First-hand evidence of how the riots are being organized

A US Army Reserve member (who appears to be either a senior NCO or a junior officer, judging by the way he writes of the soldiers under his command) has provided an eyewitness account of the riots in Seattle, and the extensive organization behind them.  His original Facebook post has been taken down (presumably at the orders of his superior officers), but not before it was circulated and re-posted elsewhere.

You really should read the entire post:  but I'll excerpt some of the critical points here, because they're very important.

I took up position on our right flank, recognizing a weakness in our line. A female quickly made eye contact with me, while recording me with her cell phone, and started yelling… “HEY! ARMY! Where are you from?!” I told her I was a Soldier with the Washington Army National Guard. She asked if I lived in Washington State. I told her, “Yes, I’m a citizen of Washington State, just like you.” She then abruptly said, “Why do you guys keep killing us?” I told her, “Excuse me?! I haven’t killed anyone…” She looked at me, befuddled, and said… “You guys keep killing us! You know, your training… don’t you have some sort of limitation where you can’t kill people?! You know, where you can only shoot us if we shoot at you?” At this point, I obviously knew she was referring to our Rules of Engagement (RoE) but it was obvious she was trying to provoke me. I tried to explain to her that what she was saying wasn’t true, but she kept interrupting me. Every time I’d try to speak, she’d raise her voice and interrupt me. As she continued to escalate, I recognized she was trying to provoke an exaggerated reaction out of me. I looked at her, shrugged, and proceeded to ignore her as I scanned the crowd. She grumbled and said, “You don’t even know your own regulations?!” I looked at her, shrugged again, and continued to ignore her… As I was scanning, I saw a male protester point out and move towards an African-American Police Officer.

The protester proceeded to yell, asking why the Officer was on the “white-man’s side.” He called the Officer an “Uncle Tom,” a “pretender,” a “race traitor,” and a N-word I’d prefer not to use. Every fiber of my being wanted to lash out. How can you use racist terms and protest racism while using it in a derogatory manner towards someone else? How can you even find fault in someone that is remaining peaceful, that is protecting your rights, and is obviously concerned for the community?! I was furious as the protester continued berating the Officer… We then got replaced by another squad for relief.

. . .

I should start gambling because it didn’t take long for the African-American Soldiers to get singled out. I’m not going to repeat the hate, racism, and discontent directed at my Soldiers. If they feel the need to share what was directed at them by the hypocritical “protesters,” they’ll do so. Either way, every single Soldier in my unit was phenomenal. Not a single Soldier lost their military bearing or professionalism. Not a single protester got anyone in my squad to break their military bearing… Not a single Soldier lashed out at the complete and utter stupidity of the racism coming from the hypocrites… After each one of my Soldiers was focused upon, I pulled them aside and later commended them on their military bearing and discipline. I reiterated to each one of them that the rioters were trying to provoke them to react.

. . .

Some highlights:

“All of you Soldiers should have died in Iraq!”
“You’re nothing but a bunch of Vietnam baby killers!”
“The only thing you know what to do is murder people!”
“All people should be afraid of you, you’re nothing but killers!”
“You guys must be ready to kill people with your kung-fu gloves.”
“I’m legitimately afraid of you guys because all you know what to do is kill.”
“Who exactly are you here to protect?”
“You’d rather protect property than people!”
“You should be pointing weapons at the police!”
“You’re on the wrong side, racists!”
“Stop following orders and join us!”
“You’re too dumb to form your own opinion.”
“What Matters? Black Lives Matter… Are you too stupid to get that?”
“You guys need to stop shooting people.”
“You guys need to stop gassing us.”

(We NEVER had firearms, Oleoresin Capsicum [OC], CS “tear” gas, or any other “weapons”)
-Some of these comments were made towards us while we were just standing in an area, away from any “protest line” without a riot shield…

On that first day, they continued to try to provoke a response from the Officers and the Guardsman. NO ONE PROVIDED A RESPONSE. I was on the line, near the center right. I remember a plastic water bottle being thrown across the line by the “protesters” on my right side towards a Police Officer. Soon after, a bottle landed on the left side, right behind our line. I yelled out “SHIELDS UP!” Without hesitation, our ENTIRE LINE of Guardsman moved forward, and placed ourselves between the rioters and the Police Officers.

The “protesters” began throwing rocks, glass bottles, and chunks of concrete. I was out there ALL day. There wasn’t any construction going on. There wasn’t a pile of concrete or bricks anywhere to be seen. All I saw were younger people with heavy backpacks. THEY WERE GRABBING CHUNKS OF CONCRETE FROM THEIR BACKPACKS TO THROW AT US. Why is that important? Why would you carry chunks of concrete to a protest? Because you PLAN on using/throwing the concrete… When the concrete began to rain down on us, it came from ALL directions. What does that mean? It was COORDINATED. THEY PLANNED TO ASSAULT US WITH CONCRETE. I didn’t realize until later, but I have to tell you… it really pissed me off when I thought about the situation I had just experienced. As they were throwing these items, the Officers tried to protect us by using less-lethal means (OC/CS/etc). NO LETHAL FORCE WAS USED. Could the Seattle Police Department use lethal force in that situation? Absolutely… a chunk of concrete to the head can KILL someone…

. . .

The week continued and we were sent where SPD needed us. We were told we had begun to get a reputation with SPD. Our actions, while at East Precinct, showed we could be depended upon and we were there to help. The Guard had arrived, and we’d be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with SPD, against these anarchist/communist rioters in Seattle. We saw through the protester’s “cause.” They were using the horrible situation that occurred in Minnesota as an opportunity to cause chaos, to loot and steal, and to destroy everything in their way to gain momentum for their “revolution.” The group was quickly identified as Antifa, a communist action group that was in the process of being labeled as a terrorist organization by the Commander-in-Chief.

. . .

Needless to say, I was very angry. I’m a protector by nature. When someone tries to hurt another person, and they do so when that person can’t defend themselves, I become very upset. People that do that are criminals. They’re the scum of society. They prey on the weak and defenseless for their own personal gain. These are the so-called “peaceful protesters” of Seattle. I agree with everyone’s right to protest, but the moment they try to assault someone, that’s when EVERYONE should have a problem with their actions. Why the media has continued to defend them, it just shows how biased and out of touch the media is and it irritates me.

There's more at the link.  I highly recommend that you click over there and read the whole article for yourself.  I think it's that important.

I believe the writer above.  I've been part of riot control efforts myself, wearing another uniform, and I know such tactics from all-too-personal experience.  Anyone with a lick of common sense, a knowledge of history and an understanding of how left-wing insurgencies work has been expecting this sort of thing to hit American cities.  It's straight out of the communist playbook, and its US variants such as "Rules for Radicals".  One observer comments:

It is a playbook widely used. And I see familiar tell-tales emerging in the videos posted on the current protests in America.

Most notable, are the ubiquitous palettes of bricks that mysteriously appear in the background to many videos of the protests (see here for a typical selection). Who is positioning them? Who is paying? U.S. commentator, Michael Snyder, too has noted the “complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were, and where police were not, for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to … where they thought officers would not be.”

He observes too, the anticipatory raising of bail money; the preparing of medical teams, ready to treat injuries; and of caches of flammable materials (suitable for torching official vehicles), pre-positioned in places where protests would later occur. All this – with simultaneous protests in more than 380 U.S. cities – in my experience, signals much bigger, silent backstage organization. And behind ‘the organisation’, the instigators lie, far back: maybe even thousands of miles back; and somewhere out there will be the financier.

However, in the U.S., commentators say they see no leadership; the protests are amorphous. That is not unusual to see no leadership – a ‘leadership’ appears only if negotiations are sought and planned; otherwise key actors are to be protected from arrest. The most telling sign of a backstage organisation is that on one day, it is ‘full on’, and the next all is quiet – as if a switch has been pulled. It often has.

Again, more at the link.  As for who's organizing it:  input from some of my law enforcement contacts around the country suggests that several organizations and individuals have already been positively identified.  One hopes action will ensue against them - unless they're so "protected" by the "Deep State" that action won't be possible.  Sadly, that may prove true of some of them.

To see this so blatantly displayed, and yet not reported on by our news media, is disheartening, to say the least.  Too many state and city governments are rolling over spinelessly and kowtowing to the mob, rather than impose law and order, as they should be doing.  That's going to backfire spectacularly on them when things get even further out of hand, to the point that they have to do something.  By the time they finally "screw their courage to the sticking place" and do so, it may be too late to enforce law and order.  Instead, they may face anarchy and localized civil war.

We're also seeing wholesale discouragement among the forces that will have to impose law and order.  Police all over the country are seeing how they're being "thrown under the bus" by local and state authorities.  They realize that they're being made into scapegoats because of the (admittedly wrong, admittedly criminal) actions of a few of their members:  and they aren't prepared to make themselves into targets for retribution.  Let's face it:  if they do nothing, they meet with hatred, fury and rejection, just because of the uniform they wear.  If they use any level of force to do their jobs - let alone lethal force - they'll certainly face intensive scrutiny and public criticism, and possibly dismissal and prosecution - even when they do no more than they've been trained to do for years, even decades.

The ground is shifting under law enforcement officers' feet, so it's no wonder that many of them are said to be seriously reconsidering their career choices and potential futures.  I don't blame them.  If experienced officers decide that they've had enough of being taken for granted, and leave, those left behind will be more junior, less experienced officers - precisely the ones who need older, wiser, more experienced heads to lead them through this sort of mess.  Without such guidance, and without strong leadership instead of official waffling, how effective will they be?  We'll soon find out . . . but I don't have high hopes.

Finally, many Americans who are aware of communist tactics and methods over the past century or so (including many who've seen them in operation in other countries, and even fought against communism - yes, that includes me) are more and more determined that we won't allow such tactics to succeed in this country.  There does come a time when one has to take a stand for what is right.  As Winston Churchill put it:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate, you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

I think we're rapidly getting to the point where ordinary Americans - you and I - will have to take our stand in defense of what is right.  It's a stand that our leaders should be taking, but are not.  It has to be done:  therefore, the sooner we do so, the less the chances that it will end in massive bloodshed.

Look at it in predatory terms (the way much of the world still operates).  If you stand up to a predator (a lion, or a tiger, or a wolf, or whatever) while it's still prowling around, you can drive it off, and it'll be wary of coming back.  If you let it get away with minor victories like killing a chicken or a sheep or a cow, it'll be emboldened to come back looking for more.  Next time it won't be so easily driven off, because it's developed a taste for what it considers to be easy blood.  At that point, there's only one way to stop it, and that is to kill it.

May God grant that we have not yet reached that point:  but I fear many Americans aren't listening to God right now - at least not on that subject.  We may not be far from a flashpoint that will consume our nation.  The saddest thing of all is that there are some among us who actually look forward to that.  Those of us who've seen it before, not so much . . . but no-one's listening to us, either.

Peter

Propaganda debunked, followed by snark. What's not to like?

Last Friday I mentioned the faux outrage of Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot and Congressional representative Bobby Rush over the fact that police had allegedly sheltered from riots in the latter's office, and even had the temerity to eat his popcorn and drink his coffee while "doing nothing".  Their public bitching was soon exposed as a lie.  The cops were assigned there as their duty station, and had been let in by one of the Congressman's staff.  They erred only in eating and drinking the Congressman's supplies - a very minor matter.  The very public complaint turned out to be nothing more than just another anti-police propaganda effort.

However, it's produced a backlash.  There's now a fundraiser to replace what the cops consumed, and also benefit the survivors of police who died on duty.  I can't vouch for its authenticity, but previous contributors haven't complained, and Second City Cop has also mentioned it, so here's hoping it's for real.

After days of being on their feet and left at various looted  locations of the City, these Officers had the audacity to not only sit down in the office, but to also eat the Congressman's popcorn.  In a press release, the Congressman was appalled that they would dare eat his popcorn during a riot, however given his questionable spending practices in the past, one could deduce that tax payers most likely paid for that popcorn.

Since the Congressman is upset enough to hold a press conference to tell everyone that police officers ate his popcorn, we are raising funds to have a gigantic bag of popcorn sent to his office on behalf of the tax payers who most likely bought the original batch that the Officers ate.  A large bag from Walmart, which contains 175 cups of popcorn, is $57.98 with delivery.

Everything collected beyond the $57.98 will be donated to the Chicago Police Memorial Foundation, which supports the families of Officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice protecting this City and its citizens, yes even citizens such as Congressman Bobby Rush.  So please help replace Bobby's precious popcorn so we don't have to have our daytime television interrupted again, just  to listen to a grown man cry about popcorn.

There's more at the link.

The organizer reports that the money for the popcorn was raised in less than an hour, so all further donations will go to the Chicago Police Memorial Foundation.

I've complained in the past about overreach on the part of the CPD, but this does seem like a worthy cause.  I guess I'll be contributing, if only to wipe the smug, superior, self-satisfied expressions off the faces of Mayor Lightfoot and Congressman Rush.  Anyone care to join me?

Peter

Death of a giant ship

Back in February, the very large ore carrier (VLOC) Stellar Banner ran into trouble in Brazil.  The ship was leaving harbor with a cargo of 270,000 tons of iron ore, bound for China, when she suffered extensive damage to her bows.  The leak could not be contained, so her captain chose to ground the ship rather than risk her sinking, and her crew was evacuated.

Here's video of the ship aground in shallow water, about 62 miles from the Brazilian coast.

The ship was refloated earlier this month after more than half her cargo of iron ore had been removed.  She was then towed out to sea for inspection, to determine whether she could be repaired safely and economically.  It didn't take long for surveyors to determine that she was too badly damaged for that, so she was scuttled last week.

I've known for years that bulk ore carriers are among the most dangerous vessels to be aboard if they spring a leak.  As a volunteer with South Africa's National Sea Rescue Institute, way back when, I learned that the sheer dead weight and lack of buoyancy of the cargo means that they can sink very fast indeed, much faster than other vessels of similar size.  Even so, I was surprised to see how fast Stellar Banner disappeared beneath the waves, dragged down by well over 100,000 tons of iron ore still on board (the source of the rust-colored water erupting around her as she sank).  Imagine if she hadn't had shallow water available to ground her when she was first damaged.  Any crew members trapped below decks in machinery spaces wouldn't have had anything like enough time to make it up to the main deck, let alone to the lifeboats.

Here's how she went down.

That's a very sobering video for any sailor to watch.  Seafaring remains a hazardous profession.  Judging by how badly damaged the ship was, I think the captain may have done a pretty good job in deliberately running her aground in February, before she could sink.  He probably saved more than a few lives.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 11

Last week's roundup.

Peter

Sunday morning music

This morning's article is an unusual combination.  I'm going to introduce you to a song, then talk at some length about its very profound meaning for me.  Call it an extended meditation on God, life, the universe and everything, if you will.

A couple of weeks ago I happened upon an album released in 1999 by country and bluegrass musician Ricky Skaggs, titled "Soldier of the Cross".

I'm not a big fan of either music genre, and I don't normally bother with "commercial" Christian music, but somehow I felt led to click through to a couple of the tracks and listen for a few moments.

One of them was titled "Seven Hillsides", composed by Texas native Walt Wilkins.  It describes the dilemma of a preacher who's to deliver memorial services at the graves of seven soldiers, killed in action overseas.  How is he to comfort their families, particularly their mothers?  How is he to make sense of their deaths in the context of the Christian message?  Since that's something I've had to do for myself, first from the perspective of my own faith, and then for others as a pastor and chaplain, you'll understand that this song struck me very powerfully indeed.

Walt Wilkins has recorded this song himself, on his 2001 album "Rivertown".

However, Mr. Wilkins has said he loves Ricky Skaggs' version of the song, and who am I to argue with the songwriter?  Before I go on, let's listen to it.

As a pastor, I can assure you that's a very good description of the moral and spiritual dilemma we face every time we have to do something like this.  How can we make sense of tragedy and loss in the context of our faith?  To me, it's blasphemous to suggest that everything that happens is God's will.  I refuse to believe that God points at someone and says, "I'm going to kill you now, to see how your family copes with your death, and test their faith!"  That's not the God I've come to know over the years.  Rather, I recall that God never once promised us a life of wine and roses, or milk and honey, or whatever.  Instead, he promised us grace to cope with life, whatever it throws at us.  In my experience, he keeps that promise - if we're prepared to accept his grace on his terms.

Regular readers will know the background to my faith, and how it's been formed and tested over the years.  I make no claim to be some sort of Christian hero - I'm anything but.  I've made more than my fair share of mistakes, and committed far more than my fair share of sins.  I fear God's justice when I face his judgment for my life - almost as much as I hope in his mercy, which is the only thing that will save any of us.  Nevertheless, as best I can, I try to live what I've come to believe through my experiences.

For those of you who aren't familiar with my background, here are a few blog articles I've written over the years, in chronological order.

Remembering Mike

The night Christmas became real

My heroes

For context on South Africa and events there during those years, see my articles "Remembering Inyati" and "Was apartheid South Africa really that bad?"

My faith grew out of those experiences, and remains formed by them to this day.  I try to express it in the pages of this blog, particularly when writing about modern tragedies such as terrorism and war.  However, a lot of people who haven't seen such destruction at first hand seem to approach such issues with a much simpler, black-and-white perspective that doesn't allow much in the way of "gray areas", where ethics, morality, attitudes and actions are less clear-cut and more complicated.  Far too many people seem to see the world - they prefer to see the world - in terms of "us" and "them":  and we're all right, and they're all wrong, because that's the way it is.

That attitude is the cause of so much death and destruction that it's almost impossible to tabulate.  I've seen it in more than one war zone in sub-Saharan Africa, and I'm seeing it now in these dis-United States.  I wrote about it at some length after the Paris terror attacks of 2015, in an article titled "Paris and the pain of being human".  I meant every word I wrote there;  but my words clearly didn't satisfy many readers, as the more than 60 comments the article attracted will make clear if you read them (I hope you do).

Here are the salient paragraphs from that article.

Those aren't the worst aspects of violent conflict. To me, the worst is what it does to the human psyche. You become dehumanized. Your enemies are no longer people - they're objects, things, targets. You aren't shooting at John, whose mother is ill, and who's missing his girlfriend terribly, and who wants to marry her as soon as he can get home to do so. You're shooting at that enemy over there, the one who'll surely 'do unto you' unless you 'do unto him' first. He's not a human being. He's a 'gook'. He's 'the enemy'. He's a thing rather than a person. It's easier to shoot a thing than it is a person.

. . .

And in the end, the bodies lying in the ruins, and the blood dripping onto our streets, and the weeping of those who've lost loved ones . . . they'll all be the same.  History is full of them.  When it comes to the crunch, there are no labels that can disguise human anguish.  People will suffer in every land, in every community, in every faith . . . and they'll turn to what they believe in to make sense of their suffering . . . and most of them will raise up the next generation to hate those whom they identify as the cause of their suffering . . . and the cycle will go on, for ever and ever, until the world ends.

We cannot 'kill them all and let God sort them out' (and let it never be forgotten that those obscene, inhuman instructions were reportedly issued, not by a Muslim fundamentalist, but by an Abbot and Papal Legate of the Catholic Church).  There are too many of 'them' to kill them all, just as 'they' can never kill all of 'us'.  We cannot kill our way out of terrorism.  We cannot kill our way out of the dilemma of being human, with all the tragedy that entails.

May God have mercy on us all.

That article, looking at the pain of loss suffered by so many in those terror attacks, strikes very close to the heart of what I felt when I listened to "Seven Hillsides".  Right now, I'm seeing the same hardness of heart felt by Americans towards each other.  Those on the left demand their version of utopia, and regard all who stand in their way as "reactionaries" or "conservatives" or "rednecks" or "deplorables" or whatever the "label du jour" might be.  Those on the right regard their opponents as "progressives" or "socialists" or "terrorists" or "thugs" and the like.  However, neither side refers to their opponents as "human beings".  They objectify them as something to be rejected, perhaps feared, certainly destroyed in respect of their positions, if not their actual lives.  They won't accept them as fellow Americans who happen to hold different opinions.

The Christian faith that's supposed to animate this country, according to so many of the Founding Fathers, is conspicuous by its absence on both sides.  The right may complain about openly anti-Christian sentiments on the left, but their own attitudes display as much disregard of the Golden Rule as do their opponents'.  Pot, meet kettle.  Kettle, pot.

And so, pastors such as myself are again dumped straight into the old dilemma.  How can we make sense of suffering, pain and loss in the context of our faith, when both sides fail to recognize their opponents - political, electoral or otherwise - as fellow human beings for whom Christ died?  In war, it's common for allegedly "holy leaders" to claim that "God is on our side" or "God is with us".  It's always struck me as incongruous that both sides make that same claim.  It must be awfully schizophrenic for God to find himself divided like that, two halves of himself working against the middle!  Clearly, that sort of religious propaganda won't fly.  Mothers on either side mourn the loss of their loved ones . . . so how can we put that loss in the context of what it means to be Christian, and human, and real?  How can we preach God's truth, rather than our partisan, one-sided, limited perspectives?

I have no answers that will satisfy everybody.  All I can do is point out that we are called to judge ourselves by God's standards, not to judge him by our standards.  Sadly, most of us fall into the latter error;  and if pastors try to point that out, we're derided and rejected for not taking sides.  We can't win.

And that's the pain of being human.  We are called to be more than human;  not just natural, but supernatural - yet we insist on remaining in the mud and the mire, and refusing to "lift up [our] eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh [our] help".  We won't find God's answers by looking down at the human condition, but by looking up, to see what he intends human beings to become.

How should we behave towards each other?

The prophet Micah put it in a nutshell.

He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

That, right there, is a pastor's calling;  to remind and help people to lift up their eyes, and their lives, and "walk humbly with our God".  That's not an optional instruction, to be observed only if others do the same to us.  The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") and the eleventh commandment ("Love one another as I have loved you") are spiritually synonymous.  However, as pastors, we need not be surprised if reminding people of that reality leads to rejection by some.  After all . . . look at what they did to Christ, who embodied that teaching.

And, thus, today . . . we face our own "Seven Hillsides".


* Sigh *


Peter

Saturday Snippet: Situational awareness can save your life

Last month Gary Quesenberry published his new book, "Spotting Danger Before It Spots You: Build Situational Awareness To Stay Safe".

In today's troubled times, situational awareness is more important than ever.  I'm astonished to see so many people (particularly younger people) walking down the street, heads lowered over their smartphones as they text back and forth, totally ignoring the world around them.  They even step off sidewalks and cross streets like that, never lifting their heads to check for oncoming traffic!  I've had a couple of close encounters with such idiots while driving.  When you honk your horn at them, they jump in fright, then look at you as if it's all your fault - and if you'd been unfortunate enough to hit them, that's what their lawyers would claim when they sued you, even if the fault was all their clients'.

In a situation where urban unrest, riots, demonstrations and the like may occur nearby, we need to be on the lookout for them, and prepared to take evasive action when necessary.  This book is a useful tool in learning how to do that.  I've excerpted some of the first two chapters as a sampler.

Situational awareness is the ability to identify and process environmental cues to accurately predict the actions of others. This requires us to be familiar with what is known as baseline behaviors (those actions that are considered normal in any given environment). By knowing what is deemed to be reasonable and appropriate, we can more easily spot the people that seem out of place and raise our suspicion. Then we can evaluate that person’s actions, and with practice, accurately predict their behaviors. This is how situational awareness works, and it allows us to get the jump on dangerous situations so that we can respond appropriately. We’re going to go into greater detail about these things later on, but there are a few points I’d like you to keep in mind as you read.

• Situational awareness always increases your level of personal security. This stands true whether you’re concerned about violent predators, or the guy in aisle three who refuses to cover his cough.

• Before COVID-19, if you were standing in line at the bank and someone walked in wearing a mask, you would have probably panicked, now it’s perfectly normal. The baseline for normal behaviors has shifted dramatically. Because of that, we each need to reconsider how we define danger. My definition may be much different than yours, but neither of us is wrong. If you spot something that you judge to be threatening, avoid it. The techniques you’ll learn in this book will help you to do that.

• You are your own last line of defense. You must stay focused on the things that matter most when you’re out and about. Although the COVID-19 virus requires us to practice specific protective measures, your personal safety extends well beyond the threat of getting sick. Whatever you do, don’t allow yourself to become so focused on whether or not the person behind you in the checkout line is wearing a mask that you miss the fact he’s holding a knife.

These are trying times, but in the end, we’ll all get through it. Keep in mind that as we progress along the road to situational awareness, the next threat to our safety could be just over the horizon, and no one knows what shape that threat may take. No matter what other people may throw at you, be it a criminal or Mother Nature, you must maintain your concentration and keep focused on the end goal, ensuring the security of yourself and those you love. It’s a big crazy world out there, and things are always changing. Stay safe, and always keep your head up.

. . .

My goal here is to take what’s relevant in the world of situational awareness and personal safety and boil that information down to its simplest terms, which can then be easily implemented in your daily life. The techniques and exercises I’ll have you practice work for everyone—parents, small children walking to school, teenagers going off to college, and whole families headed out on summer vacation. It works universally. When properly applied, this system of situational awareness will help improve your general understanding of how, when, and where violence occurs. It will also increase your chances of successfully detecting and avoiding danger no matter where in the world you may find yourself.

. . .

Real situational awareness requires a shift in perspective. It’s not enough to just walk around in a state of hypervigilance, thinking that nothing within your line of sight will go unnoticed. You have to be able to see yourself and others from the perspective of a predator. This isn’t easy for a lot of people. For the most part, we all want to see the best in others, and the fact that someone else could possibly view us as a target of opportunity is hard to imagine. The unfortunate truth is that there are predators among us, and unless we can change the way we think, we may look like easy prey without even knowing it.

To better understand predatory behaviors, let’s start by breaking down and categorizing the different types of predators and their basic motivations. In his book, Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected, Sgt. Rory Miller breaks down predators into two groups: resource predators and process predators.

A resource predator is looking for tangible items, be it cash, jewelry, or even your shoes. They’ve decided they need something and they’re going to take it from you. Predators in this category include your basic mugger, pickpocket, or burglar. In some cases, if a resource predator confronts you and you just give them the thing they want, they go away.

Process predators, on the other hand, are much different. Process predators aren’t interested in your watch or wallet; they get off on the act of violence itself. This category of predator includes the likes of rapists and murderers.

Motivations of the two categories of predators can vary, but violent behavior is primarily driven by one of four things: money, ego, territory, and emotion. Let’s take a closer look at each.

1. Money: Like it or not, money is a consideration in almost every aspect of our lives. If you want a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back, you’re going to need money, plain and simple. Money is also a consistent factor in the commission of crimes. Some people have plenty of money, but they want more, and they’ll do whatever it takes, legal or illegal, to get it. This is where you get your white-collar criminals who end up in jail for tax evasion, fraud, or embezzlement. In those cases, victims may have lost money, but they were seldom harmed physically. More commonly, it’s the lack of money that drives people to commit irrational acts. Desperation can creep in, and people will go to any length to satisfy their needs. A friend of mine just sat as a juror on a capital murder case where a twenty-five-year-old man murdered his drug dealer over a forty-dollar debt. Most of us can’t even fathom such an act over that amount of money, but money is just the beginning of the problem; the real issue starts when the need for money is fueled by addiction. According to the Bureau of Justice, more than 18 percent of inmates in federal prisons committed their crimes to get money for drugs. In addition, drug addicts committed 26 percent of violent crimes as defined by the UCR. Alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it; if there’s a need for it, you can guarantee that money is what gets it. For some people, when money is unavailable, crime is a reasonable alternative.
   
2. Ego: On the surface, this one seems to be a little less common, but we all have egos; it’s the part of us that feels the need to be special. People will go to extremes to protect that feeling because it feeds their self-image, which can lead them into some pretty dangerous situations. We’ve all seen this play out either on television or in real life. Guy number one at the bar backs up and spills his drink on a lady’s dress. The lady’s boyfriend (guy number two) rushes to her defense and verbally attacks guy number one. Guy number one now has to save face in front of his friends and the other patrons of the bar, so he puffs out his chest and starts talking trash. Guy number two isn’t about to back down in front of his girlfriend, so things escalate and become physical. Both guys end up bloody, broken, and kicked out on the street looking like fools. Overinflated egos often lead to bad decision-making. If you ever find yourself in a predicament where egos are taking over and it looks like confrontation is eminent, it’s best to simply swallow your pride and remove yourself from the situation.
   
3. Territory: Humans are territorial creatures and will fight to protect what they consider to be theirs. An entirely peaceful, law-abiding citizen can become incredibly violent when they feel something within their territory has been threatened. A person’s home is their territory. When a mother takes her children to the park, that area becomes an extension of her territory, and she will protect it viciously from anyone she feels poses a danger to her children. The same goes for criminals. They survey their surroundings and stake claims on everything from street corners to door stoops. They become aggressive and often violent when they feel their territory is being encroached upon. To avoid this, it’s important that you become familiar with the places you frequent and be aware of any areas where your presence may cause problems.
   
4. Emotion: Violence is frequently driven by emotion. From jealous spouses to disgruntled employees and bullied teenagers, violent crimes such as mass shootings are often triggered by emotional responses. The level of emotion attached to religious beliefs has served as the primary influence behind acts of terrorism and the recruitment of others to extremist causes. Emotion is an incredibly powerful force, and it can be very unpredictable. Violence compelled by emotion tends to be excessively punishing.

That's a small sample of the sort of things you can learn from this book.  It's all useful stuff, and important in today's world.  It's particularly important because the system of justice in many states and cities of our nation has become politicized.  Those with certain political views and/or skin colors are likely to be treated a lot more harshly than those with others, and if the "wrong" color or politics is involved in a violent incident - no matter how justified their self-defense may be in terms of the letter of the law - they're likely to face a very vengeful prosecutor, out to prove that "his" or "her" people couldn't possibly be the guilty party(ies).

Given that legal fees may run into the tens of thousands of dollars, plus all the aggravation in having to defend oneself against charges that may be baseless, but will nevertheless be splashed all over the news media, we can see that avoiding this post-conflict conundrum may be even more important than recognizing potential conflict itself, in time to avoid it.


*Sigh*


Peter

Primitive superstition wins again as a good man is murdered

Tragic news out of Guatemala.

A RESEARCHER for a London University has been burnt alive by violent mob after being accused of practising witchcraft in his homeland.

Domingo Choc Che, 55, an expert on traditional herbal medicine, had been working with a team from University College London (UCL), before being set upon by a group of men in his native Guatemala. The violent group accused Mr Choc Che of causing the death of a member of the community after he had given medicine and for carrying out a ceremony on the grave.

Disturbing pictures shows huge plumes of smoke bellowing from the victim who desperately tried to save his life by running through the field.

Moments later Mr Choc Che collapsed and died at the scene before emergency services were able to attend.

. . .

The Mayan medicine specialist had been working as a collaborator on a UCL pharmaceutical project ... The scientific project involved researching biodiversity use of Mayan medicine in Guatemala.

There's more at the link.

I was very sad to read that news, but not surprised.  In any primitive culture, anything that doesn't fit the traditional narrative is regarded with suspicion and distrust.  From attacks on medical teams trying to use modern medicine to treat Ebola in Africa, to the burning alive of suspected "witches", to the murder of albinos in Tanzania to obtain their body parts for shamanistic rituals and "medicine", to the "cargo cults" of the Pacific, the problem of primitive, uneducated, non-scientific (or rather pre-scientific) culture is rampant in much of the Third World.

The biggest problem is not that such lack of understanding exists:  it's that those from a modern scientific background can't understand or appreciate the depths of superstition confronting them in such places.  They don't take enough time or trouble to understand local beliefs and attitudes, or to explain what they're doing and why.  They simply press on with their studies and research, because they don't want to "waste time" explaining what they know locals are unlikely to understand.

That's what leads to tragedies like this.  Because the locals feel ignored and "left out", they naturally put the worst possible interpretation on what they see the outsiders doing.  If that threatens the foundations of their belief system or culture, they're going to do something about it.  In this case, Mr. Choc Che was the victim of that response, with locals assuming his medicines had caused the death of the sick person he tried to help.

I experienced similar reactions in primitive African society.  I learned early on that one couldn't just hand out medicines.  It wasn't safe if improvement didn't result.  Rather, it was best to take the sick person to another location, where they could be treated by doctors and nurses without having suspicious family members hovering over them, ready to lash out at any sign that things weren't going well.

For those of my readers who may venture "off the beaten track" for any reason, tourism, research or whatever, please bear that in mind.  You're on someone else's turf.  You're the intruder, the outsider.  You can't assume that you're welcome, or that you're understood, or that you're free to do whatever you please.  Conformity to local customs and expectations is at least polite.  It may, at times, help to save your life.

Peter

A propaganda effort backfires on its originators

I can't help laughing cynically at the outrage expressed by US Congressional representative Bobby Rush (D - Illinois) and Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot (christened "Groot" by the always useful Second City Cop blog, which has chronicled her missteps and foibles since she took office, including some rather revealing history).

The story begins with this news report.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot and U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush on Thursday condemned images they said depicted Chicago police officers making popcorn, drinking coffee and sleeping on a couch in the congressman’s campaign office while nearby businesses were being looted amid unrest nearly two weeks ago.

The revelation came at an unusual City Hall news conference where the former political enemies stood united, with Rush praising Lightfoot’s leadership and the mayor apologizing to the veteran congressman on behalf of the city.

“That’s a personal embarrassment to me,” Lightfoot said of the scene that played out inside Rush’s Fuller Park political office. “I’m sorry that you and your staff even had to deal with this incredible indignity."

. . .

Lightfoot pledged to hold them accountable for their actions.

“Not one of these officers will be allowed to hide behind the badge and go on and act like nothing ever happened,” she said.

There's more at the link.

Sounds bad, doesn't it?  I wasn't surprised to read it, though.  When the Mayor and her city administration spend most of their time bad-mouthing the police (and blaming them for problems largely caused by their elected and appointed administrators), it was no surprise to me that officers would prefer to remain somewhere peaceful rather than risk being publicly pilloried yet again for trying to do their jobs.

However, the story didn't end there.  Second City Cop confirms that the officers were assigned to Congressman Rush's office, to protect it after it had been burglarized (presumably by rioters).  They weren't sheltering from the riots or ignoring them - they were where they were supposed to be, on duty.  As SCC notes, "The officers were wrong in availing themselves of popcorn and coffee that wasn't theirs, but they were ordered to hold that position with no relief and, tactically, no ability to stop hundreds of persons bent on mayhem."  Puts a different complexion on the matter, doesn't it?

Now the news media are becoming aware of the real story.  For example:

Second City Cop notes, "It was an assigned detail. Rush has been lying his entire life, from the "racial profiling" that didn't happen, to being the insider who set up Fred Hampton. Groot's hatred of the CPD has blinded her to this fact."

I think there's a whole lot more to this case than meets the eye.  It looks very much as if Rush and Lightfoot were trying to manufacture more "dirt" with which to smear the Chicago Police Department.  I await further developments with interest, and I'll be reading Second City Cop to get the inside story.  If you're not familiar with Chicago, and want the lowdown on its crime and law enforcement situation, SCC is the place to go.

Peter

Talk about ignorance on display!

It seems one, at least, of our news networks is so uneducated, ill-informed and grammatically backward that it can't find (or can't be bothered to hire) literate editors.  Courtesy of Divemedic, we find this:

Had they never heard of "Molotov cocktails"?  Are they historically as well as linguistically illiterate?  (Or, as Divemedic suggests, they may have been reporting on Jewish riots!)

Ye Gods and little fishes . . .




Peter

Heh

Fellow blogger Eaton Rapids Joe says he's "just installed our new security system at the end of the driveway".

Yes, that should give low-lifes pause for thought!  You'll find a larger version of that placard at the link above, if you want to print it out for your own use.  (The phone number, needless to say, is not his - but I like where it directs callers!  Look it up online for yourself.)

Nice one, Joe!




Peter

Moonbat logic at work - budget edition

There's a breathtakingly stupid piece of moonbat propaganda floating around, seeking to blame local and state government fiscal mismanagement on ... wait for it ... Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader!

The main instigator for [defunding police], of course, is the protest movement sparked by the police killings of George Floyd and other African Americans. In their efforts to reduce law-enforcement budgets, however, the protesters have an unlikely ally: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. By spurning congressional Democrats’ efforts to dispatch additional aid to state and local governments, McConnell is enabling budgetary crises in city after city. These crises, in turn, are making well-funded police departments an easier target.

Police budgets are mostly paid by local governments. And for local governments, COVID-19 has been a fiscal catastrophe. Local governments fund themselves through a combination of property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, special taxes (on the occupants of hotels, for instance), and aid from states. By slashing consumer spending, the pandemic has slashed sales-tax revenue. The collapse of tourism has decimated special taxes paid by the hospitality industry, and job losses have reduced revenue from income taxes. Moreover, states—which face their own budgetary shortfalls—are likely to cut local aid. The result, according to the National League of Cities, is that from now until 2022, cities collectively face a budgetary hole of $360 billion.

On May 15, House Democrats responded by passing the HEROES Act, which would have allocated close to $1 trillion to state, local, and tribal governments—$375 billion of which would have gone to cities and counties. Because most states and many cities start their fiscal year on July 1, that cash might have helped local governments stave off major budget cuts.

Senate Republicans, however, oppose another large infusion of federal funds anytime soon. In April, McConnell suggested that states respond to their fiscal woes by declaring bankruptcy.

There's more at the link.

As we've covered in these pages many times, the reason state and local governments don't have enough money is that they've "wasted their substance on riotous living".  They're prodigal sons who refuse to come to their senses.  They've lavishly funded pensions for their workers, entitlement programs for their voters, and politically correct programs, outreaches and activities beyond number.  When they didn't have enough money coming in to fund their pet projects, they borrowed it.

As a result, many US cities and states are billions - sometimes hundreds of billions - of dollars in debt.  Unable to dig themselves out of the fiscal hole they've dug, they're turning to the Federal government and demanding bailouts from taxpayers all over the USA.  The so-called "HEROES Act" is nothing more than an attempt by the Democratic Party to ram that through Congress.  I'm very glad Senator McConnell has stopped it dead in its tracks so far - although, if the Democrats take control of the Senate and the White House in November's elections, I'm afraid it'll be forced upon us willy-nilly.

I think the premise of the HEROES Act, and the article cited above, is ridiculous.  I see no reason why taxpayers in fiscally responsible states should have the liability for fiscally irresponsible ones foisted upon them.  I think Senator McConnell is entirely correct when he said that states who've spent themselves into bankruptcy should be allowed to declare it, and take the consequences themselves.  Why should we pay for their profligacy?

To assert that police defunding is, or will be, the result of Senator McConnell's obstinacy in refusing to bail out states and cities, is breathtaking in its arrogance and denial of reality.  Those entities don't have enough money because they've wasted everything they had!  If we gave them money to bail out their debts, they'd merely incur more debt right away, to continue to live beyond their means.  They wouldn't recognize the concept of fiscal responsibility if it jumped up and bit them in the unmentionables.

The only sane approach is to spend no more than you have or can afford to pay off - not to borrow yourself into oblivion to fund such spending.  If cities and states need more money, let them cut spending, even at the expense of their much-vaunted "progressive" programs and activities.  To use an old idiom, let them "cut their coat according to their cloth" - and that includes paying down the debt they've already incurred.  Only when they're doing that, and have done so for some time, and are demonstrably on the way to genuine fiscal reform and recovery, should we consider helping them.  If they want to continue their financially self-destructive ways, let them do it on their own, without wasting our money into the bargain.

Distrust any attempt by the mainstream media to blame anything on anybody.  As Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. the Instapundit, has said so often, "Just think of the media as Democratic Party operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense".  He frequently quotes the tweets shown below.

Keep that in mind, and a lot of things will become clearer.

Peter

Seattle: what did I tell you?

Yesterday I wrote that Seattle has abandoned the rule of law.  It's allowed protesters to set up an "autonomous zone" in a six-block area of the city, and pulled police out of it.  I warned of what was likely to occur - and guess what?  It's already happening.

Headlines that tell the story:

Police: Seattle demonstrators

running checkpoints at CHAZ

Lawless In Seattle:

All That CHAZ

Seattle’s Autonomous Zone

Has Its First Warlord;

Local Rapper Raz Simone Takes Over

There are already reports of violence being used to "enforce order" by local vigilantes, and that "some demonstrators on Capitol Hill are armed and trying to extort protection money from area businesses and residents".  The protesters who've "taken over" (only to have their "control" hijacked by thugs with guns) are learning that "an armed and organized element with leadership that isn’t afraid to use violence pretty much trumps all the slogans and antifa bullsh** you can spout."  Say it ain't so!

That's what happens when you negate the rule of law.  Inevitably, the law of the jungle takes over.  It's survival of the fittest and strongest.  Bring them food, or be food for them.  Chairman Mao said it well:  "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".  The halfwits who proclaimed the "Autonomous Zone" are re-learning that lesson - and not just about power, either.  They're also learning that if you try to help them, the grasshoppers will rob the ants blind.

They want food, do they? I have a suggestion. Let's each of us buy a packet of frozen peas, and transfer the contents to freezer containers so we can use them at our leisure.  Then, let's mail the empty frozen-pea packets to the organizers of the Autonomous Zone (or perhaps to our local Antifa branches or Democratic Party offices), with a note reading "No Justice, NO PEAS!"  I think we should make that go viral, so they're inundated with empty pea packets.  It's no better than they deserve.

What about Seattle's police force?  Their city leaders won't allow them to do their job.  Therefore, those individual cops who still have a spine, and at least some professional pride, should resign from Seattle PD and take their services to places where it'll be appreciated and properly used.  The others should follow the well-known precept of "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".  They're not allowed to lead, and they have no effective leader to follow, so they should get out of the way and let citizens defend themselves - because it looks like nobody else is going to do it.

I said yesterday that "I'm a pastor and chaplain, and have my own perspective on what's happening - which does not involve violence unless in defense of my life, family and property."  Getting rid of thugs with guns who are threatening me, and refusing to be intimidated into contributing to their support, most certainly falls under that defense, IMHO.  I think it's time the good citizens of the "Autonomous Zone", and of Seattle as a whole (at least, those who haven't been brainwashed into abandoning their rights and responsibilities as citizens), banded together to reassert their own authority, and show these idiots where to go.  If necessary, assist them to get there.

After that, elect or appoint city and state authorities who'll preserve the rule of law in future.  I don't care what you do with the old ones.  They're utter failures, and deserve no consideration at all.

Peter