American Shitshow: Self Defense and Self Preservation

You are a baron, to the manor born. It’s a pretty cushy gig. Your great-grandfather did most of the heavy lifting, fighting for the guy who subsequently took over the country, and getting control of a nice slice of land for his trouble. It’s not a lot of land, but it’s enough to provide you with an income that lets you hang out with other nobles, drinking, gambling, whoring, the usual stuff. Maybe you do some plotting on the side, or develop a hobby in horse breeding or some other gentlemanly pursuit.

But theoretically, you still have certain obligations. You got this barony at the point of a battle axe, and it might come to that again. You’re responsible for it, for protecting it, paying some taxes on occasion, and for giving service when the big guy asks for it.

The problem is that it is filled with peasants. Someone has to grow the grain and cattle you tax, but unfortunately, when they’re not occupied they like to drink and fight almost as much as you do. It’s not uncommon for someone to get bonked in the head or stabbed in the eye.

This is not good for business, and it’s even worse for your free time when the dead guy’s relatives come to you demanding “justice” and you’re supposed to figure out which ugly peasant is “responsible” instead of worrying about if they’re going to have the good wine at the party next week. So you try to make things simple for yourself. Getting in a fight gets you sent to the stocks, or hanged if you keep at it for long enough. Easy! I don’t care who started it, I want it quiet back there or I swear I’m turning this car around!

Which is all well and good for the modal tavern brawl, but then someone points out that just last week a gang of brigands kicked in some elderly widower’s cottage door and almost made off with everything he owned before he plugged one of them with a carving knife. That guy pays his taxes, no point in hanging him, and it’s still a pretty simple rule. Kick in someone’s door and you get what’s coming to you, no one can complain about that.

Then someone points out that the Royal Road runs right through town, and before said brigands stopped for some burglary they came down the highway robbing people at swordpoint. Simple John clubbed one of them over the head in lieu of giving up his purse, and what do you want us to do with him? Fine, John always pays on time, would be a waste to make an example of him when those are your taxes he was defending anyway. Hm, defending. A sort of, “self defense”?

Everything ultimately flows from this. In practical terms, like much else in common law, the point of “self defense” as codified is to keep things running smoothly so taxes get paid on time, you don’t waste more taxpayers than you need to, and you encourage a modicum of the sort of social stability that keeps things out of court in the first place.

That assumes, however, that your rulers are trying to keep things calm and profitable. When they are trying to do the opposite, for instance by literally bailing violent pedophiles out of mental hospitals so they can assist in burning down adjacent towns, the idea that “self defense” as a legal construction will be allowed to mediate the outcome is absurd. They want peasants in a ditch and cities on fire. “Self defense” magically becomes contrary to state policy when the state wants you dead and the mob given “space to destroy”. Hence putting out fires is a “provocation”, and an armed mob trying to at a minimum smash in your face is a group of heroes, selflessly serving the state. Your attempt to resist them proves your guilt and gives them the right to kill you on the state’s behalf.

But none of this theory actually changes the practical situation in the instant of conflict. “Natural law” types will scoff at the Schmittian reading of self defense as a mere policy tool to advance state goals, and say instead that it is a practical accommodation of the fact that in the moment, a man would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. In other words, you simply cannot stop a man from defending himself when he is at the point of death (what are you gonna do, hang him six months later?), so there is no purpose in punishing it. The implication of criminalizing true self defense isn’t that the self preservation instinct goes away, but that it acquires a dimension of protecting oneself from the state as well.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s fundamental mistake was that he didn’t realize he was in a fight, and he didn’t realize it was with the state. He assumed that he could go and scrub graffiti, offer medical aid, and douse fires, and all he had to worry about was a few goons jumping him out of inchoate anger, at which point he could produce the rifle and drive them away without actual violence. He didn’t realize he was dealing with hardened felons licensed by the state to murder him, and he didn’t realize he needed a plan to “get away with” basic assistance to his community.

What does a Rittenhouse aiming for self preservation do differently?

First, he knows who his friends are, and brings them with. When caught alone, he very nearly died, attacked from behind. He volunteered, selflessly but not wisely, to protect a car dealership owned by an Arab he was barely familiar with, and was betrayed by him for his efforts (“Binger, I know him not”). Had Rittenhouse traveled with a group of trusted friends, he likely wouldn’t have been attacked in the first place, and would have in any event been in a much better position to accomplish anything he wanted to do.

Second, he isn’t on video. Every high profile media-political persecution after Zimmerman has relied on cinematic video “evidence” (and even Zimmerman had audio). Yes, the video completely exonerates Rittenhouse – that’s not the point. Without visual propaganda the media can edit, mischaracterize, and manipulate, the Two Minutes Hate has a significantly harder time getting off the ground. There’s never a shortage of incidents to choose from when it’s time to ramp up the pressure, and the smallest amount of difficulty can result in one scapegoat being shelved in favor of an easier target.

As a rule, all cameras (except, of course, the secret spook drones) at a riot like Kenosha are focused on the same thing. Well-lit commotion draws attention, and staring at it ruins your physical ability to perceive what is happening beyond it. This tells you that of your friends, some will be seen, and had better not be seen to be doing anything culpable – certainly nothing so dastardly as “self defense”. Some can arrange to not be seen.

Third, he doesn’t stick around to get into a tussle. Once the fire and destruction starts, you can’t stop them in the camera-zone, because they will try to kill you, and you can’t stop them from killing you in the camera-zone, because you “provoked” them. The camera-zone is now no-go, and you are forced to extricate yourself at speed. Good thing the effective range of Rittenhouse’s weapon was about 300 yards, or about double that against a massed target, and in the hypothetical he has friends willing to act to preserve his life.

What does this all look like, put together? A close group, operating in teams, some designed to be seen, some designed to project force, acting together to protect their community from hostile outsiders? When the state abdicates its responsibilities and turns on its citizens, no one should be surprised when alternatives arise.

5 Comments Add yours

  1. Mr Shovel says:

    You can’t stop self-preservation. Nigga invades my house, puttin my kids in danger, I grab a shovel and put in new vegetable garden. “Why you diggin in middle of night, nigga?” My cat died last night, buried it.


  2. NC says:

    “That assumes, however, that your rulers are trying to keep things calm and profitable. When they are trying to do the opposite, for instance by literally bailing violent pedophiles out of mental hospitals so they can assist in burning down adjacent towns, the idea that “self defense” as a legal construction will be allowed to mediate the outcome is absurd. ”

    PaPaaC & KtM


  3. Thomas Finney says:

    Excellent as always Hank. Even if Kyle walks, the state will find a way to punish and most likely kill him. Men of action are not to be tolerated.


  4. Vxxc says:

    Your’re getting it.


  5. vxxc says:

    We should understand something: for all their bizarre behavior the enemy are master strategists.
    Consider this in context: We their opponent are placed on the horns of a dilemma.
    The Horns of the Dilemma are we can either defend our lives or die, if we defend our lives we risk being put through the Eye of Progressive Sauron media, trial, jail, bankruptcy, public ruin.
    Sherman in his march through the South remarks in his letters to Grant that he arranges his columns so he can strike at two different objectives – his goal is to place the Confederate armies “on the horns of a dilemma and either horn is worth a battle.”
    The dilemma is the Confederates don’t know if he’s going to strike at this target or that target – say Columbia or Savannah.

    The enemy here has placed us all on the horns of a dilemma and either horn is worth a battle – to them acutely as they do not fight battles.
    They win no matter what horn we pick. If we run and shirk they win. If we fight they win as we are then ruined or put through an ordeal.
    Further as every man with children will seek to protect his house and his house only most of the potential manpower is off the table.
    [it should be mentioned that piecemeal aka destruction in detail one little house at a time is also a win for the enemy, it is not a plan, it is a nod to her, the mistress and slave owner of every father and husband – but it doesn’t work.].

    So what must be done as is noted is to band together for the common defense, avoid the machine of destruction as noted, but it must be understood this is a start not a solution. The solution is to check our destruction before we can see fires or smell smoke – at that point it’s too late to win and it’s only point, tactical survival.

    The correct solution is perhaps after banding together to ward off fiends released from prison or the mental institution the very day of the violence…the correct solution is for we ourselves to place the enemy on the horns of a dilemma, this can only be done by having two or more potential targets and not the one they pick [such as Kenosha], force them into consequences of their choices and make them do face the consequences and not just their hired foot soldiers. Nothing can be done alone, nothing can be done without a group of men, but if those groups can form they may want to think as the enemy does ~ and begin to force the enemy to face consequences and make hard choices.
    They could for instance have to use Antifa to defend Chevy Chase MD, or Montclair NJ (NYC media homesteads) instead of them picking the battleground. If the Left suddenly had to use it’s shock troops for defense of their neighborhoods not attack at their utter discretion and leisure as the case is now they are placed on the horns of the dilemma, not we the people.
    Again this requires a group of men who understand 2 key things:
    1] alone is nothing, a lonely futile death, they must band together for common defense.
    2] There comes a point where you must force the enemy to choose where he defends, not always pick where he attacks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s