In our outrage over a stolen election, let’s not lose our humanity


Let me begin by acknowledging the truth that’s as plain as the nose on anyone’s face:  Joe Biden did not win this election.  He – or, rather, his handlers – stole it by fraudulent means.  He will not be a legitimate President of the United States.  Instead, he will be a terminally corrupt representative of a terminally corrupt progressive left-wing ideology, and of the political party representing that ideology in this country.

Biden and his party are likely to do so much damage to the United States during the next four years that we may never recover from it.  Tax-and-spend, no-taxes-but-spend-anyway, bail out the profligate, spendthrift Democratic-Party-controlled states, admit millions of illegal aliens who can be groomed into Democratic-Party-supporting citizens and voters, pack the Supreme Court to render toothless any challenge to their policies, defund many of the core constitutional priorities of our government . . . the list is almost endless.  We’re in for all of it, and I dread the prospect.

Nevertheless, a large part of the American people know what’s happened, and they’re determined to do something about it.  I won’t be surprised to see violence break out very shortly, and probably grow as the clash of ideologies becomes a war over our nation’s soul.  My wife wrote earlier about what we saw and heard on Saturday morning.  That’s far from an isolated incident, and not just here in Texas, but in many other states as well.  We’ve heard from friends who are preparing to abandon everything they’ve worked for in Democratic-Party-controlled states, and flee to other states where the mob (and corrupt, perennially greedy politicians) won’t try to rob them blind and ride roughshod over their civil rights.  It’s now a national issue, and getting larger by the day.

I had a conversation yesterday with a friend, a combat veteran of considerable experience.  He and others are said to be preparing to start patrolling the southern border together, in the hope of turning back illegal aliens that would otherwise be welcomed with open arms by the future Biden administration.  They appear to be determined to interdict drug smugglers, human traffickers, and other human trash that seeks to use the border region as a highway to the heart of America.

I asked him how he and his friends proposed to stop the human wave that’s already piling up along the border.  After all, simply telling them to go back won’t do much.  Even if they do so when challenged, they’ll be back.

His answer was short, simple, and brutal.  “We plan to shoot the ****ers.”

I blinked.  “But they’ve done nothing to harm you, or offer any threat to you.  How can you just shoot them?”

“They’re invading my country, and bringing drugs and crime with them.  That makes them the enemy.  Doesn’t matter who they are – they’re illegals.  They got nothing coming.”

“Are you telling me you’d line up your sights on a six-year-old girl, crossing the border with her mother, and shoot her because of the sins of other illegals?”

He shrugged coldly.  “They’re an invading army.  Doesn’t matter if they’re male or female, old or young, whatever.  They’re committing a crime just by coming across the border illegally, and if enough of them get here, they’re going to destroy our country.  That makes them criminals, and we’re going to treat them that way.  They deserve all they’re going to get.”

Nothing I could say could change his mind.  He’s focused on a problem, and sees only one way to eliminate it – and to hell with ethical and moral considerations.  He was genuinely shocked when I told him that the moment he acted on what he’d said to me, he’d be just as much a murderer as any other killer.  He accused me of having “gone soft”, of taking my faith so far that I wouldn’t just turn the other cheek, I’d let our enemies cut it off (despite my extensive track record, which he knows, of dealing with unlawful, unjustified aggression in a rather less passive way).  I think our friendship, which has lasted through many years, is probably at an end.

This is a classic example of the moral dilemma that violence always brings with it.  I wrote about it after the Bataclan massacre in 2015, and mentioned it again the other day in another context.

To me, the worst [aspect of violent conflict] is what it does to the human psyche.  You become dehumanized.  Your enemies are no longer people – they’re objects, things, targets.  You aren’t shooting at John, whose mother is ill, and who’s missing his girlfriend terribly, and who wants to marry her as soon as he can get home to do so.  You’re shooting at that enemy over there, the one who’ll surely ‘do unto you’ unless you ‘do unto him’ first.  He’s not a human being.  He’s a ‘gook’.  He’s ‘the enemy’.  He’s a thing rather than a person.  It’s easier to shoot a thing than it is a person … You no longer think of civilians as such.  They’re in enemy territory, or known to be sympathetic to the enemy:  therefore, they’re ‘things’, suspects, never to be trusted, never to be treated objectively or with anything other than the forced, mandatory legal definition of ‘decency’ imposed by your superiors . . . and even that becomes flexible when those superiors aren’t around to monitor what you’re doing.

My erstwhile friend has become the living embodiment of this dilemma.  When I asked him whether he’d “line up your sights on a six-year-old girl, crossing the border with her mother, and shoot her because of the sins of other illegals”, his answer was that he would.  That child was no longer a human child to him, but a symbol of the invasion of his country.  She’d been dehumanized in his mind.  It horrified me that he could calmly admit that, and not turn a hair.  To him, killing her would be no more than “collateral damage” in the effort to save his country.

I’m seeing the same callousness in talk about shooting this, or that, or the other politician, or activist, or members of a given organization.  If someone has shown themselves to be an enemy of our Republic, and a traitor to our constitution, then they should undoubtedly pay a price for that;  but if we set ourselves up as judge, and jury, and executioner, we give others license to do exactly the same to us.  That’s what the Golden Rule is all about.  I don’t see how any Christian, at least, can persuade themselves that it’s moral to do that.

I’m entirely in agreement that there needs to be resistance to the progressive coup d’état that electoral fraud during the November 2020 elections has brought about.  I have no objection to the guilty parties being brought to justice.  However, let’s make sure that it’s the guilty who suffer punishment.  As they have sown, so let them reap.  Let their criminal and morally evil actions be their judge – not our opinion of their politics.  Otherwise, we make ourselves as much an enemy of our constitution and laws – not to mention our moral and ethical foundation – as they are.

  • If someone tries to pass, or votes for, or tries to enforce, laws, rules and regulations that violate our constitution;
  • If someone is complicit in electoral fraud, resulting in the theft of political office(s);
  • If someone rides roughshod over the rights of others, behaving like a tinpot dictator instead of a constitutionally limited official;
  • Then “let them be anathema”, as the old term puts it.  Let them be judged according to their actions – but not their politics.
Actions speak louder than words.  In a court of law (proper, objective law, that is) one is not convicted of a crime merely by one’s thoughts or words.  One is convicted because one has done something wrong.  To apply any lesser standard is to arrogate to ourselves the right to judge other’s thoughts or words as criminal – precisely what they’re trying to do to us.  Two wrongs don’t make one right.

Let us never forget the warning delivered by Friedrich Nietzsche more than a century ago.

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.  And when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

His warning came horrifyingly true for Nazi Germany and its adherents.  It’s been true for almost every extremist regime, group and individual in history.  I speak from bitter personal experience when I assure you that his warning remains prescient for us today.



  1. Something to keep in mind. Everyone's personal data on parler was apparently scooped up because the system allowed "users" to have administrative privileges. Run silent, run deep. This means one does not mouth off on the internet either.

  2. "we give others license to do exactly the same to us."

    Which they have done. The last four years have involved assaults and assassination attempts against people for the crime of being conservative, a Trump supporter, or just not wanting their business looted and burned to the ground. People are being stripped of their ability to make a living by the left – not just antifa, or blm, but with the full support and encouragement of supposed 'moderate' democrats. At this point we need to accept that we're at war, and act like it. That doesn't mean start killing children, but it does mean that the time for the niceties we've observed is over.

    I do not, can not, and will not support harming children, but I'll believe those who say they want me and mine dead, and won't shed a tear when they start getting it back.

  3. @Unknown: You're right, but I think running scared from that is playing into the enemy's hands. They'd like nothing better than to shut up everybody they oppose.

    I think, if we're trying to be a voice of reason and not espouse, promote or encourage violence, we should go on doing that. It's very important to show that not all opponents of the status quo are knuckle-dragging rednecks who want to lash out whenever and wherever they can. I daresay most of those who read this blog don't fall under that heading, either.

    As for those who are pro-violence . . . all I can say is, on their own heads be their internet exposure. Opsec is a vital concept (look it up), and far too many people appear to be ignoring it.

  4. I doubt that shooting children will be an issue on the southern border. After a few months of the Left going all-out to destroy their enemies here, the US economy will be ruined and the economic migrants will be running for home, because there'll be no work for them to do and no peace for them to do it in. The whole reason people wanted to leave Latin America to work in El Norte was that the USA was rich and not torn by civil strife – that won't be true anymore.

    Besides, your acquaintance's response is just an instance of a general turn to vigilantism, caused by the legal authorities' abandonment of their duty. When people know that the law will not act against criminals, they'll punish the criminals themselves – and while the law can afford to be merciful, individuals can't. You must know this from experience.

  5. I did not we should run scared. My comment "run silent, run deep" and about not mouthing off on the internet was in reference to good opsec and tradecraft.

  6. "I have no objection to the guilty parties being brought to justice. However, let's make sure that it's the guilty who suffer punishment. As they have sown, so let them reap."

    But therein lies the rub, doesn't it? History often shows that to get through to the guilty, one must go through both the innocent and the markedly-less-guilty. To give but one example: nearly all Axis soldiers in WWII weren't slavering demons; the citizenry of their countries even less so. However, to get to the baddies at the top, the far-less-culpable, and the non-culpable below them had to take a beating far out of proportion to what they themselves had done.

  7. There is a distinction to be drawn between moral and necessary.
    In this fallen world, we are often left trying to choose the least of evils.
    And what is the lesser of evils is a topic about which there is little agreement.
    Take labor unions as example that's not a current hot button.
    They're based on using coercion to overcome the prisoners dilemma.
    That makes them evil.
    They sometimes have been necessary, and sometimes have done significantly more good than evil.
    But they are still morally suspect at the best of times.
    Under what circumstances should you join one?

  8. So what should we do besides shoot them? Heck, an illegal gets more money from the Feds and the various states than actual combat veterans.

    Free housing.
    Free money. (Exactly how much did you get from the latest 'stimulus' versus an illegal alien invader? That would be "$600 vs $1800.)
    No worry about prosecution for crimes up to and including murder.
    No worry about paying taxes (except for sales tax, and they get around that by stealing and hijacking.)
    No worry about having to learn English.
    No worry about the actual citizens doing anything mean to them, as the actual citizens are easily cowed.

    I have friends who had their vehicles stolen, their houses robbed, their lives threatened, their people attacked, all by illegal aliens (including packs of feral children) meanwhile the AUTHORITIES are tying the hands of the FREE CITIZENS from doing anything.

    Fortify your property with broken glass or razor wire or anything else? That's a no-bueno according to the authorities.

    Destroy caches of food and water (often helpfully put in place by leftist retards running 'compassionate ministries') and other stashes? No, that's illegal according to the authorities.

    Call in a credible tip to your local authorities about illegals? Ignored.

    Call in a credible 911 call due to criminal activity by illegals? Ignored, unless you defend yourself, then the Authorities will charge you.

    Some parts of Texas are safe. Others? Not so much. Same in Arizona. New Mexico is lost, so is California.

    And now? How much money will the new government spend on destroying The Wall?

    So, yeah, time is past shooting. I agree with your friend.

    Think I'm wrong? Well, what would Mexico do if we all decided to crash into their country? Or Cuba? Or Honduras? Or even Canada?

    Sorry, as much as being nice is a nice thing, and being compassionate is a good thing, being too nice and too compassionate does nothing but get your figurative (or literal) throat cut.

  9. Things have gone too far too talk them over, and work them out.

    Like Israel and terrorists, after so many attempts, you just build a wall, and shoot the ones that climb over, on sight.

    We're there with progressives.
    There's no hue and cry from anywhere on their side about the knowingly stolen election. They're exactly as cool with it as Germans were with Kristallnacht.

    We're not waiting for things to get that bad here, or until we're eating zoo animals, like in Venezuela, because the economy is in shambles and there's no food on the shelves.

    They've sown the wind, and the reaping the whirlwind part is about to kick in in earnest, because they WANT it to happen, and think they're going to "win".

    They've openly talked about round-ups, camps, re-education, and wanting to eliminate, liquidate, and terminate their political opponents: Us. They want blood.

    Achievement unlocked: Went Full Retard.

    Challenge accepted.

    When 10M, 20M, or more of them are dead, and the country is a shambles, maybe they'll have had enough, and we can try saner ways.
    Or maybe we'll just have to have one side completely exterminated, and work with what's left afterwards.

    I don't know, and I don't care, at this point.
    The only option left is violence, and the harsher the punishment, and the more of them who get killed, the quicker it's over.

    It's Patton's Calculus, using LeMay's Theorem:
    A bloody battle now, that ends the conflict, is better than interminable attrition and dying. And when you kill enough of them, they stop wanting to fight.

    We're. There. Now.

    Standing on the edge of the abyss.
    And the only way out is through it.

    Warm fuzzy thoughts avail us nothing about what we woulda, coulda, shoulda done.

    All that's left to us now is what we must do.

    Doing anything else merely guarantees defeat and greater tragedy for ourselves, and the end of all the liberties we hold dearest. Probably for ages.

    We're willing to call that bet, and we're all in.
    If the other side doesn't fold, the only question is when this kicks off.

    Not why, nor whether.

    Just when.

    Anybody not up to speed on that, hasn't been paying attention thus far, for their whole life.

  10. "If someone has shown themselves to be an enemy of our Republic, and a traitor to our constitution, then they should undoubtedly pay a price for that; but if we set ourselves up as judge, and jury, and executioner, we give others license to do exactly the same to us. That's what the Golden Rule is all about. I don't see how any Christian, at least, can persuade themselves that it's moral to do that."

    They intend to do exactly that to "us". It's OK, I'm not Christian. We will need to kill ALL of them.

  11. If you take justice into your own hands and are of the wrong party, the book will be thrown at you.

    Compare how Trump inauguration rioters got off after lots of support including legal and lodging, with support any on the right gets.

  12. Suppose your friend is right and there is no way to win except by the slaughter of innocents. And suppose he is ultimately successful in his project to restore the American constitutional order. When all is said and done, would we not still have to ask:
    "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

  13. See "patholigical altruism".
    I don't think talking is going to work anymore.
    Many innocent will die. Some guilty will never pay for their crimes.
    Thus it ever has been. But, the whirlwind approaches. I dread the time when it hits.

  14. Both sides are declaring Jihad, Peter. Jihad is exciting, invigorating, and *simple*. No gray areas, not tough decisions. And no need to build, only destroy. Much easier.

    If conservatives really wanted to make an impact, they'd aim their money and resources to support only people and organizations that support their way of life. They would starve the beast. But that's nowhere near as gratifying as buying 30 round mags and Punisher patches for tac vests. Let's be honest and recognize that the heinous and savage actions of our enemies are just as appealing to some of our allies of the moment. As a case in point, how many "Blue Lives Matter" declarers stood by as a capitol police officer was beaten into unconsciousness with a fire extinguisher? How many participated?

    Build something, and I'm in. But if the Vandals come pouring in I'll resist.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *