When Vigilantes are Necessary
by Armando Simón (November 2023)
American Farm Hand, Sandor Klein, 1937
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. —E. Burke
For many, many decades, the idea of vigilantes—and the occasional actual vigilante—have been condemned for “taking the law into their own hands.” There have been several fictional renditions of this value judgment in both literature and films, the best being The Ox-Bow Incident. The underlying premise is that if there is both a law enforcement system and a judiciary in place, eventually a satisfactory resolution of a crime will take place and, besides, vigilantes are bound to make mistakes, unlike the judiciary system which is flawless. Therefore, in order to maintain tranquility in the body politic, vigilantes are unnecessary, unfair and disruptive.
The exception, of course, lies in defending one’s home from invasive criminals. Most Democrats despise gun ownership even for self-defense at home; some will occasionally begrudge their necessity in those circumstance although they would prefer that the would-be victim call the (defunded) police—who would arrive too late. So, being a “vigilante” in one’s own home is approved by a majority of the population. However, the same principle applying in the public sphere is the matter of debate.
We should examine the pejorative “taking the law into their own hands.” Considering that we live in a democracy, that statement, on the other hand, implies that the law and its enforcement belongs to an elite whose authority cannot be circumvented or questioned.
That is wrong.
Citizens demand laws and their enforcement. Their representatives pass the laws and are supposed to enforce those laws.
But what if there is no law enforcement? What if there is no judiciary? Or, what if they do exist but they are visibly, irrevocably, broken? Ineffective? What if our legislators are worthless mouthbreathers? In that situation what, then, should the citizens do, just let themselves be victimized, just stand by and not aid someone who is being victimized by a criminal? Most liberals would answer in the affirmative (to get an idea how their minds work, they urge addictive illegal drugs such as cocaine, fentanyl, etc. be decriminalized, since people who want those drugs get them illegally anyway; simultaneously, they urge guns and gun possession be outlawed so no one will ever get shot since people will not get them illegally).
Under such circumstances, I would argue that citizens are perfectly justified in reassuming the role of law enforcement. In order to avoid being victimized and stop the erosion of civilization, vigilantes are not only excusable but necessary. Unfortunately, discussion of this topic makes some people very nervous.
Nevertheless, remember United Airlines Flight 93? Remember the 2015 Thalys train attack? If the passengers had not become “vigilantes” what would have happened?
At the present time in American society there is a concerted effort by Democrats and the consummate puppet master, George Soros, to cause the collapse of society by subverting the judicial system and eliminating law enforcement through “defunding” and demonizing. This would not only result in the collapse of normal society, towards which they have endlessly voiced their hatred and contempt, but it would also have the desired goal of transforming America into another Venezuela. In that country, the Communist regime let loose the criminal element in Venezuelan society to run rampant in order to erode normal societal norms so that their hold on power would become solidified.
In the present situation, they are relying exclusively on ghetto trash. When ghetto trash commit crimes, the Soros-chosen DAs refuse to hold them in jail, press charges, or even arrest them, because to do so would be “racist.” Besides, “reparations” for the little darlings are in order.
Consequently, the criminals have gotten the message loud and clear and the ghetto trash have began to ransack stores of merchandise in groups in those cities where the Democrats rule. They have also viciously assaulted people, usually women, Asians and the old. Democrat politicians have excused or minimized the depredations and ignored the cries of the citizens. For Democrats, blacks are the proletariat who will usher a racial glorious Marxist utopia.
As can be expected, the police in those cities are demoralized and the public have for the most part kept their heads low and become sheeplike (“learned helplessness” is called in psychology), as the media hivemind either suppresses news or engages in propaganda, claiming that anyone who objects to the state of affairs must be a “racist.” New York City is one of the cities where this is taking place, which brings to mind the Kitty Genovese tragedy. The typical citizen keeps hoping that someone will do something.
Someone other than themselves, that is.
They keep waiting for a savior.
Or even Jesus.
At this point I would like to make the case that under the circumstances, in light of the absence of law and order, vigilantism is not only excusable, but it is necessary, not only for self-protection or, for helping others being victimized, but also to arrest the destruction of civilization, the end goal of the Left. It is only when citizens “take the law into their hands” at a time when civil society is on the verge of collapse and justice has been corrupted that criminal anarchy or criminal despotism will end and further criminal actions will be averted. For example, in Athens, Tennessee, the Democrats carried out fraudulent elections, as has been their habit sporadically since Tammany days. Sheriff deputies were ex-convicts that would carry out crimes, primarily on persons traveling through town. When the next election took place and fraud was again being perpetrated, the citizens had enough and revolted, putting the Democrats and their criminal minions under siege at the jail. After hours of gunfire, the Democrats surrendered, and ballot boxes revealed that the they had been voted out of office.
This is not to say, of course, that the elites in charge are going to give up power or give up on their goal and tactics just because of a little individual opposition. Oh, no. Although most of the people who are present when ghetto trash loot a store stand around with their mouths open, scared to do anything, or when the people who are present look away when some thug insults or brutalizes an old person, a woman, or an Asian, or squatters settle into someone else’s home, there have been rare instances of heroes, men who have stepped up and either stopped the actions or tried to.
Predictably, the Democrat DAs and politicians have responded by verbally condemning the interference, or threatened the heroic individual, or even arrested him, proving to one and all that they are on the side of criminals.
And then, of course, we have Democrat politicians who want Donald Trump arrested for questioning the validity of the 2020 election.
This is not the first time that such a crisis has occurred. A similar state of affairs occurred in the early 1980s in New York City where, again, crime had metastasized. One citizen, Bernhard Goetz, had been victimized before, so he began carrying a handgun for protection. One day on the subway, he was surrounded by four blacks demanding money, whereupon he shot them. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau was outraged at this act of self-defense—and against blacks, no less! —and filed charges against him.
So, it is not just the criminals who are the enemy. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they are not the principal enemy.
Something else to consider in today’s climate.
Follow NER on Twitter @NERIconoclast