“Since 1989, the world has witnessed a progressive weakening of the state and rise of alternative, non-state primary loyalties, for which a growing number of men are willing to fight.” This is what military affairs expert William S. Lind calls the heart of his theory of the Fourth Generation of Modern Warfare (4GW). And there can be no better example of a “primary loyalty” than the right to keep and bear arms.
The days of the massive, invulnerable armies of the nation-state winning contests with lesser opponents at the drop of a hat are over. Consider the fact that the most powerful military in the world was unable to roundly defeat the rag-tag forces of Afghanistan and Iraq, as wars that should have taken a matter of weeks have stretched into years.
“Fourth Generation Warfare is based on dispersion and communications that remove the battle front entirely. Attackers rely on cultural/media attack and coordinated violent actions to…paralyze or collapse the enemy’s political will, rather than seeking decisive combat.” It’s the sort of warfare and aggression practiced by those who are not interested in adhering to politically correct tactics or seeking an outcome acceptable to the U. N., its member nations, or media critics. Only winning is important. And as individuals or comparatively small forces fighting in the 4GW mode will be far weaker than the trillion dollar forces of their opponents, they will almost certainly attract additional support by convincing lookers-on that theirs is the morally superior side. Isn’t that so often the case with underdogs?!
Anything about this sound familiar?
“One man — ONE MAN — has for almost a week frightened and tied up the law enforcement resources of an entire state (and I’m sure the Feds are making their contributions behind the scenes too). This is a cautionary tale for any citizen disarmament advocate who blithely assumes (as stupidly as the LAPD was last week) that the “authorities” are up [to] the challenges of the 4GW civil war that their appetites seem bent upon creating.” In short, “…the resources of the modern surveillance police state are not even up to the challenge of one madman, let alone a determined, thinking minority.”
A lone, murderous psychopath had the entire LAPD running in circles as unhinged officers shot at old ladies delivering newspapers and skinny white guys rather than the 260 lb black murderer who was the actual subject of their hunt!
And incredibly, Christopher Dorner became a cult hero of sorts with loons throughout the nation! Obviously, his was not the “morally superior side” by any means. Yet, though certainly deluded, many people were “…rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system.”
If this wholly unsympathetic psychopath can attract support—even though it may be the support of fools, racists, and leftists–imagine the backing that can be rallied by patriots fighting for the God-given right of all Americans to keep and bear arms!
“One man” tied up countless police and perhaps federal officials as well while killing virtually at will. Yet Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Barack Obama, and others will apparently not rest until they have provoked American gun owners and believers in freedom into a 2nd American Revolution.
IF the left is capable of learning anything from the Christopher Dorner example, it should be that several million American gun owners and freedom lovers acting independently or in small groups and dedicated to the defense of their own liberty would constitute a force with which neither the nation’s police nor even its military could contend. And untold numbers of those working to overthrow the Constitution would lose their lives.
Will the left take heed of the waiting disaster taht must accompany its efforts to abolish the 2nd Amendment? If so, will the frightening example of “success” offered by the very evil Chris Dorner play a part in causing these opponents of freedom to change their minds?
Photo credit: www.YoVenice.com (Creative Commons)
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.