TO STAND AS A LION

It is dangerous to search the Scriptures with the objective of finding something to prove a point or a preconceived notion.  Errors in translation and errors in the understanding of the reader are pits that may be covered by the best of intentions, yet will swallow whole the unwary traveler.

However, if one is searching honestly and prayerfully for an answer (James 1: 3-8) and finds a verse that seems to fit, one ought search on until one finds another verse that bears out the first.  Thus shored up by a second beam, one may legitimately have greater, at least, if not yet absolute confidence in that answer.  And if one searches on and finds another and another and yet another verse that point to precisely the same principle, and one is mercilessly honest in panning what is written from what one desperately wishes were written, the truth will be made known, even as is described in James.

“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”

Thus have I approached this question, seeking in the greatest degree of humility of which I am able, thirsting for the truth rather than for self-vindication.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The first question for which I have sought an answer is this:  is it possible that Men might righteously bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their churches, their neighbors, and their nations?  And if that question be answered in the affirmative, the second question is:  might Men righteously bear arms in that defense in a House of Worship, while taking the Sacrament, praying, testifying, and teaching the Word?

I believe the answer to the first question is a resounding, even thundering, “YES!”  A full exposition of all the verses that bear record of righteous people stepping into battle and being blessed with victory is beyond the scope of this little piece, but the very short list would include David’s fight with Goliath, Joshua before the walls of Jericho, Daniel, whose faith caused him to be thrown to the lions, Ammon defending the King’s sheep at the waterhole, and most wondrous of all, to me, at least, Helaman’s Stripling Warriors.  In every case, the miracle followed the act of faith.  In no case did God bless with victory those who sat by – whose faith did not move them to go into danger.

It therefore seems clear to me that it is possible to bear arms in righteousness, even to the shedding of blood.  In fact, it seems to depend more on why one acts than on what one actually does.

One of the most frequently cited passages in the Scriptures is in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 26, verses 51 through 56, which relates the seizure of Christ by the mob, and Peter’s armed defense of his Master.  (Copied from the King James Version)

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

54 But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.

This passage, and especially Jesus’ admonition to put away the sword, and most especially His statement, “…all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” has been used to justify everything from non-aggression to outright pacifism.  The preachers to whom I listened in my youth described it as a searing condemnation of Peter for his violent act.

I submit this is an error of interpretation on several levels.

First, Jesus did not say those who live by the sword are damned, or will go to Hell.  He simply said that those who choose a soldier’s life will die a soldier’s death.  There is no moral judgement in His words.  Everybody dies somehow, and there are worse ways of dying than in battle, especially battle defending that which is precious to us, as was Jesus to Peter.

The Gospel of John, chapter 15, verse 13, teaches us, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  It is extremely common, in our current public discourses, to speak of the nobility of a soldier’s offering up his life for us.  Is that not a matter of perishing with the sword?  As with everything else people might do, it is a matter of freely choosing that course, for without the freedom to choose, there can be no right or wrong, no righteousness or filthiness.  If that soldier chooses to lay down his life for his mates, do we hold his life cheap because he fell to the sword?  Is the lesson of John, 15:13 supposed to say, “…unless the man is a soldier and dies by the sword?”   No, Jesus did not read damnation upon the soldier at his side, nor upon we who today take arms in the defense of virtue, our homes, and our families.

Second, Jesus did not say violence is morally wrong, including violence against a lynch mob.  He told Peter to sheath his sword, not because violence was sinful, but because His betrayal must stand so, “…that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”  He could have called down more than 12 legions of angels had it simply been a matter of driving the mob away, (and if those angels followed the models in the Old Testament, they’d have unleashed no end of violence!) but that wasn’t the point, at all.  He had to be taken by the mob and endure all the hell that followed so that He could offer a sufficient atonement for all of us, with the promise of eternal life in the presence of His Father.

When this incident is viewed in this perspective, so many other passages become perfectly consistent with Jesus’ teachings.  Pacifism, in itself, is not righteous, nor is violence, in itself, sinful.  It is widely understood that the sixth commandment was an admonition against murder, not against killing, and when Matthew’s Gospel is read with this understanding, a major piece falls into place with a clarity and certainty that left me astonished and humbled.

Having examined a few verses from the Bible, I would like to turn attention to the Book of Mormon.  I am quite aware that some do not regard this book as Scripture, and to these I would ask that you weigh the words and their consistency with what you understand of the Scriptures, whatever version of the Bible you choose.  Truth is truth, no matter its source.  The rankest of sinners might speak profound truth, while the most pious of ministers might utter false doctrine.  Weigh the words of the verses, not the words on the cover of the book.

The Book of Mormon relates the story of a people called the Nephites, after Nephi, the prophet who guided them.  Their story is one of almost constant warfare with a people called the Lamanites, after Laman, the brother of Nephi, whose pride would not let him heed the voice of God, and was turned to deep, festering hatred of Nephi.  Like the Bible, the Book of Mormon is a collection of books by a series of prophets, one of the greatest of whom was Alma.

In the 43rd chapter of Alma, verses 45 through 47, the Nephites are facing imminent battle with a numerically superior army of Lamanites.  Alma takes this opportunity to explain the spirit that motivates his people:

45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

 46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

 47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

Clearly, the Lord has justified violence, “…even unto bloodshed…” in defense of, among other concretes, their religion.  The conditions that define righteousness are made clear:  they were not to fight for monarchy or power, were not to give the first or second offense, and they were not to suffer themselves to be slain.

Having examined the justification for an entire people to go to war, let us look at a single man, a Nephite officer named Moroni.  In chapter 48 of Alma:

11 And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery;

 12 Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people.

 13 Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

And skipping to verse 16:

“…and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. 

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.”

These words I believe neither need nor brook enlargement or explanation by the likes of me.  They lay out, in perfect eloquence, the very definition of a Man of God, and a Warrior for his God.

As the war continued Moroni and his men were hard-worn and jaded from constant, bloody fighting.  Moroni wrote a letter to Pahoran, the leader of the civil government, excoriating him for not providing support to his armies in the field.  Pahoran’s answer, found in chapter 61 of Alma, includes this passage:

14 Therefore, my beloved brother, Moroni, let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.”

Once again we are admonished to resist evil, with words where possible, and with swords where necessary, that we may have the freedom of our church, and in the cause of, “…our Redeemer and our God.”  Explicitly, with swords.

Now what of those who say we should be content to sit on our faith and wait on God  – that we need not act in our own behalf, applying the agency that He gave our first parents, and in which we are most godlike – that our faith ought to be a passive thing, not moving us into danger where our faith might be all that sustains us?  Indeed, if we are not in danger, and not striving against evil by word or sword, what need have we of faith?  Faith is not required of us to get through the good times, but the evil ones, when Man might be excused for being afraid.   The Lord did not tell the Nephites to sit safe and warm in their houses and leave the fight to Him, and if we look at the entirety of the Scriptures, we see countless times when He asked his people to strap on their kits and stand to, and then He blessed them with victory.

In fact, the book of Alma gives us a marvelous expression of this principle, in chapter 60: 11, 12.  This is from the letter Moroni sent to Pahoran, in which Moroni utterly blisters Pahoran for not supporting the armies of the Nephites.

11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.

 12 Do ye suppose that, because so many of your brethren have been killed it is because of their wickedness? I say unto you, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain; for I say unto you, there are many who have fallen by the sword; and behold it is to your condemnation;

 What, then, of church officers who sit safe in their offices, with armed security guards to stand between them and the tides of evil that wash upon the stones of our churches?  If a church is a sacred place of worship, of peace, of renewal, does it not deserve the protection of those in whom God has placed the spirit of the sheepdog, who would stare down evil with steady gaze, and if it did not retreat, resort to slashing fangs?  If a church is such a holy place, is it not proper to greet visitors with kindness, with a clasp of hands, with a warm invitation to enter into the Peace of The Savior?

And if that be proper, what of those who come, not to visit and worship, but to prey, to disrupt, even to wreak violence?  Would we pull the teeth from the sheepdog, or would we trust to his intelligence and righteousness to discern good from evil?  Would we tell him to bring visitors into the sanctuary, but deny him the means of making the sanctuary a sanctuary?  Is it to be a sanctuary only at the pleasure of evil?  I contend that if evil has a say in the matter, it’s no sanctuary, at all, but a killing pen.  And I deny the right of evil to make such declaration.

Consider these words:  “Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on Church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.”

Are we to worship our God by ignoring the lessons of His ministry to His people on Earth?  Are we to limit our worship only to matters that do not involve repudiation of or conflict with evil?  If our church is to be a haven from the cares and concerns of the world, but the doors are open to evil, how are we to feel the spirit of peace, not the world’s peace, but His peace?

It is fine to allow peace officers to be armed, but what if a congregation doesn’t have a resident officer?  What if a situation arises in which a single officer is not enough?  What of the youth activities in the church during the weekday evenings,  or baptisms on Saturday, or the Sisters’ exercise classes on weekday mornings, or the seminary classes before dawn when our high schoolers come to learn of the Gospel?

The exception of allowing peace officers to be armed is a defacto admission that deadly force is a legitimate content of our worship, but such a constraint on all other righteous, capable, and highly competent members places a grievous burden on what few peace officers we count as members.  If the presence of weapons really does interfere with our church being “…a haven from the cares and concerns of the world,”  how is it that weapons in the hands of peace officers have no such effect?  It is, in fact, a contradiction that flies in the face of countless Scriptural admonitions.

Rather than pulling the teeth of the sheepdog, so to speak, why not establish a training program, with standards of competence, behavior, and attitude that we may do all that is possible to ensure our church is, indeed, a haven?  Such standards exist, else why would peace officers be excepted? If a peace officer can be trained to a level that is acceptable to the Church, why can we not hold to that same standard any other member who chooses to apply, and who will subscribe to the doctrine of the security ministry?

Pulling our teeth is not going to keep anyone safe.

I will close with my testimony of the power of preparedness.  Fear is bred by denial, confidence by preparedness.  For three years I have guarded my church, my ward, my beloved brothers and sisters, and most of all, my precious, precious little lambs.  I have been hugged by mothers who dropped tears on my shoulder as they whispered thanks for keeping their children safe. I have engaged the level stares of strong men who looked me dead in the eye, nodded in recognition, and went on their way with their families.  Not once has any member expressed fear or unease with my presence, and many know that I have been armed, and all who do also know that I have covenanted with God to protect the Church – to stand as a lion between the Church and all who would harm it.  I do so testify in the name of our Savior, even Jesus Christ.   Amen.

Wess Rodgers – rebsarge.wordpress.com – Albuquerque, NM

A PROPHECY IN THREE PARTS

I am aware that many people do not regard the Book of Mormon as Scripture.  That is, of course, their choice, but I happen to believe it is precisely what the subtitle proclaims:  “Another testament of Jesus Christ.”

In my daily study of the Book of Mormon, I have had many revelations about the deeper meaning of the words, especially in terms of how they apply to my daily life in the 21^st Century.  The day before yesterday, 21 August, 2019, brought such a revelation as I read the 13^th Chapter of the 2^nd Book of Nephi.

Nephi was a Jew and a prophet who lived about 600 years before Christ.  His prophesies bear great similarity to those of Isaiah.  In the 13^th chapter of his 2^nd book, he is prophesying to his people grim tidings, indeed.  In verse 6, he says,

“And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor; the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable.”

Three separate points jumped up in my face as I read this:  every person oppressed by someone, children putting themselves above those who have gone before, and the vilest among us attacking and desecrating everything we’ve always considered virtuous or honorable.

Today, do we not see how every individual is the target of someone else?  The doctrine of  Political Correctness, which is the military arm of  Liberalism, has set so many standards, rules, and, in many cases, laws that it is impossible to live through a day as a normal, working, socializing person without breaking one or more of them.  The instant one of these mores or laws is broken, some avenger (Some call them “Social Justice Warriors,” but I’ve known warriors, and these simpering twerps aren’t warriors) will be at the throat of the miscreant, threatening everything from “doxing” to shunning to professional ruin to violence to murder.  It almost seems that each of us is assigned, not a guardian angel, but a vengeful, spiteful, hateful – and enormously powerful! – angel bent on wrecking our lives forever at the slip of a pronoun.

We never run out of these vermin, and we never know who might be one.  It could be our employer, coworker, neighbor, or even relative.  So “…every one…”  – Yep.  Every, single one of us is oppressed, “…by another,” even, “…by his neighbor…”

Is there one of us who does not know of a child who is rude, arrogant, and even hateful to his elders, to their traditions, to the very culture and nation that has allowed them to live long enough to become truly insufferable?  Does this phrase not fit the Parkland High School students, or those children in pre-schools who chant destruction to America and death to President Trump?  Does it not fit the college students whose acts of violence, bigotry, and slobbering hatred of anything off-campus have defiled the places we once hailed as refuges of free-thinking and free speech?

Has not the news media and academia elevated uneducated, juvenile walking bags of hormones and angst to stations of honor, calling upon them to be the agents of the destruction of our culture, our law, our very nation?  And it really isn’t just kids.  In comparison to “the ancients,” are we not all children?  Is not the 50-year old professor who throws feces on the Vietnam wall a barbaric child, “…behaving himself proudly against…” any who came before him?  Surely Nephi saw this when he said, “…the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient.”

Finally, do we see examples of  “…the base against the honorable.”?  How about the pornographic actress who hurled libel after slander at the president, only to admit, quietly and utterly without press fanfare, that she had lied?  This, the woman who publicly defended her honor by angrily stating that she had NEVER performed anal sex on camera except with her husband!  Is that base enough?  Consider the school administrators who invite sexual perverts into the classrooms to teach little kids how to be perverts.  (I’m not criticizing the perverts.  If they want to do that stuff, that’s their business;  I don’t have to like it, and I don’t.  I’m condemning the administrators and teachers who make role models and heroes of them.)  How about political figures like Anthony Weiner, or Bill Clinton, whose exploits have exacerbated parental anxiety over the questions their pre-adolescents ask about sex and bodily functions?

One needn’t be a Latter-Day Saint or even a Christian to see the prophesy in Nephi’s teaching, and even if the Book were a fraud, it only means Joseph Smith, himself, was the prophet.

 

Wess Rodgers – rebsarge.wordpress.net – Albuquerque

GUN CONTROL AS A FAILURE IN COMPROMISE

Sgt. Maj. Theophelus Noel, Ret.

Webster defines compromise as: “a settlement of conflict by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, or principles by reciprocal modification of demands.”

The contemporary citizen considering “reasonable” gun control legislation is much like the frog in the science experiment that has been stewing in steadily warming water since the 1950’s.  If WE THE PEOPLE had just been dropped into the boiling water we would have a sense of the trouble and jump out. However, WE THE PEOPLE having been warmed gradually and we are about to be “cooked.”

Over the past 60 years WE THE PEOPLE have allowed an anti-gun campaign to sweep across this great country. This wave started with the Kennedy, and King assassinations and has continued to this day.  Bite by bite the anti-gun establishment has been pushing us into total disarmament. WE THE PEOPLE have negligently allowed it to happen.  If you had a time machine and swept a WW II veteran forward, and informed him of what has taken place, the response would have been immediate and forthright: “These laws are impossible. This is unconstitutional. This is not the America I know.”

The anti-gun establishment has always held the belief that Americans, like most Europeans, should be unarmed.  They knew that they could not achieve that goal immediately. Thus they have advanced wild infringement after wild infringement to the 2d Amendment. Their forces in Congress have pressed every concession possible to accomplish the goal of disarmament. Thus a bite at a time, they have crept ever closer, and they actually have the gall to call it a “compromise.” The anti-gun left has not wavered one iota from their ultimate goal of total disarmament of every ordinary American Citizen. They have continuously maneuvered concession after concession out of the American gun culture.  The result has not been a compromise.

The anti-gun establishment has used every trick, every emotion, and every lapse of attention to their benefit.  By using emotionally charged incidents, like the assassinations of President Kennedy or Martin Luther King, a school shooting, or the well-publicized death of a child, they have moved the Overton Window, step-by-step, closer and closer to total disarmament. With alligator tears pooling in their eyes, they have bemoaned each failure. They have shrilly predicted blood in the streets from each unrealized benchmark.  While demonstrative in their public emotional displays and deceitful cries for the ‘safety’ of the children, they remorselessly push for an unarmed and defenseless society.  

They KNOW they are the unacknowledged ‘elite’ in their version of Plato’s perfect society. They are more intelligent – virtually a higher social order – than the common man.  They believe, with an almost fervent religious zeal, that they know the answer to every social ill. Dogmatically, they will accept nothing less than total submission in order to achieve it.

However, it should be noted that these same anti-gun forces, are the same forces that advocated for the “rights” of criminals; softer, hotel style prisons, shorter prison sentences, and plea-bargained “justice.”  After all, if there were no criminals interacting with WE THE PEOPLE, the sheep could not be duped into accepting a little less freedom for the illusion of a little more safety. 

Like John Galt from “Atlas Shrugged,” the American gun culture has been whispering; “This is misguided, this is not the right direction for America. This is not what our founding fathers envisioned. This is not something the heroes from WW I or WW II would accept.”

Recently, the anti-gun establishment has raised a hue and cry about an “expanded background” check of anyone purchasing a firearm. The Government passed a version of ‘background’ checks within the Clinton era “assault weapons ban.” This has melted into the “NICS Instant Check System.” Established gun stores are required by Federal Law to conduct a “background” check with the FBI.  The location of the sale is immaterial; within a store or at a “gun show,” the check is required.  Do background checks currently stop every criminal from obtaining a firearm? Of course not!   The anti-gun establishment fully understands the vast majority of criminals incarcerated today indicate they obtained their firearms from other criminals or stole them from their victims, and rarely actually purchased them from sporting goods dealers. The Government has hundreds of other anti-gun laws on the books. Do any of them stop criminals from obtaining a firearm? Of course not! The anti-gun establishment will only let WE THE PEOPLE whisper a hidden truth:  gun control laws ARE NOT DESIGNED TO CONTROL GUNS, they are designed to control PEOPLE.

If the Government were the least bit sincere in their efforts to reduce crime, they would shift their sights from an unwarranted attempt to control the honest citizen, into one that controls the criminals.  Currently the government is failing miserably in prosecuting criminals that are found in possession of firearms, or criminals that use firearms to commit crimes.  When a felon, an under-age juvenile, or other prohibited individual, is detained in possession of a firearm, they are subject to a mandatory TEN year prison sentence.  Such prosecution however, seldom takes place.  The justice system easily allows such crimes to be “plea bargained” into lessor crimes, or they are ignored completely. Prosecution of such crimes has dropped to its lowest level in almost 15 YEARS.

In conjunction with lower prosecution rates, the Government is releasing hundreds of convicted felons from prison at an alarming rate.  They tell us that they are releasing just the “safe” felons, that don’t commit “violent” crimes.  That is not really true… they are releasing felons that were not prosecuted for violent crimes!
They have absolutely no idea of, or real concern about, what crimes the felon has actually committed. 

Before, thinking all of this is ‘black helicopter’ ramblings, please answer the following three simple questions:

• Why press for more gun control laws, when the Government does not prosecute criminals for breaking existing gun control laws?
• If public safety is the ‘prime directive,’ why release convicted felons from prison, to prey yet again, upon the unsuspecting public?
• When confronting a rapist; is your wife, daughter, or grand-daughter more likely to retain her honor using a firearm or unarmed combat?

BARELY PREGNANT – ALMOST VIRGIN – The fallacy of compromise as a moral imperative

I had lunch today with three old friends.  We talked almost exclusively politics and religion, and it was an exquisite two hours.  One of my friends,  Bob, is as true a heart as ever there was – a wonderful human being, a loving and devoted family man, a loyal and altogether trustworthy friend, and a shore’nuf man’s man.

We were talking about the current state of American society, and the likelihood of real violence, perhaps even a civil war.  We agreed that we’ve never seen this country as wound up as it is now.  We all came of age in the 1960’s, with the unrest, hatred, and violence of that decade, so when these guys say they’ve never seen anything like this, it should give any reasoning person pause.

Bob  might have been more upset than any of us.  In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen him like that.  He said we have to find some middle ground on the gun control issue; we have to compromise on something, because if we don’t, the country will just blow up.  We have to give the Left some tidbit they really want so they will settle down and stop stoking the furnaces of Armageddon.  I was surprised, and I’m pretty sure the others were, too, to hear him say this, because he’s always been pretty hard corps.

With that in mind, then, I want to talk about compromise, both in terms of what it really means, and how it applies to the so-called “gun-control debate.”

Compromise has been held up as a moral imperative for decades.  People have even made Biblical defenses of the importance – even the necessity – of compromise in a civilized society.  (The absurdity of ascribing willingness to compromise with evil as a character trait in Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ is beyond jaw-dropping.)  Anyone who speaks against the moral primacy of compromise is attacked instantly, relentlessly, and with awful venom.  “What gives you the right to demand to have everything your way?”  “If your wife wants Italian and you want Mexican, do you just slap her into the car and do what you want?”  “Are you so smart that you can never be wrong?”  “If no one compromises, civilization falls apart, and it’s going to be your fault for even suggesting compromise is wrong!”

Let us define compromise.  As always on such important matters, I refer to my 1953 edition of the Oxford Universal Dictionary of the English Language.   According to this pre-PC resource, compromise is, “an arrangement of a dispute by concessions on both sides: partial surrender of one’s position, for the sake of coming to terms.”

Compromise is not finding “Common ground,” or finding, “Something on which we can all agree.”  If we agree on something, why would either of us have to surrender or concede anything?  The process of finding a point of agreement is altogether worthwhile, and is a fine way of beginning a meaningful discussion, but it is not compromise, and to portray it as such is to corrupt the meaning of the word, and by extension, the concept for which it stands.  In other words, saying that compromise is a matter of finding a point of agreement to twist the very word into a lie.

Neither is “compromise” the right term for two people presenting their positions, and one of them saying, “Ah.  I see where I was wrong on this point,” and the other saying, “And I was wrong on this one over here.”  If both parties examine their own positions, change those elements that were in error, and come away in agreement, then no one has surrendered part of his position.  To correct an error is not compromise!  To call it compromise is every bit as much an abuse of the concept of language, itself as is applying the term to finding a point of agreement.  Compromise is not agreeing!  It is accepting something you firmly believe to be wrong!

Even in the matter of deciding what’s for dinner, if one wants Italian and the other Mexican, unless they know of a place that serves both – or they decide to dine separately – one will have to surrender.  There is nothing in the world wrong with such an agreement on such a trivial matter if it is arrived at by mutual consent.  But this is not compromise, either, for it is not mutual surrender or concession.  A true compromise might be to settle for Chinese – a decision in which neither gets what they want, but neither is required to see the other satisfied, either. That strikes me as a pretty sorry way to relate to another human being, but it does meet the basic definition of compromise.

Compromise is not complete victory for either side, but a kind of mongrel thing that has not the sweet taste of victory, and only a little of the rottenness of defeat. In cases of moral principles, a compromise makes whores of both parties, for both must relinquish some virtue.  A man may wish to philander freely, while his wife wishes he wouldn’t, at all.  (This can go either way, of course!)  A compromise might be that he will only philander on even-numbered months, or only with older women, or only with women of whom his wife approves.  Compromise on a moral principle is a hideous, spiritual hermaphrodite of a thing – a thing in which virtue is not murdered outright, but hamstrung and left outdoors for the scavengers to feast upon.

A time-honored metaphor refers to something like being, “a little bit pregnant,” or “almost a virgin.”  These semi-humorous terms describe perfectly the putrefied soul of moral compromise.  My mother, bless her Texas Panhandle heart, used to say, “Compromise is like mixing shit with ice cream.  It doesn’t help your shit, and it ruins your ice cream.”  (Another of my Texan kin said compromise is like pooping in the far end of the bathtub.  Ahh, those Southern similies!)

Ayn Rand compared compromise on a moral principle to agreeing to eat poison only on Mondays.  In any compromise between nutritious food and strychnine, only the grave digger wins.  (Actually, one other party wins:  the strychnine salesman, and this point we will get to in spades.  Ahem.)

Kipling’s Tomlinson was so compromised he was too sorry to get into Heaven and to petty to get into Hell, so Satan sends him back to mortality with the admonition,

“Ye are neither spirit nor spirk,” he said; “ye are neither book nor brute —

            Go, get ye back to the flesh again for the sake of Man’s repute.

            I’m all o’er-sib to Adam’s breed that I should mock your pain,

            But look that ye win to worthier sin ere ye come back again.”

I will risk belaboring this point because it is so crucial.  Suppose you are in an argument – not a polite, reasoned discussion, but a vitriolic shouting match, perhaps filled with obscenities and even threats.  You are absolutely convinced you are in the right on all points of the discussion.  At what point would you say, “Okay. I’ll concede to your argument on this one point, even knowing beyond any doubt that I’m right and you’re wrong.  I will willingly accept this bit of error into my argument if and only if you will accept error into your argument on this other point?”

Note that you have not said, “I’m going to shut up and listen in full attention to your argument if you’ll do the same for me.”  This is not a compromise!  Not at all, because neither of you has conceded a point.  (There is today a sizeable segment of the population who would say that to merely listen to another’s opinion is a major concession, and one that threatens their very existence.  They are, as you may have guessed, idiots.)

Let’s consider the other side of this hypothetical argument.  The other person has despaired of changing your mind, and in the interest of peace and harmony, pleads for a compromise.  If that person were as certain of his own rectitude as you are of yours, why in Heaven’s name would he call for compromise?  He wouldn’t, and for the same reason you wouldn’t.

A demand for compromise is an absolute guarantee that your opponent has no arguments left, and has recognized that he has no way of turning you.  So he asks for a bone –a morsel – a little dab of charity – that he couldn’t get on his own.  He promises to drop the subject if you will only grant him some little victory, and posits the moral imperative of compromise.  After all, you don’t want to be selfish, and demand everything your own way, do you?

Compromise is the sanctuary of cowards and bullies who know they can’t win an even fight, but still want part of your lunch money.

So let’s be quite clear on this point:  I’m not talking about such trivialities as what’s for dinner, or the shape of the table at the peace negotiations.  I’m talking about serious moral issues, in this particular instance, whether there are circumstances that abrogate an individual’s right to defend his own life.  (For the purposes of discussion, I’m going to presume the primacy of the right to defend one’s life.  A discussion of this may be found in this blog, under the title, “To Possess and Defend One’s Life,” 23 June, 2016.)

So it is with the cries for compromise on the right to self-defense.  They know their argument cannot carry the day.  They’ve pulled every tactic of bullying, ad hominem, and straw men they can think of, so they must now use this cheap bullying approach –the argument from intimidation – in an attempt to embarrass you into giving them something.  If you concede, even if you are successful in demanding an equal concession from them, you have poisoned your argument.  You have allowed them to take only a little of your virginity, or to make you only a little pregnant.  You’ve allowed them to trade a spoonful of your ice cream for a spoonful of their feces.  And in the case of the anti-rights Liberals, their promise to drop it isn’t worth a dead cockroach.

Over the years, I have seen dozens of compromises with the anti-gunners.  We gave them the GCA of 1968 because they said all they wanted was this one, teeny, little, common-sense law.  But within minutes – minutes – of the ratification of that act, they placated their base by saying, “We know this isn’t the final answer, but it’s a start.  We’ve reached this important compromise, and we now have one more spoonful of ice cream we couldn’t have gotten otherwise.”  And the next day they were after some other little point.  I can’t count the times I’ve seen this very scene played out.

Every, single, bloody time we have given in on something in the spirit of “reconciliation,” or “living together in harmony,” – every bloody, damned time – they have said, “It isn’t the final solution, but it’s a start.”  And we keep falling for the same bait and switch, over and over and over.  But one day, there will be no switch.  It will be bait and noose.

They have never rested, they have never quit, and they never will, because they think they have nothing to lose.  We have never forced them to give us anything but a promise to wait until tomorrow, and tomorrow they’re right back at our throats.  It has happened this way time after time, and they have chipped away more of our rights than they could ever have taken by force – because we gave in and compromised.

Why is this important?

The Liberal position on magazine capacity, for example, says, explicitly, “If you are attacked by more than a certain number of barbarians, your life is forfeit.  When we whined about, “If it only saves one life,” we weren’t talking about yours.  Do your duty to the state and die quietly.”

The hysteria over “assault rifles” is the same thing.  The AR-15, because of its light weight, low recoil, ease of operation, and relatively low price is an ideal tool for home defense, especially for people who lack the strength to manage a full-power handgun.  With a 30-round magazine, it gives amateurs a better than even chance to stop an attack without having to go find another magazine and reload in the middle of an indescribably stressful situation.  But the Liberals say, “If you are attacked by a gang, and you can’t handle a pistol, your life is forfeit, and we don’t give a damn.”

Consider the actions of the Brown Shirts known as ANTIFA.  (If you don’t get this reference, I’m sure you’re not alone.  Google, “Hitler’s Brown Shirts,” or “ Sturmabteilung.”)  They come in mobs of hundreds, and beat innocent people to the ground with clubs, drench them in caustic chemicals and offal, and terrorize entire cities, such as Portland Oregon.  If the rise of such gangs does not indicate to you the need for average citizens to have service rifles with high-capacity magazines…  I don’t know what to say.  I’m guessing you believe that MS-13 doesn’t exist, or if it does, it isn’t in America, or if it is, it’s a fine, upstanding Latino version of the Lion’s Club.

Consider a razor drawn across your windpipe.  What is the compromise with that?  If you are willing to “partially surrender,” or “concede” your ability to breathe, what partial surrender or concession will you demand of your murderer?

Any compromise on a person’s right to have access to the optimum tools of self-defense puts conditions on that person’s right to live.  Waiting periods, background checks, Red Flag laws – all delimit the conditions under which a person may defend his life.  The proponents of ever-increasing and more strangling laws are saying, in none-too-subtle terms, “Of course we recognize the right of all people to live, except under these conditions.”

To again risk repetition, when they say, “If it only saves one life,” they aren’t talking about yours.

Liberals are the purveyors of strychnine, and every time we agree to drink only a little of it, they win.  They know they can’t force us to drink it, so they whine for compromise, and promise all they want us to take is this one innocent, common-sense little swig.  So we take it, and the grave digger is one sip closer to total, eternal victory.

I suggest we stop drinking it, at all.  Let us stop compromising with evil.

They will never stop on their own because they have nothing to lose, and every time we give them an unearned victory by granting them partial surrender, they come back stronger.  They come back immediately.  They come back every, bloody time, and they always will until we show them there is one thing we can take from them – that one thing cannot conceive anyone taking from them – the thing they have so disdainfully taken from others.  It is my prayer that we will reach that point in our own minds before we have compromised away our every means of stopping them.

So, Bob, I love you like the brother you are.  I truly do.  But you’re wrong on this.  There is no peace in compromise with evil.  There is only evil – and the smirking grave digger.

 

NEXT:  Is there an acceptable, survivable alternative to compromise on a moral principle?

THREADS OF A TAPESTRY

The American flag has many threads. There is one for the first White European settlers and all their descendants, for sure, but there are also threads for each of the First American Tribes, for the Chinese and Africans and Irish who helped build the country. There are threads for the mill workers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, for the coastal fishermen in Maine, the farmers in all the states, for the descendants of the Hessian troops who were abandoned by the British after the Revolution. There are threads for the Mexicans and Spaniards who became citizens with the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty, and the Cajuns and Creoles who were part of the Louisiana Purchase, and many, many more who, though I may not name them here, I respect, and whose threads I treasure as they are woven in with my own.

There are even threads for the Klan and Aryan Nations, for the Crips and Bloods and West Side Locos, for they, too, are part of the fabric of America. So too are the descendants of the Southerners who attempted to strike out on their own path of political self-determination, and after that attempt failed, have given great service to the re-united nation that came from that awful conflict – even as have the descendants of the First Americans who suffered great injustice, but stood up for the nation in the day of battle.

All these thousands of threads make that flag, and it’s a lovely, strong flag. But some people have decided they should remove the threads they don’t like, or that represent people who have done bad things. I say that is a mistake. If we pull out the threads of the people we don’t like, what will happen when the succeeding generations each decide to pull other threads. And there are sure to be conflicts over whose threads are pulled and whose stay, and those conflicts will weaken our now tattered flag even more.

Eventually, we will wind up with a tangled rat’s nest of unwanted thread on the floor, and no flag, at all, and on that day, some foreign soldiery will come in and raise their flag, and with it all the threads of their nation, good and bad. As the victors, they will write the history, and it will not be kind to any of the threads of America, or the living, breathing, loving, fighting, striving human beings they represented.

To those who would pull threads, I urge you to consider this: your own thread is held in the fabric of the flag and of the nation only by those threads that cross it, and run alongside it.

 

Wess Rodgers – rebsarge.wordpress.com – Albuquerque, NM

LOVING KINDNESS AT HOME DEPOT

I was involved in a very positive incident last night (7 August, 2019) that brought to mind several points.

As I arrived at Home Depot, the car in front of me was going very slowly, and stopped several times in the parking lot.  I finally got around it, parked, and went inside.  When I came out,  a group of people was standing around that car, with the driver’s door open.  It turned out that the driver was in considerable physical distress and had very nearly collapsed in the parking lot.  He’d asked a passing lady for help, and after examining the surroundings and locking her purse in her own car, she bravely came to his assistance.  A couple and their teenaged son came along and joined in.  The man had suffered a stroke 6 months ago, and had open heart surgery just a month ago.  After some debate, we called 911 and distracted him from driving away by engaging him in conversation.

He told me he was a Vietnam veteran, which made us brothers instantly.  The lady who had helped him originally brought a scooter out of the store, and an employee escorted him inside.  When the medics arrived a few minutes later, they went in and interviewed him.  He submitted to the usual screening, and very good-naturedly answered all the questions, but declined further treatment.   We were able to contact his wife (he neglected to mention her when the medic asked him about family!).   I volunteered to drive him home, and the couple agreed to go along and bring me back to my truck.  We got him home and it ended happily.

While we were waiting for the medics to arrive, the five of us talked in the parking lot.  The lady who had helped him first said she normally carried a pistol, but for some reason had decided to leave it at home.  (The other lady said the same thing.)  Her husband was armed, and said he is a certified instructor for Concealed Carry classes.  Their son was underage, so he wasn’t carrying.  As always, I was armed.  So of the five of us, two were armed, two were usually armed, and one was ineligible because of his age.  That, in itself, was remarkable, and, to me, heartwarming.  (Though I did point out to the ladies the folly of leaving their irons at home, and they both agreed that it was probably not the best decision of the day.)

As the lady who had been first on the scene described her uneasiness and caution, it occurred to me that being armed and confident often enables us to put ourselves out in helping strangers.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve stopped to help someone on the road only because I knew that if it were an ambush, I had a better than even chance of beating it.  That pistol on my hip and the confidence that came from my ability to use it effectively let me help strangers in situations where I would otherwise have been most reluctant to get involved.  This fact may not be obvious to some, especially those who are against our going about armed, but the simple fact is that wearing a gun is not just about “taking care of number one.”  It’s also about taking care of those around us.

The other thing that struck me in this incident was that five White people, four of whom the liberal fascists would describe as the definitive Deplorables, had come together to the aid of a Black man.  Yeah, I held that fact for impact;  Ricky was Black.  He was also a fire-breathing Deplorable, himself, and I loved to hear him praise President Trump!

This incident illustrates something I’ve been saying for some time:  There would be a lot less contention in America, and a lot more of us taking care of each other if some folks would just leave us the bloody hell alone.

 

Wess Rodgers – Rebsarge.wordpress.com – Albuquerque, NM

STANDING IN A LINE OF BATTLE

Reenactors of the War Between the States get asked a lot of questions, but in my 30 years in The Gray, I believe the one I heard most was, “Why did they stand in straight lines like that?”  Well, here’s the answer.

The books say the accurate range of the Springfield and Enfield rifles was 500 yards, and it might have been under perfect, target range conditions. It battle, the effective range was not over 100 yards, and probably averaged half that. (I bet, under similar circumstances, most modern troops aren’t very much better than that with M-4’s.)

Say you’ve got two textbook regiments:  1000 rifles on the line, with officers behind the lines. The regiment on defense keeps their formation nice and tight:  elbows touching, 13 inches between the front and rear ranks.   There’s two ranks, so your front is 500 men.  Figure 18” per man, that’s a front of 750 feet, or 250 yards.   In your mind, draw a circle 100 yards in diameter, centered on the files on the extreme left and right.  That’s your zone of control.

Now look at the regiment on assault.  Let’s say they let their formation go to pot, just enough to get 18” between men, and 30” – a good, long step – between front and rear ranks.  So now, their front is 500 yards across.  If you draw that same 100 yard circle from their extreme left and right files, you’ll see that a full 1/3 of the regiment is out of range of the fight.  Then when you consider that the rear rank is too far back to fire without blowing the brains out of the front rank, You’ve got about 150 men attacking 1000.   Then figure that the 1000 men are standing still while the 150 are moving forward, possibly over rough ground, so they’ll be winded and stumbling, unable to aim.  The effective range of their fire will not be more than 50 yards.

As you can see, only the center of the front rank of the attacking regiment will ever get into the fight.  The men in the rear rank and on the flanks will never get close enough to damage the enemy, but they will be well within the enemy’s accurate range.  It will be a slaughter.  This is why the drill is so important.  It is literally a matter of life and death.

As god-awful bloody as it was, it was the only way to fight with those rifles.  People say, “Well, why didn’t they take cover, or lay down, or creep from tree to tree like in the Revolution?”

I say, “Well, there often were no trees, and no ditches to take cover in, so moving forward was the fastest way through the fire.  Now think about Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg.  His division attacked on a front a mile wide!  He’d have had men fighting in Maryland if they’d scattered like that!  And think about Grant’s suicide charge at Cold Harbor – almost 50 thousand men on an 8 mile front!  He’d have had men fighting from Tennessee, while the Rebs lay in their trenches and butchered them even worse than they actually did.”  (Grant took 6,000 casualties in less than 30 minutes that day.)

 

Wess Rodgers – Rebsarge.wordpress.com – Albuquerque, NM