Here's a great example of why political violence is popular: let's say you believe America should have open borders and unlimited migration. You organize with like-minded people and hold a few big rallies. You feel like you're leading an unstoppable crusade.
But then the election happens, and you get crushed at the ballot box, because most Americans do not want open borders. You won't even make it to the election, because few candidates from any party want to ride your policy platform down to doom like Slim Pickens on the H-bomb.
So instead, you embrace totalitarianism and political violence. Your political party decides that immigration laws it doesn't like are null and void, by the imperial fiat of the Party, and should not be enforced. You begin using physical force to obstruct enforcement.
If law-and-order types insist on enforcement, you escalate your tactics to violence: blocking streets, attacking law enforcement officials. Your Party launders this violence into political power by claiming the other side "provoked" the ugliness by insisting on law enforcement.
Guess what? The number of people who were far too small to win elections fair and square turn out to be just the right size to use political violence to achieve their ends. You've got enough muscle to cause massive disruptions and terrorize law-abiding citizens.
Violence is a force multiplier like no other. It's the reason a small gang with a demonstrated will to violence can dominate a large neighborhood. It's the core operating principle of terrorism. You don't need a majority to win, if you're willing to shed blood and break stuff.
When you see people energetically taking the losing side of an 80-20 issue, there are two possibilities: they're either extremely patient and convinced they can build a majority through years of painstaking persuasive effort, or they're willing to use force and violence.
All conflict is a contest of will, and violent conflict makes that contest urgent while scrambling the odds. Plenty of people who would stick to their guns forever in a lawful, ordered society will submit quickly when REAL guns are involved. It's the core assumption of barbarism.
When political violence enters the equation, willpower and commitment to cause become more important that sheer numbers. The small, committed, bloodthirsty group wields disproportionate power because its members are fiercely dedicated to victory.
Extremist groups openly boast this as part of their strategy. We'll win because we care, and we're willing to inflict pain to get what we want. It's easier, and a lot more fun, than the long hard slog of persuading people you hate to agree with your positions.
Key to all such terrorist strategies is the transference of guilt: the violence is YOUR fault, not ours, even though we are the perpetrators. You drove us to this by refusing our righteous demands. You can hear top Democrat politicians talking this way right now.
This is why a civilized nation should have absolutely zero tolerance for political violence of any kind. The key tactic is denying the transference of guilt, by making it clear that demands and grievances will be ignored once a movement starts hurting people or breaking stuff.
Civilization can only win the contest of will by making it absolutely clear that force will ALWAYS be met with greater force, without hesitation or remorse. We'll put as many cops and soldiers on the streets as it takes. If you resort to violence, you will lose at politics.
There is no other course to a sustainable civilization, because if you don't make it absolutely clear that violence is a non-starter, it will always be attractive to motivated extremist groups. They always think they can win the contest of will through violent passion. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
