Yes, Violence Can be the Answer

By Selwyn Duke

It was the body slam heard around the world.  When some Australian schoolboys decided to videotape themselves bullying 15-year old Casey Heynes, one of them got more than he bargained for.  Casey, who had been pushed around and humiliated for years, responded to a punch in his face and other attempted blows by hoisting his tormentor WWE style and introducing him to the pavement.  The result was a video that went viral in a way the bullies had never imagined and for a reason they certainly had never hoped: Casey has become a hero worldwide.

That is, a hero to everyone except the “experts.”  Ah, the experts, uncommon people you can rely on for all-too-common senselessness.  As The Sydney Morning Herald writes:

[P]olice and bullying experts are concerned by…the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the older boy's retaliation against his attacker.

"We don't believe that violence is ever the answer," Mr Dalgleish [John Dalgleish, head of research at Kids Helpline and Boys Town] says. "We believe there are other ways that children can manage this."

Yes, Casey could have done a ‘50s-style duck-and-cover.  Hey, kid, don’t you know you should just cower and curl up into a ball?  And, for sure, violence is never the answer…except with the Nazis, Mussolini, and Napoleon; during the American Revolution, the Barbary Wars, and the Battle of Tours; and when stopping the criminals during the North Hollywood Shootout, University of Texas Tower Shooting, and incidents every single day in which someone, somewhere uses physical force to thwart a crime.  It’s never the answer—except, sometimes, when you actually have to deal with reality.

It’s hard to say what is more irritating about the “Violence is never the answer” nonsense, the stupidity or the insincerity of it.  It’s much like the mantra “Our strength lies in our diversity.”  It’s something people say because it’s a repeated big lie that has become “truth” and is politically correct; it’s a reflexive platitude uttered politician-like because that’s what “experts” are expected to say.  But if Mr. Dalgleish’s wife or child is attacked on the street, will he not find violence a very good answer? 

Perhaps he’ll take the advice of another expert, child psychologist Susan Bartell, and find some other way to “manage” it.  When analyzing Casey’s response, she said, “A better course of action…would have been for him to walk away.  Would have been for him to immediately take the power away from the bully, who was punching him in the face, and just run away, walk away….”  “Take the power away from the bully….”  Good psychobabble that.  Lady, Casey did take the power away from the bully by making sure the bully couldn’t walk away. 

The problem today is that we elevate experts above wise men.  And one of the signs of a decaying civilization is when those in authority prescribe unrealistic rules for the population, rules that they themselves would never, and could never, follow.  As to this, here is the rest of Dr. Bartell’s advice: “…walk away, and go and find the principal, the guidance counselor, teacher and tell them what had just happened to him.  Because those adults are really in a position to stop a child who is a bully….”

Again, this is ideology; it’s what she learned to say in psychology class.  And let’s apply this to the adult world.  If Mr. Dalgleish tried to “manage” an attack on his child by walking away and finding a police officer, the help he’d need might be in the area of forensic medicine.  And even if he were alone, it’s not always possible to walk away.  This is why billions of dollars are made off self-defense classes.

Another bit of obligatory-utterance advice offered by psychologist Bartell is the nonsense that “those adults [school officials] are really in a position to stop a child who is a bully.”  What bunk.  It’s hard to even call these adults authority figures anymore, as handcuffed by the law and their own ideology as they are.  These are people who think that “punishment” is a dirty word and a “time out” is enough to forestall dirty deeds.  And, even insofar as they may possess a hidden firm hand, they’re too shackled by education’s “rules of engagement” and the fear of lawsuits to exercise it.  Why do you think educators have, outrageously, sometimes responded to a bullied pupil by telling him to leave school?  The truth is that the only time punishment doesn’t fail to measure up to the behavior today is when a student violates a code of political correctness, such when a little boy doodles a gun on a piece of paper, gives a willing six-year-old girl a peck on the cheek or politely holds open a school door for an adult.  As far as real transgressions go, however, it’s see, hear and speak no evil; keep your head down; and punch the time clock.

And all you have to do is ask Casey.  A nice, extremely articulate boy, as this interview shows, he had been bullied virtually every day for many years now.  And where were the “adults”?  Perhaps they didn’t know—and for sure they didn’t act.  Either way, they were incompetent and guilty of a grave sin of omission.  And the kicker is that, after failing to secure a safe environment for their students, these educators turn around and tell the kids that they also may not save themselves.  They’ll say that “violence is never the answer” and then punish the victim the same as the victimizer.  But would they want to be subject to the same standard?  If they’re assaulted on the street, perhaps they should go to prison for as long as the assailant.  I mean, it takes two to tango, right?

And understand that this is the gun-control mentality, the mind-set that disempowers the people.  It’s much as during Hurricane Katrina.  Like declawing a cat and then throwing him to the wolves, the New Orleans police confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens while doing nothing about the roving gangs that would prey upon those citizens (hey, gangs might actually shoot back).  

As for law enforcement, while I generally defend cops, they’re much the same as school administrators.  They make the same politically correct statements, such as saying they’re “concerned” about the support for Casey’s actions or responding to an obvious anti-white “hate crime” by claiming that they’re unsure of the motive.  They will tell citizens not to take matters into their own hands and instead call the proper authorities, yet, when people do the latter, they find that they sometimes end up like the gun-doodling little boy.  (There recently was a New Jersey case in which a social worker called the police because she was worried that her son might be suicidal, and the man ended up being arrested and going to prison for possession of legally obtained firearms.) 

So we’re not supposed to take the law into our own hands even though, increasingly, the law isn’t handling things.  Students have to deal with do-nothing teachers and citizens with do-the-wrong-thing cops, and we’re supposed to lay down our fists and arms and have confidence in the powers-that-be?

And this brings me back to violence never solving anything.  If the Dalgleishes of the world really believed this, they would dissolve the military and trade the police for social workers.  But it’s not surprising that people famous for situational values (i.e., liberals) would also subscribe to situational pacifism.  If a criminal resists arrest, they will expect the cops to use violence to apprehend him; moreover, they will actually relish it, I’m sure, if some miscreant is imperiling them.  And this is fine.  But here is what isn’t fine: saying that what is often valid for people inside government is never valid for people outside government.  Their real message is that violence is never the answer—for the subjects.  It’s just peachy for the state, though.   

And this way lies tyranny.  There is a balance to things, and as citizen courage wanes government power inevitably waxes.  G.K. Chesterton spoke of this phenomenon, writing, “[T]he Pretorian guard became more and more important in Rome as Rome became more and more luxurious and feeble.  The military man gains the civil power in proportion as the civilian loses the military virtues.”  And when pondering this, I think of the parents who called the police to deal with an unruly prepubescent child.  Like so many today, perhaps spanking was anathema to them as “violence is never the answer.”  But it was the answer.  All their weakness did is ensure that the government would become the agent of it.

The reality is that, like amputation and many other unpleasant things, physical force has its place.  After all, to paraphrase Chesterton, violence is not the best way to settle differences.  Sometimes, however, it is the only way to prevent them from being settled for you.

                       This article was first published at American Thinker

                              © 2011 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Pascal Fervor]

Funny, how it is these arbiters for non-violence will punish those who defend themselves. Typical school official will begin "I don't care who started it," and then punish both aggressor and defender alike. Punishment will come in some form, from being denied participation in activities to full expulsion.

Uh -- how is that enforced? Indeed, what does the word enforce imply? Now your seeming hypocritical adversaries might claim that the authorities have that right. The fools in charge may not know it is the social contract that underpins their authority, but you do. When they fail to protect all those under their authority, they are not performing their function, and should be fired forthwith for non-performance of their duties.

This is long overdue Selwyn. "You're fired for non-performance" doesn't quite have the right ring to it for a battle cry. "We're tired; You're fired!" is better, but not explicit enough. What do you think Selwyn? The system is corrupted and in dire need of reform. You obviously know this. How about adding your own thoughts in this direction.

[Philip France]

I do not claim to speak on behalf of Mr. Duke (whose articles improve exponentially with every posting - thank you) but how about echoing the rant of the News anchor from the old movie "Network" when he declared, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore!".

We, the clear-headed, the thoughtful, those of us who understand individual liberty, personal responsibility and civil mutuation with others are being shoved into tiny boxes by odious, Lilliputian, leftist/fascist weaklings who are incorrect about EVERY socio-political issue of our time.

[Pascal Fervor]

Indeed, today in particular Mr. Duke does a fine job. He provoked in me the thought that fundamentally these authoritarians are illegitimate because they are long in violation of their contract.

I'm glad you responded Mr. France, but we are here to hear the further thoughts of Mr. Duke.

The problem with Network's memorable line was that Howard Beale went on to be exploited for it and driven to ruin -- and Hollywood liked that so much they honored Peter Finch with the Oscar posthumously. The Agency of Lies (aka MSM) already hounds the TEA party for being the living essence of that slogan.

Even we the clear headed need reminding of the social contract so we may inform our ill-educated brothers of how illegitimate these bums are. If we are shoved into tiny boxes, it is because we are not schooled in building blocs as have been the Left. Those weaklings used to buckle when our grandparents got angry -- the old Progressives knew when to back off (2 steps forward one step back was their incremental dance). The current crop are too stupid and arrogant to back off. They are sorely in need of discouragement.

[Philip France]

Dear Paschal,

What do you predict happens when they get their way? They are oh-so-close with a committed unbeliever in our highest office.

While we the clear-headed are fitted for leashes and chains and fed Alpo (if at all) will they then turn on each other because of the disparities of their pet interests? What will the homosexuals say when the radical Moslems gain a stronghold? What will the "greens" say when there is no more capitalism to fund their programs? Who will the Marxists attack once they have purged Judeo/Christianity from national dialog? Is it not inevitable that they will turn on each other?

Perhaps we men should grow our beards and get used to the idea of faking our prayers five times a day for a while. Perhaps we should equip our wives and our daughters with sharpened bamboo spears to hide under their burqas while these disparate interests that are currently united against a common enemy that is in reality their only true friend - you and me.

They have organized evil on their side while we have a very divided sense of truth. I trust and believe Holy Scripture as to how this all ends and I know that the good guys win. The question is, will it take the events of the apocalypse or can we rally now to restore what should be plain and simple to every human being?

Blessings,

PMF

[Pascal Fervor]

Thanks. Blessings to you as well. We're gonna need 'em.

It has always troubled me how the "non-believers" appear to be attempting to follow the script laid out in scripture. I put that in quotes because I think a handful of them DO believe he exists, but want the rest of us not to believe. They seek to challenge Him, in an insane game of "King of the Hill."

The words of Ex17 tells us God will have war from Amalek generation to generation. This is the only "man" God so calls out in such a manner in all of scripture. God knows such men will war WITH Him, and predicts it is an ever renewed war. Thus Amalek is not ONLY an ancient sub-tribe, but the label for the most arrogant men who adopt the desire to challenges Him.

See the challenge as an allegory laid out in the Garden story. Eve succumbed to the serpent's appeal to her ego "to be as God." Until she lost paradise, she had no idea how grateful she should have been. How many have since regretted: "But for that single transgression, the blessings of Paradise was lost." Our arrogant rulers are not satisfied that THEY are not God, and for that impossible dream they would visit on all the rest of us the nightmare of Armageddon. And they will if we fail to stop them.

Who would believe you to be "clear headed" when you try explain this renewed challenge for what it is? You will be called a loon of course.

Our technological advances could provide another paradise but for these arrogant men who simply must play God. But the ones we must fight are not out in the open. Plato said they would only be seen as shadows on the wall as taught them by the Sophists. Most of all we see are but their vast squads of deputy useful idiots, and it is their eyes we must try to open so we have less of them to fight. Dezombify the zombies.

Surely you have noticed we have lived in the period of the gradual redefining of morality. It amounts to innocence having been redefined to mean "deemed useful."

The useful idiots do not believe themselves immoral because they've in the redefined morality and have labeled ours "defunct." Hence the challenge to God. Should He fail to materialize as prophesied, the demigods will claim to have proved He does not exist. Who then would limit their hubris?

Some of us know what is being forced is wrong, and try to warn our brothers. But the headstrong -- I call them monsters at my blog for reasons I've barely hinted at here -- want us silenced because the scriptures tells them they need us all to be corrupted.

No, as you know, it is not a pretty picture. It should be obvious what is afoot. But most I've met refused to look -- until recently. I've written Too Late? and Too Late? Part 2 to show how little and how late those in the public eye have been.

I sense it is our duty to try to forestall the final conflict. Since the demigods want this challenge, you and I are in their crosshairs.

[Pascal Fervor]

Selwyn:
Sorry for the error. The phrase highlighted below was wiped out when I hit delete or something. I failed to notice until after hitting submit. (Is there a way to increase the size of your review window?)

The useful idiots do not believe themselves immoral because they've been indoctrinated to believe in the redefined morality and have labeled ours "defunct."

Please delete this errata sheet if you believe it worth fixing in the original.

[Richard]

Richard Gale's mistake, other than picking on a gentle giant, was having a friend film the attack. That shows premeditation and ambush. Casey is an articulate young man and Richard Gale looks and talks like an inbred idiot. The little **** is also an obvious liar - well he got schooled. Ooohrah!

I was bullied a bit from elementary school through high school. Nothing as bad as Casey. I think it was for a combination of reasons. One, like Casey I didn't have many friends and wasn't part of the popular clique and two, bullies happen and do pick on the loners. I remember on POS who chose off on me in high school. He thought he was all that because he was on the wrestling team; it meant he felt physically superior even though he was a bit smaller than me, and it meant he had his teammates behind him whenever he started in in case things didn't go his way. I noticed Richard Gale had backups too. The little **** is almost Islamic in his cowardice and dishonesty. I still recall with great satisfaction the day I stood up to my high school bully. He started off by getting in my face and insulting me to entertain his friends, per usual. Only this time I told him to **** himself and got right back in his face. He grabbed me and tried to wrestle. We briefly went to the ground and I got myself up ready to pound the daylights out of him and he had disappeared. Like magic - he was just gone. Probably hiding behind the keg in a pair of wet pants.

I've recently discovered my highschool classes reunion web page and from his profile I see my bully went on the JC and couldn't even get an AA out of the 13th grade. He describes himself now as a landscape architect. Except it takes a real degree to be an architect. That means I guess that at the age of 50 Derek is still mowing people's lawns for a living. Epic fail.

[Richard]

Richard Gale's mistake, other than picking on a gentle giant, was having a friend film the attack. That shows premeditation and ambush. Casey is an articulate young man and Richard Gale looks and talks like an inbred idiot. The little shit is also an obvious liar - well he got schooled. Ooohrah!

I was bullied a bit from elementary school through high school. Nothing as bad as Casey. I think it was for a combination of reasons. One, like Casey I didn't have many friends and wasn't part of the popular clique and two, bullies happen and do pick on the loners. I remember one POS who chose off on me in high school. He thought he was all that because he was on the wrestling team; it meant he felt physically superior even though he was a bit smaller than me, and it meant he had his teammates behind him whenever he started in in case things didn't go his way. I noticed Richard Gale had backups too. The little shit is almost Islamic in his cowardice and dishonesty. I still recall with great satisfaction the day I stood up to my high school bully. He started off by getting in my face and insulting me to entertain his friends, per usual. Only this time I told him to screw himself and got right back in his face. He grabbed me and tried to wrestle. We briefly went to the ground and I got myself up ready to pound the daylights out of him and he had disappeared. Like magic - he was just gone. Probably hiding behind the keg in a pair of wet pants.

I've recently discovered my highschool reunion web page and from his profile I see my bully went on the JC and couldn't even get an AA out of the 13th grade. He describes himself now as a landscape architect. Except it takes a real degree to be an architect. That means I guess that at the age of 50 Derek is still mowing people's lawns for a living. Epic fail.