The Left's Plan B

Anti-Fa members with their flag (Source)

      This was how it was supposed to have gone down. Trump would lose the election, but refuse to accept a Hillary win. Trump supporters would then "insist on opposing and disrupting a Clinton presidency."

       They would refuse to attend the Inauguration and State of the Union, ignore her attempts to reach out, and devote all their energies to proving allegations of wrongdoing. Lincoln’s opponents resigned their seats in Congress to go home, thus strengthening Lincoln’s position, but Clinton’s enemies would remain in Washington to fight her. They would encourage lawsuits against executive orders, while allowing Supreme Court vacancies, lower federal court judgeships, and Cabinet positions to go unfilled. 

       In pockets of the country, sporadic acts of anti-government protest and terrorism would erupt. Some would occupy federal lands or damage government property. Others would direct their anger at federal employees or racial minorities. In contrast to Lincoln’s vigorous response to secessionist violence at Fort Sumter, the Clinton Administration would have to tread cautiously, at the risk of inciting even more protests. In such a scenario, the regular functioning of our government would come to a halt.

 But that is not all. With Hillary in office and the government firmly in the hands of the left, the left would follow the Nazi plan to achieve Gleichschaltung.  "In Nazi terminology, Gleichschaltung was the process of Nazification by which Nazi Germany successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of society, 'from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education'."

      The way the plan worked was, as Carroll Quigley described it in his book Tragedy and Hope: "The process was carried on, like the electoral campaign just finished, by illegal actions from below [riots and attacks by the SA] and legalistic actions from above. ... " (Emphases added).  But it was sold through a false narrative of helping the public, while actually consolidating power. Quigley related the end result:

       The middle classes were coordinated and disappointed. Wholesale and retail trade associations were consolidated into a Reich Corporation of German Trade under the Nazi Dr. von Renteln. On July 22nd the same man became president of the German Industrial and Trade Committee, which was a union of all the chambers of commerce. ...  

       The breakup of the great department stores, which had been one of the Nazi promises to the petty bourgeois ... was abandoned.... Moreover, liquidation of the cooperative societies, which had also been a promise of long duration, was abandoned....         Labor was coordinated without resistance, except from the Communists. ... The unions themselves were incorporated into a Nazi German Labor Front under Robert Ley. ...  

       Agriculture was coordinated .... The various land and peasant associations were merged into a single association..., while the various landlords' associations were united into the German Board of Agriculture....  

       Religion was coordinated in various ways. ...  

      Now it should be remembered that this is not something that came out of the blue, but something that has been in the works for some time. In an article by John Cochrane entitled "Rule of Law in the Regulatory State," Cochrane warned:

We’re headed for an economic system in which many industries have a handful of large, cartelized businesses— think 6 big banks, 5 big health insurance companies, 4 big energy companies, and so on. Sure, they are protected from competition. But the price of protection is that the businesses support the regulator and administration politically, and does their bidding. If the government wants them to hire, or build factory in unprofitable place, they do it. The benefit of cooperation is a good living and a quiet life. The cost of stepping out of line is personal and business ruin, meted out frequently. That’s neither capture nor cronyism.

Cochrane used the phrase "the term "bureaucratic tyranny," to describe this relationship, but what he is describing is Gleichschaltung. Similarly, in an interview from several years ago with Jonah Goldberg about his book Liberal Facism, Goldberg also discussed the new Gleichschaltung:

       You know, when I first started pondering the book, I thought it might be all about economics. About ten years ago I went on a junket to Switzerland and attended a talk with the CEO of Nestlé. Listening to him, it became very clear to me that he had little to no interest in free markets or capitalism properly understood. He saw his corporation as a “partner” with governments, NGOs, the U.N., and other massive multinationals. The profit motive was good for efficiency and rewarding talent, but beyond that, he wanted order and predictability and as much planning as he could get. I think that mindset informs the entire class of transnational progressives, the shock troops of what H. G. Wells hoped would lead to his liberal-fascist “world brain.” 

       If you look at how most liberals think about economics, they want big corporations and big government working in tandem with labor, universities (think industrial policy), and progressive organizations to come up with “inclusive” policies set at the national or international level. That’s not necessarily socialism — it’s corporatism. When you listen to how Obama is making economic policy with “everyone at the table,” he’s describing corporatism, the economic philosophy of fascism. Government is the senior partner, but all of the other institutions are on board — so long as they agree with the government’s agenda. The people left out of this coordinated effort — the Nazis called it the Gleichschaltung — are the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, the ideological, social, or economic mavericks who don’t want to play along. When you listen to Obama demonize Chrysler’s bondholders simply because they want their contracts enforced and the rule of law sustained, you get a sense of what I’m talking about.  

The unholy alliance is evidence even in the cultural hegemony of the ruling elites. Angelo M. Codevilla has written:

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

      The modern version of the SA were to be the militant minority groups, such as Black Lives Matter, and the "Anti-Fa" (anti-fascist) Black Bloc that we have seen in recent protests, including the protests at Berkley.

       Under the original plan, I suspect that they were not to openly act as provocateurs, but to be portrayed as protecting the public from the pro-Trump protesters and a radical right that was being created virtually whole-cloth from thin air in the guise of the numerous fake hate-crimes that were receiving wide-spread coverage in the MSM.

       But something happened along the way: Trump won the election. Thus, the left has had to resort to a Plan B, which is to create a resistant to fight Trump tooth and nail on every little front.

Whatever stands a decent chance of holding Trump back – or, better yet, of getting rid of him and his people altogether — is worth pursuing.  The more secure he is, the bleaker our future will be, even if we somehow manage to have a future at all.

The goal is two-fold: delegitimize Trump's presidency and create enough fear that come next election, conservatives will be afraid to vote and will be ready for federal authorities to assume more control over law enforcement. It is the classic strategy employed by the civil rights movement: give us the welfare benefits and political power we demand or we will burn your cities down. Or as Kurt Schlichter recently noted: "The Left won’t say it out loud – at least not yet – but make no mistake. If violence is what it takes for the Left to prevail, then violence we will have. You saw it, and you were meant to. Berkeley was a message about the price of dissent where leftist hold sway. And they seek to hold sway everywhere."

     We can see the conservative bogey-man being created right now  For instance, the spate of faked hate crimes since the election, and this recent announcement of self-defense training only open to leftists:

“In response to the record number of hate crimes against Latinos, Immigrants, Muslims, Women, the LGBTQIA+ community, Jews, African Americans and other minorities since the rise of Donald Trump and other Alt-Right Neo-Nazis, Knights for Socialism has decided to host a series of self-defense clinics for anyone that wants to learn how to BASH THE FASH,” asserts the Facebook event page for “Leftist Fight Club: The Rumbles at Lake Claire.”

The description explains that a local amateur boxer was on hand to teach basic hand-to-hand combat techniques at the self-defense clinic, in order to help the socialist students better protect themselves from potential hate crimes performed by those sympathetic to “Donald Trump and other Alt-Right Neo-Nazis.”

Right now, "[t]he BLMers and Black Blocers and Mexican Flag Wavers seem to believe they’re immune to serious retaliation from Trumpers, who actually support Western civilization."

       And the Black Bloc and related groups are cooperating: Black Bloc is the sword (engaging in "direct action"), while the "peaceful" protesters are the shield (and public face of the opposition):

[T]he “peaceful” protesters and the black bloc have a symbiotic relationship. The black bloc benefits by having a large mass of protesters from which to launch their attacks and then quickly retreat to anonymity. For them the mass of protesters is a shield. Meanwhile, the “peaceful” protesters benefit because marching and chanting doesn’t have the same immediate impact as breaking windows and beating people in the street. To them, the black bloc is a sword.

The seperation of the groups and their respective functions, however, introduces plausible deniability (easily achieved with a cooperative media) and operational security.

       Unfortunately, as Mosby recently warned, the left is probably better prepared for this civil war than are those of us on the other side. Or as we have heard from those that have infiltrated these leftist groups:

The anarchists are by far the most dangerous of these groups. They are organized like militias. They actively train and practice their operations. They have discipline and zero tolerance for weakness. They have a number of former military personnel providing expertise to enhance security, logistics and martial arts capabilities. The majority are physical fit, military age males. They are primarily white with few minority members. Their leadership tends to be either former military, a proven leader from the occupy movement or a highly educated alpha-male. They are far more capable than their recent activities would demonstrate. They have formed community defense organizations and are idolized for their willingness to take action from the other groups ....  They see patriots and constitutionalists as their primary enemy. To them, everyone is a NAZI or a fascist unless they are an anarchist. There is no debate allowed on these issues, ever. They operate under various names, but the vast majority identify with the anti-fascist movement. With the election of President Trump, their membership has increased exponentially. There are at least 50,000 nationwide. They have been able to assimilate much of the “occupy” and “black-bloc” movements. Most of what these organizations accomplish are classified as direct actions. They will participate in a protest or a march, but they are not big fans of passive resistance.

This may be another long, hot summer.