Deniable Intimidation

The term comes from Richard Fernandez. It’s been around for a while (people forget that back around 2010 there was a practice run of violent anarchist riots).

It’s one of those definitions that is more important that it seems and Instapundit dredges up a reference to the original and then helpfully expounds a bit more:

That’s why they don’t want you to own guns. And that’s why the Ken-and-Karen case has the left and its media enablers so upset. They want you cowering in your home, calling for police protection that their political action has made sure won’t come. Or worrying that that might happen so that you yield to their demands. If you’re out on the steps with guns in your hands, suddenly the script has flipped. Either they’re intimidated, which is bad for morale when you’re running a mob, or they escalate and become so violent that the “deniable” part of the intimidation is gone, because they can’t pretend even to themselves that this was a “parade” of “peaceful protesters,” and a more violent response to the mob becomes certain in the future. And while mobs can dish out violence, they usually don’t take it very well, lacking discipline and cohesion. That’s why the goal is to keep the violence ongoing, but at a low enough level that it seems easier to go along than fight. Open resistance interferes with that, and sets an example for others.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.