Violence Is Not Violence. Bull

Bloodless coup d’état’s are a rarity but they do happen. When civil disobedience and civil protest is large enough that a régime recognizes and accepts it has lost all power to govern it steps aside. If a régime refuses to give up its power, and if it has support from the military, bloodless becomes bloody. Much of Eastern Europe had been taken over by the Russian army during WWII, an army that stayed creating puppet governments controlled by the USSR. When the USSR failed, mostly because it went bankrupt trying to keep up militarily with the West, it no longer had the means to keep troops in the Eastern Bloc and as the Russian troops began to leave the people rose up in civil protest against their puppet régimes and all but Romania fell in a bloodless coup.

I want to say that no one wants violence, but I can’t because it’s not true. There is this mindset: nothing changes without being pushed to change through violence. Violence is justified because we believe the régime we want to topple will only fall through violence. I heard this philosophical proposition throughout the latest protests and violence happening across America because of the unjustified and criminal death of a man at the hands of police. But more than that, the victim was black and the cop was white and this fits into the narrative that all cops hate blacks and are always abusive to them. That stereotype then feeds into “white” Americans, because they have the power, hate blacks. And this stereotype is further pushed into all “whites” hate all people of color. The régime must fall. Not change because it’s inherently wrong in the first place so change will not fix its systemic racism. Only collapse will.

“Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times writer behind the “1619 Project,” claimed on Tuesday that the destruction of property during the violent riots happening across America is not actually violence.” This from Chris Enlow writing in the BlazeNews. The 1619 Project created by the NYT and being forced on school children as history is really a rewriting, a reimagining of American history to make it fit the narrative of systemic, inherent, racism in America.

“Violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man’s neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. And to put those things — to use the same language to describe those two things I think really — it’s not moral to do that,” Hannah-Jones said. She goes on to write, “we need to be very careful with our language” in order to not conflate the destruction of life with the destruction of “things.” “So when we have people who say that people should respect the law, they’re not respecting the law because the law is not respecting them. You can’t say that regular citizens should play by all of the rules when agents of the state are clearly not,” Hannah-Jones said.

“Not conflate the destruction of life with the destruction of ‘things.’” I heard one looter tell a reporter on scene that the business he just looted had insurance so the owner won’t lose. This is reminiscent of “victimless” crimes. Violence in response to violence isn’t violence. This reimagining of violence is like a Jedi mind trick, you’re not seeing what you think you are seeing. After a disastrous hurricane that destroyed a community I’ve heard people say, it’s just property we lost, thank God is wasn’t someone I love. The context here in the hurricane is not the same context in a destructive riot. Those businesses that were looted and burned down, someone put their lives into it making a livelihood for themselves and for their employees and Hannah-Jones dismisses that as meaningless. Yes, George Floyd lost his life, but so to (though not physically) did those owners and employees who depended upon their jobs to eat and feed their family. This was their life. You can’t justify taking away their lives because Floyd’s life was taken from him. Yes, Floyd will not come back, these people will but their lives won’t be the same, their loss not so easily recovered. But not only were they injured, the community was injured as well, as was the Floyd family. No one wins here, we all lose.

I accept that violence was the only way Americans could win their freedom from the wiles of King George. I accept that it took violence to end slavery in America, and it came at a seriously high cost. The régime of King George was not going to go quietly. The régime of slavery was not going to give up without a fight so it became inevitable. I honestly don’t believe we are at that point now. Even so, if violence is considered as “making a point” what point has today’s looting and violence made? Certainly not morally acceptable to achieve a righteous goal.

Hannah-Jones, you can’t justify violence as not violence so easily.