Matt Willbanks Editor of the Daily Resister Guest for Second Hour on KWRO Monday, January 4th, 2021
Matt will be discussing his new website and some of the events he has attended over the past year. His website is the Daily Resister at www.dailyresister.com.
Here is his latest editorial:
Tactics, and why ours have to change
BY EDITOR ON DECEMBER 30, 2020
For the past few years I’ve been examining the difference in tactics used by Antifa, BLM, etc. as compared to our side. I’m not even going to begin to define “our side” because, truthfully, there is practically no cohesion on our side.
Right up front, let’s get some terminology correct so we all understand what is being said. “Tactics” are neither good or evil. They enable good or evil based on how they are used and who/what they are used against. For example, firearms are a common “tactic” or tool used against others. If I use a firearm against someone who has done nothing to me, my actions are evil. If I use that firearm to defend myself or others against unwarranted attack, my actions are good.
I want this terminology to be absolutely clear because we are going to talk about why our side seems to keep losing and why we need to adopt some, yes some, of the tactics used by the other side. So many people on our side are so weak-minded that they just label everything the opposition does as evil. In large part I agree, but nothing is that simple. Some issues are black and white, some are very very gray. A wise person needs to be able to differentiate between the two.
A good example of this happened to me a few years ago when we were fighting against universal firearm background checks in Oregon. I was having a conversation with someone on Facebook about protests and the topic of burning an effigy of the Governor came up. The other person was just apoplectic that I would dare consider doing this. I don’t remember their exact words but it was something to the effect of “our side doesn’t act that way”. I just shook my head in disbelief that this “patriot” thought something that was commonly done by our Founding Fathers was so wrong. He didn’t mind living in a country created with tactics like this, but he wouldn’t engage in them himself.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams
The first tactic on my mind is that of “occupation”. This can manifest itself in many different ways. Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus, despite what the law said, is probably the most basic example. Another would be the “sit-ins” that were commonly used by progressives in the 1960’s. Occupation is currently on my mind because of the motel in Fife, Washington that has just recently been taken over by Tacoma Housing Now, a group of leftist social-justice warriors who claim they are fighting for the rights of the homeless to have a place to stay during the pandemic.
This is a pretty easy one for us to call evil, because we believe in private property rights. But, when would an occupation not be evil? My most basic answer would be, when you have a right to be in the location you’re occupying. This is a perfect contrast because we just went through this exact issue at the Oregon State Capitol. According to the Oregon Constitution, all citizens have a right to be in the capitol during a session. This is a pretty basic principle of a republican form of government. When Governor Kate Brown ordered the building closed to the public during an emergency session, a large group of us tried to get in, as is our right. We were stopped by police in riot gear.
So here lies our first object lesson. The opposition uses occupation to take control of places that don’t belong to them and they get away with it. Our side tries to use occupation to enter a place we are allowed to be, but the government stops us. Why does this keep happening? To be blunt, because we are a bunch of sissies. Okay, I’m being a bit hyperbolic. There is a reason the opposition seems to be so brave and we seem to be so weak. They don’t have jobs to go to, they don’t have families to support, they aren’t worried about getting arrested because they know the DA won’t charge them. It’s not really bravery when there are no consequences. Our side are the brave ones, but what do you do when getting arrested might mean losing everything? Read these posts and give it some thought.
https://sarah-chamberlain-42954.medium.com/open-letter-from-an-american-coward-c60530a7a8e9
https://victorygirlsblog.com/an-open-letter-to-the-american-coward/
It’s a tough pill to swallow, and interestingly enough, exactly the same reason most police officers will not support us and do exactly what they’re told by their politically corrupt bosses. Cops are just people, no better, no worse. When given a choice between doing right or surviving, most people will choose survival. The opposition know this and uses it against us at every turn.
This leads me to probably my most controversial conclusion. The only way to overcome the survival instinct of those opposing us is to make their situation so uncomfortable that they relent. This is not me advocating violence. Only the person experiencing a particular situation can make that decision for themselves, at the exact moment it is happening. With that said, the two following quotes are applicable.
“War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
–Carl von Clausewitz
“I’ll tell you what war is about…You’ve got to kill people, and when you’ve killed enough they stop fighting.”
-Curtis Lemay
Once again, these quotes don’t mean I’m advocating violence. Use your head and think of things that are unpleasant, but not as unpleasant as killing. The quotes are just an example. Use of force exists in a continuum. A basic continuum might be something like:
1. Using a loud voice
2. Non-violent resistance
3. Less-lethal weapons
4. Deadly weapons
Any of us can understand this and probably think of lots of other options that fit between the lines. Mahatma Gandhi is a great example of non-violent resistance. The idea of a sit-in took a lot of inspiration from him, and this is kind of the point that I’m currently at. The last thing I want is violence, but we have to do something stronger than than what we’ve been trying. The problem with sit-ins is that they are dependent on numbers. If five of us decided to do a sit-in at the capitol building, we would be arrested pretty easily. But what if there was 100 of us? 200? 300?
This tactic can be applied in lots of areas. The capitol building when your tyrant governor won’t listen. A local restaurant (with the support of the owner) that has been forced to close due to COVID-19. Basically, if they try to ban you from being somewhere you know you’re allowed to be, stage a sit-in, but make it big and make it count.
One area I’ve been considering using a modified form of this tactic is places like Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, etc. We’re all angry at large corporations for enforcing mask rules, but how do you fight back when our side so strongly supports private property rights? This one is a bit controversial, even for me, but I’m quickly starting to consider it. My logic is this, the only reason the stores are enforcing mask mandates, social-distancing and capacity limits is because the government has threatened to shut them down if they don’t. You think Wal-Mart likes doing this crap? Hell no, it costs them money every day. So, while the store is private property, they have been coerced by an authoritarian government to do something against their will. Like I said before, it’s a matter of survival versus doing the right thing. These big corporations want to survive. They’ll recoup their profits later.
So, how do we make it painful for these large corporations while still respecting private property as much as possible? We aren’t Antifa, we’re not going to smash windows and steal stuff. What about a “roving sit-in” or “flash mob”? You put out a notice online that you’re going to use a flash mob to protest some local big-box store. Set a time, but don’t identify which store, that will be determined at the time of the event. If you telegraph it ahead of time, they will be ready for you. Once the group meets in a public area, move to the target. The idea is to have a huge group of unmasked, not-social distanced people move through the store and not stop. Do it at a normal walking pace and make a full circuit, then walk out and disperse. Personally, I think carrying signs is the best way. We are there to make a political point, not disrupt their business.
Now, some store manager is probably going to try to tell your group to leave. Wal-Mart especially has a history of trespassing people from their entire chain for just about any infraction. The idea is to keep moving, not identify yourselves, not talk to any store employee or even acknowledge they are speaking to you. Your whole group will be out and gone before the police can even arrive. Then you have to keep doing it. Store after store, day after day. Honestly, I think this will have a more profound effect on the other shoppers than the business itself. When people see organized civil disobedience, especially the respectful kind, they tend to join in. Think back to the “American Coward” in the post linked above. There are tons of those people and they want to join you.
There are other tactics that tend to be non-violent, but I think this post has gone on long enough for now. Start thinking about these things yourself. Ask, what can I do that is both effective and still morally defensible? Think outside the box, you might be surprised.
Editor @ Dailyresister.com