Thursday, November 19, 2015

Oh, okay, I get it now.

Had a "duh" moment, among all this discouraging mouth-frothery since the latest perfectly inevitable disaster in Paris.  Some well-meaning gunnie (I forget where, actually) was waxing agog about the disarmament crowd's latest attempts to hold up another "gun free zone" mass murder, as somehow evidence that what we need to correct the failure is to impose the same failed policy everywhere.  Pretty standard stuff, really, and of course a valid point.  Not arguing that.

But then it hit me.  Sure, governments always tend to want to disarm their populaces, on the general principle of monopolizing power.  But within the context of this newest Menckenian hobgoblin--the deliberate planting of action-not-words Jihadis in refugee populations (and the larger Rube Goldberg plan that ISXX may or may not have, to drive all Muslims worldwide "back" into their loving, caring arms by deliberately causing their worldwide persecution with all the butchery in their name)--there is actually a very specific risk that a protection racket needs to button up, to avoid being outed.

The risk of being shown up by the victims population served.

Of course we can't have the peasantry armed.  If they are,  then common plebes might just take it upon themselves to Indiana Jones the Jihadis on the spot.  On its own, this is old hat for gunnies, who have long noted how often the concept works for individuals on mean streets.  But that's small potatoes, just showing up the cops.  Regular people taking out policy-blowback Jihadis when they actually attack, though?  That's showing up militaries, and governments.  

Think of all the denied exploitation opportunities--the wasted crises!  Hell, if that happens regularly enough, their wars may (gasp!) never happen.  

And, even worse:  if people learn that they don't need their governments to put down an "international threat" that really, actually did come to their very doors--well, then the little people might just start asking dangerous questions that really matter.  

The State can tolerate much, among "its people", but it can never tolerate that.  People will die first.  As good old Maddie Albright said, "We think the price is worth it."


Joel said...

Yup. Though I still can hardly believe the flagrancy of this 'Syrian refugees' thing. A bunch of governors are demanding to know where the administration plans to stick them, and it won't tell them. This plausibly could turn into the sort of weird-ass scenario the tin-foil crowd likes to emote about.

Kevin Wilmeth said...

Yeah, not that I want to really admit any sort of sympathy for governors, but I can start to understand all the "not in my state you don't" melodrama a lot better if I look at it less as a humanitarian function and more as a federal program.

MamaLiberty said...

I've been kind of wondering what happened to all the other "terrorists." Are they all Syrian now? I see that the Nigerian monsters are still working hard at making the world unsafe, but I have not read a word about "Al Quada" for ages now. Did they all quit, die, go find a job or join ISIS?

The really amazing thing I've seen is that most of these "refugees" are young, military age men... not the women, children and elderly of other migrations. Something fishy there.