Who Decides Part 2: “The Rules”

     You’re an intelligent and erudite person, aren’t you, Gentle Reader? I certainly hope so. Which means you’re already cognizant of the old saying that “war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means.” While it’s not absolutely true in every applicable respect, it contains a terrifying insight.

     In a peacetime situation (“Peace: a state of tension that falls short of armed conflict”), the diplomat is a “point man” for his nation’s armed forces. They loom behind him, ready to try to enforce his government’s will should diplomacy fail. The other diplomats at the table are in the same position. All the participants must remain continuously aware of this throughout the proceedings.

     From that opening, you probably think I’m going to talk about international tensions, crises, and ongoing conflicts. I’m not. I have an entirely “domestic” situation in mind. But the dynamics of diplomacy as summarized above are entirely pertinent to it… perhaps more pertinent than any other kind of analysis.

     All forms of human interaction have rules. Even warfare has rules, though nations don’t always agree on them. As war is an attempt by one government to impose its will upon another government, the underlying theme of any war is who shall have power over whom. Tom Kratman wrote some penetrating things about the law of war in his early novel A Desert Called Peace, which I recommend unreservedly.

     Politics, too, is about who shall have power over whom. There’s no “law of politics” comparable to the law of war; there is only the law of the civil society in which politicking takes place. Political parties, movements, and activists are expected to remain within the law of their nation while they conduct their efforts. Of course! The same is true for all of us, whether we’re politically engaged or not.

     But as politics is the pursuit of power over others, some of the character of war can seep into it, perhaps without being detected at the outset. Political fanatics can embrace the methods of war: lethal violence and destruction. Some have done so here in America. There are indications that they’re poised to “escalate” should they not get their way.

     So far, none of this constitutes a revelation, nor should it. The Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch have been watching events quite as attentively as anyone. You’re all aware that persons on the Left have employed violence for political purposes. What’s on my mind this morning is the conceptual foundation for that violence.

     The Left is currently straining to mobilize its field forces by ranting that “it’s about justice,” and “our survival.” Yet simultaneously, its media figures strive to demonize the Right for “violence”… which has been almost completely absent from Rightist political action.

     Ace has written a bit about this, in connection with the murder of United Health Care CEO Brian Thompson:

     “Anti-violence.”
     The left means they’re anti-violence against the left. They never stop committing and justifying violence against their enemies.
     The whole rotten Establishment, including the Establishment “right,” concedes that the left has an inalienable right to political violence. Compare the GOPe’s reaction to January 6th versus its collective shrug over six months of arson, looting, and murder in the “Summer of Love.”
     They don’t put these in the same category. The right’s violence is unjustified, dangerous, and a threat to the Republic, whereas the left’s unceasing violence is just the “voice of the streets.”
     At the risk of being inflammatory: The Establishment “right” often knocks the real right for not taking rightist violence seriously.
     Well, see if you can follow this logic: We see you constantly excusing and justifying leftist violence, and we have decided we are NOT the second-class citizens you wish to re-caste us as, and if political violence is permissible to the left, then it is permissible to all.
     It is you in the Establishment who are defending political violence and increasing political violence by continuing to maintain that some political violence, by the groups deemed righteous and deserving, is permitted.
     Well, we think we’re righteous and deserving and I don’t accept Bitch McConnell’s assertions that I am not. So condemn it all, or condemn none of it.
     They’ve chosen “condemn none of it.”
     Fine. We’ll walk arm and arm into chaos and strife, then.

     In effect, the Establishment “Right” has accepted the Left’s claim of moral superiority. The implications are as plain as print. One of them is that the Left has the authority to decide the rules of political combat. And therefore, the Left is permitted to use violence in pursuit of its aims.

     The United States of America is tottering at the edge of an abyss: a condition of asymmetric civil warfare, in which the Establishment Right has disarmed itself. It has permitted the Left to write the law of this war. You don’t need to draw a trend line to predict what would come of this if the rest of us in the Right should accept it as given.

     Barack Hussein Obama’s exhortation to his followers to “get in their faces” – meaning our faces, of course – and Maxine Waters’ similar preachments to her followers that we must be excluded from normal life have been amplified, broadcast, and reified. Leftist violence against Rightists – often against persons merely wearing a MAGA hat or with a Trump / Vance sticker on their bumper – is now so common that it’s moved into the dog-bites-man category. Reactions from the Right have been few so far, but that’s bound to change.

     Three years ago, I wrote:

     People will tolerate a great deal before they snap, but they will snap. Especially if they’re being told that they must tolerate personal abuse or oppression, the abuse of their loved ones, or the destruction of something they love. And if Americans should snap, the reverberations will circle the globe. As Larry Correia and others have observed, we’ve got two and only two settings: Vote and Shoot everybody. Governments, law enforcers, bureaucrats, and activists should beware. Day by day we move ever closer to throwing that switch.

     We are a people accustomed to civil peace and public order. The summer of 2020 tested our tolerance almost, but not quite, to the snapping point. Perhaps what restrained us was the localization of the violence and disorder to a group of “blue” cities. It never reached beyond them. Moreover, it was mass violence. In the great majority of cases it lacked the personal component that has the most energizing and mobilizing effect. Had there been many such, the lid would have blown off already.

     Assassinations are qualitatively different. The two assassination attempts on Donald Trump have already angered and energized a number of us. The assassination of Brian Thompson, and Leftist voices raised to excuse and defend that atrocity, are fanning what has been a modest flame until now. Some have actually called for the crosshairs to settle on Elon Musk.

     There’s little more to say on this subject, except:
     Make sure your guns are clean, oiled, and where you can find them,
     Go armed whenever you’re in public,
     And buy more ammo.