live fire: is not legal to riot, burn, loot, pillage, commit mayhem and murder, even if done in the name of “anti-racism” or whatever other slogan the rabble uses to justify their rapine. It is, however, legal to use force, even deadly force, to quell riots. Further, everybody knows all these things and the reasons behind them. So opening fire is justified, though perhaps not prudent. I say it is prudent, and hope to convince you of that.

     Everybody also knows progressive mayors, governors and most of our oligarchs are encouraging the riots, asking their own people, as it were, to shit in their own backyards and then light themselves on fire. These rulers have no love for their peoples, and are acting immorally to increase their own power. These rulers thus have no moral authority and can and must be usurped by higher authority. Part of “opening fire” would include the arrest, trial, and hanging of those mayors, governors, and oligarchs convicted of treason and dereliction of sacred duty.

     Opening fire might indeed lose Trump the election, because propagandists would scream “Literally Hitler!” with demonic fury—well, with increased demonic fury. These propagandists would be believed by a sufficient number of the easily persuaded. If Trump loses because of opening fire, right wing purges would begin in earnest next January, and our approach toward the leftist singularity would accelerate....

     It is clear the left—the forces behind Forgetful Joe—will do all they can to steal the election. It takes less effort than you think to get away it, too. There’s no need to cheat in, say, California and New York. These are going blue no matter what. Have free elections there, and tout how honest they were! But states like Michigan might go red, and tip the balance. The left only has to cheat in progressive controlled Detroit and Ann Arbor and leave the rest alone to win.

     Whether it would be wise to go to all-out, live-fire military suppression of the riots – including the arrest, trial, and punishment of the various mayors and governors tacitly and / or openly encouraging them – thus depends upon a single question: Would the consequences of doing so be worse than the consequences of allowing the riots to continue?

     Under the laws and precedents relevant to the suppression of riots and insurrections, the “peaceful majority” acting as a shield to the violent rioters is in the same position as an accessory to murder: just as culpable, legally, as the man who pulled the trigger. But the legal aspects of the matter are only part of it. What about the social and political consequences? Can we estimate them with any assurance?

     One consequence might be the restoration of confidence in the greater American public that the federal government will act to protect public order when necessary. That’s an important conviction to restore and strengthen. But another would be the inculcation of a “win or die” mindset among the diehard revolutionaries. Thus there could be a brief flare-up of even more intense violence from the portion of the insurrectionists who have not yet been dealt with. I believe that such a flare-up would be brief, and no harder to extinguish than the riots of today...but I could be wrong.

     The Democrats have made it plain that they intend to steal the elections by whatever means prove expedient, as Will Briggs wrote above. Thus, the difference between the political consequences of going to live fire and the political consequences of allowing the riots to continue is unpredictable. And that assumes that the elections were to take place after the riots had been suppressed by the military.

     There are no rainbows nor unicorns in our immediate future. There’s strife, and violence, and a deepening of the already deep divisions in the populace. We’ve earned those things with our inanition as the Left has made inroads into our communications, education, and entertainment sectors, and has entrenched itself in our “deep state” bureaucracies. Millions of Americans actively support the insurrectionists. They root for the overthrow of the federal government and the elimination of the rights Americans have enjoyed for more than two centuries. And like “the poor,” they will be “with us” even after the riots have been put down.

     If the military is called upon to suppress the riots, innocents will suffer. But innocents are suffering now. In which case would innocents suffer less – and does it matter which innocents we have in mind?

     Of only one thing am I perfectly sure: as Brigitte Gabriel has said of Muslims, the peaceful majority are irrelevant. They are merely a protective shield around the revolutionary minority. Ponder the Mao Tse-tung quote at the start of this tirade.

     We face a choice of evils. Which is the lesser of the two?




Since you are a Catholic I thought you'd be interested - obviously, along with your readers:

Unknown said...

As I believed in Nam I believe even more for America: kill them all. I once shot an NVA and he didn't die. So I shot him again. That's all communists and mooslems understand.

SWVAguy said...

Hey WP. George Floyd wasn't "killed." He was loaded up on fentanyl and meth.
He was saying he couldn't breathe well before Derek Chauvin put his knee on his neck.

Francis W. Porretto said...

I'm aware of that, SWVA. It was Jim Hoft who referred to the "killing" of George Floyd in the quoted segment, not I.

Paul Bonneau said...

Both of these choices assume that the vast majority of people, civilians, are going to stand there with their thumbs up their asses, waiting to be "saved" by some corrupt government institution or another.

I think people do well when left to their own devices (e.g., homeschooling). The only thing really stopping them from taking care of business, is the unequal application of the law. So, the important job is to stop cops arresting people who are trying to restore order and defend property. Defund them, or tell them to stay out of the riot area when the bullets start flying - whatever. If cops are going to stand down, then fine, really stand down, and get the fuck out of the way. If you don't, you will be considered the enemy (along with mayors, DAs, etc) and you will end up shot yourself.

So, there are really 3 choices here. The 3rd choice will be taken, by default, because there is no will for the other two. Until that happens, the left will keep antagonizing voters making a Trump election even more likely (with the notable wild card of vote fraud hiding in the wings, just to make the election more exciting).