vigilant (adj.) = “woke”
“late 15c., from Middle French vigilant or directly from Latin vigilantem (nominative vigilans) “watchful, anxious, careful,” present participle of vigilare “to watch, keep awake, not to sleep, be watchful,” from vigil “watchful, awake””
All the usual lefty suspects’ panties are in a twist because one teenager in Wisconsin decided to play vigilante. Apparently, because he had the temerity to state the obvious, these same oracles are calling for Tucker Carlson’s head. Is anyone really shocked by the notion that, if the state willfully refuses to employ its police power to protect lawful citizens’ most basic rights, that citizens themselves will use force for their own protection? That those most likely to first act violently will be the least informed or sensible individuals? Maybe, though, in their usual manipulative and disingenuous manner, leftist propagandists fear something far more threatening to their real agenda. Are they afraid that their own strategy to attain totalitarian power might be meaningfully opposed by organized and violent resistance to their organized and violent incitement?
An interesting linguistic symmetry is most pertinent nowadays. Even as we are inundated with “woke-ness”, a countervailing awareness is developing – out of necessity. It is obvious that today’s cultural/political revolutionaries desire nothing less than abolition of the very Enlightenment values which informed the American Revolution of 1776. As this becomes apparent, a certain countervailing vigilance has begun to develop; this includes those who become activists in opposition to the nihilism – linguistically known as “vigilantes”. Interesting juxtaposition, isn’t it?
The supposed intellectual underpinning of the nihilist “movement” is the NY Times’ “1619 Project”. According to it and other revisionist myth-making, the United States is a fatally flawed nation and this demands nothing less than its abolition. Never mind that no nation in existence can withstand such analysis, which, of necessity, condemns any nation which was not born in a state of progressive utopia. This incoherent, irrational view cannot abide the notion that a nation begun imperfect can evolve into a “more perfect union”. Imperfect at the outset? Very well, erase all its history, rewrite it, implement thought control and behead all the non-progressive knuckle-draggers. Somehow, these political philosophers (when they take a time out from looting and burning) imagine prodigious wealth will continue to appear as if by magic – for them to redistribute according to their political preferences.
Let’s be honest here. What were once media – actual journalists – are now nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party, which, itself, has been completely usurped by neo-Marxists, whose aim – again, speaking plainly – is nothing less than re-instantiating a Soviet-style tyranny on American shores. These propagandists, on behalf of big city mayors, blue state governors and the Biden-Harris ticket, rationalize and support leftist violence like that currently destroying cities, threatening suburbs and wrecking economies. In their twisted logic, they hope this will help unseat Donald Trump. In their latest iteration of ever-elusive reality, they are trying to blame the violence on President Trump – even as their operatives raise bail money for the few perpetrators actually arrested!
Aiding and abetting this overarching effort by leftist politicians and their propagandists are cadres of Soros-selected prosecutors and judges as well as captains of corporate America and Silicon Valley. The latter wield tremendous power via control of search engine results, social media and advertising. These combine to create the “reality” perceived by the vast majority of the populace. It is obvious to all that these actors regularly silence and punish anyone who dares to speak out in opposition to liberal pieties. Such censorship also constitute blatant social injustices – in my view, greater than the “oppression” said to be the reason for ongoing “peaceful protests” (regularly punctuated with rocks, Molotov cocktails and gunfire). The perpetrators claim they must riot because because there exists no legal or effective means of opposing the purported injustices.
Well, if the left can assert that its pet victims are justified in violence in response to purported systematic oppression, why, then, doesn’t this same principle apply to others who are oppressed, but who occupy the opposite pole of the political spectrum? Sauce for the goose, after all… . Principles, after all, apply generally and equally to every side of a conflict.
There is no clearer example of oppression without legal remedy than the St. Louis prosecutor who charged two lawyers – homeowners – with felonies for defending their home with guns. The prosecutor is so emboldened that she had no hesitation to invoke a triple lie in support of her blatantly unjust prosecution. According to her mendacious construction, the First Amendment right to peacefully protest is more important than any other considerations. Lie #1: there is no legal right to protest on private property where the events in question took place; lie #2: the protest was neither lawful nor peaceful. The mob broke and entered the gate to the private community. lie #3: not only was the protest not peaceful, the mob assaulted the homeowners with repeated threats to kill them and burn down their home. Anyone, anywhere has a right to defend him/herself from assault (this is implicit lie #4). In sum, the prosecutor obviously felt no hesitation to lie blatantly in order to further her own clearly political agenda, to wit: frightening law-abiding citizens who are inclined to defend themselves from violent mobs. What, then, can opponents do to give pause to such officials who ignore the most basic principles of truth or law. Some might liken such official acts to official misconduct during the Nazi regime which led to horrors like Kristallnacht. In retrospect, the only meaningful opposition to such official crimes against humanity are obvious: personal accountability. If mobs can publicly assault Senator Rand Paul without repercussion, prosecutors and other officials ought well take note. The same can happen to them.
And, just maybe, that is why the usual suspects are crying out in alarm. After all, they have been saying for months that violence by SJW’s is justified because, according to them, there are insufficient means within the law to overcome putative systemic oppression (notwithstanding the $22 trillion spent since 1965 on the “War on Poverty”). Now, suddenly, the left rightly fear a bandwagon effect – the application of the principle they boldly espouse with the force of scripture and act out at will with little or no consequence. Turnabout is fair play, the aphorism unequivocally states.
It is only a matter of time, then, until activists at the other end of the political spectrum decide there is no legal way of holding prosecutors, judges, “media”, or Google, Twitter and Facebook censors accountable for their oppressive acts. If lawless violence is acceptable for the Marxist left, then it must also be for liberty-minded activists. If conservatives may be assaulted in public, so, then, may radicals. It would be quite rational for opponents, after all, to determine they must act to give pause to those who, for some time, have acted with impunity (and under color of law), thinking themselves beyond reach; that there will be no consequences for ignoring the law by criminalizing political differences or censoring those with different political beliefs – simply because they have the means to do so.
Actual political violence – the left famously loves to call opposing words “violence” – has been the norm through most of recorded history. The US has mostly been an exception to this state of affairs until recently, because both sides, up until until now, agreed to keep within unarticulated bounds of lawfulness and fairness. The left has now abrogated this modus vivendi and its propagandists are beginning tremble in recognition that the rules they themselves have loudly promulgated may now inform the actions of their opponents. It may have begun with one immature teenager going off half-cocked in Kenosha. They rightly anticipate that resistance to their Maoist acts may no longer be polite, pusillanimous, or restricted to mere words. Rather than re-think their own actions, though, their media minions will only warn of “right-wing” or “far-right” extremism, while never even using the term “left-wing” or “far-left” extremism, when the latter has been the actual reality in which we have been immersed since the 1960’s. But that’s a different remarkable linguistic usage – intentional and wildly misleading – by the so-called “media”.