Saturday Snippet: Situational awareness can save your life

Last month Gary Quesenberry published his new book, "Spotting Danger Before It Spots You: Build Situational Awareness To Stay Safe".

In today's troubled times, situational awareness is more important than ever.  I'm astonished to see so many people (particularly younger people) walking down the street, heads lowered over their smartphones as they text back and forth, totally ignoring the world around them.  They even step off sidewalks and cross streets like that, never lifting their heads to check for oncoming traffic!  I've had a couple of close encounters with such idiots while driving.  When you honk your horn at them, they jump in fright, then look at you as if it's all your fault - and if you'd been unfortunate enough to hit them, that's what their lawyers would claim when they sued you, even if the fault was all their clients'.

In a situation where urban unrest, riots, demonstrations and the like may occur nearby, we need to be on the lookout for them, and prepared to take evasive action when necessary.  This book is a useful tool in learning how to do that.  I've excerpted some of the first two chapters as a sampler.

Situational awareness is the ability to identify and process environmental cues to accurately predict the actions of others. This requires us to be familiar with what is known as baseline behaviors (those actions that are considered normal in any given environment). By knowing what is deemed to be reasonable and appropriate, we can more easily spot the people that seem out of place and raise our suspicion. Then we can evaluate that person’s actions, and with practice, accurately predict their behaviors. This is how situational awareness works, and it allows us to get the jump on dangerous situations so that we can respond appropriately. We’re going to go into greater detail about these things later on, but there are a few points I’d like you to keep in mind as you read.

• Situational awareness always increases your level of personal security. This stands true whether you’re concerned about violent predators, or the guy in aisle three who refuses to cover his cough.

• Before COVID-19, if you were standing in line at the bank and someone walked in wearing a mask, you would have probably panicked, now it’s perfectly normal. The baseline for normal behaviors has shifted dramatically. Because of that, we each need to reconsider how we define danger. My definition may be much different than yours, but neither of us is wrong. If you spot something that you judge to be threatening, avoid it. The techniques you’ll learn in this book will help you to do that.

• You are your own last line of defense. You must stay focused on the things that matter most when you’re out and about. Although the COVID-19 virus requires us to practice specific protective measures, your personal safety extends well beyond the threat of getting sick. Whatever you do, don’t allow yourself to become so focused on whether or not the person behind you in the checkout line is wearing a mask that you miss the fact he’s holding a knife.

These are trying times, but in the end, we’ll all get through it. Keep in mind that as we progress along the road to situational awareness, the next threat to our safety could be just over the horizon, and no one knows what shape that threat may take. No matter what other people may throw at you, be it a criminal or Mother Nature, you must maintain your concentration and keep focused on the end goal, ensuring the security of yourself and those you love. It’s a big crazy world out there, and things are always changing. Stay safe, and always keep your head up.

. . .

My goal here is to take what’s relevant in the world of situational awareness and personal safety and boil that information down to its simplest terms, which can then be easily implemented in your daily life. The techniques and exercises I’ll have you practice work for everyone—parents, small children walking to school, teenagers going off to college, and whole families headed out on summer vacation. It works universally. When properly applied, this system of situational awareness will help improve your general understanding of how, when, and where violence occurs. It will also increase your chances of successfully detecting and avoiding danger no matter where in the world you may find yourself.

. . .

Real situational awareness requires a shift in perspective. It’s not enough to just walk around in a state of hypervigilance, thinking that nothing within your line of sight will go unnoticed. You have to be able to see yourself and others from the perspective of a predator. This isn’t easy for a lot of people. For the most part, we all want to see the best in others, and the fact that someone else could possibly view us as a target of opportunity is hard to imagine. The unfortunate truth is that there are predators among us, and unless we can change the way we think, we may look like easy prey without even knowing it.

To better understand predatory behaviors, let’s start by breaking down and categorizing the different types of predators and their basic motivations. In his book, Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected, Sgt. Rory Miller breaks down predators into two groups: resource predators and process predators.

A resource predator is looking for tangible items, be it cash, jewelry, or even your shoes. They’ve decided they need something and they’re going to take it from you. Predators in this category include your basic mugger, pickpocket, or burglar. In some cases, if a resource predator confronts you and you just give them the thing they want, they go away.

Process predators, on the other hand, are much different. Process predators aren’t interested in your watch or wallet; they get off on the act of violence itself. This category of predator includes the likes of rapists and murderers.

Motivations of the two categories of predators can vary, but violent behavior is primarily driven by one of four things: money, ego, territory, and emotion. Let’s take a closer look at each.

1. Money: Like it or not, money is a consideration in almost every aspect of our lives. If you want a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back, you’re going to need money, plain and simple. Money is also a consistent factor in the commission of crimes. Some people have plenty of money, but they want more, and they’ll do whatever it takes, legal or illegal, to get it. This is where you get your white-collar criminals who end up in jail for tax evasion, fraud, or embezzlement. In those cases, victims may have lost money, but they were seldom harmed physically. More commonly, it’s the lack of money that drives people to commit irrational acts. Desperation can creep in, and people will go to any length to satisfy their needs. A friend of mine just sat as a juror on a capital murder case where a twenty-five-year-old man murdered his drug dealer over a forty-dollar debt. Most of us can’t even fathom such an act over that amount of money, but money is just the beginning of the problem; the real issue starts when the need for money is fueled by addiction. According to the Bureau of Justice, more than 18 percent of inmates in federal prisons committed their crimes to get money for drugs. In addition, drug addicts committed 26 percent of violent crimes as defined by the UCR. Alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it; if there’s a need for it, you can guarantee that money is what gets it. For some people, when money is unavailable, crime is a reasonable alternative.
   
2. Ego: On the surface, this one seems to be a little less common, but we all have egos; it’s the part of us that feels the need to be special. People will go to extremes to protect that feeling because it feeds their self-image, which can lead them into some pretty dangerous situations. We’ve all seen this play out either on television or in real life. Guy number one at the bar backs up and spills his drink on a lady’s dress. The lady’s boyfriend (guy number two) rushes to her defense and verbally attacks guy number one. Guy number one now has to save face in front of his friends and the other patrons of the bar, so he puffs out his chest and starts talking trash. Guy number two isn’t about to back down in front of his girlfriend, so things escalate and become physical. Both guys end up bloody, broken, and kicked out on the street looking like fools. Overinflated egos often lead to bad decision-making. If you ever find yourself in a predicament where egos are taking over and it looks like confrontation is eminent, it’s best to simply swallow your pride and remove yourself from the situation.
   
3. Territory: Humans are territorial creatures and will fight to protect what they consider to be theirs. An entirely peaceful, law-abiding citizen can become incredibly violent when they feel something within their territory has been threatened. A person’s home is their territory. When a mother takes her children to the park, that area becomes an extension of her territory, and she will protect it viciously from anyone she feels poses a danger to her children. The same goes for criminals. They survey their surroundings and stake claims on everything from street corners to door stoops. They become aggressive and often violent when they feel their territory is being encroached upon. To avoid this, it’s important that you become familiar with the places you frequent and be aware of any areas where your presence may cause problems.
   
4. Emotion: Violence is frequently driven by emotion. From jealous spouses to disgruntled employees and bullied teenagers, violent crimes such as mass shootings are often triggered by emotional responses. The level of emotion attached to religious beliefs has served as the primary influence behind acts of terrorism and the recruitment of others to extremist causes. Emotion is an incredibly powerful force, and it can be very unpredictable. Violence compelled by emotion tends to be excessively punishing.

That's a small sample of the sort of things you can learn from this book.  It's all useful stuff, and important in today's world.  It's particularly important because the system of justice in many states and cities of our nation has become politicized.  Those with certain political views and/or skin colors are likely to be treated a lot more harshly than those with others, and if the "wrong" color or politics is involved in a violent incident - no matter how justified their self-defense may be in terms of the letter of the law - they're likely to face a very vengeful prosecutor, out to prove that "his" or "her" people couldn't possibly be the guilty party(ies).

Given that legal fees may run into the tens of thousands of dollars, plus all the aggravation in having to defend oneself against charges that may be baseless, but will nevertheless be splashed all over the news media, we can see that avoiding this post-conflict conundrum may be even more important than recognizing potential conflict itself, in time to avoid it.


*Sigh*


Peter

Heh

Fellow blogger Eaton Rapids Joe says he's "just installed our new security system at the end of the driveway".

Yes, that should give low-lifes pause for thought!  You'll find a larger version of that placard at the link above, if you want to print it out for your own use.  (The phone number, needless to say, is not his - but I like where it directs callers!  Look it up online for yourself.)

Nice one, Joe!




Peter

What will life be like without police? Ask Mexico. Ask Africa.

The Federalist points out that all those demanding the "defunding" or abolition of police forces might do well to consider the consequences, which are clearly visible in Mexico.

But let’s say these ultra-progressive municipal governments could get their wish and abolish the police in their cities entirely. What would happen? Inevitably, an armed group would emerge and impose a monopoly on the use of force.

If you want an idea of how that works, look to our southern neighbor, Mexico, where over the past decade endemically corrupt police departments in some areas have been supplanted by autodefensas, or local self-defense militias. But before you get too excited about the prospect of paramilitary autodefensas policing American cities, understand that in Mexico these groups are a mixed bag at best—and at worst they’re not much better than the corrupt local police and cartel gunmen they replaced. More importantly, their mere presence in Mexico was and is a disturbing sign of societal decay.

To understand why, a bit of background is needed. The modern autodefensas movement in Mexico arose during some of the most violent years of Mexico’s ongoing drug war. In 2013, a doctor from the cartel-ravaged state of Michoacán, José Manuel Mireles Valverde, organized one of the first self-defense militias to fight against the Knights Templar Cartel. He initially recruited ordinary men, shop keepers and farmers, to hunt down cartel henchmen and drive them out of their towns.

Initially, these ad-hoc militias met with some success, capturing or killing members of the Knights Templar, setting up roadblocks and ambushes, and expanding the number of militias operating throughout Michoacán. But as the violence in the region increased, the militias eventually caught the attention of the Mexican government, which deployed the military against both cartels and autodefensas ... By then, the line between autodefensas and cartels had begun to blur. The militias had been infiltrated by cartel members, including former members of the Knights Templar who knew the cartel was losing power.

. . .

... the autodefensas movement quickly went from being an organic uprising against a vicious cartel to a vigilante free-for-all ... As the government stepped in to control the autodefensas movement, it became increasingly clear that cartel members were joining self-defense militias, especially in Michoacán and neighboring Guerrero state. Sometimes it worked in the opposite direction. Lacking resources and weapons, self-defense militias would turn to drug cartels for financing, and would later be used by drug lords as proxy forces against their rivals.

Today, autodefensas remain active in parts of Mexico but they have largely melded into the ever-shifting patchwork of gangs, cartel off-shoots, and corrupt local police forces vying for power and territory. The fragmenting of Mexico’s criminal gangs and armed groups has helped fuel rising violence in recent years, with this year on track to break last year’s record for homicides. As far as violence and corruption go, things are worse in Mexico now than they were when Mireles formed the first autodefensa group.

That is to say, the rise of self-defense militias in Mexico, no less than the rise of cartels, is a direct result of the collapse of civil authority. Absent a functioning state, militias are no more accountable to the general public than a drug cartel—and no more capable of resisting corruption than the local or federal police.

There's more at the link.

That was pretty much my experience in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, too.  As the authority of the state and/or local government waned during periods of anarchy and civil unrest, local gangs, tribes or other groups would take advantage of the "power vacuum" to seize control of their own areas.  They would levy "taxes" against the people to fund their operations (in reality, organized looting on an ongoing basis), and terrorize anyone who refused to pay, up to and including rape, torture and killing.  If the "ordinary people" organized to oppose them, the opposing force would rapidly become corrupted by precisely the same temptations that had attracted their oppressors.  Once entrenched, such local power players could only be dislodged by superior force - never by reasoning with them.  They were making too much money (by local standards) to be willing to give it up, and nobody else in that impoverished continent had enough money to offer them a bribe big enough to stop.

Another part of that problem was that many merchants and other vendors simply refused to deliver supplies to the region(s) concerned.  They became food deserts, with the only exception being foreign aid (mostly stolen by the groups in control, and sold in local markets) or subsistence agriculture.  I can tell you right now, if BLM or other groups take over local city suburbs, the big stores in and near them will simply close their doors, rather than be robbed on a daily basis.  That will lead to the activists (a.k.a. thugs and looters) trying to extend their activities into areas still well supplied, which will in turn provoke a violent reaction from those in the latter areas, trying to protect what they've got.  Since "the best form of defense is attack", to quote a well-known saying, they'll probably take the fight to the activists in their own areas, too.  In the absence of effective policing, who's going to stop either side?

That's your recipe for at least a localized civil war, right there.  Don't tell me it won't happen.  It will.  I've seen it before, far too many times for comfort.  It'll happen here, too, if we create conditions favorable for it.

Peter

What's next? Rainbow-farting unicorns to replace police?

I have no problem accepting that this country's law enforcement functions have overstepped the mark on many occasions.  I've written about some of them in these pages, as regular readers will know, and I support holding officers and agencies accountable when they cross the line.  It's also undeniable that American policing has often been about a one-sided enforcement of laws that were designed to benefit some parts of society, but not others.  As Matt Taibbi points out:

Basically we have two systems of enforcement in America, a minimalist one for people with political clout, and an intrusive one for everyone else. In the same way our army in Vietnam got in trouble when it started searching for ways to quantify the success of its occupation, choosing sociopathic metrics like “body counts” and “truck kills,” modern big-city policing has been corrupted by its lust for summonses, stops, and arrests. It’s made monsters where none needed to exist.

Because they’re constantly throwing those people against walls, writing them nuisance tickets, and violating their space with humiliating searches (New York in 2010 paid $33 million to a staggering 100,000 people strip-searched after misdemeanor charges), modern cops correctly perceive that they’re hated. As a result, many embrace a “warrior” ethos that teaches them to view themselves as under constant threat.

This is why you see so many knees on heads and necks, guns drawn on unarmed motorists, chokeholds by the thousand, and patterns of massive overkill everywhere ... Police are trained to behave like occupiers, which is why they increasingly dress like they’ve been sent to clear houses in Mosul and treat random motorists like potential car-bombers ... senior officers value police who make numbers more than they fear outrage from residents in their districts. The incentives in this system are wrong in every direction.

The current protests are likely to inspire politicians to think the other way, but it’s probably time to reconsider what we’re trying to accomplish with this kind of policing. In upscale white America drug use is effectively decriminalized, and Terry stops, strip searches, and “quality of life” arrests are unknowns. The country isn’t going to heal as long as everyone else gets a knee in the neck.

There's more at the link.

Despite Taibbi's undeniable points, anyone with even the most basic understanding of human nature and human interaction will realize that police are necessary.  There's a not insignificant proportion of humanity that prefers a criminal lifestyle, and lives it out of choice, not out of necessity.  No amount of wishful thinking will change that.  Therefore, current calls to abolish or de-fund police are beyond stupid.  They ignore reality.

If you're not convinced of that, try working for a few days inside one of America's prisons.  Deprived of their opportunity to prey on other citizens, what do the incarcerated criminals do?  They prey on each other, and on the officers tasked with keeping them behind bars.  There's a lot more crime inside prison walls than outside them, because when criminals are brought together in a small, concentrated space like that, they influence and exacerbate each others' worst tendencies.  You could call it a "pressure-cooker" environment.  I should know.  I spent years as a chaplain, both part-time and full-time, trying to help prison inmates.  I've written about it at some length.

In the process, I learned the hard way what works, and what doesn't.  I'm here to tell you that appeasement, kind words and wishful thinking don't help as long as those incarcerated aren't willing to change.

There's a group in Minneapolis calling themselves MPD 150.  They advocate for the replacement of that city's police force with what one could describe as "community self-policing".  See for yourself.  (Click the image for a larger view.)

Their agenda, their manifesto, is utterly ridiculous to anyone who has any real-world understanding and experience of criminals.  I quote:

The transition to a police-free Minneapolis will require immediate measures to limit the harm routinely inflicted by the police in their normal functioning and steps to address the underlying causes of distress. First responder responsibility and on-site authority in crisis situations, public spaces and schools will be transferred to parties prepared to interact sympathetically and respectfully with the people. Social service functions will be relocated in community-based settings. Military equipment will be sequestered. The police are tasked with enforcing austerity – the extraction of resources and resilience from communities for the benefit of the rich – and controlling people’s attempts to survive, resist or self-medicate under its impact. Dismantling the police will require reallocating their budget and assets to support real solutions to community desperation: good, well-paying jobs, affordable housing, healthy food, empowering education, accessible health care, removal of toxins, etc. Ending the brutal police system is, by necessity, a program for a more just and resilient city.

That's so daft as to be laughable, if it weren't so serious.

• "First responder responsibility and on-site authority in crisis situations, public spaces and schools will be transferred to parties prepared to interact sympathetically and respectfully with the people."  Oh, yeah?  You're a first responder, confronted with a couple of muggers armed with knives.  They want to get away with their loot.  Kindly explain how you're going to "interact sympathetically and respectfully" with them.  While you're telling us, I'll be selling tickets to watch your "interaction".  I reckon it'll be a smash hit (literally) on pay-per-view TV.
• "The police are tasked with enforcing austerity – the extraction of resources and resilience from communities for the benefit of the rich – and controlling people’s attempts to survive, resist or self-medicate under its impact."  Tell that to the average police officer and watch them fall over laughing.  "Extract resources and resilience"?  "Benefit the rich"?  No, not in the least.  They're there to stop criminals making themselves rich at your expense!  As for "self-medication" . . . great excuse for being a drug addict, isn't it?  And when you drive under the influence of those drugs, and kill someone in your zonked-out state, you should be treated with sympathy, instead of as the criminal you are . . . right?
• "real solutions to community desperation: good, well-paying jobs, affordable housing, healthy food, empowering education, accessible health care, removal of toxins, etc."  I seem to recall that Minneapolis, like most cities of its ilk, had a lot more of those when the city was governed by people who understood the reality of where money comes from.  It comes from businesses and individuals offering something to sell that people want to buy.  From those sales comes salaries and wages for employees, taxes for the city, state and country, and all the other means needed for a community to sustain and develop itself.  Take away those sales and all the economic activity that flows from them, and all you have left is wishful thinking.  That's not economically sustainable, no matter how much you might prefer otherwise.

I won't bother going into more examples.  These people have no idea about reality - or, rather, they've painted a mental picture of their own rainbows-and-unicorn-farts mental reality, and they're trying to superimpose it upon a physical reality that doesn't in any way match their delusions.  I'll leave you to read MPD 150's "10 Action Ideas for Building a Police-Free Future" for yourself - if you can stomach it.  It's not worth your time.

Yes, American law enforcement agencies are all too often flawed, with policies and procedures that frequently ignore Sir Robert Peel's fundamental principles for policing.  They were the foundation for British law enforcement in the 19th century, and I think offer a perspective that would deal with most of the problems we encounter today.  Sadly, even in Britain, their birthplace, they are today honored far more in the breach than in the observance.

The nine principles were as follows:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

I think we'd be far better advised to reintroduce and inculcate the Peelian Principles into American policing, rather than seek to abolish it.  Yes, that includes "demilitarizing" our police.  That should never have happened, and it remains a very serious problem.  Take away the weapons of war from law enforcement.  That's not their job.  If things are bad enough, criminally speaking, that they have to have them, then we don't need police to deal with them - we need the military.  The two functions are distinct from each other, with completely different mindsets and approaches, and should not overlap.  If they do, we end up with police who behave like armed occupiers rather than peace officers - and that will put us straight back into the mess we're in right now.

Peter

The frightening fragility of our cities

In urging readers to be prepared for emergencies, whether it be in terms of supplies, preparations to get out in a crisis, ability to defend themselves, etc., I've sometimes been accused of over-reacting.  There are those who say I'm fear-mongering, trying to worry people unnecessarily.  "It won't ever get that bad!"

Sadly, I've seen enough violence, unrest and social instability in my time to be very well aware that it can get that bad.  I've seen it in many parts of Africa, and in some US cities too.  Others who've "been there and done that" (for example, Selco in Bosnia) can confirm what I say.  The reality can be almost infinitely worse than anything I can say in these pages.

The residents of Minneapolis had a relatively mild introduction to that reality a few days ago.  Imagine if the destruction pictured below had extended to entire residential neighborhoods.  It can all too easily do so.  I've seen it.

What's worrying me more and more is that I'm seeing signs, in the growing tension in our society, that there are those who want to create such instability:  who see it as the only "solution" to the problems they perceive.  Of course, those problems will vary depending on the perspective of the individual, but they all add up to big trouble for the residents of our cities, who are going to be caught up in them if they come to pass.  (That's a big part of why, a few years ago, Miss D. and I moved from where we were, in Nashville, to where we are, in north Texas.  We've insulated ourselves against many of the problems of big cities by doing so, and we now live in an environment where people are much better prepared to handle such problems if they should arise.)

Don't take my word for it.  Read the following articles, and consider the urban reality they describe or foresee.  They're all important.  Don't just read one or two.  Read them all, to get the full picture.

• There's a lot of material out there on defending yourself in an urban environment.  Read my earlier article on the subject, and follow the links it contains.  You'll learn a lot.
• "Occupied".  Quote: "The more you can immobilize, slow down, or simply destroy vehicle infrastructure, the more you can handicap their movements, the faster you will get the change you want in the world."  I can testify from personal experience that the techniques described here really work.  I'm informed that rioters are already deploying them.
• Want an even simpler method of disrupting vehicle traffic?  Try "Caltrops and Systems Disruption".  Anyone can make a caltrop, very easily.  If you had a few vans or pickups scattering them on major highways and transport arteries, pretty soon your urban road network would be clogged for hours, if not days.
• Three recent articles from Greg Ellifritz:  "Surviving Mob Attacks on Your Vehicle", "Dealing with Molotov Cocktails and Fire Bombs", and "Playing with Fire".  You're watching those play out on our streets right now.  Pay attention, and learn.
• How easily can violence disrupt normal policing?  How about one man disrupting an entire major city's police department?  Read about "The Manhunt for Christopher Dorner".  Note how the entire Los Angeles-area law enforcement establishment was essentially paralyzed.  If one man could do that, what could half a dozen or a dozen do?  A score?  A hundred?
• What about the electricity supply?  Without it, a modern city basically shuts down.  Read about a 2013 "sniper" attack on an electrical sub-station in California, and the millions of dollars in damage it caused.  The electricity supplier was able to route around that damage, because it was only one sub-station.  What if it had been five, or ten, or twenty?  Fifty?  A hundred?  That could take out an entire city's electrical infrastructure, and it wouldn't be hard to do.
• Do you think the threats I've described so far are unlikely, beyond the capacity of today's rioters?  Think again after you read "Bricks, fires, frozen bottle projectiles: the organized tactics of America’s violent rioters".  Quote: "Police say the current riots are the most sophisticated and coordinated in years with supply lines, medics and communications."  Read the whole thing.  Another point:  if rioters are that organized, what makes you think anti-riot or counter-riot efforts won't rapidly become just as well organized?
• You don't need assault rifles and artillery to disrupt a riot.  The humble .22 rifle (available by the tens of millions in homes across America) and a few home-made devices will do just as well, in the hands of those who know how to use them.  Read Aesop's fictional scenario "Tomorrow".  I'll guaran-damn-tee you there are those planning something like that, right now.  (It's not far-fetched, either:  real-world riot control in Israel uses precisely the same .22 rifles.  It's already a proven technique.)
• If you step up to centerfire rifles, the carnage can be that much greater.  I've previously referenced Matt Bracken's semi-fictional "When The Music Stops:  How America's Cities May Explode In Violence".  If you haven't read it before, read it now.  I'm as sure as I can be that there are those already planning such a response to the current riots.  Let's hope and pray it doesn't happen.
• For a real-world illustration of the use of modern rifles in riot control, read "42 Knees in One Day: Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting Gaza Protesters".  That's current operational reality.  It could very easily be employed by civilians, on both sides of a riot.  What if they weren't only aiming at knees?
• You may think you can rely on first responders to come to your help if things get out of hand - but what happens if the rioters prevent that help from arriving?  It happened, just a few days ago.  That's just one incident.  What if there are a bunch of them?  What if there are so many that all ambulances, fire engines, etc. are tied up responding to earlier calls, and you have to wait for them until they have time to get to you?  You can't wait inside a burning building - but if you go outside, you may be targeted by rioters.  What are you going to do?

I'm not trying to make you panic with those articles and links.  I'm trying to show you what may happen, what can happen, and - in some cases - what already is happening.  Unless and until we realize how fragile is the cocoon of our everyday urban existence, we won't be prepared to deal with threats to it, and we won't have our own response planned and ready to deploy if necessary.

We live in dangerous times.  Be as prepared for them as possible.  Have a basic stockpile of emergency supplies, have a gun (preferably guns) for each adult in your family, and be prepared to get out in a hurry (if possible, before trouble arrives) rather than defend what's basically an indefensible position.  No matter how emotionally attached you may be to your home, mere property is not worth dying for.

Peter

Burning questions about vehicle safety

Two recent vehicle safety reports caught my eye.  I thought they might interest readers as well.

The first concerns water bottles in vehicles.

It turns out that if you keep a plastic bottle of water in your car, you need to be very mindful of where you leave it. Anyone who has watched a survival reality show knows that water in a clear plastic bottle can work in the same way as a magnifying glass, focusing the sun's light onto one spot. That means if the sun hits a bottle in your automobile just the right way, it could actually start a fire in your car.

Idaho Power uploaded a video to show just how it can happen.



... with the right circumstances it is very possible, and if there are papers, clothes or trash in a car, it could ignite, so stay hydrated this summer, but be careful where you leave your bottles.

There's more at the link.

The second concerns hand sanitizer.

The Western Lakes Fire District of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, shared an explosive photograph Thursday as a warning to all you motorists trying to be hyper-vigilant about the coronavirus this summer.

Leave your hand sanitizer in a hot car and your vehicle’s interior could end up a fire scene.

“By its nature, most hand sanitizer is alcohol-based and therefore flammable,” the fire officials wrote on Facebook May 21, alongside a photo of a driver-side door interior that had been mangled and melted by hand sanitizer.

“Keeping it in your car during hot weather, exposing it to sun causing magnification of light through the bottle — and particularly being next to open flame while smoking in vehicles or grilling while enjoying this weekend — can lead to disaster,” they explained.

The first responders, who use their social-media presence to educate their community on common fire hazards, added that clear water bottles also pose an explosion risk. They included a link to the National Fire Protection Association’s YouTube video with more warnings on hand sanitizer combustion.

Again, more at the link.

In our current painfully bright sunlight (yes, it's literally painful without sunglasses) and accompanying hundred-degree-plus temperatures in northern Texas, I'll certainly keep those warnings in mind!




Peter

Organizing the riots, fake news, and other matters

It seems that the organizing effort behind the current, allegedly "spontaneous" riots is extensive, well-planned, and very well coordinated and equipped.  More and more evidence is coming to light.  As just one example, here's part of their instructions, dropped by a riot organizer and publicized on Twitter.  Click the image for a larger view.

Note that every page has to be initialed by recipients, and strict discipline is imposed on them.  I ran that image past my law enforcement contacts in a few states and cities.  Several replied that they'd seen the same sort of thing in their areas.  One pointed out that the handout shown above was 26 pages long, and that enough other pages had been found in various places (mislaid, or on the person of arrested organizers) to reconstruct almost the whole document.  The radio frequencies and encryption used by the riot coordinators are also known by now, and interceptions are happening in real time.  There's a massive effort underway to coordinate intelligence and information, in the hope that this will lead to a crackdown on those responsible.  It can't happen too soon for me!

Be aware that much of the news about these riots is false.  Many in the mainstream media are deliberately tailoring their output to reflect the "party line", shooting TV footage from specific angles to maximize the social justice perspective and minimize the thuggery.  Quotes are selective, images unfavorable to the politically correct narrative are simply not used, and reporting is biased in the extreme.

I'll give you just one example of biased reporting.  Here's a headline from BET (Black Entertainment Television) yesterday:

Beloved Louisville Restaurant Owner

Who Provided Free Meals To Cops

Killed By Police

David McAtee was shot by law enforcement

early Monday morning during a protest for Breonna Taylor.

Sounds terrible, doesn't it?  How could those brutal, heartless police kill such a wonderful man?  Well . . . turns out the reality was rather different, as Fox 19 reported (also yesterday).

LMPD says new video

shows David McAtee firing gun

before he was killed by law enforcement

You'll find other reports out there.  They agree that at least two surveillance cameras, at different businesses, showed Mr. McAtee firing at police before they returned fire and killed him.  Compare and contrast the two headlines.  Which sounds closer to that reality?  Which report is more accurate?  (By the way, the same information was available to both outlets before they published their articles.  Note what BET left out!)

The problem is, most BET viewers and readers will never see another report from a different perspective.  They'll be outraged by what they perceive - what has been implicitly portrayed - as police brutality.  This, I suggest, is precisely the effect BET journalists and editors are trying to achieve.

I wouldn't trust a single report about the rioting in the mainstream media.  I'd check, double-check and triple-check everything, using input from all sides of the political and media spectrum, before making up my mind.  News - accurate news - is too important to be left to journalists and editors, who have all too often proved to be biased, dishonest and corrupt.

I think the ever-thought-provoking Heather Mac Donald has the best input on what we're seeing on our streets.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis.

Savagery is spreading with lightning speed across the United States, with murderous assaults on police officers and civilians and the ecstatic annihilation of businesses and symbols of the state. Welcome to a real civilization-destroying pandemic...

. . .

This pandemic of civil violence is more widespread than anything seen during the Black Lives Matter movement of the Obama years, and it will likely have an even deadlier toll on law enforcement officers than the targeted assassinations we saw from 2014 onward. It’s worse this time because the country has absorbed another five years of academically inspired racial victimology. From Ta-Nehisi Coates to the New York Times’s 1619 project, the constant narrative about America’s endemic white supremacy and its deliberate destruction of the “black body” has been thoroughly injected into the political bloodstream.

Facts don’t matter to the academic victimology narrative. Far from destroying the black body, whites are the overwhelming target of interracial violence. Between 2012 and 2015, blacks committed 85.5 percent of all black-white interracial violent victimizations (excluding interracial homicide, which is also disproportionately black-on-white). That works out to 540,360 felonious assaults on whites. Whites committed 14.4 percent of all interracial violent victimization, or 91,470 felonious assaults on blacks. Blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population.

If white mobs were rampaging through black business districts, assaulting passersby and looting stores, we would have heard about it on the national news every night. But the black flash mob phenomenon is grudgingly covered, if at all, and only locally.

The national media have been insisting on the theme of the allegedly brutal Minneapolis police department. They said nothing as black-on-white robberies rose in downtown Minneapolis late last year, along with savage assaults on passersby. Why are the Minneapolis police in black neighborhoods? Because that’s where violent crime is happening, including shootings of two-year-olds and lethal beatings of 75-year-olds. Just as during the Obama years, the discussion of the allegedly oppressive police is being conducted in the complete absence of any recognition of street crime and the breakdown of the black family that drives it.

Once the violence began, any effort to “understand” it should have stopped, since that understanding is inevitably exculpatory. The looters are not grieving over the stomach-churning arrest and death of George Floyd; they are having the time of their lives. You don’t protest or mourn a victim by stealing oxycontin, electronics, jewelry, and sneakers.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Finally, in response to several queries from readers following my two articles on Monday, I remind you that last year I published an article titled "An interesting look at urban defense".  It contains links to several other articles on the subject.  All are thought-provoking and worth reading.

Peter

A sheriff with the right idea

Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida, has the right idea about demonstrators versus rioters.

Sheriff Judd said ... he does not believe Polk County residents were the ones creating problems.

He said there’s a difference between a protester and a rioter and rioting will not be accepted.

Judd said they received information that law enforcement would come under attack at 8 p.m. near Interstate 4 and Highway 27, but the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and Florida Highway Patrol were ready.

Judd said the Highway Patrol did a “marvelous job” helping stop the few who showed up for that alleged effort.

“We are going to hunt you down and lock you up if you engage in any criminal conduct,” Judd said.

Judd said there were rumblings on social media that rioters planned to bring violence into the neighborhoods of Polk County.

“I would tell them, if you value your life, they probably shouldn’t do that in Polk County. Because the people of Polk County like guns, they have guns, I encourage them to own guns, and they’re going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I’m highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns. So, leave the community alone,” Judd said.



The sheriff encouraged anyone wishing to express their First Amendment right to free speech to keep the focus on George Floyd, who Judd said was a victim who should be honored.

"All of that ugliness has taken away from what we're united about," the sheriff said. "We're united about the conduct that you saw with George [Floyd]."

There's more at the link.

I couldn't agree more.  As I said right at the start of this rioting, I'll gladly join any street protest or demonstration against the way George Floyd met his death.  It cries out for judicial action, and it seems that action is being taken.  However, that's no excuse for rioting - particularly pre-planned, organized riots such as those we're currently seeing.

A riot is no longer a protest:  it's thuggery, looting, mayhem, anarchy and chaos.  Peaceful protests and demonstrations are lawful, and as such are protected by the First Amendment.  Riots are criminal, and are therefore prime candidates to be dealt with using the provisions of the Second Amendment.  Any violence offered by rioters to citizens like you and I needs to be resisted to the utmost, right from the start.

As the late, great Jeff Cooper once said:

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

Well said, sir!  It looks like Sheriff Judd got the message.

Peter

If you haven't got a gun, GET ONE. NOW.

Over the past few weeks and months, I've harped on personal security and self-defense issues, particularly in the light of the coronavirus pandemic and the additional stresses it's brought upon our society.

• I pointed out how COVID-19 was increasing the risks to our personal security.
• I described how I was using my "lockdown time" to upgrade some friends' guns, and wrote a three part series of articles about personal defense rifles.
• I encouraged readers to use their lockdown time to maintain and improve their shooting skills, and offered suggestions on how to do so, even in your own back yard.

I also forecast the likely reaction of the authorities to urban unrest - a forecast that has proved itself sadly accurate during recent events.  Amongst other things, I said:

Former SEAL Matt Bracken wrote an article back in 2012:  "When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violence" (link updated to new site).  If you haven't read it before, I recommend you do so now.  It may be over-the-top . . . but then again, it may not.  I've seen very similar scenarios to those he portrays in other countries, and the consequences were just as dire as he foresees (including the retaliation of those trying to defend themselves and their neighborhoods).  It can happen here too:  and right now, with so many people out of work, kids out of school, jobs lost, essential goods in short supply, people confined to their homes without any relief from family and other pressures, and the overall stress of a sudden, massive change in the way we live, I'm expecting social unrest in the USA in many forms.  This can and will impact our personal security in many ways.

In the event of urban rioting and violence, I expect the authorities to concentrate their law enforcement efforts on what they perceive as worth defending.  They will effectively abandon more violent neighborhoods (and those living in them) to their own devices, seeking instead to protect more peaceful areas from being dragged into the downward spiral.  This is a cold, hard calculation based on the resources available.  Each city has only so many security personnel available.  If they get too thinly stretched, the only answer is to pull them back into a defensible perimeter around trouble spots and let the fires burn themselves out, so to speak.

. . .

If you live in or near a major US city, particularly one with a large homeless population and/or a serious inner-city crime problem, you need to be aware that you're at greater risk of exposure to such problems.  If you doubt that, consider that retailers in those cities are already preparing for it.  (Some claim that's only because their insurance companies insist on it.  Well, why do you think they insist?  Isn't it because they have a fairly good idea of what to expect?)  Here are recent pictures of landmark stores in, respectively, Chicago, New York City and San Francisco.  Notice anything similar? ... If those stores (and/or their insurers) see good reason to prepare for trouble, why aren't we doing what we can to prepare as well?

There's more at the link, including the pictures mentioned in the excerpt above.

If you were wondering why I was writing those articles, and making those observations, the riots of the past few days should explain them all.  They were ostensibly "spontaneous" in reaction to the killing of George Floyd, but in reality they were planned ahead of time.  I saw this coming.  So did many people who are alert to the "signs of the times".

The bottom line in this whole mess is that when it comes to personal security during a riot, we're on our own.

It is now a well-established legal principle in the United States that police officers and police departments are not legally responsible to refusing to intervene in cases where private citizens are in imminent danger or even in the process of being victimized. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay for police services, year in and year out.  In cases of civil unrest ... be prepared to receive approximately nothing from police in terms of protecting property, or life and limb.

Again, more at the link.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis - and it's being confirmed almost daily.  As just one example, try Raleigh, NC.

You can't defend yourself, or your family, or your home, or your small business, with kind words and a cup of coffee.  You need the right tools to do so, particularly in the face of hate-filled rioters who want nothing more or less than anarchy and destruction.  To stop them, you need a weapon - and not just any weapon, either.  It may have to cope with multiple attackers, advancing fast, some of them also armed.  You need something to deal with that situation - something like a personal defense rifle.  As Mancow Muller tweeted two days ago (click the image below to be taken to the post on Twitter):

In their current campaign against police, progressive and left-wing activists are ironically underscoring the need for citizens to arm themselves.  Consider this photograph, courtesy of Spectator USA, taken in Brooklyn, New York City, a few days ago.

If there are to be no police, who will protect us except ourselves?  Nobody!  There couldn't be a clearer illustration of the stupidity of the progressive Left.  They prattle on with their anti-gun rhetoric, yet want to abolish law enforcement officers and agencies - which will make it even more important that we arm ourselves!  Talk about a contradiction in terms . . .

Those who claim that police will protect us, and therefore we don't need guns, are full of it.  As Kurt Schlichter observes:

The Chinese coronavirus fiasco, the shocking killing of George Floyd, and the riots ... have taught the American people several things. One is that a surprising and sad number of law enforcement officers are willing to follow cheesy, stupid, and unconstitutional orders. A quick tour of social media will horrify you with the damage done ... by video of stupid cops hassling civilians for going outside or trying to attend church. The people who long backed the blue feel stabbed in the back, and LEOs are going to have to work to earn back the support they lost because a lot of their comrades sided with ... bullies against the people.

Similarly, we have learned that the police are not necessarily going to be there for us. From that gooey tub of cowardice in Florida who let kids be murdered while he stood with a weapon outside the school – I can’t even type those words without sputtering in rage – to the [Minneapolis Police Department] running away and letting criminals burn their building, do you feel comfortable putting your lives in the hands of such government employees? The one inspirational sight during the riots was a bunch of black Americans with modern rifles defending their businesses.

. . .

Buy guns and ammunition, because there can be no truly free people that is not also an armed people.

More at the link.

There can be no further compromise on this point.  We've compromised enough - and look where it's got us!  As Ronald Reagan pointed out as far back as 1964, in the context of Soviet-American relations:

If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum ... and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically.

Reagan's words apply just as well to the crisis in which we find ourselves today.  Isn't that precisely what the progressive Left has tried to do to the American people - weaken us from within?  Force us into an ever greater reliance (or, rather, dependence) on the government to do everything for us, while undermining any attempt at self-reliance?  The late President Ford had an answer for that:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Remember, too, that if you use a firearm in self-defense, no matter how legally justified you may be in doing so, the police will confiscate that firearm for as long as it's needed for evidence.  It may disappear into the evidence locker for months, or even years.  If you don't have another gun handy to take its place, you're going to be disarmed, just when the friends of those against whom you defended yourself may come looking for you.  Don't just have one gun.  Have more than one, and make sure you know how to use them all, and have ammunition and magazines for them.  Also, if possible, and if it's legal where you live, make sure that at least some of them are "off-paper" private purchases, not recorded or registered in any official documentation.  If gun confiscators don't know you have them, their job will be that much more difficult.

Guns you need:

1. A concealable defensive firearm, able to be carried on your person, or in a vehicle, or anywhere else.  A semi-automatic pistol is the most practical solution, with a revolver a second choice.  The larger the magazine capacity, the better.
2. A long gun (rifle or shotgun) that will provide more "punch" than a handgun and/or reach out to longer ranges.  I recommend an AR-15 rifle or equivalent (the KelTec SU16 is another good choice, and very lightweight, too).  There are many alternatives, such as an AK-47-type weapon, or a lever-action rifle, or a pistol-caliber carbine.  I recommend magazine-fed semi-auto actions, for ease of use and speed of reloading.  In an urban unrest situation, use your long gun to defend yourself against a threat or threats at a safer, longer distance than you can with only a handgun.  Keep them as far away from you as possible.
3. Get (1) and (2) above for every adult in your family, and every teen mature enough to assist in defending the family.
4. Every defensive firearm should have a minimum of five magazines, plus enough quality ammunition for practice and defensive use.  It's helpful if everyone has weapons that can use the same magazines and ammunition.  This makes life easier all round.  Furthermore, get training for everybody in how to use their weapons.  Just because you own a musical instrument doesn't make you a musician;  and just because you own a firearm doesn't make you a gunfighter.
5. Once every adult or near-adult has a primary defensive weapon, plus enough magazines, plus enough ammunition, consider getting them a second weapon of the same type, to use if the first is impounded as evidence or becomes inoperable for some reason.  Instead of a second rifle, consider something like an AR-15 pistol, which is much more compact than a carbine or rifle but almost as powerful, fires the same ammunition as the larger weapon, and is very effective over 100-150 yard ranges - precisely what one needs for an urban riot.

Those are minimum recommendations.  Many shooters already have far more.  I recommend more, if you can afford it.  Even if you're short of money, get at least one viable defensive firearm and ammunition, and keep it handy.  It's like a parachute.  You may never need it:  but if you do need it in a hurry, it'll be too late to go out and buy one!

Some people of faith may question whether they're not supposed to "turn the other cheek" when violence is offered.  Speaking as a retired pastor and chaplain, I submit that's not the case.  In the context of an attack on one's faith, that may be appropriate:  but the current riots have nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with thuggish brutality and intimidation.  I offer two Scripture verses, quoting Jesus directly, to guide your response:

• "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace."  (Luke 11:21)
• "He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
  

Go read Matt Bracken's article, and pay careful attention to it.  (Link updated to new site.)  I'm not advocating or endorsing urban terrorism - I've seen too much of it at first hand to ever do that, as regular readers will know.  Nevertheless, I know for a fact that the mutual security groups of individuals to whom he refers are already forming in many states.  People aren't blind.  They can see reality, particularly when it slaps them in the face.  Follow their example.

As bad as things are now, I believe that worse things are coming.  Get ready for them.  If you think that I'm paranoid, or exaggerating, answer me this:  would you, even a week ago, have predicted that a major metropolitan police department would abandon one of its precinct headquarters to rioters, without resistance, and allow them to burn it down?  It just happened.  Welcome to the new reality!  Are you willing to entrust your safety and security, and that of your loved ones, to a law enforcement agency like that?  I'm certainly not!

If you're in a city, or town, or suburb, or street, that's basically indefensible, plan to move as quickly as possible to a safer environment.  Pre-pack essential gear, supplies, medication, important documents, pets, etc. and be ready to toss them into your vehicles and get out as fast as possible.  Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones as you travel.  If you're staying put, be prepared to defend your home and family and possessions.  Get to know people around you.  If you decide you can trust them - and don't give your trust lightly! - form small networks of your own, to safeguard your neighborhood, families and property if worse should come to worst.  Don't delay.  DO IT NOW.  You won't have time for such preparations when the chips are down.  Pay attention to tactics for dealing with a riot or unrest situation, and rehearse them if possible with your family.  At the very least, discuss them and make sure everybody understands what you want them to do.

Keep in mind that as far as the progressive media and left-wing city administrators are concerned, if you defend yourself against rioters, you're likely to be pre-judged to be the guilty party.  Surveillance cameras are everywhere;  citizens with cellphones can and will record video, audio and photographs of what happens around them;  social media posts can and will be used against you;  communications (cellphone, e-mail, whatever) are not secure against interception, and may be used as evidence.  Learn to operate "off the grid", communicating only in person or by hand-carried communications that are destroyed as soon as they're received.  Be a "gray man".  If you have to stop being "gray" in order to defend yourself, do so as quickly and discreetly as possible, then go right back to being "gray" as you leave the area, or blend back into your surroundings.  Try not to make yourself a target for unwelcome attention, before, during or after the fact.

Let me state flatly, once and for all, that every adult American needs to be ready, willing, able, and equipped to defend themselves against this onslaught on our society.  Such defenses need to include firearms, training in their use, and sufficient ammunition to get the job done.  If you don't have all of those, it's long gone time that you remedied the position.  Don't delay, and don't say you can't afford to do that.  You can't afford NOT to do it.

Peter

These riots are the latest round in an organized attack on our republic

If anybody thinks the current riots erupting around the United States are just a reaction to the tragic death of George Floyd, or an uprising against racism in this country, they're worse than fools.  They're deluded idiots.  They're blind to reality.

No "spontaneous riot" sees pallet-loads of bricks mysteriously dropped off in major city centers, precisely where rioters will be passing in a very short time.  (There are innumerable reports and videos of them - see here for one on-the-spot recording.)  You couldn't possibly ask for stronger evidence of planning and organization behind the riots.  I also note that almost every city where rioting has broken out has been Democratic Party-controlled, with administrations that will reliably leash their police and security forces to give the rioters more or less free rein.  Out of 39 cities I've seen reported, there's only one exception that I can identify so far.

(One does wonder what Organizing for America has been up to.  I've heard from some of my cop friends in cities beset by unrest - the same friends who gave me the "straight dope" about cartel difficulties caused by the coronavirus - that OfA activists in their areas are behaving very suspiciously indeed.  They also report that some OfA activists are already known to them from their activities and sympathies in support of Antifa, as well as organizations connected to and/or funded by the Open Society Foundations.  Here's one example.  What price cross-pollination of activists?  My informants have proved accurate before, and I'm willing to bet they're accurate again.  I'm also informed that their reports are being forwarded to a very high level indeed.  Let's hope suitable action will result.)

Almost every TV station, newspaper or other mainstream outlet has tried to tie the riots to President Trump, blaming him for them (or for making them worse).  The same goes for opinion and editorial columnists.  It's even extended to fake pictures, seeking to tie the Minneapolis police officer to the Trump campaign.  (On the other hand, I can't recall a single picture of the President throwing a rock, or taking a swing at a police officer, or breaking a window, or starting a fire in a business, or looting.  Makes you wonder who the real criminals are, doesn't it?)  What's more, social media appears to be allowing rioters and criminals to coordinate their activities, selecting targets and encouraging others to attack them - while those same social media are flagging the President's social media posts as untrustworthy.  Makes you think, doesn't it?

This incessant propaganda drumbeat makes it obvious that the mainstream media are taking their talking points from a central source, and parroting them like the obedient slaves to ideology that they've become.  If there's no smoke without fire, the mainstream media are a raging conflagration, a progressive holocaust.  You can't accept anything they're saying about the riots without first examining it very carefully, to strip away the partisan political rhetoric and get to the underlying facts.  If you think that's merely an aberration, you have no idea what's going on.

(Want an example?  Look at what Van Jones had to say on Friday about racism in America.  Note his background, particularly in the Obama administration.  Then consider Rahm Emanuel's [another leftist] oft-quoted dictum about never letting a serious crisis go to waste.  Put two and two together.  If you don't get four, you need math classes.)

Accusations that endemic racism in American society being to blame for the riots are nothing more than a pretext, an ideological fig-leaf to cover the planning and organization behind these events.  To anybody with two working brain cells to rub together, the lie is obvious.  As Sixties-era leftist activists knew (and recited repeatedly), "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows".  "Spontaneous" protests are not this well arranged, so long in advance, needing only a spark to kindle the flame.  The death of George Floyd provided that spark, and those behind the riots are fanning it into a roaring conflagration for all they're worth.

"But why now?" I hear readers ask.  Why is this violence erupting at this time, rather than earlier or later?  The reason isn't hard to find.  Attorney-General Barr has been overseeing an investigation into the actions of the so-called "Deep State" and the Obama administration in the non-existent scandal over Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  The more that comes out about that scandal, the more it appears that very senior figures in the previous administration, and very senior officials in the executive branch, conspired to pervert the course of justice and overturn - or at least obstruct - the result of a democratic election.  It appears very likely that criminal charges will result.  The latest Senate inquiry into elements of the scandal is to open today.  What better way to divert attention from the indefensible, almost certainly criminal actions of the progressive Left than to start a riot or three?  If there's no connection between those elements, I'll go out and buy a hat so that I can eat it!

Heads need to roll over this series of events.  Those heads should be those of the people who planned and organized this violence, and are still pulling the strings.  If their heads roll in a literal sense, as well as a figurative one, I won't be upset.  They deserve nothing less.  They have blood on their hands - the blood of the victims of the riots - and should be treated accordingly.

The situation also has grave implications for our personal security.  I'll address those in another article in a few hours' time.  Meanwhile, "trust in God and keep your powder dry."  You may need it.




Peter

Minneapolis: the cowardice of the city authorities

I'm sure we've all seen images of the rioting and destruction in Minneapolis following the tragic death of George Floyd at the hands of police there.  I won't bother to reproduce any here.

I have no problem with protests against the actions of police in Mr. Floyd's death.  If I were living in or near Minneapolis, I'd take part in them!  On the basis of video evidence, I have no hesitation in labeling it police malfeasance, at the very least.  There should be (and I hope there will be) legal consequences for all concerned.  However, when the protestors start behaving like thugs and criminals, that crosses a line just as clearly as the one the police crossed in dealing with Mr. Floyd.  The protestors make themselves criminals too.

I can't understand how the city authorities in Minneapolis are allowing this anarchy to continue.  In northern Texas, I know for sure that every small business would have its owner(s) and/or employees deployed outside with firearms in the event of similar trouble here - and they wouldn't hesitate to use their guns if necessary in defense of their property.  They're entirely within their rights to do so.  Many of their customers would join them to help out.  However, that doesn't appear to be the case in Minneapolis, where business owners are cowering at home, relying on the police to protect their property - and the police are conspicuous by their absence.

This abdication of authority and responsibility seems to be a pattern in that part of the world, judging by earlier reports.  It's a license for anarchy.  Unless it's stopped, and the authorities do their job, Minneapolis may become - perhaps already is - ungovernable.  The current behavior of its police force, letting the riots continue without actively moving to stop them, appears to be nothing less than an acknowledgment of that reality.  I can only assume their behavior is the result of orders from the city authorities, which means that the latter are equally culpable.

If that's the case, I think - I hope! - that an increasing number of Minneapolis residents will take matters into their own hands, and start striking back at the anarchists and criminals and thugs who currently appear to rule their streets and business districts.  If I were living there, I'd be among them.  If police fail to keep the peace, then it's up to us to do so in our own neighborhoods and towns.  If police have no duty to protect individual citizens, as the Supreme Court has ruled, then citizens most certainly have the right to protect themselves and their property.  That's one of the primary justifications for the Second Amendment to the United States constitution.

If the authorities can't be trusted to stop this sort of anarchy, why should they be trusted to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, or business and commerce, or anything else?  Right now, Minneapolis doesn't appear to have a city government at all.  Will its residents do something about that at the next elections?  I hope so . . . but as Joseph de Maistre famously said, every nation gets the government it deserves.  I guess that applies to every city, too.  I just can't figure out how Minneapolis became such a nasty place as to deserve the government it's got!




Peter