Washington Post Heaps Praise on Illegal Vigilante "Sentinels" In CHAZ

As Ed Morriseey asks, if right-leaning people declared an autonomous zone and nominated their own (violent) members to impose their idea of street justice on the "soverign zone," would the left cheer it?

Or would they demand that the military roll in and kill these rightwing fascist warlords?

Obviously the latter.

Which suggests to me that we have to start making this a real thing in the real world, rather than a hypothetical. If the left can declare "auotonomous zones," then so can we.

I don't like that I have to repeatedly point this out, but if one half of society decides that it is now permissible to violently attack the citizens of the other, the latter group of citizens will soon begin doing the same -- and perhaps escalating.

The Washington Post heaps praise on the "sentinels" -- the "safety" squad, the writer calls them -- for various actions. One bit of "policing" they praise is the sentinels' "confronting" of a vehicle that was merely circling around and taking pictures:

Among other incidents, these volunteers have confronted a man throwing apples and threatening punches, a car driving toward a large crowd of pedestrians and a vehicle circling the block repeatedly and taking photos.

Repeatedly taking photos? Is that a crime? They were "confronted" for perpetrating an act of journalism?

Antifa of course has a "no pictures, no names" rule that they impose with vicious violence on reporters (real ones, including citizen journalists), and these "sentinels" have deciced Antifa Law is now CHAZ Law.

The Washington Post actually praises and armed vigilante gang for "confronting" (nice euphemism) a Photographer!

Does that mean I can "confront" leftwing reporters attempting to report on me or take my pictures? Or does this power of vigilante "confrontation" of reporters only apply to leftwingers "confronting" assumedly rightwing Subversives?

Because a lot of us would sure like to "confront" some reporters. So do clarify, Washington Post, if this is the law going forward.

The Post also praises the "sentinels" for... illegally seizing and ejecting "armed visitors from outside the city" who were apparently there to counter-protest the leftwing protesters:

Volunteers say they have engaged with armed visitors from outside the city who came to the zone convinced that Seattle needed saving from left-wing agitators.

So these "volunteers" -- actually Vigilante Committees -- may eject anyone from a different political strain, using violence or the threat thereof to make sure there are no Subversives or Troublemakers permitted in the liberated area?

Again: May we on the right begin utilizing this wonderous innovation in democracy (actually, it's millennia-old savage tribalism), or is this once again a special privilege for the Lordly Class of Leftwing Revoluntionaries?

Only towards the end of the article does the Washington Post admit the "model does have its challenges."

Such as using violence and a choke-hold to silence a preacher offering a message the vigilante squad did not like:

The model does have its challenges. On Saturday, dozens of people surrounded a fire-and-brimstone street preacher who regularly disrupts local protests with in-your-face threats of eternal damnation.

When efforts to escort him out peacefully failed, someone dragged him on the ground. One person briefly put him in a chokehold while others blocked attempts to film the incident with their phones. Later that afternoon, a couple dozen people marched up to the precinct with U.S. flags held aloft. A crowd gathered around them, and one of the flags was confiscated.

More from LifeNews, quoting from The Blaze -- a less santized and euphemized account of the gross assault on civil rights:

One activist in the CHAZ threatened the protester. In the video, a man wearing a red bandanna on his face can be heard telling the preacher, "You'll die out here bro. Do you wanna die out here?"The preacher responded, "Sin is worse than death."

The same people who protested police brutality in the past few weeks, especially chokeholds, were the same ones choking the preacher because he didn't obey their orders. The preacher screamed, "You're choking me!"

Update from 18-1 -- the article does mention the protesters "kissing" the preacher, but I didn't understand what they meant:

They sexually assaulted him too. They held him while a gay guy came up and started kissing him.

Many of us are interested in this idea of commnitting acts of violence against leftwingers we find troublesome-- I suppose our "model" of vigilante attacks on leftwing subversives will likewise face "some challenges," but after enough chokeholds, contusions, and concussions, I'm sure we'll eventually put it right.

Is this the world the left wants? Because this is the world the left is making.

We can use violence as well -- and some of us are becoming eager to do so.

Either this is one law, or there is no law. And if the rule of the left is Violence, then that is the rule for the right as well.

Related: Portland Police now reduced to blegging citizens to put out fires, because the Portland Police and Portland Fire Department are no longer in that line of work.

Also related: Popular Mechancis, which recently offered an article called "How to Tear Down Statues Using Sceince," now offers an article on how to violently riot without being photographed or tracked by the police.

The police aren't arresting rioters anyway.

Maybe this is a job for... armed Rightwing "Sentinels"?

What do you say, Washington Post?

posted by Ace at 12:18 PM

| Access Comments