The rejection of violence is not a neutral position. The British in America in 1775, The Russian tsar in 1917, and the Nazis in 1945 would have gladly renounced violence and preserve the status quo.

Today, the right are actually on the left: they want to employ violence to radically change the status quo. The leftist liberals who reject violence are actually conservatives—they want to preserve the situation and let the world roll along uninterrupted.

The world does change. The old arrangements and institutions must go, but they cling to existence. The systemic changes are mostly violent.

People who want to preserve their values and property have to credibly threaten those who encroach upon it. Imagine if Rome had welcomed barbarians, issued them visas, politely called the invaders Roman Gauls, and tried to assimilate them with affirmative action.

Violence is indispensable even inside communities. People pay taxes out of fear of government reprisal, and many abstain from robbing banks for the same reason. A society without violence is a leftist fiction. Sensible leftists like Rousseau and Marx recognized that their idyllic states would need the threat of violence.

People cooperate, at most, with neighbors (those of similar values), and compete with others. Goodwill can be practiced, at most, at the national level; international peace depends on credible threat.

Leftists, particularly the media, expunge violence from policy and discourse. Advocates of resoluteness—a potentially violent approach—are suppressed. Countries that don’t fight for their values and interests abandon them. Submission to an enemy is the only alternative to violence. The leftists, unwilling to admit that submission is an act of cowardice, justify it by shedding our core values and accepting our opponents’.

It is not that renunciation of violence allows different values to co-exist. The other side does not accept our values. Gays do not accept our definition of family as a childbearing institution, and Muslims reject monogamy. The party that decides to co-exist abandons its values and accepts the opponent’s. Subservient professors and journalists rush to convince the public that the others’ values aren’t bad.

The admission of violence as policy instrument need not translate into perpetual fighting. The key is co-existence. The Bible prescribes caret, banishment of the people who offend society’s values. The West need not impose its values on others, but must use the threat of violence to firmly resist encroachment. Muslims can practice polygamy in their countries; gays could enter committed relationships—uh, somewhere. The West can live according to its values. When gays ask to call their method of sex marriage, say no. When Muslims protest the Pope’s words or MTV broadcasts, ignore them. When they attack the West, retaliate overwhelmingly and indiscriminately.

Credible threat made the pax Romana secure for centuries. The West’s renunciation of violence provokes a humble opponent to become a brave enemy—and to strike.