March 14, 2016

With weakened government, political mob violence could be worse than last peak circa 1970

At last week's Chicago Trump rally, a mob of Leftist agitators brought collective political violence one step closer toward actual than hypothetical. From there, it can only grow during the rest of the electoral season, with the anti-Leftist side becoming more likely to fight back.

Remember that Trump's bastion of support is blue-collar whites, especially ethnic whites, and they don't feel like they owe anything to blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. They also own guns and practice taking aim with them. At the GOP debate in Detroit, several people reported that there was a biker gang in the audience that was chanting TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! And at a town hall meeting in Cincinnati, Trump was given a lifetime membership card to a motorcycle club by one of the audience members, and he responded by saying how much support he has from the biker crowd. He's been endorsed by Paul Teutel Sr., owner of Orange County Choppers and star of the reality show American Chopper.

With that whackjob who jumped the barrier and rushed the stage at the Dayton rally on Saturday, it makes you wonder how long until Trump gets some serious protection from the Hells Angels? (And unlike Mick Jagger, Trump would actually be grateful rather than whiny toward a biker dude who defused a gun-wielding nut and stabbed him to death just to be safe.)

This isn't meant to sensationalize what's gone on so far. There's simply never been anything like this in recent history. You'd have to go back to the late '60s and early '70s -- the Leftist riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago 1968, for example.

Peter Turchin has studied the dynamics of organized or collective political violence, and found that in American history they rise and fall in a cycle about 50 years long. The last peak was around 1970, and before that an even worse peak around 1920, and before that the Civil War and Reconstruction. "Collective" violence means there's a group or mob aspect to it and is ideologically motivated, rather than individual-on-individual crime that is opportunistic.

That means we're due for another peak around 2020 -- of course, it could be a few years before or after. It may begin this year.

Although the last peak around 1970 is still within living memory for the Boomers and Silents, and therefore something that could be related second-hand to the X-ers and Millennials, I don't think that's going to be the closest example to guide us through the coming wave.

During the late '60s and early '70s, we were still in the Great Compression, when individuals were more likely to band together into a team or hierarchy rather than pursue their personal ambitions. Maybe that made it slightly easier for agitators to form groups, but that's not the greatest area of change, which is the government. We simply have a much weaker and fractured government today than around 1970, because today every individual is looking out for himself, not the greater good, crucially among the leadership. The ability of state-serving teams -- the police, the National Guard, the Army -- to control mob violence just ain't what it used to be.

In the 1950s, President Eisenhower called in the Army to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock. The Supreme Court had little to do with that -- they had no men with guns to send in. And even if they did, the Governor had called in his own men with guns (the Arkansas National Guard) to prevent black students from entering the school building. But the U.S. Army beats the Arkansas state militia every day of the week, and the school was desegregated.

Eisenhower also used men with guns to round up over a million illegal Mexican immigrants, and deported them on the other side of the border.

FDR rounded up Japanese-American citizens in internment camps during WWII, just to be safe.

And in foreign affairs, the state was strong enough under Truman to drop not one but two atomic bombs on large civilian populations in Japan.

We could never work up the collective will to take such a game-ending approach with respect to the Desert Arabian problem. We couldn't intern the Arabians within our borders, nor deport the illegal Mexicans. And when was the last time the U.S. Army was called in to enforce policy? Up through today, we simply defer acting on all of these important matters, and hope that somehow a miracle of the free market will deport the illegal immigrants or destroy the Saudi menace.

Jesus, we can't even police our own ghettos. That used to be taken for granted -- no matter where you stood in the debate about atomic bombs, surely you accepted something as obvious as "stop and frisk," and even "chase and club," when it came to thugs from the ghetto.

With such a weakened government, ordinary citizens will naturally begin to try restoring order by themselves. This is not "taking the law into their own hands" because that assumes they're stealing that role from the government -- but the government has already proven itself unwilling to play that role. Citizens who organize themselves will not be "taking" but "filling a void".

We therefore won't see so much of a battle between groups of agitators and the police, National Guard, or the Army, but rather between groups of agitators and groups of ordinary citizens. The governmental agencies are too weak and fragmented to step in decisively on either side.

Therefore, we'll probably see something more like the peak circa 1920, when the Great Compression was only beginning, and before the state was so strong.

Labor conflicts were flaring up all over the country, with paramilitary armies hired by the owners of the factories and mines, vs. the unions who took up arms against them. The Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 involved 10,000 armed strikers against 3,000 paramilitary, and was only ended when the U.S. Army intervened.

Race riots erupted throughout the North and Midwest in the late '10s and early '20s. The KKK was actually an active group back in those days, unlike the '60s or the 21st century -- so far, anyway. If "race relations" get bad enough, and the government is too weak to impose order, then ethnic self-protection groups (gangs) will spring up.

There was also Communist and anarchist agitation, especially from recent immigrants. Italian immigrant anarchists used to lob bombs on Wall Street, and Jewish anarchists organized around opposition to WWI. The government was at least strong enough to raid their buildings (the Palmer Raids) and deport their asses back to Europe (Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman).

Hopefully Trump takes office before the shit really hits the fan, and we can have the government restore order rather than citizens organizing themselves into makeshift order-imposers, resorting necessarily to violence against the other side. If not, we could be in for a rough 5-to-10 years.

When we look back at the internment of Japanese-Americans, deporting of Mexicans, and formations of policemen clubbing the agitators outside the Democratic Convention, we ought to ask ourselves what the alternative would have been if the government hadn't stepped in. People aren't just going to sit there and take all these risks from hostile Other groups. They're going to organize themselves and fill the void left by a weak state. And then we're back to a pre-modern society where it's one violent faction versus another.

The Leftists who got clubbed by coppers in Chicago 1968 should consider themselves lucky that they didn't instead have to face roving posses of armed citizens, who would not have been as restrained against the chaos-spreading hippies.

Sadly, unless we get someone tough into the heads of the executive branch to restore order -- Mayor, Governor, and President -- the Black Lives Matter crowd will find itself facing off against rival ethnic gangs akin to the old-school KKK. And for the first time in a century, it won't be a bogeyman.

Trump cannot take office too soon.


  1. The fag who rushed the stage is apparently partly of Ellis Island trash descent


  3. "Weakened Government" has nothing to do with it. Conscious and deliberate"Balkanization" of the population does along with programming the population with anti-intellectual tripe such as "Diversity is our strength."

    Yes, it is. The strength of the revolutionaries bent on destruction.

  4. Merlo Stenfeld3/14/16, 2:42 PM


  5. CNN giving airtime to that guy who tried to attack Trump has seriously freaked me out. Was very glad to see that Trumpians are standing up to the violent mob: a woman, Tiana McHenry, was reported and fired from her hospital job for wishing someone to assassinate Trump.

    I'm very glad to hear the bikers are starting to get more involved and that Trump is now asking for the arrests of party crashers at his rallies.

    What are the best internet forums for mobilizing Trumpian action? My husband has been trying to get me to join The Donald on reddit. Maybe. I don't know.

  6. LOOOOL that guy's girlfriend is burying the needle on the tranny-o-meter:!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_1200/lvpropose8s-1-web.jpg

    A third Wachowski brother? You be the judge! Meanwhile, in Trump's America bright children all know that 90% of white women with mulatto kids are not married to the child's father. Little girls play hopscotch chanting "You burn the COAL, You pay the TOLL!" Sorry brother, your burns are low-energy and they gotta go back!

  7. Toddrick?? Rofl

  8. BTW, I'm very interested in what happens with Ted Cruz tomorrow. His sudden and large decline in Twitter followers, anecdotal evidence, and some poll movement I saw in one state (don't remember) seem to be catching a backlash effect against Cruz for blaming Trump for Chicago violence.
    It would be hard to think of a more beautiful outcome than to see him crashing for this. Besides, helping shut down a dangerous narrative, Cruz voters are more likely to switch to Trump.

    Does anyone else know more about this?

  9. "Trump with his pragmatic real-life record is a far more palatable national figure than Ted Cruz, whose unctuous, vainglorious professions of Christian piety don’t pass the smell test. Trump is a blunt, no-crap mensch, while Cruz is a ham actor, doling out fake compassion like chopped liver. Cruz’s lugubrious, weirdly womanish face, with its prim, tight smile and mawkishly appealing puppy-dog eyebrows, is like a waxen mask, always on the verge of melting. This guy doesn’t know who the hell he is—and the White House is no place for him and us to find out."



    Carson is reminding people that we're dealing with another group of bratty entitled subversives. And bravo to Carson for singling out a Jew. There's a huge untold history of post Ellis Island America. Untold because the very people who are so hostile towards old stock Americans (to the point that they welcome in Arabs who hate everyone including Jews) have come to dominate America. Particularly after WW2 elicited a campaign to purge white Gentiles of lingering distaste for Jews.

    That so many Gentiles are well-represented in the upper-echelons is irrelevant. Pugnacious, well-equipped, and inexhaustible Jews exert far greater influence then their numbers or even their IQ justify. Their very history and culture, etched in their genes and temperament, make them maddening adversaries. Studious and relentlessly analytical (unless it involves the mischief of their co-ethnics), yet combative and shameless to boot.

    We're long overdue for a re-appraisal of who has done what to whom. Thus why a laundry list of over-privileged Jews in media and politics are attacking Trump. In the age of the individual, Jews have viciously eliminated those who sought to keep America out of the hands of those who ravage, who take and don't give.

    America, relative to other Western countries, has really botched a lot. Destruction of manufacturing, massive debt problems, a worthless education system, police and military plagued by political correctness and low morale, unprecedented mishandling of immigrants, etc. Why? Might it be that the US has more Jews than other countries?

    Funny, if the Jews are so great, why do they stay out of non-Anglo countries? Jews know that industrious, cheerful, and empathetic Anglos are both 1) easy marks and 2) prosperous. We're victims of our own talent and our hearts.

  11. WRT the Jayman article, I just don't buy the regional classification. The plains states are divvied up into 6 (!) separate regions. Instead of worrying about ethnic demographics, it makes a lot more sense to look at how and when an area was settled. The plains and mountains were settled later, have a history of resource extraction and farming (but not manufacturing), and also emphasize glib/shallow lifestyle striving and fatalism about the outside world

    Ok, so Wisconsin and MN are heavily German (which makes them "friendly" and "conventional", fag sodomy is oh so conventional). Big deal. The Germans who came to MN often did so because they were misanthropes who wanted more peace and quiet. There's a gradient at work, in which the most loquacious and unpretentious Germans stayed the furthest East. The ones in Western Wisconsin are more flaky, the ones in MN flakier still.

    Also, LOL at the idea of Northeasterners being "temperamental". So why do so many survivalist nuts West of the Mississippi stockpile guns and ammo? It ain't because they're "friendly" or "creative" (unless creative is a euphemism for unstable). The Northeast being "uninhibited? Really? Why do so many fags drift out West? Why are the most hedonistic states sunny and sandy (Florida, Nevada, California, pockets of Texas).

    Lastly, the caucus system used by many states makes accurately judging Pres. support all the more dubious. A MN caucus goer said that his site was over run by faggy college Millennials cheering for Rubio. Open/Primary states are the most fair to all voters and candidates, but only about 1/5 of voting territories use them.
    Jayman dismisses the East Vs. West dimension by over playing ancestry. So, how come Cruz has dominated the plains and mountains? He does say that Trump gets better support on the West Coast. Sure, that's probably true. That's cuz the West Coast was settled far earlier.

  12. Earth to the guys who wrote this:

    Most gay populated cities:
    1. Frisco (West)
    2. Seattle (West)
    3. Atlanta (South)
    4. Minneapolis (Plains)
    5. Boston (NE)
    6. Sacramento (West)
    7. Portland (West)
    8. Denver (Mountains)
    9. D.C. (NE)
    10. Orlando (Sun belt)
    11. Salt Lake City (Mountains)

    For being "uninhibited", the Northeast has just two of the faggiest cities in America. Fags are the most hedonistic people on this planet. They alienate the less flaky people north of Florida and east of the Mississippi.

  13. Most of those "homos" in Boston are probably actually dykes, not fags. So even New England is only tolerant of the less in-your-face kind of queer.

  14. Besides, the further West you go the more fucked up people tend to be. Where do pedophile rings end up? There's a pedo scandal involving many elites (the book about it is: which got covered up as it implicated too many big shots. Go figure that most activities took place East of the Mississipi.

    Decadent fags have attained so much power in the West that thorough investigation and accountability is impossible. In a more rootless and hedonistic environment, it's easier to take advantage of people and get away with crap.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."