Yesterday’s botched assassination attempt of Republican Congressman by a limp-dick Bernie Bro made me consider a topic I have thought about routinely over the years, specifically, violence. Not violence itself, as in watching a boxing match, but its uses, purpose, who can use
it, when, why, and its role in society. I realized some time ago that liberals are wrong about pretty much everything, so I thought it was time to question some assumptions we make about violence. My thoughts are below.
Violence is defined as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something, or strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive natural force.Let us include in this verbal assault with the underlying threat of physical violence, as words are often used to preface, precipitate, enhance, and justify violence. Think for a moment about the presence of violence in your own life.
If you’re like me, you got spanked, slapped, and harshly verbally reprimanded as a kid. My parents used violence, albeit highly controlled and minimal, as a form of coercion. We call it discipline because it’s a healthy form of coercion, but it is coercion. Libtards love to say you should never spank kids, but are happy to send in police with guns and clubs when someone does something of which they don’t approve. Liberal double standards will abound throughout this essay, so I won’t bother to point them out. Remember Vox’s words of wisdom, SJW’s always lie, and SJW’s always double down. Back to the matter at hand, violence is often a method of coercion. From our parents threatening to spank us to government law enforcement, violence is usually the underlying threat that keeps people following rules they might not
otherwise abide. It is also the underlying threat for other penalties. Fines? Try not paying them. The court will issue warrants so that men with guns and clubs and come to your house and compel you to pay. Prison is a form of violence, directly and indirectly.
Violence underpins the whole of society. People might argue this point, and certainly Lockean libertarians would say that the social contract, not violence, is the basis for a political society. They are incorrect. A social contract may create a political society, but violence is what sustains the social contract. Locke himself obviously understood this, so arguing that he did not is just stupid. Locke posited that by entering into a social contract, a man gave up his total freedom to
be judge, jury, and executioner. He did have the right to use violence to defend is natural rights if society failed to protect them for him. Hobbes was of course less forgiving of the common man and thought that the government should have a total monopoly on the use of violence. Modern liberals almost certainly agree, except for when they seek to use violence against us. Which brings me to another point.
Liberals, for as much as they try to pretend they are oppressed and are “resisting” the government, understand that in reality they control the culture, which is far morepowerful and important than the government. Their cultural domination not only neuters opposing forces in government, but justifies, in their minds, the use of violence against us. They see themselves as having the only legitimate goals for society and hence the lock on violence that Hobbes felt should be reserved to those in positions of authority. They oppose any form of violence or anycultural sanction of violence on our side because they see us as non-people without the right to
oppose their cultural and political domination. They laugh about the attempted murder of Congressman Scalise. Have you heard them say a single word about gun control? Of course not. They don’t want gun control for their side. They want it for us. They want us disarmed, us cucked, us like beaten dogs who don’t bark or bite. But they have no problem with violence as long as its not directed against their side. In fact, they LOVE violence directed at us.
I believe one of the things that has kept them safe for so long is that we still hold to traditional American/Western values of nonaggression and politics being separated from violence. What their side forgets is that the entire concept of separating violence from politics and keeping violence out of normal social interaction was the result of centuries of enduring, vicious violence
that was often counterproductive. It is a lesson long forgotten by the Left, since to them there is no history before the Civil Rights movement, and history can only be viewed as white male oppression of everyone else. They are going to get a history lesson soon enough. Ironically, it is the absence of violence that has made the special snowflake SJW’s possible in the first place. Even in the recent past, parents spanked kids, teachers beat unruly students, and there existed such a thing as “fighting words,” whereby any asskicking dispensed upon the speaker was considered fair play. Kids picked on other kids who were too far outside the norms
of acceptable behavior, and for better or worse, domestic violence (by both men and women) was not out of bounds in all cases. Certainly, there were abuses. Horrible abuses. Kids bullied other kids without mercy for minor infractions; men beat their wives as a form of anger management; women inflicted horrible injuries on their husbands and children, and as we see among, eh hem…certain populations, murder and assault abound.
We have been taught that all of this is horrible and still is, but all of that violence served an important purpose. Would you steal from someone who might potentially shoot you? No. Statistics show that states with concealed carry have lower assault and mugging rates. Would you say horrible, deeply personal things to someone who could then beat the everloving shit out of you with society’s blessing? Probably not. Would a woman cheat if her husband could show her the pimp hand? Less likely. Would a husband abuse his wife if she were allowed to defend herself with impunity? Less likely. Do we respect people who can challenge us? Yes, we do.
Universally. Did kids have all these horrible emotional problems back when their peers could bring them back in line with verbal taunts? I doubt it. We sure didn’t have this shit back when I was a kid. There were two genders and you learned what was socially acceptable and what was weird by your buddies telling you flat out that what you were doing was fucking stupid.
Liberal social teachings, even the non-SJW old school liberal stuff, has insisted that we stop these things. After all, they could damage someone’s self-esteem. Can’t have that, can we? The eradication of violence or the threat of violence has made society less pleasant, because now people are able to behave in ways that would have been given the extreme sanction in the past. If a boy wants to dye his hair blue and wear a leotard, no one is supposed to tell him he looks like a dork-ass pansy. As a result, he never learns that this will dry up a woman’s snatch like a Shop Vac. Not allowed to hit a guy for saying horrible things about your wife or children? Then people will say all sorts of things that never would have been uttered in the past, with a more divided, less civil society the result. Women now routinely employ violence, infidelity, and personal insults because domestic violence has become a cardinal sin, up there with racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and being white in the liberal pantheon of dirty deeds.
I could go on, but you get the point. Violence, properly employed, is the linchpin of society. It keeps people civil when used as a means of self-defense or societal defense. When seen as only negative and largely scrubbed from society, breakdown ensues. We are seeing a generation raised without violence and the belief in their own invincibility and entitlement as a result. I don’t blame the kids. I blame the idiots who pushed this nonsense, and the cowards who let it stick. I’m sure we’ll be fine.