Early WROL (Without Rule of Law) Looks Like This

Cheong is right, sorta, and I can excuse his lack of full explanation because he's a dude living in Malaysia whose entire perspective is filtered through the internet.

The settlement to which he refers was . . . typical for our times, but:

Protesters who were arrested on certain charges — including trespassing, property destruction, assaulting an officer, arson or weapons possession — will be excluded from the settlement. Those who were seen on video blocking police from making arrests may also be ineligible.

So there's that. But the larger point stands: the police did not wade in and engage, preferring to wait, gather forces, and push forward away from the entrance without opening the doors. (The video above does not show that sequence.) The crowd was instructed to disperse. I expect that they did not, but probably shouted and hooted and moved along to some other target - like the flags on the poles.

I don't know if the person who took down the flags was arrested; I doubt it. The cops, outnumbered, may have declined to risk their safety. A few arrests were made, per reports.

My personal opinion: if you attack cops who are arresting someone who took down a flag, you deserve a truncheon to the dome, and if that does not get the point across, and your comrades are intent on swarming the police, it's weapons free. For the progressives who would insist that this is simply passionate protest, and all lives matter, imagine a horde of neo-Nazis attacking police attempting to arrest someone for taking down a rainbow flag on private property. Shouldn't be hard to imagine, since we've seen endless footage of all these white-supremicist pro-trans-genocide fascists filling the streets chanting "from border to border, coast to coast / there are two genders at the most," right? I mean, I realize that the rainbow flag is a symbol of liberation, and the American flag an emblem of repression, but just try to grasp the analogy at a basic level.

There is a maniacal spirit abroad in the land. The leftist nomenklatu believe they can stand with it when it's advantageous, distance themselves when it's not. They know that the media is generally sympathetic to The Cause, so they will not be overly alarmed by street violence. They can be counted upon to condemn reactionary street violence as an opportunistic escalation whose motivations lack the essential purity of the original protestors, whose zeal and excesses do not reflect the truth of The Cause. But in the end all they have done is let loose the Brown Shirts, and blessed the arrival of chaos. They think it ends with a new order that lets them rule over a better world, but it usually ends with a grinning young man with a gun telling the editor of the paper to hit the bricks, because we're in charge now.

I think that @Amuse account is exactly right. This is another account I follow, by the way. Lots of great stuff.

Sorry for tweet-commenting on a tweet-post:

James Lileks (View Comment):

But in the end all they have done is let loose the Brown Shirts, and blessed the arrival of chaos.

Absolutely. I've been calling these thugs the Democrats' brownshirts since Obama first recruited a street army in #Occupy. Since then, it's been rinse and repeat sessions of identifying talent, running drills, filling gaps, and smashing Western Civilization.

BDB (View Post):

I will still vote, and will do some campaign work if I can, but I’m snapping a chalk line right here — this government will no longer tolerate changes in leadership or direction from a bunch of mouth-breathing tools who don’t even have TS clearances, and aren’t read in on the grey book.

Maybe someday, when it doesn't matter anymore, the narrative will shift, and everyone will know that American elections have been badly corrupted for a long time, but now that's old news, and what the [cussword] is wrong with you for thinking it wasn't necessary to stop the Bad Orange Man or the Yet Unnamed Bad Republican who doesn't want a people subservient to the wise and benevolent Deep State?