State-Sanctioned Riots

Rioting-the unbeatable high
Adrenalin shoots your nerves to the sky
Everyone knows this town is gonna blow
And it’s all gonna blow right now:

Tomorrow you’re homeless
Tonight it’s a blast


The state’s opinion-making organs are sanctioning riots.

The police and the national guard aren’t there to protect the townspeople. They’re there to protect the rioters from people who would defend their property with lethal force.

America has ceded what used to be the prerogative of militia to professional standing armies and police forces. The result is that public defense gets left to parties who have a limited direct stake in the town itself. The soldiers don’t care because they are not from the town, are not culturally linked to the town, and could arguably care less about whether everyone there lived or died. This is the same for the democratically elected civilian governors who are in and out of office in a matter of years rather than lifetimes.

Out of the many businesses burned to the ground in Ferguson, MO over the last two days, it seems that the official military organizations have been both unwilling and unable to retaliate or act pre-emptively in such a way as to discourage future destruction.

Republican government is a joke-concept if there is no militia made up of citizens, if the rights of citizenry aren’t directly connected with the people who actually need to enforce the law directly. To the extent that citizens cede law enforcement to standing armies, they cede their governing ability. To say that citizens ‘govern’ and are ‘sovereign’ when outside parties actually implement governance without any authority higher than they are is to say something false, or at the very least to water down the word ‘citizen’ to the point to which it is meaningless.

It’s certain that, given that the most influential national press organs are supporting riots, excusing the destruction of property, that those riots will continue to spread until they are met with real physical resistance. Given that the law is an insufficient tool for progressives to achieve their goals, they are using their influence to suppress the state’s own fighting-forces, and instead relying on mobs of thugs to intimidate what remains of their scattered opposition into submission.

It’s a demonstration of power, to be able to destroy a town with impunity, at any time, using nothing but incitement to the mob, and entangling competing security forces with absurd rules of engagement which prevent them from providing an effective defense.

This is likely to continue and become worse, because to the extent that looting goes unpunished with the appropriately lethal severity, it begins a positive feedback loop. Even an auto parts shop like the one in your home town might be holding hundreds of thousands of dollars in inventory that can be easily re-sold on the internet to buyers indifferent to where they came from. There’s real plunder to be had from the American middle class, and not all of it can be seized directly from a 401(k) account at the press of a button.

Much of it has to be stolen or destroyed directly, especially when it’s real estate.

This is always the course of the left in power, and none of it should be terribly shocking. The ‘nice’ nebbish reporter provides the moral suasion for the looter coming for your property and your life tomorrow. The looter has no capacity to survive in a civilized society without the intellectuals providing verbal cover for their actions, hampering the organization of armed defense.


5 thoughts on “State-Sanctioned Riots

  1. Exactly. This is why sane men are well armed and know their neighbors (and know which of their neighbors they can trust to have their backs in a fight).

  2. The state’s opinion makers are pursuing what will grant them widest audience.

    In a hollow state there is no central loyalty or a desire to protect grand ideals such as property protection.

    • >The state’s opinion makers are pursuing what will grant them widest audience.

      Are you sure? It doesn’t seem so rational to me. If this was the case, wouldn’t MSNBC have higher ratings? Looting the country seems like the overarching goal for the politicals and the connected class. That is popular, perhaps quite popular, but not quite so popular.

      >In a hollow state there is no central loyalty or a desire to protect grand ideals such as property protection.

      Most states don’t give a fig for property protection: it’s a rare culture that does.

  3. “could arguably care less”

    If you can make a coherent case as to why this phrasing is not absolute nonsense, please do so. I claim the correct usage in this case is “could arguably not care less”, and that anybody who uses the first is either replicating a bad habit, not thinking about it, or simply wrong.

    Other than that, good piece.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s