Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

With the recent clashes between Antifa and the far-right, it is to me, important to still understand that the concept of political violence is not unique to any side of the political spectrum. It is also important to understand why violence is used as a means for a political group.

WTF is "the left" and "the right"?

For the sake of a good discussion, it is important that the ones who participate have the definitions in order so people aren't misunderstood. Left-wing politics is described as ( by wikipedia ) "social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality." while right-wing politics is described as ( by wikipedia ) "that social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.".

Following these definitions, we can see that left-wing politics tends to lay weight on a form of solidarity or equality, while right-wing politics tends to lay weight on a form of hierarchy or justice. Of course, none of that is mutually exclusive, since what is justice or solidarity to either the wildly diverse right and left is what's important in the divide, but that's a given with differing views anyway. Not even leftists or right-wingers can agree with anything.

Leftist ideology & thought (mostly) includes Socialism (and its variations) and social democracy. The former (Socialism) generally sees private property as illegitimate (it being a part of Capitalism) while the latter (social democracy) generally sees that the system that's seen as Capitalism is open for reformation or regulations, healthcare and education being common topics.

Capitalism being defined as a system based upon private ownership of the 'means of production' and their operation for profit, with Socialism being defined as a system based upon social and democratic ownership of the 'means of production'. The means of production being, well, means to produce or create, such as a factory or a workshop. A mean of production can be considered vague to some, or clear to others, from Wikipedia: "Physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as facilities, machinery, tools, infrastructural capital and natural capital. The means of production includes two broad categories of objects: instruments of labor (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials)."

Right-wing ideology & thought (mostly) includes Liberalism (Conservatism included for the sake of simplicity) and Fascism. The different forms of Liberalism (with Conservatism, Libertarianism, etc included) sees Capitalism as an ideal state of being where people have natural rights like self-ownership or a right to property, usually involving a free market. Fascists, on the other hand, either describe themselves as right-wing or third-positionist, usually subscribing to the theory of Corporatism.

Corporatism has little to do with the common idea of a corporation or business, but that society should be organised into major interest groups (agriculture, military, etc …) to work for the good of the state/nation. Corporatism can't be fully considered a form of private property, so whether Fascism is a form of Capitalism or not is up to debate, even if Fascism came as a response to the Soviet Union and different left-wing attempts at coups or assassinations in the west. Fascism has flirted with markets and foreign businesses in the past, like in Nazi Germany. We can say that Fascist economics could be considered third-way, it isn't Socialism with democratic or workers control, but nor possessing the ideas of Capitalism that includes voluntary exchange.

Keep in mind that Conservatism or Liberalism isn't clear from country to country, European and American Conservatism & Liberalism are all quite different, unlike for example how socialists or social democrats can work together as long as they're of the same school of thought (even fascists do it to some extent). Liberalism and Conservatism are what we tend to consider to be centrist parties throughout the world. Also, one of the communist parties in Nepal are apparently centre-left (lol)

Political ideology as a whole isn't literally just Socialism, Social Democracy, Liberalism, or Fascism, it's just that I believe that it was for the best to simplify these key differences and how they've all spawned different ideologies that agree with one another to some extent. See these as different categories, Socialism including Communism & Anarchism, and social democracy involving Keynesianism (or just social democrats). Liberalism including Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, with Fascism including Strasserism & Nazism (and the likes). Each, of all of these, are different societies or ways to organise society.

The use of violence

I hope that we can all agree that violence of most forms are bad, whether it is through war or individual use. But I believe that even the strongest pacifists believe in self-defense, however that may be done, since different ideologies interpret violence and self-defense differently. Many anarchists can be considered pacifists, but at the same time, they see the present state of things, or at least the state, to be at war with them or that it is inherently violent. Most of the ones who believe in forms of Liberalism are in favor of non-violent methods, such as reformation, "voting with your wallet", or activism and speech. Meanwhile, fascist thought mainly involves the use of social-darwinism, and going to war both literally (country versus country) and metaphorically (competition, strength).

Where violence is the strongest, is where what most would consider to be in the "extreme left" or "extreme right". I see these terms as a bit arbitrary, since some equate the term "extreme left" to the democratic party (?) or candidates like Angela Merkel for reasons that I'm not quite clear of. Meanwhile, the "extreme right" tends to include fascists, nazis, or the alt-right. Leftists and right-wingers are all very divided, but what I have noticed is that certain conservatives can co-operate with fascists and that some social democrats can co-operate with the more radical socialists.

To end this essay OP, I'll ask a few questions:

Do you believe violence can have some use, for example for self-defense?
Do you subscribe to any ideologies, or do you simply see yourself as left- or right-wing without having any hard stances?
What's your opinion on me dividing the different lefts & rights into categories like Socialism or Liberalism? Is it a good way to show what divides the different groups, and what their economical or societal views are?

Left-right is too simplistic since it categorizes ideologies that are incompatible on a fundamental level with each other on the same part of the spectrum.
Take for example Anarcho-Capitalism and Traditionalist-Monarchism. The way the spectrum works both would be placed on the far right of it, despite the fact those to philosophies are incompatible with each other on an fundamental level. An example of this problem on the left would be comparing Marxism-Leninism and Mutualism.

But on to the focus of this thread. Political violence is one of those phenomenon that's just something you have to accept as part of politics in a civilized world. Not only is it, for better or worse, one of the best ways to achieve your political ends, whatever they are, but it's also played an instrumental role in creating the modern political values that liberals (again, in the broad academic sense of the label) hold dear. It comes with unique risks, but for the people who resort to it, possible risks are outweighed by definitive benefits.

Even the threat of potential political violence can bring about change in a way "working within the system" can't. Indian independence and modern US civil rights legislation was motivated to a notable degree by the British and American governments' fears of larger scale social disruption and terrorism if the activists demands weren't at least partially appeased.

There's a right way and wrong way, and a right time and wrong time to engage in use force, and you could argue for hours, and draw from centuries of history to argue how and when that is.

Honestly, I just feel the people with the whole "violence is always wrong and makes your opinion wrong" and "the only legitimate way to get what you want is through discourse" attitude are excessively idealistic and historically ignorant. They don't want to acknowledge the harsh reality of how politics, especially major shifts in it, actually work and how it will likely continue to work.

My political stance. I would say I am a traditionalist and I do not know if it sits on right or not in todays political scene because I prefer monarchy/imperialism (think imperial China or small countries today which still run with absolute or constitutional monarchy and they are way off better than democracy).

For self-defence. I have been taught Wing Chun and its (or at least my mentor) definition of self-defence mean just that, survival at all cost. So if I get mugged, if I am sure that I can survive with just running and getting the hell out, I will. No need to risk. But if the mugger came after me high speed, weapon in hand, after I pushed him back out or a couple of warning strikes. My judgement would be aiming to seriously injure or maim, but the chances of killing the mugger outright are there if the hit connects. Because in that instant I cannot be sure if my life is in jeopardy or not and real combat is messy business. Better me than the mugger.

To answer your question about violence, for the exception of self-defence, has no place. However, some cunning devils use to the threat of it as a mean to intimidate people such as Merkel choosing the city full of far left activists to host G20. Some WILL use it if they think they can get away with it (bikelock fugitive). The worst is to use the high level of threat of violence to provoke other side into committing first strike as they are not sure, they think it is better to be safe than sorry. Then when the first stone is cast, the agitators will use this excuse as a 'self-defence' to justify their violence after that.

To add to the above paragraph. It is very similar to historical cowboys duels. Back then in the lawless west. In the duel, the goal is to psyche your opponent into reaching the gun first and draw after that and shoot him. That way, you won the duel, get off the hook because the other side draw first, it is 'self-defence'. In actuality though, both side will draw about the same time and because the thing happened so fast, even if you draw first, you can get away free with benefits of doubt, even if the marshal came after you, you can plead that you were psyched and forced to draw because you are unsure if he will draw first or not and if he shoot you first, he can plead the same and you would have died for free so you shoot first. So. A bloody mental gymnastic.

As for your classification of right-left. I am know not enough to answer. But I can tell you one more thing about my political stance. Is that I fear/hate communism because my family has history with it and as history as shown, it fails and take lives with it. Soviet Union fall, Maoist China fall (not without killing millions, see The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution), North Korea is hell on earth with nuke ran by devilish leaders who may look silly, but dangerously politic savvy enough to survive without getting purged of this earth and lived until today.

I would agree there is violence on both sides.
Antifa burns cars, they burn trash cans, they break windows.
Many say that antifa saved them from injury in Charlottesville, including Cornell West. This may be true. Even if it is, it doesn't magically wipe away burning a car during Trumps inauguration.
Of course – they aren't the same guy.
Antifa at the g-20 isn't the antifa at Berkeley which isn't the antifa at Charlottesville.
Just like the Trump people at a rally aren't the Trump people in Charlottesville or the guy living next door to you.
This is the danger of putting on a uniform for your cause.
You can't tell anyone apart!
As a liberal, showing up to a protest in all-black means the Tump people should rightly fear you. Same with flying a nazi flag.
That is NOT good. Maybe, lets all just wear our civi's when we protest :)

But there is a distinction, and it's important.
The right wing side has the militias.
We saw them. They are armed heavily.
To be clear – Militias have not committed any violence at protests that I know of (may be wrong). I'm not saying or implying they have or even will.
But it's a factor.
For people on the left, their presence seems like a clear and present danger for us, whether true or not.
Is that crazy? Would you like an army of liberals bearing guns at a protest? It would bother you, I know.
We are quite literally at their mercy. It is quite threatening.
The left has no equivalence to that firepower.
It's not even the same ballpark.
Antifa guy has bottle and a back-pack – militia guy has an Ar-15 locked and loaded with a flack vest and frickin' night vision :-D

I say this not to pick a fight here over that, but to reach an obvious conclusion that the left is hopelessly, hilariously, outgunned in the "streetfight" department.
For that reason alone, my advice to antifa is to disband. Stand the fuck down. It is a fight they can never win.

If you get pushed, well you gotta push back sometimes, but to go looking to pick a fight with a trained warrior armed with the best equipment in the world? It's pure folly!
The POLICE couldn't even have opposed the militias gathered at Charlottesville! What the hell does a college student with a rock think he's going to do? Yield the fucking ground! It's just ground! There's plenty more! :D I mean WTF!

Both sides think the other started it. It doesn't matter who's right.
I wish the left would take the initiative and clearly and without any equivocation stand down and get out of the riot business.
And I hope and believe the right would follow suit.
The we can get back to the meme wars, instead of the actual wars.
We don't need rocks and ar-15's at a protest.

@yarknarf
I think one factor that goes into the whole outgunned issue is that I believe antifa and liberals in general are very anti-gun. It'd be hypocritical of them to say "we need stricter gun control" and start waving around ar's at protests.
The right, on the other hand, is very pro-gun. So it'd make sense that several members would join together and form a militia, which I feel was at least partly in response to Antifa's violent actions.

I will agree with you, Antifa really shouldn't start a turf war with these people. If they do, they'll get slaughtered.

Don't look now #1024649049375 but we agree on something!
I'm very pro 2nd amendment. It's just flat-out our necessary right and IMO preserves the union, despite some unfortunate drawbacks.
I don't oppose militias per se.

Here's my problem with the militias at the protests.
It only takes one guy. Just one.
Take the crazy guy who ran over people – or – take the crazy guy who shot up the softball game.
Either one, right or left, it wouldn't matter.
Say that guy fires. Who knows where that came from?
All you know is BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! is happening.
People return fire to put him down.
If someone fires in your direction and you don't know what's going on, you're probably going to return fire.
Others get caught in a cross fire.
The police rush in.

Next thing you know, it's a blood bath.
No one started it except that one crazy and no one is at fault but many many are dead.

It is tempting the devil.

"The ground" is an illusion. Let them have it.
The hearts and minds of the American People are the only thing we are fighting for, not meaningless ground.
The combined armies of the world couldn't hold America by force of arms, so we don't need to worry about "surrendering" a park to an armed group.
In this battle, the less you fight, the more you win.

Firstly, a nitpick. It's not all too important, but since it's the first thing in the OP that I have to talk about I'll discuss it first.

The left-right spectrum is only functional in dealing with mainstream views and extrapolation thereof. The moment you step out of that, it fails. As such, for nuanced political discussion, I feel it fails. For example, Distributism is a thing among Catholics. It'd be difficult to place it on the spectrum you presented. As earlier mentioned, it also conflates things together – Traditionalist Monarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism would technically fall on the far right despite being widely apart. A second axis, as done by a majority of political compasses, shows why – they're at opposite extremes of a sort of "freedom" axis.

In addition, the left-right axis presented by wikipedia is a bit different than yours. Knowing your political background, it's understandable you'd focus on the economic aspects (indeed, they're largely defining, seemingly more so than social views) but leaving out social views misses a big chunk of both wikipedia's definition and the general perception of the left-right dichotomy.

I hope that we can all agree that violence of most forms are bad, whether it is through war or individual use.

Violence in general, to me, is bad. The question is just, is it justified in usage to prevent greater bad, and is that bad immoral?

Many anarchists can be considered pacifists, but at the same time, they see the present state of things, or at least the state, to be at war with them or that it is inherently violent.

One common definition of the state is an organization which has a monopoly on violence. Pretty easy to empathize with that view.

Where violence is the strongest, is where what most would consider to be in the “extreme left” or “extreme right”.

I believe they gain the title of "extreme" due to violence, not necessarily because of their views. I believe a violent mutualist will more readily gain the title of extremist than a quiet marxist. This is an important distinction to make; radicality in political views does not necessarily equate to political violence.

Do you believe violence can have some use, for example for self-defense?

I've been deeply considering the question of violence. As of right now, I think violence is able to properly be used in the process of restoring equality – in that all humans have fundamental equality, and all humans should respect this, if anyone should not respect it, violence may be a fair response in order to fix this.

Do you subscribe to any ideologies, or do you simply see yourself as left- or right-wing without having any hard stances?

Democratic socialism is pretty rad to me. While I can't quite keep with the LTV, the benefits of greater worker control seem numerous and the drawbacks minor.

In addition, I'm a "left libertarian". I don't like the concept of a large government. As useful as using it for some means can be, the fact of the matter is that it will shift into the hands of someone I disagree with, and they will have all the powers I did, if I ever had that power in the first place. It's setting myself up for disaster, as opposed to the potential lasting social change that can be done through the grassroots instead.

What’s your opinion on me dividing the different lefts & rights into categories like Socialism or Liberalism?

I expressed my general dislike of the left-right spectrum before, but I like the general breakdown. I thought it was a clever way to simplify mainstream and semi-mainstream views.

Is it a good way to show what divides the different groups, and what their economical or societal views are?

It was informative for those who don't know much about the fringes, but aforementioned criticisms apply.

Honestly, I just feel the people with the whole “violence is always wrong and makes your opinion wrong” and “the only legitimate way to get what you want is through discourse” attitude are excessively idealistic and historically ignorant. They don’t want to acknowledge the harsh reality of how politics, especially major shifts in it, actually work and how it will likely continue to work.

Political violence is a grand gamble. It should only be instated when the following conditions are met:

• There is a great threat that cannot be reasonably handled by other means.
• There is a clear goal intended through the violence.
• There is a clear possibility of the violence eventually reaching the goal.

Those are necessary conditions, but probably not sufficient. There are likely other considerations I couldn't think of off the top of my head.

Grand changes in political systems, intended to undo the great immoralities of previous ones, don't happy peacefully in most cases. This is a historical fact. People in power don't want to give up their power. When the weak pose a threat to the strong, the strong will attempt to shut them down. What else will work for the weak, then, but violence?

The recent events don't fit this qualification. The threat posed by both the morally depraved trifecta of white supremacists, white nationalists, and nazis; and far-left groups such as antifa are both actually negligible in the big picture. While obviously it's best both fall to no violence, even if Charlottesville was a monthly occurrence the United States would still be much more stable than large swathes of the world. Even if Steve Bannon was president, we'd still have a more morally upright political leader than many countries. I do not believe there is a claim for either to say "we need to do this to defeat the other side!"

In addition, even assuming they could organize to achieve point 2, point 3 won't happen. Antifa is far too minor to get the United States to socialism and given the deep history of fighting Nazis and racism in the United States, going to that would be impossible.

Antifa burns cars, they burn trash cans, they break windows.
Many say that antifa saved them from injury in Charlottesville, including Cornell West. This may be true. Even if it is, it doesn’t magically wipe away burning a car during Trumps inauguration.
Of course – they aren’t the same guy.
Antifa at the g-20 isn’t the antifa at Berkeley which isn’t the antifa at Charlottesville.
Just like the Trump people at a rally aren’t the Trump people in Charlottesville or the guy living next door to you.
This is the danger of putting on a uniform for your cause.
You can’t tell anyone apart!
As a liberal, showing up to a protest in all-black means the Tump people should rightly fear you. Same with flying a nazi flag.
That is NOT good. Maybe, lets all just wear our civi’s when we protest :)

Black Bloc wears essentially identical clothes for the very purpose of becoming one group. It is intentionally communal. This is partly for defense; in doing so, it makes it hard for police to pin any single person for it. But it's double-edged – in doing so, you incur the guilt any other member may gain in the public eye, and rightfully so. While the law may not convict you, willful association with violent people will convict you in the public's eye.

Stand the fuck down. It is a fight they can never win.

Sometimes, you don't need to fight to win. There's a method in nonviolent resistance that is hard, but extremely powerful. Find something that is morally blameless, that forces an atrocity on you. The world cannot ignore such an extremely immoral system. If that's possible, you can do that.

Of course, that's not a standard practice of antifa.

The POLICE couldn’t even have opposed the militias gathered at Charlottesville!

At the risk of deviating from the topic, this is actually why the morally depraved trifecta is a bigger threat to the United States than antifa or related groups are, and probably ever will be. Antifa will throw rocks and use bats, for the most part. Meanwhile, white nationalist militiamen will unhesitatingly pick up a semiauto rifle and don bulletproof vests.

Rivers – great post.
On the one hand, it's complicated with the right/left thing like you say. We need a 4-dimensional versions of the D&D chaotic/lawful/good/evil meme to chart it all.
But on the other, it's very, very simple.
There is the red team and there is the blue team.
It doesn't matter what you believe in just as long as you wear the jersey.
Conflicting ideas and tactics within the same person are common, so forget keeping the groups on script.
Here's a very small list of the wackiness on my team and myself that I don't get yet tolerate.
- We're fighting fascist and if you oppose our ideas we'll add you to the "list"
- We won't let you speak because you aren't liberal minded.
The first part totally contradicts the last part. Makes no sense.
I'll leave off listing wackiness on the other side to avoid a derail, but it's there too.
Trying to avoid hypocrisy within yourself is hard. Avoiding hypocrisy in your party or movement is impossible.
But that said, we don't really even care anymore!
Nazis and evangelicals? Meh, fine.
Hows that work?
And for my part, I swear I'll team up with just about anyone at this point.
Neoliberal? – Me too!
Pseudo-Luxemburgist? Greetings comrade!
Reagan Republican? Great!
Anarcho-socio-syndicalist-Keynesian-Libertarian? Welcome!
Just want legal weed? Ok! I like weed!
I don't give a crap as long as you're within the parameters of "non-crazy" beliefs.
I trust that the average of everything my side believes in will prevail.
But I'm on the blue team – the team of goodness and justice – so I would say that.
Others may disagree because they are agents for the forces of darkness aka the red team.

"At the risk of deviating from the topic, this is actually why the morally depraved trifecta is a bigger threat to the United States than antifa or related groups are, and probably ever will be. Antifa will throw rocks and use bats, for the most part. Meanwhile, white nationalist militiamen will unhesitatingly pick up a semiauto rifle and don bulletproof vest"

yar.
i have to believe in the goodness of people, so I trust 99.9% of the militia walking around armed.
The problem with having a thousand guys that you can trust 99.9% when all it takes is one to cause a disaster is math.
Basic math says the militia will have a disaster that everyone will regret.
The purpose of 2nd amnd in part is a check to government,
but I believe they are using it as a check to a political party.
That is totally different and no fair. Send me a whambulance please.
Like anyone cares, but it is fucked up. Using the "shoe on the other foot theory" if the left did the same thing. we'd basically be one drunk asshole away from the civil war part two.
But of course they'd say they need 500 armed camoed guys in an armored personel carrier because, you know, ANTIFA (duh duh DUH!!)
That's just a cover IMO to justify a blatant show of force.
I believ these guys when they say they have like a quarter of a million people in their literal army.
But I got bongos.
Thing is we only risk disaster. That's all. Domestic terrorism and such. They can't actually take over America. It's just scary that they think they can.

"Sometimes, you don’t need to fight to win. There’s a method in nonviolent resistance that is hard, but extremely powerful. Find something that is morally blameless, that forces an atrocity on you. The world cannot ignore such an extremely immoral system. If that’s possible, you can do that."

ahhhh… you first, my friend, I'll be right behind :D
I'm avoiding the armed guys myself. I'll be the dude on the next block with the bongos talking to the TV reporter, not the guy taking the blows.
After all, why fight on their ground in the manner they'd not only prefer but have advantage?
Why not fight the way we fight, with stupid chants that don't even really rhyme and in the voting booth?

At this point, I believe we are now at a cowboy duel phase I like said earlier. Both far left and right are trying to psyche the other to draw first, seeking moral high ground to win public favour for advantage and justification to return fire with a gatling gun when hit with a first stone casted.

In my eyes, the provoker is much worse than the provoked because they are the one picking the fight and yet somehow has the gall to try to claim moral high ground, license to kill, justification to eliminate; but your views may vary.

Sow the seed, reap the whrilwind. If the antifa, BLM, or regressive left will not stop pulling shit like these. One day, the extremist right will snap for all the shit they got and take up arms for one sole reason, to kill all of them their ideas of reich be damned. And as a bonus, if the far left still has the gall to try and claim moral high ground after government cracked down the right, they are next in line to see the sunrise from the top of the flag poles because people caught in middle are mighty pissed and they are not idiots.

So they need to stop provoking with the threat of violence, protest or counter-protest if they have to (no protest altogether is better though) but do it lawfully, permits and all, and come bloody unarmed for fucks sake. And stop unlawfully toppling statue and lynch (figuratively) the fucking idiot in their own team to show public that they do not tolerate bullshit. Last I heard, Joan of Arc statue got vandalised.

I know exactly one powerful move to STOP ALL OF THIS: For both side do this:

- Issue a sincere public apology (shitstorm be upon any media trying to demonise to capitalise on it) for all the miserable inhumane shit they have done such as slander, libel, any unlawful acts (bonus: confess ALL actions your media try to cover up).

- After this, promise all your political activities will be lawfully done. So no more bats, vandalism, random acts of violence, cough up your own shitstain in human skin and present them (such as that little shit bikelock guy) up. Why would you protect a shitstain, especially one on your side. Do not turn a blind eye, find them and cough them up. Suffer no injustice whether it is done to other side or own side.

- Apology does not mean you agree to others side ideas. You can stand your ground on your ideas and be decent.

This move earns you public trust, moral high ground for being a bigger guy and if the other side tries to capitalise on that, they may as well hang themselves for the coming shitstorm after that, and leads to zero violence or provocation, and may leas to other side also apologising and doing the same. It will become a politeness judo, or race to see who has bigger heart, and politics will fucking stay in the place where it belongs. The congress.

The opinion of the average antifa-type on guns isn't very clear since gun politics aren't the focus of the banner. Many of it's members are far-left, who tend to be very pro-gun.

Rivers kind of nailed it with the crossover.
Take Libertarians.
Libertarians are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get but chances are it's nuts or fricking raspberry whip.
People are all over the place and mostly full of shit.

Most liberals who are for guns and punching nazis are only for it in theory only in my opinion.
A dangerous and obvious bluff.
Just give it up.
Nazis live for that. They train for that. They would enjoy it.
Why compete with them on that level?

You are massively overestimating the ability of Americans, who have been spoiled and pacified by their first world status, to engage in effectual political violence on either side, at least in the countries current state. If things actually escalated to the level people are paranoid about all of them would puss-out in a heartbeat shortly before being steamrolled by a military controlled by the centrist neo-liberal/-conservative order.

In a worst-case shit-hit-fan civil war part 2, things would get squirrelly fast, don't you think?
The military would side with the government initially but individuals milage may vary.
The problem comes when you ask people to go against their friends and neighbors. Like, if the militias and the cops all are in a bowling league together, it makes it complicated when there is a stand-off.
Projecting that onto military actions makes it worse.
You'd need to send troops in against people they'd have family ties with.
I figure in short order, we'd divide up regionally, but who knows?

But that's just a mad-max fantasy. In reality, there would be a single incident or two before the militias would surrender.
The population isn't following their crazy asses down the path to hell.