So far this week there hasn't been another high-profile harassment story, or anything like it, but I expect that they're coming. Right now I expect the left is gauging how those stories are playing. Depending on how those stories play out we'll either see an increase in the insanity, or we won't.
Still, there's this. It is true that the left uses violence as a way to get people to clamor for someone to stop it. Violence, crime, terror--anything to get the people to give up freedom for safety.
The really funny thing is, when you compare this situation to Weimar Germany--well, in Weimar Germany, the clashes between communists and nazis was essentially a debate on what kind of socialism would prevail, not whether Germany would be socialist. The strong man that prevailed was a nazi, but it could just as easily have been a communist--in which case Germany would have nicely tucked itself under the aegis of the USSR, and WW2 would have had an entirely different meaning. (FDR would have moved mountains to stay out of that war, for one thing.)
The left doesn't seem to understand, though, that it's a two-way street, and this isn't 1968. You can make things miserable for a lot of people, but that will only go so far, and in this environment it's going to make you less popular rather than more. People are sick of the leftist horseshit that's been crammed down their throats for the past decade (at least). That's why you got Trump; when it became obvious that the GOP itself was now "Democrat lite", Trump (or someone like him) was inevitable.
That's why the immigration debate is making Democrats less popular; they're using the same old playbook, but everyone knows that stuff now and they're seeing right through it. The partisanship of the press has become bleeding obvious--rags like Time aren't even trying to hide it any longer--and people simply don't believe the media outlets that pretend to be moderate, because they spout the same shit, tamed a bit to fit their self-image.
So when the propaganda fails, and the people stubbornly refuse to listen to their betters in the press and entertainment media, then it's time to rouse the grassroots and have them riot.
The civil unrest must fail.
As I said, this isn't 1968. I have a feeling that the general American public won't blame the police or the government for the riots; in everything that's gone on so far I've seen that the public has refused to accept the narrative. That's why Democrats have a four-point lead after two weeks of their immigration nonsense, and that's just one example. The people are sick of the bullshit. They're not looking at the owner of the greasy spoon as some kind of hero; they're looking at her as an unhinged nutcase, and the people around her are distancing themselves from her to avoid having their businesses trashed by association.
"The civil unrest must fail," and as far as I can tell from here that means two things. It must fail because--absent some kind of major public relations miracle--it cannot succeed, at least not from the Democrat perspective. Not in this environment, not when 95% of the land mass went red in the last election. Not after eight years of Obama and eight years of "Democrat Lite" before that. (George Bush's domestic agenda was essentially Democrat, but for the tax cuts. Absent 9/11, he would have been a one-term President, like his father.)
The other thing is, it must fail because if it succeeds we will probably never get another chance to arrest the downhill slide into totalitarianism. Hillary was supposed to win; the entirety of Spygate was supposed to be swept under the rug and forgotten, permanently, except to be used as a blueprint for future elections. The entire edifice of the federal bureaucracy was to be bent to ensuring that no non-Democrat could ever win the Presidency again. The use of the IRS to flatten the Tea Party--which, we now see, was aided by prominent Republicans like John McCain--was just the beginning, as we've seen, and the fact that no one objected to it led to Obama using the FBI to spy on Republican candidates.
But I can't escape the feeling that what we're seeing is a convulsion, a last major temper tantrum from an increasingly impotent cadre of leftists; defeat that and we will be comfortably secure from that horseshit for a little while. So I want to see them spend all their political capital on trying to eke out some kind of defeat for Trump.
There will be violence. Worse, there will be dead children; the left will do whatever it needs to in order to regain the power it's steadily losing in post-Obama America. The left has never flinched from murdering whoever it needed to; it's what it does, because leftists only care about power. So there will be riots, and terrorism, and time bombs, and so forth, and the victims of this violence will be paraded before the cameras and the newsreaders will gravely intone the words from the teleprompters about how tragic it all is that the Trump administration can't just give in on this one thing so the violence will stop.
Question is--will the people buy it? Or will they reject it, the way they rejected the "Trump wants to imprison children" story? Because we've seen this, time and again, and the same way the people are saying, "It's not Trump that is doing this; it's the parents that are the problem!" they might just say, "Well, if you asshats on the left would stop setting time bombs in schools, there wouldn't be any dead kids, now would there?"
I'm not sure, but what I do know is that the left has shown a decided penchant for miscalculating, gravely, over the past couple of years. It's why, as they say, we got Trump.