About those riots

"The Violent Splinter

The violent splinter paradigm is a tactical framework where a primary organization—referred to here as the "main group"—employs a smaller, more radical faction (the "splinter" ) to execute acts of violence and disruption. This allows the main group to maintain plausible deniability and broad public support while advancing its agenda through the chaos generated by the splinter. Historically, this strategy has been used by revolutionary movements to weaken established systems by direct challenges to legitimacy and capability, testing new tactics, and radicalizing supporters, all while shielding the core leadership from direct accountability through layers of obfuscation.

In the context of contemporary America, the riots that have erupted in cities like Los Angeles are not merely organic outbursts of an oppressed people. Evidence of coordination—such as pre-staged supplies, synchronized and open messaging, such as in “peaceful protest,” flying the flags and symbols of foreign governments and named terrorist organizations, and the involvement of trained agitators—points to an orchestrated effort. The main group behind this violence harbors a revolutionary ideology that is Communistic, aiming to dismantle republican government and Constitutional order, and globalist, seeking to erode national sovereignty in favor of supranational control. By leveraging these violent splinters, the group creates instability, which it hopes will pave the way for a radical restructuring of American governance in one of two ways: either submit passively and succumb to escalating violent revolution, or react by striking back and watch the captured institutions provide cover for the main group to advance in public opinion, legislation, jurisprudence, and institutional hegemony. The “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is a feature, not a bug, of dialectical political warfare.

The Constitutional Republic vs. Mobbish Democracy

The U.S. Constitution establishes a republican form of government, as guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4, where the people elect representatives to govern on their behalf. This system is designed to balance majority rule with minority rights, ensuring deliberate decision-making and adherence to the rule of law. It stands in stark contrast to mobbish democracy, where direct majority rule devolves into chaos, trampling individual liberties and fostering tyranny by the masses, creating spoils of oppression to be fought over by various special interests, and, finally, succumbing to dictatorship.

The violent splinter paradigm directly assaults this republican framework. By inciting riots and amplifying unrest, the main group seeks to erode the institutions that underpin representative governance—courts, legislatures, and law enforcement. The resulting disorder mimics the conditions of mobbish democracy, where raw emotion and street-level power supersede Constitutional processes. This chaos is a deliberate steppingstone toward enabling authoritarianism, as it creates a crisis that the main group can exploit to justify imposing a new, centralized order, and the rise of a new class of oligarchs. The Founding Fathers, wary of such threats, crafted the Constitution to prevent exactly this kind of destabilization, emphasizing a structured government over the whims of the mob.

Controlled Opposition: Fomenting Racism and Division

A critical component of the violent splinter paradigm is the use of controlled opposition, including pseudo-Right actors who appear to oppose the main group but secretly serve its ends. These actors, often masquerading as nationalists or populists, exacerbate racial tensions and promote divisive rhetoric, deepening societal fractures aimed towards preventing the broad Right from coalescing for their own existential defense. For example, groups that amplify racist narratives or stage provocative demonstrations contribute to the perception of widespread racial hatreds and bigotry, which the main group then leverages to justify its revolutionary agenda, resulting in your own “colorblind,” Christian, or meritocratic views being linked to white nationalism, just as the Biden Regime did in order to justify your persecution.

This tactic mirrors historical Communist strategies, where factions were manipulated to create false dichotomies while advancing a singular goal. In America today, these pseudo-Right actors polarize the public, distract from the main group’s true intentions, and undermine the unity required to defend the Constitutional order. By framing all dissent as extremist, the main group delegitimizes genuine opposition, further weakening the republic’s resilience.

Early-American Legal Theory: A Framework for Accountability

The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of internal subversion and established legal mechanisms to protect the republic. Early-American laws addressing treason, sedition, conspiracy, and high crimes provide a foundation for holding the actors behind the violent splinter paradigm accountable.

Treason: Defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," treason carries a high bar—requiring two witnesses to an overt act or a confession in open court. Orchestrating riots to destabilize the government could be construed as levying war, particularly if linked to a broader revolutionary plot. The active participation in agents of the Chinese Communist Party, Cuba, the PFLP and Hamas, and more could legitimately lend toward this charge.

Sedition: The concept of sedition, though historically fraught, remains a valid and actionable legal principle in contemporary times. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, enacted during a period of early-American anxiety over internal subversion, were widely deemed unconstitutional due to their infringement on the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and press. These laws criminalized criticism of the government, stifling dissent in ways that clashed with core constitutional protections. Their eventual repeal underscored the dangers of overly broad restrictions on expression, cementing their status as a cautionary example. Yet, while the Acts themselves were flawed, the broader notion of sedition—inciting rebellion or undermining lawful authority—has since evolved into a more precise and constitutionally sound framework.

In modern law, sedition is narrowly tailored to address genuine threats without trampling on protected rights. For instance, 18 U.S. Code § 2384, the seditious conspiracy statute, defines the offense as two or more individuals conspiring to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States,” or to “oppose by force the authority thereof.” If this sounds precisely like the actions being undertaken to “resist,” ambush, and attack federal officers engaged in immigration enforcement its because it very much is, to the “t,” a seditious conspiracy, and it ought to be prosecuted and persecuted as such.

Conspiracy and High Crimes: These broader categories encompass plots to overthrow the government or corrupt its institutions, offering flexibility to address complex, multi-actor threats.

Applying these principles today, the actors behind the violent splinter paradigm—both the main group and its splinters—could face prosecution if evidence demonstrates intent to overthrow the Constitutional government or aid its enemies. For instance, funding rioters, training agitators, or collaborating with foreign entities opposed to U.S. sovereignty could trigger these charges.

The Revolutionary, Communistic, and Globalist Agenda

The main group’s goals are unmistakably revolutionary, seeking to dismantle the American republican system and replace it with a Communistic, globalist regime. Drawing from Marxist tactics—such as Mao Zedong’s emphasis on chaos as a precursor to revolution—the group uses riots to break down existing power structures. This aligns with Communistic ideals of abolishing private property and representative governance in favor of collectivism and centralized control. The globalist dimension further seeks to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to international frameworks, eroding the Constitution’s authority.

The riots serve as both a weapon and a signal, testing the government’s resolve while radicalizing segments of the population. By framing their actions as responses to systemic failures, the main group cloaks its ideological aims in the language of reform, making it harder to discern the deeper threat to the republic.

Conclusion

The riots and unrest plaguing America today are not random but part of a calculated strategy under the violent splinter paradigm. Driven by a main group with revolutionary, Communistic, and globalist ambitions, this effort seeks to undermine the republican form of government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Through violent splinters and controlled opposition, including pseudo-Right actors who deepen division, the group exploits chaos to advance its agenda, threatening the stability and sovereignty of the nation.

Strategies to affect Repressive Tolerance, by bringing the hammer of law down on Right-wing violence (such as self defense against Leftist riots), should be met with jury nullification, legislation towards more permissive rules of engagement for defense against mobs, pressure on prosecutors to not bring charges against the Right where force was even remotely reasonable, and publicly building the case for strong charges against mob participants, and legislation to that end.

Other fruitful avenues might include legalization of insurance providing high-level defense against criminal charges stemming from politically-charged violence, selective targeting of enemy command and control assets and funding, official recognition of persons engaged in violence or public coercion under certain circumstances (such as under a foreign or terrorist flag) as “enemy combatants” eligible to be engaged at will, and utilization of letters of marque and reprisal for enemy assets.

Ultimately, the final analysis finds that the Left broadly must become understood, socially, academically, legally, and militarily as what it truly is: a revolutionary counter-state and insurgency against America’s highest law and her citizens. This is the standard by which a “serious person” should be assessed, and, failing, dismissed as unserious. The Revolution will never be defeated, nor our republic safe, until we call a thing by its proper name, and align that notorious name with the correct and good penalties prescribed by law.

The Constitution, with its emphasis on representative governance and the rule of law, remains the republic’s strongest defense. Early-American legal theories provide tools to confront these actors, but their application requires vigilance, evidence, and a commitment to due process. Americans must recognize this threat for what it is—a deliberate assault on their system of government—and unite to protect the principles that have sustained the nation for over two centuries. Only through such resolve can the republic endure against the forces seeking its destruction."