The People’s sovereignty is being violated by tyrants with names and addresses

Morally, the most justifiable target in war is the civilian governmental leaders. We’re used to thinking that the enemy combatants are the proper target, but that’s because of tradition, not because of moral philosophy.

Try thinking about it using this thought experiment. Imagine Vladimir Putin told the US that he was planning to rule the US, and asked Americans to lay down their weapons so that he wouldn’t have to hurt anyone as he assumes control. For this thought experiment, imagine that Putin takes control of the US without a fight.  Or imagine that there was a war, but now the war is over.  One day you walk out the door and you see a Russian soldier standing on a street corner. Are you justified in shooting him? 

According to the idea that we should only shoot combatants, we can’t shoot the Russian soldier because he’s not a combatant. He’s now a local law enforcement officer. That’s as ridiculous as saying it would be immoral to shoot Putin in this scenario because Putin is a civilian political leader, not a combatant.  Oppression is inherently violent. The law is enforced with a gun.  Who is the source of the violence of the oppression?  The leader.  The death of which one is more likely to end the oppression?

Western civilization has correctly assumed that the assassination of tyrants is to be praised:  https://redstatesecession.org/justifying-the-assassination-of-judges-in-middle-ages-theology

Why do we get the idea that shooting Putin in this thought experiment is somehow ignoble compared to shooting his foot soldier?  I imagine that it comes from the days of chivalry.  It’s the idea that it’s more manly to fight someone who might shoot you back.  More manly because it involves greater risk?  But shooting a world leader is more likely to ensure a manhunt than shooting a foot soldier.  More manly because it takes more skill to accomplish?  But world leaders are more closely guarded than a foot soldier. More manly because it’s not fair play?  It’s dishonorable because it breaks unspoken “rules” of war?  This is probably the issue.  A knight wants fair warning before a fight starts so that he can get on his suit of armor and see which knight is the better fighter. Well those rules were abandoned long ago. And oppressors aren’t following our rules, such as the Constitution, so why should we follow their rules?

What will it take for us to recognize that the red states of America are occupied by blue state leaders and their federal judges?  Which leaders are like Putin in the US today?

When would be the easiest time to target the Russian political leaders occupying the US in this thought experiment?  Before or after the American populace organizes an armed uprising?  Obviously before, when their guard is not so alarmed. So why are people waiting?

We wrote about which deaths would be most likely to result in the secession of the red states here: https://redstatesecession.org/the-right-is-recognizing-that-when-ballots-dont-count-anymore-only-bullets-are-left/

Here’s a sermon we heard today about not waiting for big numbers: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=123112252216

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *