You’re in grade school. There’s a large boy, whose mom works as a school counselor, that takes your dessert every day and punches you in the stomach if you refuse. What do you do?

Do not resist. It’s just a dessert, after all. Tell an authority about it. Maybe they’ll be able to stop it. Punch him back. Bodily resist.

For those who have been in a situation like this, the answer is obvious: you bodily resist. Bullies give up when they can’t easily get what they want; they slink back to the shadows or pick a new target.

But modern centrist thought would say this is not the correct way. That patiently enduring until the bully eventually gives up is the correct course of action. This is, of course, absurd. But to understand just how absurd requires us to examine violence.

What is Violence?

It’s important for us to understand the different types of violence because we are told so frequently that “all violence is bad.” But violence is not de facto bad. It is a tool that can be used for good or evil, just like any other tool. To know if it is wrong to be violent, we have to know what purpose it is being used for. To that end, you can plot violence along three general axes.

Rhetorical vs Actual : Rhetorical violence is the promoting of violence through words, rather than actually committing it. Actual violence is just that. It’s important to note that rhetorical violence can and does lead to actual violence; propaganda against people can turn public opinion against them, leading to physical retaliation.

: Rhetorical violence is the promoting of violence through words, rather than actually committing it. Actual violence is just that. It’s important to note that rhetorical violence can and does lead to actual violence; propaganda against people can turn public opinion against them, leading to physical retaliation. Implicit vs Explicit : Implicit violence is violence whose initial cause is hidden. Explicit violence is violence that is obvious. Punching somebody in the head is explicit violence; removing a woman’s access to an abortion clinic is implicit violence.

: Implicit violence is violence whose initial cause is hidden. Explicit violence is violence that is obvious. Punching somebody in the head is explicit violence; removing a woman’s access to an abortion clinic is implicit violence. Defensive vs Offense: Defensive violence is any violence taken to protect yourself. Offensive violence is any violence taken to injure another. It’s important to note that offensive violence is often dressed up as defensive, usually by the right. This is a tactic used to muddy the waters, but it’s fairly easy to tell the difference. Would said person be violent towards said group regardless of cause? If so, it’s offensive violence.

Some examples of different kinds of violence:

Explicit Offensive Rhetorical : Donald Trump is going to throw you into a gas chamber and kill you.

: Donald Trump is going to throw you into a gas chamber and kill you. Implicit Offensive Actual : We are dismantling health care reform which will lead to millions of people losing their insurance.

: We are dismantling health care reform which will lead to millions of people losing their insurance. Implicit Defensive Rhetorical : You should not be able to say those things without repercussions.

: You should not be able to say those things without repercussions. Explicit Defensive Actual: I punched you in the head because you’re a neo-Nazi.

By understanding what the different kinds of violence are, we open ourselves to the nuance of violence, the knowledge that not all violence is bad. Because it’s very clear there’s one kind of acceptable violence: defensive.

It Is Okay To Defend Yourself

Defensive violence is the kind usually condemned by the likes of centrist milquetoast liberals, but which is a staple of resisting oppression. Martin Luther King Jr. had this to say about riots, for example:

A riot is the language of the unheard.

Condemning violence without understanding what causes it implicitly supports violent causes, because it equivocates defensive violence — that is, violence used to protect somebody — with offensive violence — that is, violence used to control or intimidate others. It says that a Nazi and an anti-fascist are the same because their tactics are the same, without recognizing that those tactics are merely a means, and that the intended end is what we should be concerned with.

The fascist-antifa dynamic, in fact, offers us a clear look at how the same tactic, violence, can be used to fit two different ends.

Nazi: The destruction of non-whites, their expulsion from modern society, the enslavement of women, and mandatory loyalty to the state.

Antifa: The protection of non-whites, the liberation of the oppressed, and conditional loyalty to the state.

A Nazi fights to oppress; an anti-fascist fights to liberate.

It’s important to note that the Nazi will attempt to paint their struggle as a liberation, because all violence looks better when cloaked under the guise of an underdog. But this is a typical oppressor tactic known as DARVO: deny and reverse victim/offender. By co-opting the language of victims, oppressors attempt to paint themselves as the ones actually under attack.

This isn’t restricted to Nazis. Religious fundamentalists do it — telling me I can’t discriminate against you is a violation of my right to self-determination — as do libertarians — forcing me to pay taxes is theft, even though I use publicly-funded property every single day.

The principle of defensive and offensive violence can be broken even further down into simple precepts which will help you identify what is truly defensive and what is pretending to be defensive to avoid challenge. Defensive violence is any violence which seeks to maintain or grant human rights to the person committing said violence; offensive violence is any violence which seeks to deny human rights against the person who the violence is committed against.

Are We No Better Than Nazis?

The initial reaction to this sort of argument is extremely predictable. The most common is that this is a slippery slope; if it’s okay to enact violence upon those we disagree with, what’s to stop us from stooping to the same level as a Nazi?

This argument is, as most centrist arguments are, the refuge of intellectual cowards and morons. But it’s still important to see why, in fact, it is a monumental farce to characterize defensive violence as a disagreement.

The murder of an entire race is not a legitimate opinion. The denial of basic human rights — such as the right to sexual autonomy, the right to marriage and child-rearing, the right to equal employment opportunities, the right to equal educational opportunities — is not a legitimate opinion. These are not “disagreements”; denying that a woman should have bodily autonomy is a violation of that woman’s rights.

Any opinion which denies somebody their basic rights is not a legitimate one. Any opinion which advocates for the death or harm of the innocent, either explicitly or implicitly, is a morally bankrupt one unworthy of being spoken, written, or broadcast. By giving these “opinions” a platform, we legitimize them. We say that yes, killing all black people to pave the way for a racially pure United States is a morally acceptable potential outcome.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. When we refuse to see how ideas relate to each other, and the harm those ideas can cause, we build a moral framework disconnected from reality. In such a framework, Nazis are the same as socialists, genocidal dictators are the same as ascetic monks. It’s absurd.

So next time somebody comes up to you wringing their hands because somebody said Nazis should be beaten bloody, let them know just how narrow and unreal their moral compass is. Let them know that defending the oppressed with violence is not only ethical, but a moral imperative. Let them know that we must resist — first with our words and then, if that does not succeed, with our bodies and fists — the march of oppression that will gladly grind us beneath its heels. Remind them of that old parable:

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

Blessings to all who fight the good fight, and may we see true peace and equality in our time.