Revolution 2.0 – target homeowners

In July 2020 CNAV shared these thoughts about Critical Theory, according to which “racist ≡ white” and so forth. CNAV then noted that several conservative and libertarian commentators objected to the deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., to protect the federal courthouse and other federal assets. (That includes one of CNAV’s top contributors, Darrell L. Castle. Though the spectacle of the lawlessness that prompted the deployment outraged him the more.) CNAV declared then that revolution was in the air. But this revolution did not stop with targeting what historical convention calls an aristocracy. Meet the new aristocracy: any person who owns his own home. Indeed it includes anyone who owns much more than the shirt on his back and the toothbrush in his hand. Call it Revolution 2.0.

Revolution 2.0 – definitions

Before we begin, let us define concepts like revolution and aristocracy. The aristocracy in any country either:

• Consider themselves the “best people” (from the Greek aristos, ariste, ariston the best, from arete excellence, from Ares god of war),
• Behave in a manner that gives that impression, or
• Have become the convenient targets of the revolution du jour, merely by owning more.

Revolution, in turn, seeks to destroy the de jure and de facto order in any society and replace it with another order or with no order. CNAV uses the verb to seek deliberately. Because anarchy—the lack of order (literally, the lack of a ruler)—never stays. It always gives way to another form of government and governance.

Who are the aristocrats?

Will Durant (The Story of Civilization) repeatedly observed that the de jure aristocracy in any country, descend from the officer corps, and perhaps also the ordinary ranker soldiers, who took part in the most recent invasion, occupation, or subjugation of any country. Philip Lee Ralph (World Civilizations) defines aristocracy more broadly. He called the American War Between the States “the real American Revolution.” In it, the Southern planters were the aristocracy, and the Northern industralists and their employees overthrew them.

Revolution and its justification or excuse

Revolution always does the same thing whenever it plays out. It takes from those having the most and redistributes it to those who have much less. (It also reserves much of the booty for the revolutionary planners and officers, but that’s another debate.)

Revolution also has a theory to justify – or excuse – a grand campaign of theft and covetousness. The usual theory holds that the targets – the real or imaginary aristocrats – stole something from the rest of society. Usually revolution has two theories, the ostensible and the real. In the War Between the States, the ostensible theory held that the Southern planters – the aristocratic targets – stole lives and livelihoods from a large class, or race, of people. The real theory held that the aristocrats, self-sufficient as most were, threatened the larger, more interdependent society around them.

Revolution 2.0 – the proof

As above, when the President sent additional federal agents to protect federal property in a city now become lawless, many objected. Naturally the ones threatening to destroy the courthouse and kill everyone inside, would object. But so also did eminently respectable conservative voices. But perhaps they assumed that those federal agents were exceeding any authority they had. Law-enforcement agents who exceed their lawful authority can sometimes present a greater threat than those who break the law.

That’s all very well, without proof of coordination or coherence on the part of those who initiate force or violence. But what shall we say when that proof appears? What shall we say when revolutionaries declare their intentions explicitly, and no longer bother to deny them?

That proof arrived over the weekend.

“Give us back our homes!”

On 13 August, a mob chanting the current refrain, “Black Lives Matter!”, invaded a residential neighborhood. And specifically, pointedly, and deliberately presumed to order the residents to surrender their homes.

CNAV will not repeat the vile language two persons, whose names do not bear recording, uttered at the neighborhood residents. Instead CNAV will summarize. But these video clips will illustrate the point. Warning! Parental judgment and discretion are advised!

Nor did the mob stop with trying to tell homeowners to give up their homes. Someone committed vandalism against a business. Police arrested the vandal. And the mob called the arrest a racist act, and threatened the business owner further.

While all this was happening, the Seattle City Council voted to reduce the police force by 100 officers and cut the chief’s salary. The chief of police then resigned, and even the mayor thought the council went too far.

Theories of Revolution 2.0: the ostensible…

Revolution always has two theories, the ostensible and the real. This revolution is no different. The ostensible theory holds that the white neighborhood residents and business owners somehow “stole” the neighborhood from blacks. This “theft” occurred through gentrification. Which means: the black residents couldn’t pay the rents. The owners sold the properties to others who decided they wanted to live there. As leases ran out, the new owners served the usual eviction notices. The Seattle Times in fact says Seattle ranks third in the extent of gentrification of neighborhoods within city limits.

Lay aside for a moment that even before blacks lived in those houses, whites did. Whites built those houses, then moved out when suburban and exurban living became more attractive.

…and the real

But instead, consider the real theory of Revolution 2.0 that we see playing out in Seattle (and elsewhere). That theory holds that ownership itself represents theft from the community. Thus, in the ideal community, no one person owns anything except maybe the shirt on his back and the toothbrush in his hand. Wealth, which lies around waiting for someone to pick up, belongs to everyone. It therefore is, and in (social) justice ought to be, a common. Property should not exist.

Behold now how the theory of Revolution 2.0 works out. Anyone who owns anything other than the most personal things, has no standing in justice to assert his ownership. To illustrate that this goes further than a protest against “gentrification,” a rioter demands that a white person open her wallet.

Similarly, in Minneapolis, Minn., the police, after the City Council cut their funding, told residents to obey robbers.

The purpose and tenets of Revolution 2.0

Now we see the full extent of Revolution 2.0 and what it tells people:

• A thief is an irregular wealth-redistribution agent.
• An assailant is an irregular corporal punisher of the aristocracy.
• A murderer is an irregular (and summary) executioner.

The goal here is the same as was the goal of the Communist revolution. (The French Revolution served the same goal, though Karl Marx had not yet even been born.)

The counter-revolution

Recall that CNAV warned that one of two things would happen:

1. Antifa and BLM revolutionaries would invade homes and kill occupants, or:
2. Armed militias would enter the cities to do battle, likely with heavy casualties on both sides.

The first alternative just got closer even than it was here:

But now the second alternative is taking shape. Armed militias are forming up, taking up station, and in some cases preparing to move. Furthermore, some of these militias have the sympathy of law-enforcement officials – and are recruiting among law-enforcement ranks.

CNAV will conclude with two more definitions worth remembering:

• Vigilance committee: a group of local citizens who organize to take summary action against lawbreakers when normal lawful processes have failed or appear to fail.
• Vigilante: a member of such committee.

About the image

“The critical mass” by CoreForce is licensed under CC BY 2.0