You can’t study history without wondering, in each chapter of government genocide against innocent people, where was the line where violence on the part of the innocent people was the right answer to government tyranny? Where could such violence carried out in self-defense, in other words, actually have saved lives and ended democide?
When Germans were exterminating the Jews, where was that tipping point beyond which Jews were justified in killing German soldiers?
When Mao launched his Cultural Revolution, at what point were its victims justified in killing the murderous communist foot soldiers who were exterminating their political opposition, block by block, city by city?
Along the same lines of ethical warfare, wasn’t it reasonable for French Revolution soldiers in World War II to kill German soldiers who were occupying their country? Wasn’t it simultaneously ethical for French Revolution members to bomb train tracks, use high explosives against German installations, and poison every German soldier they could reach?
These are questions of “wartime ethics,” or the morality of using violence to defend the innocent against oppression.
When innocent people are oppressed, violence eventually becomes the right answer to ending the tyranny that oppresses them.
Interestingly, which group in America represents the “oppressed” right now? Which group has been denied the right to speak, the right to seek legal counsel, the right to have their vote fairly counted, the right to pursue their profession in the workplace and the right to exist? That group is, of course, Trump supports (and conservatives / Christians in general). They are the oppressed, and they are being systematically beaten down, defamed, violently attacked, marginalized, slandered and removed from society.
Today I ask the question: At what point do the systematically oppressed have the right to pursue violence against tyranny? I fear we are approaching that tipping point right this very minute, even as Democrats are now moving to disbar 22 of Trump’s attorneys, arguing that Trump has no right to legal representation in the courts in order to make his case of nationwide, coordinated vote fraud.
When you are denied the right to speak (Big Tech censorship), the right to vote (Dominion voting systems theft and fraud), the right to work (workplace discrimination against conservatives), the right to engage in business (big banks banning conservatives like Laura Loomer), the right to legal counsel, the right to exist (AOC’s new “purge” list of conservatives) and the right to even speak publicly on a university campus because of their outright discrimination against conservatives, what option is remaining to the oppressed?
There appears to be only one remaining option, and that option is now very, very close to being triggered nationwide. Meanwhile, those carrying out the oppression claim that their violence is “mostly peaceful,” while demanding that their political opponents never have the right to resort to violence and must accept their enslavement and punishment without resisting.
In this podcast, I explain why, at certain points in human history, violence carried out in the context of self-defense is actually the right answer to tyranny. This is not a call for violence, but rather an exploration of those tipping points in human history where violence in the context of self-defense because not merely the right answer, but the only answer to survive.