My friend Bill Vallicella, having read our recent post and comment-thread on Rod Dreher’s essay on Marx (see Bill’s recent post on the same article, here), noted my formulation of the consistent principle of our opponents in the current culture war:
Defend your people, always. Attack the enemy with whatever comes to hand, always.
(The correct understanding of this principle, I’ve argued, renders pointless the accusations of hypocrisy and inconsistency that are always popping up in conservative critiques of the Left in public discourse.)
Bill wrote to ask me:
Are you advocating the “Defend your people, always, etc. ” principle, or are you merely stating that this is the principle that the hard Left lives by? One could do the latter without doing the former. But I think you do both.
This is a difficult question, and until he asked it I hadn’t tried to answer it for myself. My provisional response, which I will paraphrase here, was:
Certainly I think it’s the principle the hard Left lives by, just to get that out of the way. (It seems from Bill’s own post that he has come round to the same opinion.)
But do I advocate it? Well, I’d much rather not have to, of course; I’d prefer to work out our difficulties and differences in the arena of reason and dialogue, where the principle doesn’t apply.
But are there circumstances in which one should advocate it? In wartime this rises to the level of an existential question — and with Western civilization essentially at war now, it wants answering.
Off the top of my head, I suppose the question breaks down into at least these three subordinate questions:
1) Do my people deserve defending?
2) What are the stakes?
3) If the stakes are high, or (in the worst case) existential, what am I willing to sacrifice?
So: I’ll say yes to 1). (I think Bill would too.)
As for 2), I think the stakes are getting pretty close to existential. (Indeed, what I described as “the arena of reason and dialogue” is itself part of the territory that is under siege.)
So it all boils down to 3). Should we temporarily put aside reason and mercy and justice, if we must, to defeat those who would extinguish reason and mercy and justice? (The question seems related to Bill’s recent series of posts about tolerance of intolerance, and the interpretation of the Constitution.)
My answer: if that’s what it takes, then yes. We owe this to our children’s children, and to those who dedicated their lives (and gave their lives) to build and to safeguard the civilization of which we are now the stewards.
There is also another critically important question, one that I think is logically prior to the others:
4) What constitutes “my people”, and why?
Finally, the most important point of all: any group that can’t confidently answer questions 1) and 4), and that is thereby unable to cohere tightly enough to defend itself against external enemies who can, is doomed.
Or, to put it another way:
If you aren’t prepared to kill, you should be prepared to die.
Comments are welcome.
14 Comments
Well, darn. I was hoping for a different answer to #3.
My principle is, Not only do the ends not justify the means, the means are the ends.
Which is probably why the good guys lose so often. And yet, and yet….
I am reminded of the Algerian civil war in the 1950s. The FLN answered #3 in the affirmative–in spades. The carnage was horrific, and even when on the cusp of independence from France, they redoubled their bloodshed for they ultimately forgot what they were about and for them the violent means had indeed become mere ends. Tragic.
Anyway, thanks for your essay–we need to be thinking about this before events propel us. I came here via WRSA, btw.
Thou shall not MURDER. It doesn’t say a damn thing about KILLING to defend you and yours, and when it comes to that and you must, stand as a man not on fours like a sheep!
@CB….you are correct. Exodus 22:2 “If the thief breaks in at night and you kill him you are not guilty of his blood.” We are just defending life…ours or another’s as the Lord gave us life and murder is evil. God does not compromise with evil…He destroys it.
Hi “Pollywog,”
Here’s the deal with ROE.. “When you kill enough of them, they stop fighting!!” “Ol’ Curt!!” “Curtis Lemay” (My Buddy!!)… My late friend Mike Vanderboegh of “sipsey street irregulars” usedta’ say,”We MUST maintain the moral higher ground……. Trust me, that is history.. go back to my”Curt quote!!” Never mind “Condition white or yellow…. I operate out of Condition ORANGE even in deep sleep… My Cat “Belle Starr” is standing by with the flame thrower, BAZOKA and an old forked stick sling shot with a box of cherry bombs for back up till I get my first cup of coffee!! Ya’ gptta’ be ready!!
skybill
When I was growing up and read about the ROE’s our fighting men had to live with in Vietnam it made my heart hurt.
The thought that some politician sitting in his Air Conditioned office in DC dreamed up ways that we could win the war by being “nice” to our enemies.
How different it looks to be the kid reading about what our troops had to put up with in Vietnam. Then one day I was that troop. Times had changed, after Vietnam how many times did I hear that we would “never again” allow politicians to kill our troops by micro-managing the war. I know of several politicians who personally spoke out about the folly that is the slippery slope of ROE’s.
It did not stop them from dreaming up even worse ones than Vietnam.
As I stood there and had to decide whether to be a good dead soldier or a bad live one, it occurred to me that the well intention-ed politician who dreamed up these oh so nice ROE’s did NOT do it so that the US could win nicely, but so that the US could lose nicely.
It is at that point that my oath to support and defend became more important than that politicians comfee office or political aspirations.
ROE’s be damned, I am an American fighting man and my service to God, Country and Family are more important than ANY ROE.
MSG Grumpy
Interesting comment all! Does anyone know exactly who or whom we are to fight and kill if it comes to it? We know the overall ideology that is our threat, but do we aim for the rabble it sends into our streets or do we find the head(s) of this snake and start there? Killing bad people is one thing. Killing bad ideas is another.
Whitewall, as the man says, we are at WAR. The war is being waged against us Deplorables, especially white Christians, and Black and Hispanics who left the plantation. Who are those attempting to conquer and eliminate us? It’s they who are forcing an invasion of genetically low IQ immigrants while simultaneously destroying the cultural norms that made America exceptional. It’s not hard to figure out who the enemy is. They are smart enough not to use kinetic means of destruction for now. They literally have the high ground and we are being pummeled from multiple fronts. Can we fight back without going kinetic? I don’t know the answer but we don’t have much time to figure it out.
Rules? Their can be zero rules in what’s coming, If you don’t take care of business, THEY will.
Good article.
Dirk Williams
Ed Gage,
Thank you for your comment. (Thanks to the rest of you also.)
I was hoping for a different answer to #3 as well. That’s why I put so much emphasis on the stakes, and used words like “if we must”.
You can’t set a good example, fight for your principles, change things for the better, or preserve what’s best in the world, if you and everyone else who instantiates the values and principles you care about are dead, and everything you stood for has been erased from the world.
So the trick is to see clearly where matters stand from moment to moment, and adjust the ROE as needed. How severe and immediate is the threat? What is at risk? How might the enemy be defeated?
All of this must be balanced against the moral corrosion of hatred and ruthlessness. Err too much on the side of caution, though, and all may be lost.
By the way: what’s WRSA? Is it this?
My statement about the ROE’s that we have been inflicted with on the battle field and what we have learned to do so that America can win has more to do with not being seen violating those ROE’s than following them.
This important distinction should not be lost on Americans outside of the declared battle space. Just in case someone has had their head stuck in the sand for the last decade – Those same ROE’s that intend to insure that America will LOSE nicely and that The good American soldiers will die as expected in order to protect the enemy, now apply to ALL Americans and ALL of America, be they in “peaceful” areas or be they in war torn areas.
The ROE’s apply.
If you doubt me, then look at the result if you try to say that the latest terror attack was an Islamic attack against America. Even if the attack was performed by a self avowed Islamist. And even if he was screaming for all the world to hear that he is killing Americans for Islam, it will make no difference to the level of condemnation that you and anyone who dares to associate with you will receive.
The ROE’s have been set and we as Americans have a choice, we can resist or we can follow the ROE’s and loose nicely.
These are two of my favorite sayings:
1. To find out who rules over you,
simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
2. Your actions speak so loud I can’t hear a word you are saying.
MSG Grumpy
Malcolm, I’m betting this is it: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Yes, Robert, that was it. (Thank you.) A blog called Western Rifle Shooters had linked to this post.
I suppose I could say I’m a “Western-rifle shooter” myself (I own one of these, in .44 magnum), so perhaps I should go have a look around over there.
Malcolm, “WRSA” is indeed “westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com”
Your article is linked there, it is how I got here.
And in the coming excitement and endarkenment,
no words will, sadly, be more true than your statement “if you are not prepared to kill, you should be prepared to die”.
Be safe and blessed in the times to come…
Thank you, Grandpa. The same to you.
(I’d say “keep your powder dry”, but I have a feeling the suggestion is unnecessary.)