We find ourselves in a situation strangely akin to the Cold War, only much less stable because it is between the American people and an illegal regime falsely occupying federal institutions without the authority of an election. As such, there is a lack of organization on the part of the former, and a lack of deterrence-based restraint on the part of the latter. Both shortcomings must be rectified.
So long as peaceful protests are respected and the regime does not start going after journalists and political opponents - the way it has loudly fantasized about doing - pacifist demonstrations will be adequate. However, we all know this regime is not going to be satisfied with allowing such dissent: They are in possession of the power to terrorize and silence others, and have openly threatened to use it.
Unfortunately, once that becomes apparent, protests may become more violent in character as a result of people simply defending themselves or acting out of rage due to crimes committed elsewhere against others. This is not only NOT a solution, but actively serves the purposes of a tyrannical state. Once the situation reaches that point, protesters must be highly disciplined in their resistance, even if and when it can no longer be strictly passive.
A defensive confrontation is a peaceful protest backed up with the deterrence of a credible threat of military self-defense if attacked. This is basically just how international relations occur: Countries have diplomatic discourses, and sometimes angry arguments, but peace is maintained by nations protecting each other's sovereignty through defensive military alliances. Over time, civil relationships build up that make peace even stronger, and eventually many countries are so close that they consider themselves basically family - war would be unthinkable.
Within the United States, citizens concede a monopoly on violence (with the exception of immediate defense of life under credible threat) to law enforcement institutions because of our strong social compact in the Bill of Rights and our firm loyalty to each other. But both are under direct and imminent threat by the Russian puppet regime, since the Kremlin finds it geopolitically useful to destabilize our society and destroy our system of government. We can expect repeated and constant provocation toward chaos, and the blatant failure to recognize or obey the most fundamental laws of our nation.
In that situation, pacifist protesters will simply be victimized with impunity, and those who engage in mere expressive violence - i.e., rioting - will accomplish nothing while being propagandized by the regime as a criminal element (which to some petty extent would be true). However, citizens organized lawfully in arms to protect protests, disciplined enough to avoid conflict if at all possible, but refusing unlawful commands with the credible threat of defending themselves if attacked would be something else - it would be essentially America defending itself against a foreign power.
What I am describing is exactly what the Founders intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. They did not intend "gunarchy," with drunken redneck imbeciles firing off an AK-47 into the air to celebrate their acquittal on spousal abuse charges. They intended organized citizens to have the capacity to behave authoritatively in the face of criminalized political power - to be a force for peace when the institutional powers have become a force for chaos.
Paraphrasing FDR's summation of the Nazis, this "New Order" is neither New nor is it Order. It's just criminals with stolen nametags playing at authority they do not possess and are bad at mimicking. So the American people must simply step up and wield authority if and when unlawful power is exercised in force against us. In the absence of lawful authority, someone has to enforce the law.
There is indeed a fine line between that and vigilantism, which must also be avoided. The difference is in defensiveness - a vigilante is an aggressor, a pursuer of those who have already committed crimes. Whereas a defender's job is to deter aggression on the spot while always seeking ways around conflict without surrendering liberty.
Most ordinary people can't walk lines this narrow and squiggly, which is why we delegate to institutions in the first place, but one way or another we are responsible: If we surrender to unlawful power, we will be responsible for its crimes. If we act like children and riot to express our anger at attacks on our rights rather than organizing defensively to actually protect them, we will be responsible for the failure to stop those attacks.
So there must be credible deterrence against violent suppression of Constitutional rights, because otherwise they will simply cease to exist.
Freedom Forever
This has been a communique from the Allied democratic resistance at This Is Not A Game.
[–]AutoModerator[M] [スコア非表示] (0子コメント)