Moral Chaos in Central Park

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Like
many former soldiers, I am very much against the "tough guy"
mindset and the Hollywood stereotypes from which it stems. I despise
the American addiction to violence as a form of entertainment. Equally,
I am confused by our willingness to use violence for any end except
self-defense.

I'm against all violence, and all war, except under very clearly
defined circumstances. Yet it is time to speak out against the limp
wristed cowards who had a clear cut instance when employing violence
was called for, and chose to stand idly by. It is not macho posturing
to declare that men, all the men in the community, are obliged to
defend the women and children of that community.

The
ladies who were molested in Central Park recently may have contributed
to their own predicament. New Yorkers don't have much in the way
of political choice but could it be that they simply like it that
way. I am well aware of the liberal mind set there, which makes
"conservative" mean something very different when spoken
in a Bronx accent as opposed to a Southern drawl. By liberal mind
set I mean the attitude that says it's OK to kill unborn babies
but very bad to kill rapists and murderers. The ultimate sin of
course is using a firearm for what it was made to do. Of course
I'm talking about self defense and the defense of others which is
streng verboten in the Apple.

We
don't dare forget the cold reality of what happened in Central Park
that day. There were no men of character in evidence, period, and
some of those women, maybe most of them, had supported gun control
as well as this political correctness vapor that insists upon sensitivity
to minorities in lieu of the respect that comes from mutual acceptance
of accountability. It's called racism folks, and the left has co-opted
the language but the truth is the truth, and when you hold somebody
less than accountable for their actions you are not treating them
as equals, you are treating them as children.

In
America, there is only ever one option for employing violence against
other human beings. You may use deadly force, when either you, or
those under your protection, are in imminent danger of death
or great bodily injury. How we define those under our protection
is what we must consider now.

I wonder, would those ladies, given a choice, have preferred to
have sensitive, caring men there, ethnic Puerto Ricans with all
the macho pretensions (It was a Puerto Rican event — don't blame
me), or that mean ole hillbilly Mike? The first category are utterly
useless when the chips are down, or any other time. The second category
were too busy committing the crimes to help anyone, and that leaves
me. At the risk of sounding pretentious, I will say quite openly
that I would have gotten involved. Those who know me believe that.
Why? Because as a gentlemen, any and every woman and
child is under my protection! Since I'm a law-abiding man, I'd have
been armed with a pocketknife instead of a firearm, and I'd have
gone down. I'm required by scripture to obey Caesar so I must put
my life on the line and go into combat virtually unarmed because
of silly women and treasonous politicians. Mark well that denying
American men free access to firearms is treason.

Why
on earth do men allow themselves to be unarmed in a dangerous city
like New York? It's called the Sullivan Act and it keeps New Yorkers
from responding to their responsibilities as citizens and as men.
It keeps females from having the only last ditch protection that
can really turn a situation around. It reinforces the statist absurdity
that we must turn in all instances to the government for protection.

I
use the word combat deliberately because that is exactly
what would have transpired. It was only aggression that occurred,
due to the cowardice and criminal negligence of the New York Police
department. Combat suggests that there is more than one side engaged
— in New York on that shameful day, there was only one side, the
side of contemptuous brutality and cowardice. I publicly name the
perpetrators, the police, and the bystanders, as cowards and miscreants.

There
are permutations to this however.

Women
who vote their emotions hinder my ability to protect them, and expose
themselves to unnecessary danger. Equally, they expose my daughter
to unnecessary danger and I resent that. Because you feel
that things should be a certain way, does not mean that they are.
Your feelings matter only in your own context, and indoors at that.
Practical reality has a way of intervening in all our pipe dreams.

It
only takes a few men of character and fortitude walking around to
create a peaceful environment. These men must have a very specific
type of courage, and it's kind of thin on the ground these days.
The courage to act. No time for an opinion poll, can't count on
your pals, you'll probably get waxed, and guess what: it's all up
to you, just you. Men who can accept that responsibility are those
who were originally the ones called citizens; men of property, who
carried side arms and made the public weal their personal business.
These are the folks who bequeathed us, with the help of God, our
freedom. Men who will not accept that responsibility have no business
voting and we darn sure have no business electing them to public
office. Although It's not about whether you carry weapons or not,
it sure helps if such men are armed. Ultimately, freedom requires
armed men. It's quite that simple and this simple truth has only
been perverted recently.

We
have identified three groups of American men who have no honor,
and that's the perpetrators, the bystanders, and those big tough
drug warriors of New York's finest.. Shooting unarmed people while
you're covered with lots of backup doth not a brave man make, and
the way it played out in the park out surprised no one. Since no
one was surprised at the failure of NYPD, why was no one armed and
ready to protect their own loved ones? This is pretty scary, for
a nation that does not have men who value honor, is a nation that
is doomed. A nation where men will not put their lives on the line
to protect women may be too far gone to ever find redemption. It
remains to quantify the rot.

The
police officers, supervisors and even the 911 operators who stained
their garments in this disgraceful episode have been dismissed or
reprimanded, and that's a good thing. It also avoids a dark question
that must be asked: how is it that so many people were all willing
to shirk their duty at once? Did all the bad ones just happen to
be on duty at one time? Probably not. There is something rotten
at the very core of all this. It's called government. Those police
officers were under the impression that they answer to government
and not the people who pay their salary. If they are right, celebrating
the Fourth of July is now a cruel farce.

One
excuse that's been bandied about is that the police are afraid to
act because minorities were involved and they've had such bad press
over recent high profile shootings of civilians. That is totally
unacceptable. The problem is this that the cops have been shooting
people who have committed no crime. Why on earth wouldn't they shoot
or at least arrest, people who were assaulting women right in front
of them?! Cops like those should have been publicly disgraced. The
supervisors should have been handed a pistol with one bullet and
sent to a small room to do what was once considered the honorable
thing. Now days, they are more concerned with "spin" than
honor.

The
excuse doesn't hold water anyway. The public was not wrong to be
outraged when police shoot innocent people down in the street. The
police were way wrong to act as if being chastised for wanton killings
somehow penalizes them unfairly. So women were publicly abused while
the cops pouted. This event ranks with the LA riots and Columbine
as classic examples of why we should not count upon the police to
protect us. Take their guns and their SWAT costumes and send them
on their way.

Let's
not forget the other excuse our fine friends in blue offered up:
"We were outnumbered!" I say to you that courage trumps
meanness: "One riot, one ranger!"

The
next question to consider is what happened to the man on the street?
Apparently all those tough hombres had run out of batteries to throw.
So the New Yorkers are tough guys eh? Apparently none of the tough
guys were at that parade. Only the cowards.

We've
heard about ethno-centric cultural views that differ from our own
supposedly enlightened ones and must be viewed with tolerance. As
if rap music was an old cultural tradition, and raping women was
just something that happens with minorities, not to worry. To which
I can only say in all sincerity, that is utter nonsense! The various
Hispanic cultures that I'm familiar with hold women on a higher
pedestal then Western Europeans used to do. It's time to face the
fact that if a large group of Hispanic men are acting that way —
it's crisis time. We are in the midst of a disaster created and
fed by the media, the music industry, the government and the politically
correct cultural marxists.

Hear
me Puerto Ricans. Where is the public outcry against these criminals?
Where were those who rushed to defend those women? You used to be
men. What the hell happened?

Hear
me police officers! Not one of you, not a single one, can recall
that day without shame. You used to be men. Now what are you?

Hear
me Western Europeans! You built a culture that was the envy of all
others. Now you won't lift your hand to help a female who is under
attack? You used to be men. What did you receive in exchange for
your man hood?

Hear
me women! You wanted the vote so badly and got it. You've used it
to vote your feelings instead of your intellect. You think you're
free because a corrupt culture has given you an imagined "right"
to murder your unborn children, and you wonder that men no longer
respect you enough to put their lives on the line for you. The next
time the Titannic goes down you better be ready for a swim because
in America now it's "Women and children last!" Do you
really like it this way?

Hear
me government stooges! You've taken our freedom and given us chaos.
The day of judgment is at hand. Next time it will be your daughter
and nobody will be there to help. You will weep and wail and gnash
your teeth, because you will know whose fault it was, and perhaps
for the first time in your miserable life, you will feel the shame
of your misdeeds.

And
finally to all you gangsta tough guys out there. Don't try that
stuff in my neighborhood. It would be your last mistake.

July
15, 2000

Mr.
Peirce fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian Smith
side, of course).

Michael
Peirce Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts