Protesters and demonstrators in Seattle have set up what they're calling the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone around the 11th Precinct police building in Seattle. They've even produced this map of the "liberated" area (clickit to biggit).
As the labels on the map make clear, this is nothing more or less than a far-left-wing, progressive, communist-inspired project. The labels are typical of communist propaganda throughout the world over the past century or more. They leave little doubt as to the ideology behind this farce. It's Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" writ large, on the streets of one of America's largest cities.
Of course, that city - Seattle - is so far left of center in its politics that it's arguably no longer American in its governance and outlook. The occupiers of the "Autonomous Zone" appear to agree. This notice appears on one of the barriers blockading entrance to the zone:
Please imagine, for a moment, that you're a business owner or resident inside the boundaries of that zone. Suddenly your customers and suppliers no longer have free access to your business; suddenly your right to the peaceful enjoyment of your residence is interrupted by radical activists who are controlling entrance to and exit from the zone. You may face demands for access to your facilities at any time, and any refusal may draw accusations that you're "racist" or "reactionary" or (perish the thought!) "conservative". You may be expected to "support the people" by donating supplies to the "masses", whether you like it or not. Refusal is unlikely to be well received.
Worst of all, to my mind, is that local police deliberately and openly abandoned their own precinct building, opening the way for the radicals to take over. I doubt very much whether police took this decision on their own initiative. I'm pretty sure it was imposed on them by city administrators. Despite claims that the precinct will remain staffed, it's now clear that those staff are not using their own headquarters building, which has been taken over by the mob. Police are patrolling from mobile staging areas instead, and appear to be voluntarily remaining outside the self-declared "Autonomous Zone". What this means for you, if you live and/or work inside that zone, is that you can no longer rely on police protection or assistance. You're on your own.
This means that Seattle has effectively abandoned the rule of law within city limits.
Let's examine what "the rule of law" is. Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as:
... the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power. Arbitrariness is typical of various forms of despotism, absolutism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism.
. . .
In general, the rule of law implies that the creation of laws, their enforcement, and the relationships among legal rules are themselves legally regulated, so that no one—including the most highly placed official—is above the law. The legal constraint on rulers means that the government is subject to existing laws as much as its citizens are. Thus, a closely related notion is the idea of equality before the law, which holds that no “legal” person shall enjoy privileges that are not extended to all and that no person shall be immune from legal sanctions. In addition, the application and adjudication of legal rules by various governing officials are to be impartial and consistent across equivalent cases, made blindly without taking into consideration the class, status, or relative power among disputants.
There's more at the link.
Those conditions no longer apply in Seattle. There, it's now patently obvious that:
- Not all citizens are equal under the law. Left-wing protesters and agitators are being handled with kid gloves. Try mounting a right-wing protest, for any cause from free speech, to pro-Second-Amendment, to outright racism like the Ku Klux Klan, and you'll doubtless get handled rather differently. Don't believe me? Why don't you try it, while the rest of us watch? Pass the popcorn, please . . .
- Power is used arbitrarily, particularly as regards policing. The police are no longer "protecting and serving" everybody. They're doing so selectively. If you're in a zone controlled by the politically correct, you can expect little, if any, help from law enforcement authorities and officers. Seattle PD's motto is officially "Service, Pride, Dedication". As far as the "Autonomous Zone" is concerned, I see from them little service, nothing to be proud of, and dedication only to surrendering to the mob. It's hard to see how any self-respecting officer can remain in the employ of so pusillanimous an agency.
- The Mayor and city administration are abandoning their duty of care towards the city under their control, and pandering instead to pressure groups and extremist ideologies. Those who don't fall into "politically correct" categories are no longer welcome in Seattle. They're on their own.
In a properly administered state, the Governor and/or state authorities would have intervened long since to protect and uphold the rule of law, and ensure equality before the law for all citizens of the city. That's unlikely to happen in Washington, where left-wing progressive politics dominate the state government. The powers that be will adopt a snooty, high-toned, morally bankrupt perspective on the whole thing, and abdicate their responsibilities.
I'm fairly sure this won't be the only such "Autonomous Zone" set up in US cities. Anywhere the radicals can expect compliance from city authorities, they'll try to do likewise. Those opposed to them, or those who object to their businesses and property being turned into political pawns, are going to find themselves S.O.L. as far as the authorities are concerned. It goes along with the "Defund the Police" and "Abolish the Police" narratives currently being spouted by the radicals. By excluding police from "Autonomous Zones", they hope to demonstrate that they're not needed. They may not be needed by the radicals, but they'll sure be missed by those the radicals intimidate, oppress and rob!
Of course, this will only accelerate the inevitable backlash. Don't believe me? Aesop spelled it out yesterday evening in relation to the "Abolish the Police" movement, but what he said applies just as well to radical "Autonomous Zones" (run, as they are and will be, by the same people that want to get rid of law enforcement).
Since ever, the whole thing is a Left-wing con job, exactly like advertising.
Create the need for the otherwise needless; then meet the new "need".
They've just taken ads for dishsoap and popcorn makers to their logical political extreme.
It's a riff on the Mafia's "protection" racket: "That's a nice society you have there; be a real shame if it suddenly burned down."
The only answer to that is to shoot the "salesmen"; and then hunt down and exterminate the guy who sent the salesmen, and all their minions, to the last man, and last child.
Nothing less will suffice.
The Left, whether they realize it or not, is setting the table for an existential war of survival, down to the last side standing.
It's a recipe for civil war on a biblical Armageddon scale. Everyone's families and entire lifestyle are the chips in that game.
Kill all they send.
Then find and destroy the nest.
First one to go ugliest the fastest wins.
Any half measures are a recipe for self-destruction.
Dresden and Hiroshima were a template.
Second place prize is a body bag.
What we're all witnessing daily right now is the Left's Useful Idiots trying to completely upend civilization, to suit their own ends.
Half of them think they can win. The other half would rather burn everything down to try, knowing they cannot win, and not caring anyways.
This is logic via Lucifer: "If I cannot rule everything, I'll burn it all down."
The answer to that, as ever, comes out of the barrel of a gun, and at the point of sword and spear.
Again, more at the link.
This is my greatest fear right now. The more radicals on one side push the limits, the closer they get to the brink, the more the other side will become radicalized and push right back, raising the stakes, "upping the ante" until there's no alternative but to go all in - or lose. That's what's behind terrorism, the ultimate expression of radicalism. It's what we saw on 9/11, but written (so far) in political slogans and biased, one-sided actions rather than in the large-scale shedding of blood. Can it stay that way?
Historically, it hasn't. Historically, extremism has always led to counter-extremism. I think that's what we're seeing right now in the USA. I'm reliably informed that many local movements are forming and organizing right now. They're taking extreme pains to remain "under the radar", not using traceable or interceptable communications, being very careful and selective about whom they trust, and making plans that are not discussed publicly. Some have progressed to the point of coordinating their plans with other groups, through very carefully vetted channels. I won't be surprised to see regional and national networks forming, in due course.
I'm not part of any of those groups. I'm a pastor and chaplain, and have my own perspective on what's happening - which does not involve violence unless in defense of my life, family and property. However, some of those involved are former (and still trusted) colleagues, so I hear a few things from time to time. I'm very worried by what I'm hearing.
After the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015, I wrote:
I've seen war from the inside. I've been under fire, and I've fired on others. I've been wounded ... and I've inflicted my share of wounds. I've picked up the dead, and the pieces of the dead.
Those aren't the worst aspects of violent conflict. To me, the worst is what it does to the human psyche. You become dehumanized. Your enemies are no longer people - they're objects, things, targets. You aren't shooting at John, whose mother is ill, and who's missing his girlfriend terribly, and who wants to marry her as soon as he can get home to do so. You're shooting at that enemy over there, the one who'll surely 'do unto you' unless you 'do unto him' first. He's not a human being. He's a 'gook'. He's 'the enemy'. He's a thing rather than a person. It's easier to shoot a thing than it is a person.
. . .
You no longer think of civilians as such. They're in enemy territory, or known to be sympathetic to the enemy: therefore, they're 'things', suspects, never to be trusted, never to be treated objectively or with anything other than the forced, mandatory legal definition of 'decency' imposed by your superiors . . . and even that becomes flexible when those superiors aren't around to monitor what you're doing.
. . .
That's the bitter fruit that extremism always produces. It's done so throughout history. There are innumerable examples of how enemies have become 'things'. It's Crusaders versus Saracens, Cavaliers versus Roundheads, Yankees versus Rebels, doughboys versus Krauts . . . us versus them, for varying values of 'us' and 'them'.
. . .
And in the end, the bodies lying in the ruins, and the blood dripping onto our streets, and the weeping of those who've lost loved ones . . . they'll all be the same. History is full of them. When it comes to the crunch, there are no labels that can disguise human anguish. People will suffer in every land, in every community, in every faith . . . and they'll turn to what they believe in to make sense of their suffering . . . and most of them will raise up the next generation to hate those whom they identify as the cause of their suffering . . . and the cycle will go on, for ever and ever, until the world ends.
We cannot 'kill them all and let God sort them out' ... There are too many of 'them' to kill them all, just as 'they' can never kill all of 'us' ... We cannot kill our way out of the dilemma of being human, with all the tragedy that entails.
May God have mercy on us all.
I fear greatly that unless the extremists on both sides come to their senses, those words may yet prove prophetic in these tragically dis-United States in which we live.
Peter
EDITED TO ADD: It seems that yesterday evening, Tucker Carlson basically agreed with what I've said here about the threat from extremists. See for yourself.
Quite so.
