This rule is the obverse of the exhortation to never frag a fellow retrograde. Yet, it deserves its own space on our list. While refraining from doing something negative is one thing, it’s quite another to actively strive to do something positive. Affirmatively defending retrograde compatriots is necessary if we are to prevent our cause from being damaged by personnel attrition at the hands of radicals. It’s worth remembering that radicals selectively target the most effective and intimidating retrogrades for political hit jobs and character assassinations. They assail those whom they fear most. As such, we must have a robust system of defense in place; we must cultivate a NATO-esque “an attack on one is an attack on all” mindset, a seamless entente. We must insulate each other from the smear tactics and yellow journalism so characteristically wielded by radicals. We’re too few to lightly abide casualties.
What does circling the wagons look like in practice? When allegations about the misconduct of a fellow retrograde are being bandied about, go to the accused directly and solicit his side of the story, his defense. If his defense, taken on its own, is adequately plausible, extend to him the benefit of the doubt, believe him, and steadfastly advocate his story before the court of public opinion if the opportunity presents itself. If no opportunity to step forward in defense of an ally manifests, then a dignified silence is acceptable, since it does no harm and still carries with it an assumption of solidarity with one’s fellows. If one has no direct or conversational knowledge about the pending allegations of misconduct but is confronted with questions about the situation, then he ought to take the defensive talking points that he has heard second-hand, and using common-sense and inductive reasoning, apply them the best he can, given his limited knowledge. Where right reason allows, the retrograde must fix his will on believing allies and disbelieving enemies. All things equal, the word of a retrograde should vastly outweigh the word of a radical. We know that the man who is trustworthy in small things is also trustworthy in larger things. It stands to reason that the word of a pro-life, pro-marriage Christian man is to be believed over a godless pagan radical.
It should be noted at the outset that there are exceptions to this rule. Unlike the radical, the retrograde knows he is bound by the eternal moral law and by the dictates of a well-informed conscience. He cannot blindly defend the illicit acts of his peers simply on the basis of political expediency—such a notion should be shunned by the man of high character. As such, when a preponderance of evidence suggests that a fellow retrograde has, indeed, committed grave transgressions involving moral turpitude or felonious breaches of criminal law, then it is appropriate to quietly withdraw one’s support for the embattled retrograde or to even discretely counsel him to take leave of the public eye, repent of his misdeeds, and, if applicable, resign his position of public trust. Unless the disgraced retrograde has given rise to a public scandal, there is no moral impetus to rebuke him publicly. Quite the opposite, when it is necessary to rebuke our allies, we should strive to rebuke them privately, away from the voyeurism and prying of the media. Do not give radicals further ammunition that they can detonate on the retrograde cause. Where only venial and superficial transgressions have been charged to a fellow retrograde, we should dedicate our communication to pointing out the absurdity of wasting time and resources hyper-scrutinizing trifles.
We must also pause here for a scholium: just because we ascertain that a retrograde ally is guilty of misconduct does not mean that we must blindly accept the sanction or redress that radicals suggest for his punishment. Just because a man stands rightly accused doesn’t mean he stands rightly sentenced. Nor is it a marker of lack of humility for a wrongdoer to admit his guilt but quibble with an undue or overly harsh chastisement. In order to maximize their political gain from the mistakes of their opponents, radicals will always press for the most draconian measures to be imposed on an errant retrograde. It is here that fellow retrogrades must instantiate the perfect nexus between justice and prudence. While allowing for, and even welcoming the application of just punishment to a wrongdoer, retrogrades must never allow their shame and embarrassment to turn them into a kangaroo court that rubber stamps even the most inapt and overly-harsh punitive measures. In our haste to uphold law and order, we shouldn’t allow ourselves to begin prescribing the death penalty for parking violations.
It is in the realm of the application of justice that mod-cons falter to the highest degree; this is also where radicals make the most hay. Too often, in the wake of a scandal, mod-cons are overly anxious for their political party to be out of the spotlight and to have the news cycle pivot to less humiliating fare. As such, they accept, without a fight, the unduly harsh penalties proposed by radicals more interested in making a winning political play than in seeing justice borne out. This human-sacrifice, this friendly-fire, must be recognized and resisted.
Additionally, due to a nasty streak of superciliousness endemic to mod-cons, it’s not uncommon for them to openly criticize (read: frag) allies after a transgression has occurred. This sort of opportunistic virtue-signaling is to be avoided at all costs. It’s as if naïve mod-cons think that they will earn the respect of radicals by appearing sufficiently just to mete out chastisement to members of their own tribe. Clownish establishmentarians like Mitt “Pierre Delecto” Romney are genuinely shocked when they are calumniated by radicals when political circumstances so necessitate (e.g., in Romney’s failed 2012 presidential campaign against Obama, then-Senator Harry Reid slanderously accused him of not having paid taxes for ten years), despite making a career out of finger-wagging at retrogrades in his own political party to the delight of progressives. Don’t fall into this trap. Radicals will not hold the traitorous mod-con in higher regard than the rest of his ilk; instead, they’ll happily accept the services of the useful idiot, and then discard him when he has naught left to offer.
Radicals, on the other hand, excel at rushing to the aid of a fellow radical in distress. They do it mechanically, automatically, without hesitating. Radicals never turned on Hillary Clinton, even in the shadow of scandals like Benghazi, Uranium One, and her e-mail server debacle. Instead, they supported her all the more vigorously. Radicals never called for President Obama’s scalp despite his connections to scandals like “Operation Fast and Furious,” the weaponization of the Internal Revenue Service against conservative organizations, and his Department of Justice’s wiretapping of Associated Press journalists. They supported him all the more ardently. Radicals categorically refuse to cannibalize their allies. And retrogrades should take a leaf out of their book in this regard (subject to the exceptions set forth above).