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).