You Can't Silence Us

We keep seeing things in the news about something called “restorative justice.” The theory of restorative justice is that, instead of focusing on the behavior of the offender, it focuses on the effect of the offender’s behavior. I like to call it, “no harm, no foul.” This is a brand of discipline that has become quite popular in schools.

Let me explain: Suppose we have a person that is caught stealing $500. Under traditional systems, the offender would be punished with some sort of punitive measure like probation or prison. Critics of this system point to recidivism rates and rightly point out that the punishment is obviously not enough to deter repeat offenses. In these cases, the victim is out $500, the offender is not rehabilitated, and the public is out the cost of investigating the crime, conducting a trial, and administering the punishment.

Proponents of restorative justice propose to make the offender and victim sit down to discuss the issue, the offense, and why that offense is hurtful. Then the victim is reimbursed for any loss, and since there is now restitution, that’s essentially the end of it.

Since many people have insurance, the proponents of restorative justice claim that the victim has been made whole, so all they have to do is explain to the offender why his behavior was wrong, and all is well.

This is codswallop. The victim hasn’t been made whole. The fact that he, and the rest of society, must maintain insurance against the poor behavior of offenders makes all of society into the victim. This entire theory of justice was born out of the “broken window” fallacy.

The broken window fallacy was first expressed by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat.

In Bastiat’s tale, a boy breaks a window. The townspeople looking on decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the town’s glazier to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy. Of course that is incorrect, because even though the owner of the broken window is now whole, the entire community is now poorer by the value of the window.

This particular type of discipline, if one were to call it that, has been popular in education for some time now. Schools are out of control as a result. Student tells a teacher to Fu@k off? He gets a stern talking to, and a time out. Two students get in a fistfight in the classroom? Again, time out and a lecture on why fighting is wrong.

As a result, there is no real deterrent effect on bad behavior. The offenders are operating in a nearly risk free environment: If they don’t get caught, they keep their ill gotten profits. If they DO get caught, they endure a brief lecture on why their behavior harmed others, then are free to try again. The schools are out of control with fights, drugs, weapons, and theft. We teachers are by state law asked if we feel safe on campus. The answer is, no I do not.

This is insanity, and can have only one result: the collapse of society.

THAT is what the people advocating restorative justice are missing: They do not recognize that some people simply don’t care about hurting others. They are projecting their own feelings of loving humanity onto criminals who simply view other humans as things to be exploited.

I have been sitting here watching the crowds rioting and thinking how, if you are in the path of such an attack, how useful it would be to have a belt fed AR (essentially a SAW).

Then I watch the recent activities in Seattle and think how useful a bolt action rifle in .50 BMG would be if directed at the leader of a bunch of revolutionaries that have decided to liberate your neighborhood.

The problem is that the cost for them is the same, and I can only afford one in the short term, and even that means having to forego some other purchases I was planning.

Let’s be honest, I am likely to not buy either.

We left Friday afternoon and made it as far as Mobile. We camped for the night in a relative’s driveway. We left the next day around noon, and were able to set up camp before dark on Saturday.

My brother went in for his COVID test on Sunday and was admitted to the hospital once the test came back negative on Monday. Since no one but patients are allowed in, my wife and I will remain here in camp until he is discharged, hopefully by Monday the 15th.

It is a 15 hour drive back, and I plan on doing it in two days. Until then, not much to do beyond housekeeping and surfing the web. Every day, we cook, clean, and I dump wastewater. My wife is still attending virtual meetings for school, but mine ended yesterday. I don’t have anything scheduled for the next two weeks.

We are here for my brother and his cancer treatments. My brother is the first friend that I had in my life, and I did not hesitate to agree to help him on this trip, once he asked.

The press is busy trying to explain to us that “defunding” the police doesn’t mean eliminating them, it means budget cuts. This is pure media spin. If you look up the group “8 to abolition” you will see exactly what they mean (highlights are mine):

Reject any proposed expansion to police budgets.
Reduce the power of police unions.
Until the police are fully defunded, make police union contract negotiations public.
Pressure the AFL-CIO to denounce police unions.
Withhold pensions and don’t rehire cops involved in use of excessive force.
Demand the highest budget cuts per year, until they slash police budget to zero.
Slash police salaries across the board until they are zeroed out.
Immediately fire police officers who have any excessive force complaints.
No hiring of new officers or replacement of fired or resigned officers.
Fully cut funding for public relations.
Suspend the use of paid administrative leave for cops under investigation.
Require police, not cities, to be liable for misconduct and violence settlements.
Deplatform white supremacist public officials.
Abolish asset forfeiture programs and laws.

Many of these requirements are unconstitutional, but I am not sure they even know or care.

If you want to understand what is happening right now, simply read three publications from the US Government. The first is called “Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency” (pdf warning) and was written by the CIA. The second is called FM- 7-98 OPERATIONS IN A LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT (also a pdf). The third is Annex 3-22, Foreign Internal Defense (pdf warning), specifically APPENDIX A: INSURGENCY AND COUNTERINSURGENCY. 

We are currently just beginning Phase 2 of the Insurgency of Socialists who are attempting to overthrow the government of the US. There are those who have criticized me for saying it, but the Socialists themselves are telling us that is exactly what they are trying to do, and I am going to take them at their word. Here is the definition of Phase I and II:

Phase I (pre-hostility or incipient phase) corresponds to infrastructure development
plus initial recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of combat elements.
During this phase, insurgents may engage the government in open political
confrontations like public demonstrations, labor strikes, and boycotts. Insurgents
often establish secure base areas for military command elements and guerrilla
operations during this phase. Political-ideological cadres focus on indoctrination of
civilians and armed revolutionaries.
Phase II (guerrilla warfare phase) is the first level of armed violence. Irregular
forces engage in sabotage, interdiction of communication and logistics links,
assassination, and selective attacks against government forces. Insurgents expand
their secure base areas and, where possible, link them to form strategic enclaves
of political autonomy.

Now that the riots and violence have begun, things will continue to get sporty from here.

So we have been told for the past thirty years that we don’t need guns, because the police are there to protect us. Now that the new Democrat platform is “get rid of cops,” does that mean that gun control is now a dead issue? If not, then how are they going to enforce it?

The basic purpose of government is that it protect the citizens from attack. If a government cannot protect its citizens from crime, then they will turn to whomever will provide that protection. In this case, BLM is claiming that they will be the ones protecting the public. Nice little protection racket.

This is directly from the insurgency guide: Replace the government as the protector of the people, and it is much easier to overthrow that government.

Southpark predicted this five years ago.

The new Minneapolis Police Department, now that the city council is disbanding the old one.