Monthly Archives: January 2016

Fighting for Our Freedoms

If Veterans Were Fighting for Our Freedoms…
…why do we have so few freedoms left?

Laurence M. Vance

Another man pointed out what most soldiers in the West are actually fighting for: the benefits and bureaucratic safety.

Even better, he discovered the simple fact that you can’t have a police state without police. So when that informally independent Calvinist county arises (at around 2070-2100, I’d guess), not only should there be no standing army (as per I Samuel); there should be no police as well.

So who enforces the law? The community of men, of course: a millitia, led by the men they choose, with the arms and weaponry they freely choose to purchase and use.

(Women and the older children should be armed as well, but that’s just for self-defense: they are not permitted to join a mustered militia.)

This Christian community, bonded and shaped by the Law and Will of God, would indeed be a light on a hill – unlike the current rotting secularist Republic. Something to work for: even if only your grandchildren live to get it, such Christian liberty would be worth every drop of sweat and every twist of pain to achieve!


In the meantime, how should we fight for our freedoms?

The way we worship, naturally: consistently, in all our actions and all our deeds.

After all, the desire for liberty (and the inescapable tie to self-governance and personal responsibility to God and Man) is a natural outgrowth of Christianity  – and deeply alien to both our atheistic lords and our Islamic enemies.

See Rushdoony’s chapter “The Ground of Liberty” in his book The One and the Many for details.  Or his book Law and Liberty for a fuller expansion.

Getting back to the subject…

Since liberty is a Christian concern (and certainly not a concern for secular statists or Muslims), we must fight for it primarily by shaping our own behaviour and desires, respecting the natural God-given liberty of others, while working to defend the freedom of our own person, the right to our property, and the similar freedoms of the family, the church, our businesses, and our counties and towns and even our city neighbourhoods.

Liberty is first fought for and won in our hearts: then in our churches, by good Bible-based preaching and exposition of the Divine concept; then in our families and businesses; then in our towns and counties and cities and local laws & courts…

(this will actually require the mass abolition of most local laws, BTW)

…and only at the end at the national level, after a strong foundation has been laid.

This is mainly a question of sweat, labour, dedication, organization, preaching, and some money: guns generally don’t get into it as a matter of course (at least in North America), while the liberty to own weapons is definitely something to be defended and expanded.

Advertisements

Sell to Win

I picked up the video from Ron Paul’s online class on business.

You know I believe in fighting to win… but 99% of the time, you won’t need to do so.

What you will need to do, preferably 50% of your time, Monday to Saturday, is make money by helping people. This is where you build your life – at least the “get food and put a roof over your head” area of your life.

The Destruction of a Dissident

From the BBC:

Leading Chinese dissident, Gao Zhisheng, has been “utterly destroyed” after three years in jail, says his international lawyer, Jared Gensher.

Mr Gao – who was released from prison last week – was emotionless, “basically unintelligible” and had lost teeth through malnutrition, Mr Gensher said.

As a prominent human rights lawyer, Mr Gao had defended China’s Christians and followers of the Falun Gong movement.

He is alleged to have suffered physical and psychological abuse in jail.

As well as losing many teeth, Mr Gao’s daily ration of cabbage and a single slice of bread had caused him to lose 20 kg in weight, according to a statement by US-based advocacy group, Freedom Now.

The group said he had been confined to a cramped cell, with very little light, and had been largely deprived of human contact until his release.

Freedom Now said Mr Gao’s wife, Geng He, had spoken to her husband and was “completely devastated” by what the Chinese government had done to him.

“The only thing I feared more than him being killed was his suffering relentless and horrific torture and being kept alive,” she is quoted as saying.

Addendum: according to Wikipedia, Gao was held in a prison in Xinjiang Province, a prison far inland with few Western sympathizers and a hardline against people who challenge Beijing.

Note: The main reason for the venom the Chinese government had against Mr. Gao was not so much his defense of Christians, but his desire to support & protect the banned Falun Gong group.

Lesson One: Western governments talk a lot about their willingness to expand and defend religious freedom anywhere. This is obviously false, nothing but blasts of hot air to satisfy the intellectuals. Money is far more important than liberal blather, as is noted by their support of Saudi Arabia and their willingness to dump Mr. Gao down the memory hole for the sake of Chinese deals.

Mr. Gao’s nomination for the Noble Peace Prize didn’t protect him. And if anything, his Christianity would only increase the pain poured on him, not lessen it.

Lesson Two: Christians are commanded to be brave, and to push forward the Kingdom regardless of the cost. And yet, Jesus Himself said, count the cost. I don’t know if Mr. Gao really did so: perhaps not, as he spent a lot of time trying to escape capture by the government.

Now, he has paid the price. I doubt if he thinks that the trade-off was worth it.

Remember that Christianity is a costly religion: you did not pay the price for your salvation, but there may well be a lesser price, as no servant is greater than his master. Jesus Christ was tortured, humiliated and left to die naked on a cross, based on a kangaroo court set up by the deeply religious people who you’d think would back Him.

Summary:

“What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” — Matthew 20:21-23

If you can’t pay the cost, don’t fool yourself – do yourself a favour, and back off.

If you can pay the price, first make sure that you are buying the right goods – the glory of the Kingdom of God, and not some lesser good, like religious liberty or Western cultural supremacy or equality for all. If you want to work for God, you must work only for Him, and aim for the reward only He can give… and not the applause of wealthy and powerful men.

Our God is a jealous God, and simply will not share His glory with any other god, or any other power.

One Final Note:

The Dissident was not Destroyed permanently. From Freegao.com

I wrote previously,

Now, he has paid the price. I doubt if he thinks that the trade-off was worth it.

Perhaps he does think the trade-off was worth it, after all. If it glorifies Christ the King, then I agree.

More videos from China Aid are here; their website is here.

As for the might and power of the Chinese economy, the current deity Western governments prostitute their supposedly sacred human rights for, North’s article Showdown in China: Keynes vs. Mises, based on Stockman’s article Red Ponzi Ticking, points out its clay feet.

Selected Quotations from “No Trespassing”

From “No Trespassing”

The first principle of a Biblical covenant is transcendence. God is the Creator. How does this apply to man in his relation to the creation? Man is made in God’s image. Therefore, man is a ruler over creation, too.

In the Old Testament, the guardians of God’s holy sanctuary were the priests. This is why the Old Testament occasionally refers to the religious leaders as gods. “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?” (Psalm 82:1-2). Men are rulers, or judges, over the creation. “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes” (Psalm 82:6-7). God’s judgment was to tall on the religious leaders just as it was about to fall on princes. They all judged unrighteously.

Thus, men are to exercise their rulership over the creation, which is similar to the absolute rulership which God exercises over His creation. This is what the first principle of the covenant, the Creator-creature distinction between a transcendent God and dependent men, points to. Man is God’s image and God’s lawful representative on earth.

All Christians, even all men, have legitimate authority – but this authority is derived from God, and is not original to us. A our authority is derived, we  must give an account on how we used our authority to God.

All the power we have is in God’s Name. But when we do what is contrary to God’s will, we defile His Name, and so bring down judgement on ourselves. When we do what is right, we bring blessings.

Praise God, when we do what is wrong, there is a way to set it right: to repent, to despise what is evil, in the name of Jesus Christ. When we call Jesus Lord, and repent from our evil, He takes the punishment of hell and eternal death from us – the hardest punishment that is rightfully ours.

The person who owns a piece of land has the right to exclude most people most of the time. There are a few exceptions to this rule. In emergencies, the police, as officers of the court who have been issued court orders or warrants, have the legal right to intrude on otherwise protected private property. But the owner has the legal right to keep people from coming onto his property most of the time.

The fence is a sign of this right, or the locked gate. The locked door on a home is another example. The idea is that “a man’s home is his castle”–a legal fortress which must be respected. When some property owner sticks a “No Trespassing” sign at his gate, or somewhere inside the boundaries of his property, his wishes are legally enforceable. He has the legal right to keep people off his property. The legal right to exclude someone from using your property is the essence of all ownership.

There are limits on this right of exclusion. For example, Biblical law says that a traveler who walks along the highway has the right to pick food from privately owned farms. He does not have the right to place the food in baskets or in the folds of his garment, but he has the right to whatever he can carry away (Deuteronomy 23:25). Jesus and His disciples picked corn on the sabbath, but the Pharisees didn’t criticize them for stealing, only for taking corn and rubbing it together on the sabbath (Luke 6:1-5).

Nevertheless, there are only a few cases of such exceptions to exclusion. Property ownership is supposed to be widely dispersed in a Bible-based society, and this means that many people are to have near-exclusive use of their property.

As we do have the derived authority of God, we have the right to lawfully keep out people from our lawful property. This right is clearly drawn from the Bible. It extends to all of what we own: homes and cars and businesses. To the extent that this right is violated – by thugs with muscle, or by bureaucrats in suits – to that extent is the society and nation lawless, and under a curse.

God set Adam and Eve in the garden. “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis 2:15). What does “to keep” mean? It means to keep something away from someone else. To keep the garden away from whom? From the intruder, Satan. They were to maintain it under God’s authority as His appointed agents.

God’s lawful subordinates, Adam and Eve, were to keep the snake out of the garden. But Satan gave smooth lies, on how Adam & Eve could steal from the tree of knowledge, the only place God forbade them from entering and touching.

The moment that they stole God’s property by invading the forbidden boundary, they had in principle abandoned the garden, as well as the world outside, to the devil. If they could rightfully assert their power by violating God’s property, then Satan could rightfully violate their property, too. If they were not willing to honor another owner’s right to exclude them, to what law could they appeal to enforce their property rights? They had violated the rights of the cosmic Enforcer. Who could then enforce their claims against Satan?

By accepting the legitimacy of theft, they became the victims of the greatest thief in the universe. By accepting this cosmic thief’s interpretation of God’s property rights, they thereby placed themselves under Satan’s moral (immoral) rule. They acknowledged their belief in his view of biblical law. What could they say against him after their act of rebellion?

The poisonous act of Adam & Eve has poisoned our lives. And when we imitate their theft with socialism, the future of our children and our society is also poisoned.

In his article Trump, the Establishment, and the Middle Class, Gary North advises us to read Samuel T. Francis’ From Household to Nation. Here, we read of the middle-class’ love of the Right Sort of Welfare: that is, stolen government money directed to their pockets. But much of the middle class is doomed due to technical advances: see Immigration: The Red Cape. Computerization: The Hidden Sword and Infrastructure by Robotics: Jobs in the Future for an introduction.

The welfare state is going to die. Yes, the poor will be kicked off the gravy train first: but the middle class is second in line, and due to the impossible financial cost of those prices, they must be kicked off.

Exclusion is inescapable. The question is: Who will exclude whom, and on what basis? Will power rule, or will God’s law? Will God’s law determine who should be excluded, or man’s law? By what authority will we act, the Voice of God and God’s Law, or the Voice of Powerful Men?

Redeemed men are to increase their authority and dominion. They are to progressively exclude Satan’s followers from positions of authority, in every area of life. How is this to be done? Not by the exercise of power, but by the exercise of following God’s law. Redeemed men are to compete. They are to get rich through productivity. They are to give money away, in a grand exercise of charity. They are to run for political office, especially at the local level, where the Bible says that primary civil responsibility is to be located. They are to bear more and more responsibility in every area of life. Power flows to those who bear responsibility.

In short, the exclusion of the unrighteous from positions of public power is to be accomplished through the enforcement of biblical law. First and foremost, by the Christian’s self-government under biblical law. Second, by Christians gaining majority political support among the voters in favor of biblical law. Third, by enforcing biblical law publicly. This means the steady and systematic replacement of today’s humanist judges with judges who agree to enforce biblical law.

Let us make no mistake: Christian dominion necessarily involves the exclusion of anti-Christians from positions of public power. This is in part a political process. It is a bottom-up process, not a top-down process. But there must be winners and losers politically. Our goal as Christians is to make political and cultural losers out of the humanists and satanists. We must do this through better performance, better organization, and the blessings of God.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Christians must rule themselves, or be ruled by those who despise them – be it secularists, or Muslims, or anyone else. In contrast, if Christians wish to rule over their enemies, they must uphold the Commandments of God, in public and private. Righteousness, not the will to power, is the way to please God and gain His delegated authority to uphold His will on earth.

THIS is how we work repair the breach that Adam made, imitating Jesus Christ, who perfectly upheld the Law, and thus gained total power over creation from the hand of God the Father, in time and on earth.

Engels himself later made this remarkable observation: “It is a curious fact that in every large revolutionary movement the question of ‘free love’ comes to the foreground.” Of course it does; what the revolutionaries hate is Christianity’s principle of legal exclusion. What they hate is God’s right to exclude them from eternal life, and every aspect of exclusive legal rights points to the legal right of God’s people to enjoy God’s favor on earth and in eternity.

[…]

It should not be surprising to learn that Engels never married and had several mistresses, and that Marx seduced his wife’s lifetime maid (yes, “Dr. Communism” had a full-time, lifetime servant) and was the father of her illegitimate son, Fred Demuth.

[…]

But the concept of exclusion is inescapable. The socialists and humanists want people to exclude babies from life. They want people to “keep their gardens” away from crying infants. Again, it is not a question of exclusion vs. no exclusion. It is always a question of who excludes whom, and on what basis.

Someone must decide who lives,and who dies. It can be done righteously, in accordance to the commandments of God, or it can be decided by wealthy and powerful men, in the name of some idol or other (usually themselves).

God has exclusive claims on the lives of all people. As limited creatures, none of us has an unlimited claim on any- thing or anyone, for only God has unlimited claims. But we do have legitimate limited claims on each other: as marriage partners (I Corinthians 7:4-5), as parents (Exodus 20:12; Ephesians 6:1-3), as church members (Ephesians 5:21), and as citizens (Romans 13:1-7).

These claims are defined and described by Biblical law. They are therefore protected relationships. We are speaking of legal protections for mutual ownership (exclusion). For example, parents cannot legally beat their children to death, but they can legally impose physical punishment, and the Bible insists that they must. A parent who refuses to do this hates his child (Proverbs 13:24). (Look up the listing of the word “rod” in Strong’s Concordance, especially in the Book of Proverbs.) So the State has some degree of control, but it is minimal. It can protect a child’s life–a legal boundary, or legal exclusion–but not his behind. It cannot legitimately prohibit physical punishment of children by parents or by those who have been given legal power by parents to represent them in giving physical punishment (school teachers).

All socialists hate the idea that God excludes those who hate Him from eternal life. This division between saved and lost is horrifying to them. They do their best to exclude Christianity and its evil doctrine of God’s exclusive eternal favor to some (but not all) men. Wherever socialism is widely believed by the people, the church is persecuted, or at least discriminated against. Socialism is inherently anti-Christian, and Christianity is inherently anti-socialist.

God owns us, not the State.

The core division in life is that God own our lives, and has the right to divide us into two groups: those who are raised to heaven (and then, the New Creation), and those are flung into hell (and then, the Lake of Fire.)

Socialism is primarily an act against God’s right to use His property as He sees fit. This is in contrast to Islam, which is about killing/stealing/oppressing the Infidel, and giving to themselves – as their deity, their prophet, and their Angel of Light (which calls himself ‘Gabriel’) commands.

The Bible says that God excludes the lost at the day of judgment. It also says that the family and the economy are to be based on the right of individuals to own private property and to exclude others from access to their family members and the property of the members. This outrages socialists, who want the State atone to possess this right of exclusion.

The Biblical principle of exclusion leads us to the following conclusions:

1. God, as the sovereign owner, excludes men from whatever He chooses to keep for Himself.
2. He chooses some for eternal life (adoption, John 1:12), and excludes others (Romans 9).
3. He delegates to men a limited legal power to exclude others in every area of life.
4. Redeemed men are to take dominion from Satan’s followers in every area of life.
5. Redeemed men are therefore to exclude rebellious men from ownership in every area of life.
6. The means of lawful economic exclusion is productivity within a competitive market, not political force.
7. This power of exclusion operates in every area of life: family, church, State, business, education, etc.
8. Exclusion is basic to dominion; it is the training ground for personal responsibility.
9. Ownership (the right to exclude) of property is not to be violated by the State, just as the right to exclude others in marriage is not to be violated.
10. The State is not to become the single owner; therefore, the State cannot legitimately abolish private property.
11. Socialism is theft: the illegitimate exclusion by the Slate of lawful owners.
12. Socialism is therefore anti-dominion and pro-power.
13. Socialism is historically and theoretically anti-family.

Jesus Christ is Lord, not the Socialist State.

The Academy Awards, and The Rot of Empire

As the Empire Falls

Multiethnic, multicultural empires have a tendency to vanish into thin air. Jim Goad’s complaint regarding Black American’s complaints on the Academy award is a case in point. He compares the black demand for representation – token representation, I’d say – with the relative silence of American Hispanics.

But many black Americans these days seem quite happy to promote a culture of complaint.

And this is the problem in my eyes – something encouraged by our socialist intellectuals. It would be far wiser to build up your own culture, than cry out for additional dependence on someone else’s money. But no matter: when the fantasy money games are up, things will be sorted out.

Will Smith has taken the fact that he’s a boring black guy and milked it to the point where his Hollywood career has given him a net worth of a quarter-billion semolians. Yet this uppity ingrate has announced that due to the fact that none of the major acting nominees this year is a Negro, he and his wife Jada Pinkett-Smith will not be gracing this year’s Academy Awards ceremony with their coconut-scented presence. Spike Lee, that noble auteur and proud descendant of the pygmy peoples, has likewise dropped out.

Yes, this is racist mockery. But then again, white people are relentlessly mocked and denigrated in today’s media, so I can understand the tit-for-tat hostility. Payback is payback, yes: but there comes a time when it should come to an end, instead of being some eternal license to grind your heel into the face of another nation.

But our intellectual and media classes – and ‘our black leadership’ – will not relent. They will push and push, until the money runs out, and White Americans decide to look out for themselves, as surely as Black Americans do.

I would prefer a peaceful disintegration of the Empire. This could happen, but there is no guarantee.

Top media executives are so disproportionately Jewish, one wonders why everyone is complaining about white people in Hollywood but no one makes a peep about Jews.

We appear to live in a world where everything is “too white” but nothing can ever possibly be “too Jewish.” That seems like a dangerously fragile double standard. Interesting times.

I’m not so worried about it myself – but then again, I have no particular objection to various forms of self-segregation: it is a function of actually existing forms of liberty, which includes the liberty to exclude, for good or ill. I do agree, though, that the unmentioned double standard is waiting to be exploited.

The way these things tend to work out historically, people will point out the nakedness of the Emperor after he is weak and vulnerable. I don’t much care myself: everyone gets their time in the sun, only to lose it in the fullness of time. Even while Hollywood vs Selected Religions remains true, most of the old media strongholds are making a power dive into the ground.

(It doesn’t have to be this way: a nation really could continuously obey God, and continuously advance in wealth, power, respect, and technological power. But what usually happens is that the pious, courageous and hardworking elders build the society up, and worthless heirs burn it all down to show how independent and different they are from their fore-bearers.

Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if Europeans in the 1910s decided to resolve their difference peacefully?)

But there’s a lot of antisemitism out there on the far right – just like on the far left – lots of hate (which will only grow as the economy sinks), and not much of a willingness to build an alternative. Other than “The Mighty Leader and the Fascist/Communist State” kind of thing, which is worse than worthless.

But to answer my original question, I think that American Hispanics aren’t complaining about the Anglo media because Hispanics have their own media. This is in addition to their own language, their own culture, and their own neighborhoods. They have a couple of their own major cable channels, hundreds of their own newspapers, and over a thousand of their own radio stations. With their numbers topping fifty million, they are the largest deliberately self-segregating ethnic bloc in America, slowly forming their own nation while the rest of the nation largely ignores them.

The American Hispanics have the right idea. The Empire is going to go down: why be dependent on a dying culture?

Elite whites want to keep the empire going, to rule a vast number of conflicting peoples, as they believe that Universal Humanity, the source of meaning, must have a Universal State. Post-White America was supposed to be the seed of the New World Order, just as the European Union was to be.

But the New World Order is a dying thing, now. Too bad the cultural revolutionaries of the 1960s successfully destroyed the social fabric and social capital of the old America, leaving behind only an incompetent security state and welfare/old-age program.

Worrying about “diversity” only seems to happen in majority-white countries.

I see it as a mix of guilt and the Universal Empire instinct. This PC business will be dead and gone, about 20 years after the fall of the welfare state.

All Black Americans should understand the times, and get their business ready to meet the future. But realistically, I expect that only 5% care to know what’s coming down the pike, and are taking steps to be in the right place at the right time.

But Hispanics seem fine just keeping to themselves. That’s why they don’t need no stinking Oscars.

I have a suspicion that Presidents Johnson and Nixon had no love for blacks, but instituted the current civil rights regime – the ‘necessary catalyst’ of today’s PC culture – in order to keep the United States intact, and avoid a long-term racial insurgency.

It would have been wiser to only desegregate the US government, and let every state work out it’s own problems with their own minorities: no central point of failure, no forced compliance, and local blacks get to talk to local whites to build local solutions. But this would have taken power away from the Imperial Capital, so it simply wouldn’t do.

(Does anyone in power knows the relationship between flexibility, local & individual liberty, and anti-fragile societies? Anyone?)

After the Empire

White cultures put too much value on a massive, united and powerful nation state, a flaw stemming from Greece and Rome. How is the German nation-state helping Germany today? (or in the 1940s, for that matter) How about the French State: did Napoleon smearing all Europe with the blood of young French boys really help the Glory of France? All the Roman Empire managed to do is destroy Roman freedom, and exhaust Roman wealth, in the name of the Emperor and his friends. And both the Athenian and Spartan empires did little but eat up their wealth, letting the Macedonians conquer both, and insuring that a neutered Greece would wear Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman chains for centuries to come.

Empires are worthless, and bureaucratic nation-states are not to be trusted. I much prefer local kinship networks and small, county and city-scale governments.

The Great Academy Blow-up is nothing but a symptom of the coming End of Empire. I hope everyone reading this will push for a peaceful end, and so preserve their people’s lives and their wealth.

But hopes and dreams don’t always come true, so it would be prudent for all to buy a set of firearms for their family, white and black alike. Gary North recommends a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle: that seems reasonable to me. Of course, training and practice is needed as well, for the whole family.

As he says:

Guns are controversial. I don’t think you need an arsenal. You need a few simple weapons and the training to master them. This poem gets the point across.

A .45 for the bedroom,
A shotgun over the door,
A 30.06 for distance,
You don’t need any more.

I would add a snub-nosed .357 for a lady’s purse. Two shots will normally settle the issue. Either the assailant runs or else he cannot run.

As for the police

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right — the legal immunity from interference by the State — of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.

It doesn’t go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England’s bobbies are not allowed to carry them.

We will eventually have free nations again, covering the world. It’s just going to take a bit of time.

“Does anyone seriously believe that people who are prepared to defy the laws against murder are going to obey laws against owning guns or large-capacity magazines?” — Thomas Sowell

Exactly. We know why people should own guns: it is up to you to protect innocent life, including your own, as you are in the image of God – something that is worth protecting from lawless thugs. This will always be true, no matter what happens in the future.

On Fair Fights

From Jesus, Guns, and Self-Defense: What Does the Bible Say?

“Under pagan influence, Western civilization has sometimes adopted a notion of ‘fair fighting.’ There is no such thing as a fairfight. The notion of a fair fight is Satanic and barbarous. If a child or a man finds himself in a situation where an appeal to arbitration is not possible, he should fight with all he has. If the neighborhood bully catches your child on the way home from school, and your child cannot escape by fleeing, your child should poke a hole in him with a sharp pencil, or kick him in the groin. If the bully’s parents will not restrain him, call the police.
“If you or your child has been trained in self defense, of course, you may be able to dispatch your assailant with a minimum of force. Always realize, though, that the man who attacks you, or your wife, has forfeited all his rights to ‘fair’ treatment. Women should be prepared to gouge out the eyes of any man who attacks them.” (James B. Jordan, The Law and the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984), 111-112.))

Fair fighting is for losers.

Fight for what’s right… and fight to win.