Ferguson, Missouri (TFC) – The Oath Keepers have apparently decided to arm fifty black protesters in Ferguson and conduct an “open carry” march. The police department is obviously unhappy. The law, however, is on the side of the protesters. The strategy behind the march is perfect.
Many are screaming about the the possibilities of the march. Some calling it suicide, while others call it terrorism. Some say it will end in bloodshed. From a purely strategic standpoint, it is a perfect event because there is no way for the protesters to lose. The event places Ferguson in the fourth phase of the cycle of insurgency. Every imaginable scenario ends with the protesters emerging as the “winners.” In fact, the only way for it to end in a police victory would be for the protesters to back down and decide not to hold the march.
The amateur goes to war and then hopes to win, the professional plans to win and then goes to war.
We will run through the possible scenarios and outcomes.
A firefight occurs:
This is an immediate victory for the protesters. It does not matter how it starts or who wins the ensuing firefight, the protesters have already won the battle. While the odds of the police attempting to engage an armed crowd are very slim, it must be recognized that this is the same department that opened fire on unarmed civilians. The difference between acting like a goon squad in some banana republic by opening fire on unarmed protesters and actively seeking to engage an armed group of people can’t be overstated. It’s easy to shoot rubber bullets into a crowd and laugh as you suppress the inalienable rights of your fellow citizen; any traitorous thug off the street can do that. Firing at someone who will shoot back and who possesses a weapon that will penetrate your body armor is another matter entirely. The law is on the side of the protesters, so in the event of the police opening fire it is yet again a department opening fire on citizens that are simply exercising their rights legally. The public outcry from a “Boston Massacre” type of scenario will result in the dismantling of the entire police department.
Police make preemptive arrests:
The protesters resist: The police are again in the position of using force to enforce an illegal arrest. The moral authority is with the protesters. The violence will, as is typically the case, be the result of the Ferguson Police Department acting like some totalitarian goon squad. The arrests would be illegal and the outcry would send even more supporters to Missouri for the inevitable follow-up march.
The protesters don’t resist: While there won’t be the media-friendly YouTube clips of Americans being beaten down by cops, the lack of violence in response to yet another series of illegal arrests shows demonstrably that the protesters were not violent and that the illegal preemptive arrests were completely unwarranted and were triggered by white cops being terrified of black people with guns.
A nonviolent standoff occurs:
If the protesters arrive and the police ring the event site while prohibiting any further action, it could turn into a “Bundy Ranch” style scenario. Media will return to Ferguson in droves to cover the stand-off and the story will, of course, be that an abused demographic has taken up arms against a corrupt, racist, and notoriously violent police department.
Police allow the march:
If the police do the sensible and lawful thing, the event will transpire without incident. The corporate media will gloss over the incident, while the independent media heralds it as a triumph. The police in Ferguson however will have received the reality check they need desperately: you can only push a people so far before they start to push back.
The obvious objection is that people might be killed and that there might be bloodshed. That’s a moral question each person would have to decide for themselves. While the morality of the operation may be questioned, the strategy cannot. No matter what happens, the protesters win. In the end, your view of the planned event should be entire based on the following question: is it worth risking death to achieve liberty?