By guest author Jackson P. Chamberlain
There is a heavily-armed, thoroughly peeved 900 pound gorilla in the American room.
Everyone knows it’s there. Some talk about it, but behave as if it’s behind unbreakable safety glass. Others rant of the terrible threat it poses, but their Chicken Little act is just that; an act. They use this gorilla as a prop in their never-ending theater of manipulation and division, but they don’t seriously believe it can break through its cordon either.
Perhaps most surprising, the gorilla itself regularly puts on an act of its own, pounding it’s chest and bellowing as if to say “look at me and be afraid!” – but in truth the mighty creature isn’t really sure it should be taken seriously, and believes its cage is inescapable.
What’s also inescapable is the increasing peeve of this pet. The displays are more frequent and more animated and gaining in vigor. For reasons that should be obvious, it’s time we take a closer look at this gorilla and more importantly, the devices that hold it back. The primate grows more perturbed by the hour, and while nobody wants to contemplate it, it may be only a matter of time before those devices are tested.
The gorilla in question is the American populace and its capacity for and inclination toward armed revolt against the institutions of the nation. The flimsy cage that contains it is an increasingly abusive government ruling by fear and intimidation, and the ape’s own willingness to hold itself in check.
This situation isn’t talked about much, at least not in serious terms, because doing so – if you’re a part of the gorilla class – is dangerous. And while the political and media classes will do so given any opportunity, their discussions are disingenuous.
“Insurrection” and “domestic terrorism” are just meaningless words these types use to paint their political opponents in a negative light with the intention of further dividing and manipulating us all. Proof of this phenomenon is easily gleaned by examining every laughable statement and activity that has followed the Capitol selfie-tour of January 6th.
Even those within the gorilla class who bang their chests the loudest are uncertain what else to do. They’re typically held in check by forces external and internal; they naturally fear the government in terms both legal and tyrannical, but more importantly they recognize the enormity of the consideration and the uncertainty of the outcome.
Most hope that with just a little more time, circumstances will reverse and they’ll be able to stand down from the brink they’re increasingly drawn toward. Both forces are fear motivated. It’s critical to understand that fear is the only “safety glass” that actually contains the angry gorilla – and fear is rapidly giving way to what many perceive as necessity.
Consider the psychology of any cornered creature; harassed and terrorized, the beast will eventually, suddenly stop being afraid and, freed of the fear, will attack ferociously and without mercy. Now imagine that beast has half a billion guns and trillions of rounds of ammunition.
Only a fool believes that Americans don’t feel cornered, harassed, and terrorized of late. Walk through any venue where every day Americans gather and simply listen to the conversation. Peaceful existence and essential self-determination are coded into our liberty-loving DNA, but this moment in time, more than any other since the American Revolution, has robbed us of anything resembling peace or personal freedom. And rather than recognize the danger in all of this, the ruling class and its media sycophants continue to double- and triple-down on the very “mandates” and divisive proclamations that have us all so on edge. The breaking point is visible on the horizon, and palpable even when gathered in a crowd that buys into the government narrative.
When resistance appears to be a better option than continued oppression, and fear gives way to the sweet fragrance of freedom, the die will be cast. In short, the gorilla will shred the plastic-wrap barrier that currently holds him back.
We are much nearer to that point than most seem to realize.
Just how grave is this situation?
To answer, we need look no further than the Just War Doctrine. Codified by Western scholars over the past fifteen centuries, this doctrine outlines the moral basis upon which war may be justifiably declared and fought. In the case of armed revolution within a nation, the competing sides are viewed as representing two distinct “authorities”; the existing government versus “the will of the people”.
Polling confirms that the will of the people has been and continues to be dismissed.
For example, a plurality of the American electorate believes that the most recent election ignored the laws of the land, and plentiful evidence of heinous disenfranchisement and outright cheating abounds. Election shenanigans – which continue to this day – could be sufficient argument that the governed are no longer being represented and they could justifiably choose to remove their consent.
There is much more, of course. In response to the overblown COVID situation, the government continues to push illogical mask mandates not backed by science, destructive shutdowns and other restrictions on everyday life, and incessant and increasing intrusion upon our right to make our own medical decisions. Vaccine mandates, denial of effective treatment options, and strict control of access to all information pertaining to alternative choices are but a few examples of government, media, and Big Tech run amok.
And that’s just COVID. Let’s not forget our mandatory education system, which too often features curricula that does not meet with the approval of parents. Let’s recognize the clear-cut “two-tiered” justice we’re witnessing daily, and the fact that federal agencies are increasingly being weaponized against political opponents. As we speak, countless Americans – victims of the January 6 witch-hunt – are sitting in solitary confinement without due process for no legitimate reason except politically-motivated, disproportionate punishment in lieu of a proportionate crime. This last one falls under the “making an example of” consideration, a specific violation of the “Just
Cause” portion of the Just War Doctrine, proving on its face that sufficient grievance has been and continues to be suffered to justify an armed response.
Further, “Just Cause” states that war is justified when innocent life is in imminent danger and the war action is intended to protect life. Note that “in danger” does not have to mean “at risk of death”, but may also include perpetual and unfair incarceration or other punishment. With the “Just Cause” provision, force may only be used to correct a grave public evil, such as massive violation of the basic human rights of a whole population. Basic human rights (like deciding whether experimental “vaccines” are injected into our bodies) are being rapidly and purposefully stripped away on an unprecedented scale, and the tenacity of that effort only grows with each passing day.
Taken in total, the “Just Cause” provision is sufficiently met.
The “Comparative Justice” condition states primarily that the party considering the use of force must be “comparatively more just” than the party upon which such force is to be brought. This condition is met if we believe that the American people are honest citizens who truly believe their rights are being violated, and that they would undertake an armed response solely to restore a government which will respect those rights.
It is well-documented (and certainly well accepted, at least within the “gorilla class”) that the people hold the right to overthrow an oppressive government. Our Constitution specifies that lawful power originates from the people, and when experiencing overwhelming oppression from governors they themselves empower, the people have both the right and duty to resist said government when it has exceeded its authority. This clearly meets the “Competent Authority” provision of the Just War Doctrine. In short, “the people know for what end they set up and maintain their govern[ment]”, and are as such proper judges of when they have been oppressed by their governors.
“Right Intention” means just what it says; that the intention for bringing violent action must be to right a wrong, not for material gain. Given that it is quite likely an armed American resistance would itself suffer great losses (financial and otherwise), it can be reasonably concluded that this resistance would rise up for all the “right” reasons, including restoration of our nation’s Constitution and the basic human rights of the American populace. Hence this condition can also be considered as met.
When defining the “Probability of Success”, the result of armed resistance need not be measured in terms of a war “won” or “lost”, but rather with restored faith in government and re-issued consent of the governed. If the “Just Cause” is not the defeat of an “enemy”, per se, but rather the restoration of legitimate, acceptable governance (and subsequently, the human rights that have been and are being denied), the mere act of armed resistance may foster that outcome. Attempts to quantify this success probability is likely moot for any number of reasons, but it is not unreasonable to believe that a noteworthy armed response could result in sufficient progress toward such restoration even at the simple undertaking of it. Moreover, there is ample reason to believe that given the state of armament within the American populace sufficient probability exists for success in armed conflict to satisfy this condition in any case.
The “Last Resort” provision of the Just War Doctrine states, in effect, that all other reasonable means of correcting the injustice must have been exhausted before war is justified. In satisfying this condition, the American people must have:
- Pursued elections. Given that the last major election was decided illegitimately in the eyes of a sufficient number of people (which on it’s own could certainly warrant forceful action), and that reasonable doubt remains regarding the likely legitimacy of future elections, this avenue could justifiably be seen as having been exhausted.
- Filed lawsuits, petitions, etc. Many such actions are ongoing, but all of them require an inordinate amount of time to conclude – time which is being exploited to further erode the rights of the populace and continue the cruel, unfair imprisonment of presumed-innocent Americans. This not only violates their rights, but directly threatens the rights of all of us.
- Commenced protests, strikes, etc. These have also been ongoing, but despite the lack of violence or other meaningful aggression on the part of protesters, such actions are now routinely labeled as “insurrection”, and anyone participating in them (or otherwise speaking out against the edicts of the government) are branded “domestic terrorists”. This stands in stark contrast to the actual riots and truly violent protests held just a summer ago by de facto supporters of this regime and the ideologies embodied within it. Those assaults on peace caused real harm, real deaths, and real financial devastation—but continue to be referred to by those in power as “peaceful protests”, and few of the perpetrators of these crimes have faced any form of prosecution. This is clearly “two-tiered justice”, forbidden by our Constitution, and it amply demonstrates the extent to which the powers-that-be attempt to silence dissension and coerce complacency from within the ranks of the American public aggrieved by their policies and the enforcement thereof. These are direct assaults on free speech and peaceable assembly, also in violation of our Constitutional rights.
The “Last Resort” condition could be judged as met given the circumstances outlined above, but it is further influenced by ever-present and increasing efforts to restrict and/or confiscate the means of “last resort” currently available to the population, despite Second Amendment protections meant to prevent that very circumstance.
Further, when non-violent recourse could bring nearly as much retaliation from the government as forceful resistance – a reality we have already seen and are further witnessing with the recent push by the Attorney General to investigate parents protesting their schools’ curricula – such limitation of the peaceful options satisfies the “all other efforts” portion of this provision, leaving the American people with little or no choice besides armed resistance.
When considering “Proportionality”, the briefest stroll through history demonstrates that the potential devastation of allowing tyranny to go unchecked is proportionally worse than the expected destruction fostered by an armed response. In terms of the protection of human rights, the preservation of personal freedom, and the restoration of true justice, the proportionality condition can easily be met on purely philosophical terms alone. However, examples such as those witnessed in 1930s-40s Europe, 1970s Cambodia, nearly three decades of Mao Zedong, and even in a sense the Rwanda genocide of 1994, provide ample evidence of the real human cost of standing by and doing nothing. Unchecked governmental overreach and abject tyranny in the guise of “safety” and “protection” inevitably leads to massive human suffering and death. History repeatedly proves this out. The cost of fighting such tyranny, even via violent means, pales in comparison. The Proportionality condition is surely also met on these demonstrable standards.
These “Just War” conditions are the criteria used by Western scholars and moral authorities for determining whether armed conflict is justified, and as I’ve just outlined, all have been met in some form or another, most in many forms. If the environment is as ripe for armed resistance as it appears, and the justification for it is as clear-cut as current circumstances seem to confirm, the only reasonable response is to very carefully consider the 900-pound gorilla and what, if any, barrier truly stands in the way of his aggression taking the form of a violent response. In short, it is time for both the observers of the gorilla and the gorilla itself to examine the cause and the cage.
No one wants war; it is an ugly, fearful business. But in a situation where the greater good may best be served by pursuing a war footing, it could easily be said that it is morally justified, and even a moral imperative, to consider such action. And if this is the case today, as it appears to be, it is massively important for all parties to stop ignoring the gorilla. Instead, we must all engage in purposeful, immediate action to correct the provocations that have so inflamed the passions of this potentially dreadful beast.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This essay is not a call to arms, but rather a call to action. The type of action, and the direction from which it flows, will ultimately determine all other actions that follow. It is my hope that by expressing the current mood of the American public – increasingly inclined toward the worse – as well as demonstrating the moral viability of the terrible step to which enough may be moved, that such a perilous path might be avoided. What can no longer be avoided is recognizing the very real possibility of armed conflict if current conditions persist. Dismissing the gorilla is no longer a viable option.
By Jackson P. Chamberlain
Jackson P. Chamberlain is a right-leaning, liberty-loving husband and father whose American heritage dates back nearly four hundred years. He writes from his home at the base of the Appalachian Mountains. He can be found on GETTR @jpchamberlain, or on MeWe as Jackson Chamberlain.
The opinions expressed in the essay are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Blue State Conservative