Oath Keepers arming Ferguson protesters and the Cycles of Insurgency

Ferguson, Missouri (TFC) – In November of 2014 I wrote an article for The Anti-Media. It examines the realities of nonviolent revolution in history. While nobody ever wants violence, especially those who have ever seen it, it is important to remember that violence has played a major role in many events that traditional narratives call “nonviolent.” The reported plans of the Oath Keepers in Ferguson are not violent. They are in fact, nonviolent. However, the act has symbolic meaning that people are at the point of violence.

In August of 2014, I wrote an article discussing the cycles of insurgency after Ferguson. It predicted certain events including the targeted killing of police officers. It included the sentence, “Those in departments that have excused the actions of their officers and made significant peaceful reform impossible, have now set the stage for their officers to be shot while sitting at traffic lights.” That later occurred in New York, and then officers in Ferguson were fired upon while standing outside of the police department.

In March of 2015, After that occurred, I wrote another article repeating the five steps to insurgency and adding more details about the economic and demographic situation in the US as it relates to possible insurgency. I predicted more riots.

In April of 2015, Baltimore was in flames. I wrote an open letter to police departments begging for demilitarization. All of this went unheeded. My voice was not alone. My voice was not the most prominent. All of the warning signs were ignored and now we stand in a very dangerous situation.

Today, TFC is republishing all of those articles below in chronological order. Time for peaceful reform is running very, very short. It is incredibly important that American citizens, law enforcement officers, and politicians understand that without reform we will see open firefights in the streets of American cities in a very short time. I would write an impassioned plea for change, but at this point I am starting to believe that those who made peaceful revolution impossible have already made violent revolution inevitable.

Author’s Note: All of the articles below are linked to the originals. There is some repetition in some of the articles as they cover the same subject.

Is Nonviolent Revolution A Possibility?

November, 2014

(TheAntiMedia) In countries all over the world different organizations are attempting to stage internal revolutions without the use of violence. History is full of examples of successful revolutions that employed violence in their strategy, but has there ever been a truly successful revolution that didn’t employ violence?

Most attempted revolutions target the national government of a country. The power of a government rests solely in one thing: its monopoly on violence. While governments may also maintain a monopoly on other facets of society such as banking or even the national means of production, these additional monopolies are maintained through the use of violence. All governments achieve all domestic agendas through the use of violence against their own citizens.

Even in the land of the free, people are deterred from jaywalking by the barrel of a gun. If a citizen jaywalks, they are issued a ticket, if the ticket is not paid, a warrant is issued for their arrest, if the citizen does not turn themselves in, the police are dispatched, if the citizen does not comply with police orders, violence is initiated by law enforcement. Every domino that falls in any chain of interaction with a government regulatory body brings the citizen one step closer to violence being used against them.

If the only power of the state rests in its monopoly on violence, how sensible is it to adopt a strategy that continues to exclusively grant the state this power?

Ghandi in India

There is a narrative that suggests that throughout history nonviolent revolutions have occurred. People are of course familiar with the nonviolence preached by Ghandi and how his determination and resolve broke the British Empire. Of course, that isn’t an entirely accurate portrayal. Ghandi endorsed the Quit India Movement, but did not lead it. The movement, much like today’s movements, was extremely decentralized and lacked any leadership. Some of the movement’s “nonviolent activities” included bombings and arsons at police stations, courthouses, and post offices. The railways were also sabotaged.

The Indian National Army (INA) conducted a guerilla war against the British for three years from 1942 to 1945. While the operations of the INA were militarily ineffective, they succeeded in cementing popular support and demonstrations in support of the INA often turned into riots. Ghandi himself commented on the amount of support the INA gained from Indian citizens when he said “the hypnotism of the INA has cast its spell on us.”

Nationalism in India sprang into maturity in the late 1800s, Ghandi showed up on the scene in 1920, independence was achieved in 1947. The nonviolent revolution in India was anything but nonviolent, and it is interesting to note that within five years of the widespread introduction of violence, the fifty-year-old movement achieved its goal.

The American Civil Rights Movement

The next example of nonviolence people are handed is that of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the victory over institutional racism in the United States. Of course, many will say that battle is far from over. I would agree, but that shouldn’t detract from the major victories won by the civil rights movements in the 1960s.

First, it should be noted that the Civil Rights Movement didn’t begin in the 60s, unless of course we’re talking about the 1860s. The fight for civil rights began the day the last shot was fired during the Civil War. In fact, the term “separate but equal” that institutionalized segregation came about as a result of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The landmark Supreme Court decision was in response to an act of nonviolent civil disobedience that was attempting to end Louisiana’s segregation on trains. The act failed, but it served to keep the spirit of freedom and defiance alive.

The Civil Rights Movement most Americans are familiar with started about 50 years after the Plessy case. Oddly enough, it didn’t begin with a charismatic black preacher, but rather an old white guy.

“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.”

The above, which is part of Executive Order 9981, came from President Truman in 1948. World War II ended three years before, and a vast majority of the military brass believed that black Americans had earned their keep during the war. The Secretary of the Army disagreed with Truman and was forced to resign, but by 1954 the US military was officially desegregated in every way.

Once the military was desegregated, it became harder to justify it anywhere else in society. Of course, backward people tried. Now we enter the timeline that is summarized every year on Martin Luther King’s birthday: Brown v Board of Education (1954), Rosa Parks (1955), Little Rock (1957), the lunch counter sit-ins (1958), the Freedom Rides (1961), “I have a dream” speech (1963), and then poof the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Sounds like what you were taught in school, right? Why is it that for almost 100 years the civil rights of blacks were trampled on, only to be handed over because of some powerful speeches and a little bit of civil disobedience? The civil disobedience had been occurring the whole time. Was Martin Luther King really that persuasive? Did anything else happen that might have expedited the transition?

There was one interesting string of events that coincided with the rest of that timeline. Birmingham, Harlem, Columbia Avenue and countless other communities rioted. It was one of these riots that led President Kennedy to propose the Civil Rights Act.

Nicholas Bryant, a leading civil rights historian, said in his book:

“It was the black-on-white violence of May 11 – not the publication of the startling photograph a week earlier – that represented the real watershed in Kennedy’s thinking, and the turning point in administration policy. Kennedy had grown used to segregationist attacks against civil rights protesters. But he – along with his brother and other administration officials – was far more troubled by black mobs running amok.”

There’s no reason to take Bryant’s word for it though, declassified tapes show that the Birmingham riot was the reason for Civil Rights Act. Robert Kennedy said

“The Negro Reverend Walker…he said that the Negroes, when dark comes tonight, they’re going to start going after the policemen – headhunting – trying to shoot to kill policemen. He says it’s completely out of hand….you could trigger off a good deal of violence around the country now, with Negroes saying they’ve been abused for all these years and they’re going to follow the ideas of the Black Muslims now…If they feel on the other hand that the federal government is their friend, that it’s intervening for them, that it’s going to work for them, then it will head some of that off. I think that’s the strongest argument for doing something…”

President Kennedy replied

“First we have to have law and order, so the Negro’s not running all over the city… If the [local Birmingham desegregation] agreement blows up, the other remedy we have under that condition is to send legislation [The Civil Rights Act] up to congress this week as our response…As a means of providing relief we have to have legislation.”

The main victory of the Civil Rights Movement was the Civil Rights Act of 1964; this wasn’t brought about by nonviolence. It was brought about because the President and the Attorney General were worried that black Americans would end the government monopoly on violence by going cop hunting.

The reality of nonviolence

The idealism of nonviolence is to be applauded; however it makes an amazing jump in critical thought. In order for nonviolence to be successful, the opposition must have some sense of morality and justice. When the opposition maintains a monopoly on violence and is prepared to use violence to oppress a people, attributing decency and morality to their forces seems a little too optimistic.

Nelson Mandela is also held up as an icon of nonviolence. He began as an activist who employed nonviolence as a tactic, when it failed, he led the armed wing of the African National Congress. When he was imprisoned in 1985, he was offered release if he would renounce violence. He stayed in prison. Mandela wasn’t an idealist, he was a pragmatic man. In his owns words

“I was not like them [King and Ghandi]. For them, nonviolence was a principle. For me, it was a tactic. And when the tactic wasn’t working, I reversed it.”

Historically, it seems that nonviolence is the method used to gain popular support for an idea, but violence is still required to push the revolution to its conclusion. It isn’t a fact that many in today’s activist circles want to accept, but that’s ok. It isn’t something that Dr. King or Ghandi ever accepted. Mandela is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to individuals switching tactics. Years of nonviolent resistance brings the idea to the forefront; and a relatively short burst of violence typically carries the idea forward to its goal.

While I understand the historical realities of nonviolence, I can’t bring myself to advocate violence. Insurrections in the modern age are terrible, bloody events that create not just the standard casualties of war, but casualties related to having a shortage of everything except the tools to kill each other. When revolution reaches its apparently inevitable violent conclusion in the United States, the best that anyone can hope for is that it ends quickly with as little loss of life as possible.

In a way, being an activist is a lot like being a home renovator. Both are trying to make something that is unlivable livable again. Both have a specific set of tools that can be used to accomplish their goals. If the renovator has tried the screwdriver, the wrench, the hammer, and the saw; he may have to resort to a total demolition to bring about the desired result. Likewise, if the activist has tried voting, petitions, marches, and direct action without being able to sway the authorities; she may have to resort to violence to achieve the desired result. It’s a tool that is often the last resort of those that have been trampled on and subjugated for too long.

Author’s note: I checked several other typical examples and they either fell short of a revolution like Iceland (It seems revolutionary because the rest of the governments sold out their own people), or the nonviolent revolution included substantial violence. Alternatively, many seemingly peaceful revolutions only succeeded briefly before the tensions spawned violence (Ukraine). The only shining example I could find was that of the suffragettes, who wielded a power far more potent than violence: sex. 

Ferguson Riots Move the US One Step Closer to Insurrection

August, 2014

Ferguson. Image Source: Justin King

Ferguson.
Image Source: Justin King

(ANTIMEDIA) – Many question the moral authority of the rioting in Ferguson that was triggered by yet another killing of an unarmed teen. The rioting is a symptom of a larger nationwide trend of resistance to the encroaching police state, and specifically the ability of law enforcement officials to kill, maim, and harass without consequence.

The riots began before all of the facts were gathered about the shooting. The timing of the riot is important. Preemptive rioting and the destruction of private property is the third step in a historical cycle that has played out since the foundation of governments. It is a five step cycle that ends in widespread rebellion and insurrection.

5 steps to insurgency

Pamphlets:

Prior to the digital age, pamphlets were the main method of spreading dissent around the world. The pamphlets examined and questioned the authority of the contemporary governments and control systems. In the modern world, pamphlets have been replaced by blogs, social media, and to a smaller degree, adversarial journalists.

Reactive Protests:

Once the seed of dissent is planted, people take to the streets to voice their opposition to the government. These protests occur after the control systems of the era attempt to diffuse an offending incident.

Preemptive Rioting:

Preemptive rioting follows a period of reactive protests that go unanswered by the government. The people begin taking to the streets and destroying private and public property as soon as an offending incident takes place, rather than waiting and hoping for the government to police itself.

Military or Law Enforcement backlash and crackdowns:

These riots and small incidents of resistance trigger a government reaction. The control systems of the country tighten their grip on the people and further curtail civil liberties and infringe on people’s rights. The government crackdown fuels the resistance movement as more people tire of government intrusion.

Widespread rebellion and insurrection:
At some point during the crackdown, an incident occurs that tosses a match into the powder keg of dissent. At this point, open rebellion occurs.

To showcase an example most Americans are familiar with, the American Revolution provides a clear instance for every phase of the cycle. As early as 1765, agitators were distributing pamphlets and making speeches.Patrick Henry made his “If this be treason, make the most of it speech!” speech that year (Pamphlet Phase). The government was unresponsive to the cries of the people and protests began. In 1770, British troops opened fire on one such protest in Boston. It is known today as the Boston Massacre (Reactive Protest Phase). The King continued to press colonials until preemptive rioting and violence began. While the 1773 Boston Tea Party is the most famous, violence was initiated in almost all colonial ports. In Annapolis, a ship was set ablaze along with its tea (Preemptive Rioting Phase). British authorities could see the coming conflict and attempted to seize arms from the colonials (Military or Law Enforcement Crackdown Phase). When the colonists of Lexington and Concordresisted, the colonies were plunged into open insurrection (Rebellion Phase).

Throughout history the same five phases repeat. The Tea Parties were not just about the Tea Act, they were a strike against the government for a collection of insults and intrusions. Much like the riots in Ferguson, the participants gave little thought to the private property destroyed during the action. Much the same way law enforcement looks at all of the innocent people killed as collateral damage or an unfortunate accident; the rioters in Ferguson (and during the Revolution) see the destruction as justified.

This will not be an isolated case. More and more people are warming to the idea of using violence against police forces that are constantly overstepping their bounds. An armed citizenry will resist oppression and it will be those carrying out the enforcement of unjust laws that become the target of resistance. In other countries during the Preemptive Rioting cycle, law enforcement officers are targeted while they are on duty, and their families are targeted while at home. Even the respected Founding Fathers of this country engaged in attacking government officials at home. Customs official Thomas Hutchinson’s home was attacked and his family barely escaped with their lives.

Without serious reform in what’s left of the justice system, the future is not one of officers walking free after killing an unarmed person; it will be one of officers becoming the target of sporadic violence. Despite the propaganda, being a cop in the United States is safer than being a trash collector. That will change, and officers will become targets of opportunity for those that previously sought reform through peaceful means.

Those in departments that have excused the actions of their officers and made significant peaceful reform impossible, have now set the stage for their officers to be shot while sitting at traffic lights. Only 61% of murders are solved in the United States. Imagine how hard it will be to solve an officer’s murder that is completely random and lacks a direct connection to the shooter. Without a clear motive, there is no place to even start investigating.

This riot is the warning sign of a very dangerous future for cops. This wasn’t an isolated shooter taking out cops; this was a large percentage of the population expressing rage at the rampant police brutality and corruption. It is doubtful that departments will get a second warning. The time for reform is now. Otherwise, the body count the news is reciting is more likely to be that of officers than of unarmed citizens.

There is some repetition of material in the next article. 

Will the targeting of police continue?

March, 2015

(TFC) – Two officers were shot from a distance while they stood outside the Ferguson Police Department during a peaceful protest. Videos show the shots did not come from the protesters.

The question on everybody’s mind: Will the targeting of police officers become common place?

Civilian violence against the state historically works in a cycle of five stages. The steps were outlined in an article published immediately following the Ferguson riots:

5 steps to insurgency

Pamphlets: Prior to the digital age, pamphlets were the main method of spreading dissent around the world. The pamphlets examined and questioned the authority of the contemporary governments and control systems. In the modern world, pamphlets have been replaced by blogs, social media, and to a smaller degree, adversarial journalists.

Reactive Protests: Once the seed of dissent is planted, people take to the streets to voice their opposition to the government. These protests occur after the control systems of the era attempt to diffuse an offending incident.

Preemptive Rioting: Preemptive rioting follows a period of reactive protests that go unanswered by the government. The people begin taking to the streets and destroying private and public property as soon as an offending incident takes place, rather than waiting and hoping for the government to police itself.

Military or Law Enforcement backlash and crackdowns: These riots and small incidents of resistance [such as the targeted killing of police officers] trigger a government reaction. The control systems of the country tighten their grip on the people and further curtail civil liberties and infringe on people’s rights. The government crackdown fuels the resistance movement as more people tire of government intrusion.

Widespread rebellion and insurrection: At some point during the crackdown, an incident occurs that tosses a match into the powder keg of dissent. At this point, open rebellion occurs.

To showcase an example most Americans are familiar with, the American Revolution provides a clear instance for every phase of the cycle. As early as 1765, agitators were distributing pamphlets and making speeches. Patrick Henry made his “If this be treason, make the most of it!” speech that year (Pamphlet Phase). The government was unresponsive to the cries of the people and protests began. In 1770, British troops opened fire on one such protest in Boston. It is known today as the Boston Massacre (Reactive Protest Phase). The King continued to press colonials until preemptive rioting and violence began. While the 1773 Boston Tea Party is the most famous, violence was initiated in almost all colonial ports. In Annapolis, a ship was set ablaze along with its tea (Preemptive Rioting Phase). British authorities could see the coming conflict and attempted to seize arms from the colonials (Military or Law Enforcement Crackdown Phase). When the colonists of Lexington and Concord resisted, the colonies were plunged into open insurrection (Rebellion Phase).

Throughout history the same five phases repeat. The Tea Parties were not just about the Tea Act, they were a strike against the government for a collection of insults and intrusions. Much like the riots in Ferguson, the participants gave little thought to the private property destroyed during the action. Much the same way law enforcement looks at all of the innocent people killed as collateral damage or an unfortunate accident, the rioters in Ferguson (and during the Revolution) see the destruction as justified.

Most would argue that we are in the fourth stage of insurrection and are just waiting for the inciting event to plunge the nation into widespread rebellion. The crackdown in the United States is seemingly soft; relying heavily on a constant surveillance state and a militarized police force that employs daybreak raids, assaults on family members, and other Gestapo tactics to keep people in fear.

The general lack of accountability as exemplified in the string of recent murders and rapes by police have brought many Americans to a point where they are willing to resist with physical violence. It has become a choice of rolling the dice, because the cops will probably kill you anyway.

In addition to the five phase cycle, there are certain preconditions that are typical among nations that plunge into insurrection:

Economic disparity: There is typically a great gap between the rich and poor. The difference between the daily lives of the landed elites and the average citizen prior to the American Revolution isstaggering. The gap is greater today.

Unresponsive Government: The government in the nation suffers from a disconnect with the people. During the Revolution, the King simply didn’t care. Today, elected officials are only responsive to large corporate donors.

Disenfranchised Populace: Whether a segment of society is selected because of its race, or in the case of the American Revolution, the population was simply unrepresented, the soon-to-be insurgents do not have a voice in their government. Today, with the overcriminalization of victimless crimes and the habit of making every crime a felony, millions of Americans are unable to vote and have no voice in the government.

Veteran Civilians: In order for an insurrection to take hold, there needs to be a large population of veterans that are no longer employed by the government. Many of the leaders of the Revolution cut their teeth during the French and Indian War. After more than a decade of constant warfare, the US population has a healthy percentage of people who have seen insurrection first hand.

Use of military for police functions: Prior to the Revolution, the people were so hampered by military presence, that the Founding Fathers warned against having a standing army and included a section in the Bill of Rights prohibiting the quartering of troops. Today, rather than deploy the military, the US government has militarized the local police forces by providing military equipment and training. The outcome is the same: a violent uncontrolled armed force that terrorizes the people rather than serves them.

To answer the main question in a single word: Yes.

The American people need to prepare themselves for the continued targeting of law enforcement by gunfire and eventually bombings unless the departments demilitarize and begin to hold themselves accountable to the people, rather than simply following the orders they are handed.

In August of last year, immediately following the Ferguson riots, The Anti-Media published an article very similar to this one in which Ipredicted:

“Without serious reform in what’s left of the justice system, the future is not one of officers walking free after killing an unarmed person; it will be one of officers becoming the target of sporadic violence. Despite the propaganda, being a cop in the United States is safer than being a trash collector. That will change, and officers will become targets of opportunity for those that previously sought reform through peaceful means.

Those in departments that have excused the actions of their officers and made significant peaceful reform impossible, have now set the stage for their officers to be shot while sitting at traffic lights.”

This was prior to the NYPD officers being gunned down while sitting in their car. I don’t advocate insurrection. It’s always the uninvolved civilian that bears the brunt of the hardship during insurrections. These predictions aren’t my wishes; they are historical cycles that have played out for hundreds of years. Whether the reader examines the American Revolution of more than 200 years ago, or the events in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, or the Arab Spring, or any other popular uprising since the advent of the firearm, the conditions are almost always the same. Slight deviations occur in timing and sometimes a severe economic situation can force an insurrection without one of the other preconditions, but in the vast majority of situations for the previous 250 years, everything follows a pattern.

Flag draped coffins will become the norm if there is no immediate and substantial reform of our nation’s police departments, domestic spying programs, and government as a whole. It won’t be the offending officer that is targeted, it will be random. The officer that is killed may very well be one of the few good cops. Police officers will then respond with more violence, which in turn causes the insurgents to become more brutal. This is how the downward spiral into chaos completes itself. With the availability of firearms, knowledge of explosives, and general desensitization of the American people to violence, an American insurrection will be more brutal and bloody than any we have seen in recent history to include Iraq and Bosnia.

For those Americans that have sat on the sidelines, it is time to get into the streets and make peaceful revolution possible before violent revolution becomes inevitable.

 

An Open Letter to Police Departments from Justin King

April, 2015

(TFC) – I’m publishing this against my better judgment. I deeply want to avoid the scenarios presented below, and I feel that time is short while the flames lick the streets of Baltimore. Perhaps the open statement of facts that you, as law enforcement, and we, as American citizens, want to avoid thinking about will create an atmosphere for change. I am literally begging you to make the changes necessary to avoid these scenarios.

Simply put, the militarization of police is unacceptable. Every day there is a new story about a raid gone wrong, or a case of mistaken identity, or an outright murder by a police officer. Cops have taken tosexually assaulting women on the side of the road. Child molesters hiding behind a badge are common place. It’s part of a systemic issue arising from creating positions that are untouchable. The positions attract officers that will rape, abuse, maim, and kill without thought. The current thin blue line has fostered an atmosphere of officers believing that they are above the law. In many recent cases, it seems as though they are. The “good” cops do nothing.

The lack of accountability is an issue, but a greater issue that we must address immediately is the use of military tactics against civilian populations. It is intolerable. The reason the law enforcement community needs to take note is the fact that they are creating resentment among the population to a degree that will cause more unrest. Many officers will roll their eyes and continue with the attitude that they can handle the situation when it arises. It’s time for an unpleasant reality check.

Departments across the country have shown that in spite of the weapons of war they now have in their arsenals, they are unable to cope with plain old-fashioned rioters. The people you publicly dismiss as “thugs” have been running all over you. These citizens are untrained, undisciplined, and have no tactical or combat experience. The part that should bother you is that these are not the citizens you need to worry about.

For more than a decade, the US military has engaged in counter-insurgency operations all over the world. In order to counter insurgency, you have to know how to be an insurgent. These are people who believed they were fighting for freedom, only to come home and see their benefits in tatters and their police departments treating US citizens in a manner worse than an occupying military force.  These are individuals that view your MRAP as a target of opportunity that is to be destroyed en route to the main objective. Your checkpoints with no rear security are seen as nothing more than a place to get free rifles and ammo. Your troops standing on the running boards of Suburbans will be targets that these individuals place bets over how many they can hit as you pass. Just because you dress the part, does not make you warriors. You have the tools, but you do not have the training. A lot of that equipment you are so proud of will be in your opposition’s hands the day after hostilities start. It will have been taken from the dead and dying. You may believe the current propaganda, but the fact is that you do not have a dangerous job. It isn’t even in the top ten. Fishermen, trash collectors, and even delivery drivers have a more dangerous job.

That isn’t the worst of it. Most Americans do not truly understand the devastation of an insurgency. The bombs and combat-related deaths are nothing compared to the coinciding civilian casualties. In an industrialized nation, the effects of an insurgency are amplified by a general lack of knowledge among the populace. Most Americans do not know how to obtain fresh water or food without a grocery store. These people will die. Your godson that is insulin dependent will die because of a lack of medicine or running refrigerators to store it in. Your parent that needs their daily heart medication will die because the pharmacies were raided for medical supplies and then torched. If your daughter gets pregnant, she may die during childbirth from complications that would be controllable under normal circumstances. Your niece that has a weakened immune system may die from the flu.

Refugee camps outside of Kosovo. Yugoslavia was a resort destination before the war. "Kampi i Kosovareve gjate Eksodit 99" by Jonuz Kola

The above family references aren’t meant to scare you. They are what scare me. Those are descriptions of my family members. Make no mistake, the lack of food, water, and medicine will claim members of your family as well, but it will be your fault.

We are supposed to live in a representative country. The people have spoken and repeatedly said that they are not interested in the police state you are trying to push. Your desire to play soldier and be “tacticool” may cost the lives of your family members, and the lives of literally millions more. The death toll from widespread civil unrest would reach the tens of millions within a month.

I am begging. Demilitarize your departments. Trash the MRAPs. Remember that the “S” in SWAT stands for “Special.” It’s not a team to use every day to go after every petty drug dealer. Stop greeting peaceful protesters with riot gear and militarized cops. Stop attempting to interfere with people filming you. Most importantly, stop killing unarmed people. It doesn’t matter if he resisted before he ran. It doesn’t matter if you’re scared of him because he’s a big black guy. It doesn’t matter if they were being too loud. If they are unarmed, do not shoot them. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

There is a revolution underway right now against the police state. There are two ways for a revolution to be successful. You can put a new idea into someone’s head, or you can put a bullet into someone’s head. For the love of everything you know, get some new ideas before somebody decides to go with the second option. I don’t believe most Americans or law enforcement realize how close we really are to that.

That is as direct as I can possibly be. If you’re wondering why you should listen to some pinhead journalist, just know that I carried a weapon long before I replaced it with a camera. As far as my record on predictions about the domestic situation: I stated the Ferguson Police Department’s use of tear gas was over the line. They were justordered to pay the protesters. I stated that we would see more riotsafter Ferguson. We do. I stated that cops would be openly targeted and shot while they sit in their cars. It happened. I stated multiple times that departments are losing support from the majority of people. You have. I know the politics and driving forces behind insurgency better than you know the contents of your own duty belt.

I am stating now that without a serious reduction in the number of militarized police departments, you are going to start a goddamned war. It will be unlike anything modern America has seen, and once it starts there will be no stopping it.

Please, don’t let it start.

 

If you must riot, riot like sir.

If you must riot, riot like sir.

To those that would use professionally executed violence: The government is a child of the people. It has misbehaved, and it has been spanked in Ferguson and Baltimore. Give them time to begin adjustments. Those that are capable of the actions I described above know that the unintended consequences I describe above are also very real. I understand the anger. I understand the frustration. I understand the fear that if you continue to wait that it will become too late to act. I also understand that nobody wants this to happen. Show restraint, I’m begging you, too.

1 comment for “Oath Keepers arming Ferguson protesters and the Cycles of Insurgency

Comments are closed.