Based on the current political conditions that exist in the United States today, one can conclude that it is not only OK to kill Leftists, but it is actually a moral responsibility of a Christian to do so. The righteous Christian should kill Leftists. But why and more importantly, why aren’t we, must be explored? Follow me…
For thousands of years, Christians have explored the necessity of violence as a means to settle matters of humanity. Jesus Christ was by definition a committed pacifist. But could a Christian wage war and still be a Christian? The conclusion of most, but not all Christian scholars, is simply, “yes,” a Christian can engage in war – provided it is for a just cause. Defining a just cause or “Just War” became a theological and philosophical examination into the very heart of the question: what conditions make for a Just War?
As a once young graduate student at Tufts University, we explored this topic in the context of modern terrorism. But we never explored its context from the perspective of the American citizen assaulted. The subject’s applied depth allows us to explore it in the context of a possible Second American Civil War.
Saint Augustine of Hippo explored the question of Just War in his treatise, “City of God.” Written during a time in which the Catholic Church was in its infancy (5th Century) and embroiled in a complex disintegration of Roman authority, Saint Augustine wrote with the clarity of someone witnessing a barbaric reversal of order and the breakdown of existing rule of law. Recognizing that Christians may need to defend themselves with violence, yet simultaneously feel conflicted by the need to kill, Augustine writes: “They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’” (City of God, Book I, Chapter 21)
Approximately eight hundred years later, St. Thomas Aquinas, sets conditions upon what “conformity to laws” may entail.
Thomas comes to the theological conclusion that three conditions should be met:
- War must have a noble goal, such as self-defense or defending a weaker party;
- War must be reserved as a function of the state exclusively;
- The ultimate goal of war must be peace; it is a means to a peaceful end, after all other means have failed.
Whereas one and three are fairly straightforward, the second condition – war as an exclusive tool of the state – leaves great moral challenges. For instance, under such conditions, the American Revolution would be an unjust hostility. Thomas never really explores war as a means to overthrow tyrannical conditions. In fact, whereas Augustine does (seemingly siding with state rule, even when leadership is bad), Thomas’ exploration seems to equivocate between sedition as an unjust reason for violence, while simultaneously leaving open its possible use against an unjust ruler.
Thankfully, a few centuries later, the Jesuits at the School of Salamanca (Spain) further examined the question of Just War. Most likely, they were influenced by their recent experiences with Islam’s conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and the subsequent overthrow of Muslim overlords. They ultimately came to the conclusion that a preventative war can be engaged against a tyrant who is about to attack and/or suppress the Rights of a group of otherwise peaceful people.
This latter point has been explored through the ages to question the legitimacy of revolutions. With few exceptions, instances in which a people are violently assailed as a means to suppress their rights have been considered acceptable provocations to justify violence in both the Protestant and Catholic explorations of the question of Just War. This is the Right of Revolution.
In fact, even the secular United Nations supports the right of human beings to use violence as a means to defend themselves against tyranny when no other recourse is evident and if they are being violently suppressed. In the preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to fight back is codified: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…”
Having laid the groundwork for the acceptability of violence – or war – as a justified response toward oppression, the question now arises: have we gotten to that point.
Yes, we have.
The assault on Richard Spencer was not an isolated incident of violence perpetrated by the Left in an effort to suppress the peaceful expression of Conservative and/or political Right viewpoints. We have now come to a point where the Left has chosen to engage in violence against person and property to suppress the Right. The Left have become tyrannical by definition. There is, consequently, a moral demand to eliminate the threat to our safety and freedoms.
First, let me quickly underscore the differences between the Left and the Right. No one on the Right seeks or has sought any actions that suppress the rights of the Left. That is an important distinction. The political Right is operating within the confines of American Law – as written – when they argue for enforcement. If the Right were to circumvent the law and suppress the Left, they would have a moral argument. But no such circumvention exists.
Thus, when a Leftist argues, “What about the immigrant’s right to stay in the United States? Should they not fight back?” The logical response should be simple: “There is no threat to the legal immigrant of the United States. There is no one advocating any threat to their peaceful continuance. The only ‘threat’ is to the illegal alien who has broken the law by their very presence on American sovereign soil and they will be humanely but justly removed from the soil they violated.”
When a Leftist argues, “What about LGBT Rights? They are being infringed.” The logical answer is simple, “No, they are not.” And follow-up with a demand, “Point to the rights that are being infringed!”
When a Leftist argues, “The Laws are one-sided against Black people! We must assault conservatives.” The logical answer again points to a simple question, “Where? Show me the laws that are specifically anti-Black… anti-Brown… anti-Asian… etc.”
By contrast, the political Right can point to very specific examples in which their freedoms of conscience are under direct assault and physical violence against person or property has been engaged to compel the Conservative to comply with Leftist demands.
More than two-dozen Police Officers were killed in multiple cities by Black militants in the past two years.
Discriminatory laws against Christian conscience (Requirements to recognize gay marriage; provide abortifacients) and White people (Affirmative Action) exist on the books.
Peacefully assembled Conservatives have been violently assaulted as they spoke their mind or listened to their respective spokespeople.
Consequently, whereas the Left meets NONE of the moral conditions to engage in violence, they have done so. Meanwhile, the Right has met all of the conditions for morally acceptable retaliatory violence and has kept their collective fists in their pockets.
They are under no obligation to remain pacifistic. We now find ourselves here. It is no longer a matter of “if” we should fight back, but when. More importantly, understanding that we are now in a situation whereby violent extremists from the Left threaten the very existence of the political Right, does the Right not have a moral obligation to fight back in the only manner capable of ensuring their collective survival? Should they not kill to avoid being killed?
I believe they can – if they so choose – and they will have the moral high ground in such an approach.
Is it OK to kill a Leftist? The Thomistic moral answer is yes.
This week, after Richard Spencer was physically assaulted while peaceably speaking his mind on a street corner in Washington, DC, the Left’s reaction was mixed from condemnation of violence to a full celebration of the incident. That opened a debate: “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?” Whereas some Leftists disagreed, many on the Left agreed. In fact, one unscientific online poll showed nearly 5-to-1 support for “punching a Nazi.”
Whereas I disagree with some of that which Richard Spencer says, I firmly believe he has the right to peacefully express his opinions. But there is a broader question that the Left’s philosophical path toward violence opens up: “What constitutes a Nazi?”
The political Left has essentially gotten to the point at which all non-Leftists are immediately “Nazis.” If you are Conservative, you are also a racist, and therefore a Nazi who SHOULD be shut-down. Everyone from Milo Yiannopoulos (an outspoken gay, Libertarian who dates Black men) to David Duke have been lumped into the same bin. This indiscriminate labeling of all Conservatives as Nazis – to include Libertarians – is a direct threat to their lives.
Enter Donald J. Trump.
Trump is not a Nazi… not even close. He is an old fashioned American Nationalist in the same vein as Theodore Roosevelt. There are almost no policies shared between Trump and the Nazis. But ask a Leftist and they will say he is. One need only listen to MSNBC’s description of President Trump’s Inaugural Address to conclude that Trump is a Nazi. That is a major problem. Why? Because it infers that Trump’s voters – the 63 Million American CITIZENS that voted for Trump – are by extension, also Nazis.
In that context, all of them are “OK to punch.”
Recognizing that the Left has now reached a point of physical violence in their ideological arc, the Right needs to finally come to grips with the reality that ANYONE who espouses a Conservative viewpoint may be subject to assault. As such, is it time to weigh the contra-argument: is it OK to kill a Leftist?
There has not been a single verified assault by a Trump supporter or “Rightwinger” on a Leftist or Minority. Not One!
The “assaults” at Trump rallies it turned out were coordinated provocations by the DNC and certain mainstream media outlets.
The supposed post-election assaults on Minorities? Every single one – every one – was proven to be a false report by local police stations around the country leading to dozens of arrests.
But the Left has certainly assaulted us.
It is important to note that the end goal of the political Left is the removal of freedoms, such as speech and religion, which they coin “negative freedoms.” The goal is designed to suppress your rights as a means to achieve harmony. The Left argues that true global peace requires uniformity of the masses, to include thought. This is a nonnegotiable end-game for the Left. Thus, any questioning of their assumptions, whether it be climate change, gay marriage, or gun control becomes one in which your dissenting opinion is not merely an intellectual exercise; you become a moral threat that must be removed.
The political Right simply thinks the Left is an illogical nuisance; the political Left believes the Right must be eviscerated.
Consequently, because the Left despises Free Speech, they attack our property… our persons… they violently assault peacefully assembled Republicans.
At what point does the Right say, “Enough!” And begin fighting back? When do we begin shooting? When do we begin destroying THEIR property… THEIR people peacefully assembled?
Morally, it is now time. The time has come to fight back physically, because the intellectual barrier between peaceful protester and physical confrontation has been broken. The Left has accepted the premise that they must violently assault the Right. The Right has no choice but to come to the same conclusion.
Think of it this way: if someone punches you in the nose, you are in a fight… whether you like it or not.
We are in a fight… for survival.
The Left made that abundantly clear during their violent assaults on Trump rallies in the early part of the election. They proved it with their near universal support for an assault on Richard Spencer less than a week ago.
Since the rule of law has now clearly evaporated in a country within which a Leftist can violently assault anyone with impunity, it is imperative to take action. In fact, it is necessary in order to ensure the safety and security of our basic Rights, that Conservatives and their Right-leaning allies must take measures into their own hands.
The question is not whether it is moral. It is moral to fight back.
The question is not whether it is going to happen. It will happen.
The question now remains: who on the political Right will fire that first shot?
***NOTE: this article is an exercise of intellectual discourse on the path toward political violence and does not advocate unprovoked violence against anyone***