11-18-2018 11:51:36 AM -0800
11-18-2018 10:45:25 AM -0800
11-17-2018 03:06:03 PM -0800
11-16-2018 03:20:54 PM -0800
11-16-2018 10:35:46 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

Silencing the Opposition Is Like Tamping Down a Powder Keg

I've hesitated a long time in writing this post, partly because of the injunction to "never disturb the enemy when he's making a mistake."

That still operates, but honestly, we're at a transition point in history — also known as the "leading to" circumstances before the map gets all arrowy and full of red and explosions — when there is a high probability of confrontation and violence. Or not. We might actually slide under this and end the civil cold war as we ended the international Cold War, without a major conflagration despite several minor ones.

Note that I'm not sure that was the right way to end the international Cold War. It allowed the communists to rinse, deny the USSR, and come back again for a repeat of their craptastic act. But on the other hand, I'm not absolutely sure what would have survived the more … "expected" end to the Cold War, nor what would have emerged after. There was a non-trivial chance we'd found ourselves in the world of Robert A. Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold.

In the similar predicament we face, where something will happen in the civil cold war and bring it to an end, I don't know precisely what form a violent confrontation would take. But I know if it does happen, it won't proceed as anyone — on the Right or the Left — expects. And I know what emerges afterward, both for us and for the world, would probably be very different from a constitutional republic, and therefore inevitably worse.

So in an attempt to make everyone understand the "leading to" circumstances before we see the arrows and the explosions, let me say the Left thinks it's mustered some kind of giant coup by getting Alex Jones of Infowars banned.

They did. I've never seen a neater case of shooting oneself through the foot while scaring people who don't respond well to being scared.

Yeah, yeah, I'll do the obligatory disavowing of Jones. I think I went to his site once because someone sent me a link, but I'm not even sure about that. Once I started seeing him quoted by my more "excitable" acquaintances and learned the content of those quotes, I banished him to the "insane" and "silly" file.

Is he vile? Probably. I don't care enough to look.

I do care about the fact that tech giants in more or less monopolistic positions got together to ban him form online presence at the same time.

It is a classical Left thing. The things they get the press and the tech tycoons to do under the name of proving they're "good people" and on the "right side of history," you couldn't pay thinking traitors to do.