Nobody is anti-violence

Let's just get this straight. Nobody is anti-violence. Everybody who exists is a violent, all organisms require resources (energy) in order to survive, which are finite. One organism consuming these resources denies the same resources to other organisms in the present, and to future organisms. Even at the most basic level, occupying a part of space is denying it to anybody else. The violent nature of being a living organism is made much more apparent when resources or space are scarce. Most people are imbeciles incapable of thinking abstractly, so in case you're like most people, let me give you a few simple examples to help illustrate this point. An example for resource scarcity - water in a desert. Example for space scarcity - if there is only one, narrow way in or out of somewhere, like a doorway, then the person blocking that doorway is violent.

If you demand "rights" you are being violent because what you're saying is that you want to be allowed to do X and you want the police/military to put in prison anybody who would prevent you to do X, and if the person resists, you also want the police/military to beat or kill them, if necessary. So no, you're not anti-violent, you're just too weak and/or too cowardly to do the violence yourself so others do it for you.

To conclude, nobody is anti-violence. The difference between people is what purpose we are willing to use violence for, but everybody is violent.

This is really simple stuff. 1 bottle of water in the desert with just enough water to give energy to 1 person to get to the nearby town. There's 2 people, if they share the water they both die. How do they decide? Do they argue, and how would that argument even look like? Do they fight? Flip a coin? Do they decide to settle it with some sort of a game? Whatever method they choose at least one of them has to die so the violent end is unavoidable. This is the inherent violence I am speaking of. All life is governed by natural selection, which is inherently violent. I know, I know, this is a hard thing to accept. Some, like Ecmandu, have gone insane due to their inability to accept this. And yet, it is what it is.



I decided to post the thread on KT too after all, since it spawned some mildly interesting discussions.

Venture:

Pandora:

Autsider:

Autsider:

Life is agon.
Life is war...struggle.
Heraclitus said it all...as did Nietzsche.
I'm only here to re-call....re-member...to un-forget....what we all already know.

There is no relief from need/suffering...only degrees of enduring it.
What we call pleasure, as Schopenhauer noted, is a sudden, or gradual, negation of need/suffering.
It is a 'negative' sensation, as it distracts us, momentarily, from the experience of existing, which is need/suffering....the attrition produced by inter-activity...of ceaseless flux made conscious.

Need/Suffering IS the interpretation of this interactivity...this endless Flux.

The rest is girl-talk, and addiction experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
Comfort, contentment, is the strength, the constitution, to endure need/suffering.

Your body is never, ever, at rest...it is constantly healing, repairing, breathing, fighting off intruders, replacing cells...while your mind is focused on a movie, or on fucking, or is sleeping, or appreciating art etc.

When you eat, you deny the food to another. When you breathe, you deny the oxygen to another. When you take-up space, you deny it to another.
If it is plentiful, there is no issue...but things become real when it is not enough for all to share.

Side Note
In my opinion Nietzsche simply re-calls Heraclitus, adds nothing new in the fields of metaphysics, but only modernizes what has already been known by some of the pre-Socratics...who, obviously, took it from their own predecessors.His contributions are in the areas of Nihilism and how it manifests in Modern man..in a post-Abrahamic and pre-Marxism era.
He said nothing new about reality and the world, but was a brilliant psychoanalyst, and diagnostician.

I agree with the premise and most others here probably would too.

Like other standards of measurement, violence is known and judged by degree. What is violent to one organism, is less so or deemed nothing by another. Is stepping on or crushing an insect violent? To the insect, yes it is. To the human, not it is not. Thus the human believes, falsely, that simply "walking around" is not a violent action, yet it crushes insects. The human is unaware of its own violence. Similarly, a predator clamping down on its prey, ripping it apart, feeding itself, may also lack the empathy to understand the suffering of the prey. But that is irrelevant, isn't starvation a form of violence, or the spawn of it? Is it "violent" to "allow" other creatures to starve to death? Is it "violent" that a farmer feeds his own town, but not a neighboring town, or a foreign country?

Liberal-Leftists usually pick and choose, selectively, when things and actions are "violent" or not. Thus when it is in their own interest, their own actions are "non-violent" but the actions of the enemy are "violent". This is how violence is understood to the Modern. S/he only recognizes and accepts violence *after* it is deemed so and judged by the populace, a democratic, majority vote. What is violent in modern society, for the Modern, is politically determined.

Artificial, unnatural. Of course, in Nature, violence is the rule. And if organisms fail then they viscerally know the consequences, death, violence, pain, suffering. Keep in mind the length that separates Man from natural environments. Hedonistic, comfortable, sleeping in a soft bed every night, modernity is a long way from suffering and "natural violence". To remind the Modern, send him/her out of civilization, sleep on rocks and grass for a few nights, and, perhaps, s/he will remember how violent nature is.

Civilization represents numerous mental blocks within its inhabitants. Moderns have countless of these mental blocks. I keep using The Matrix film as an analogy to these topics. Everybody, Modern, are still "plugged into" dream machines.

Modernity has a high level degree of violence on the macroscopic level. With artifice, a nuclear bomb is very powerful and violent. Conventional war is very violent. Thus humans have developed and extenuated levels of violence, which are very high, but also very controlled. Few humans have access to the highest levels of violence. An admiral directs an air craft carrier. The president has his finger on nuclear codes. Flight officers can fly jets, dropping bombs, shooting missiles, etc. The military is a form of specialization, of violence. Yet policies restrict and redirect the directions and methods of that violence. "Total war" is rather rare in human history. It's uncommon that one society can, or has, complete erased, exterminated, and decimated another. Because again, there are limits.

Often females are taken as slaves/whores/wives for the conquerors. Thus violence has limits. Few organisms and individuals are totally Nihilistic/destructive. And those who are nihilistic, usually lack power. Power (access and capability of violence) usually preserves and reserves violence.

Individuals who are "unnecessarily violent" usually are punished by the majority and mob-rule. Societies do not tolerate "random violence".

I guess Moderns differentiate aggression, struggle, from violence as a taking away of the other's intent, the imposition of will.
They differentiate seduction of will, the imposition of judgment through conviction, which takes time, with the shirt-cut of direct intervention.
This is part of feminization...as rape, for example, is an imposition of male will upon feminine judgment, or their sexual power.
They prefer to be wooed, gradually convinced, their will dominated and assimilated.
You can trick, a female, and this is part of seduction, but you cannot impose your self upon them.
Being lied to is, okay, because they've evolved the mind to perceive duplicity, and have some defense against it, you can pretend, because that shows a desire to please them, to take their will into account...so being a braggart and a pretentious git is fine, even if it exposes a weakness in relation to them...a need.

Unfortunately human destiny goes though the natural agency of the female.
If some technology is developed to make females obsolete, the psychological, genetic, will still linger...as it does with females who direct men to be the type they then genetically judge to be deplorable, disgusting, effete...expressing this as the absence of chemistry, or a desire to remain 'friends', or by cheating on the males they marry out of pragmatic socioeconomic considerations.
Meme contra Gene.
In the past decisions regarding mating was placed in the hands of men, who used political, genetic judgments.

Feminism has returned sexual power to females, multiplied, in our Age, with the added factor of technologies (contraceptives, abortion clinics etc.) and institutional protection.

So what is left for a noble man to do?
Presenting his spirit in his actions, words, attitude, may inspire higher-end females, without that overt imposition which they consider too aggressive - violent.
Charm, humor, are ways of expressing mental symmetry and proportionality (balance, insight, pattern recognition, quickness of wit etc.)
Attitude, demeanor, a strong, steady projection of masculine power, not reaching, exposing need, but pulling into, as a planetary mass - gravitas....depth of essence.
Not faked, because they pick up on such pretenses, and sometimes ignore them, for other reasons...but a true depth of character, implying knowledge, and understanding, without trying to.

If this war is to be won, it cannot be won with direct conflict.
Things are too free gone for that.
Only through the preservation of what remains of quality, in males, and most importantly, in females....to cultivate in them depth of critical thinking, not in the imaginary, in the mystical, but in the real; to convince them of their role, and of the danger of our times...what is truly occurring and why, and how they have a crucial role in all of it, whether they know it or not.

They are resentful about violence which is part of being alive.
Even the cells in our own bodies get ruthlessly attacked by the body as a whole if they don't dance to the music. That is, if the body is healthy, trying to survive.

At the same time they will justify violence or ignore it all the time if their own kind is not the target.
It's all very duplicitous.
I can be anti-violence all day long if I don't take my views seriously and find excuses or just don't think about it the moment it becomes inconvenient or apparent how I don't live up to it.
And as a bonus, it gives an edge to those who are duplicitous over those who would at least try to live up to those ideals.

It's always the duplicitous one who makes others live up to their propagated and shared ideals. The honest fool who tries to live up to them recognises how it's impossible and doesn't make others live up to what he can't do himself.

That's why world (reality) denouncing ideals favour the liar.

It's about consciousness.
If it is not intentional, consensual, and its unintentional, they believe it is "innocent".
As long as you are not aware of it, then it is whether not occurring, or you are not accountable.
To deny nature is to make yourself "innocent"...this is how subjectivity acts like a cleanser, a baptismal rite.
Denying something makes it go away....acknowledging it, gives it credence, and you participate in its culpability.

An easy mental exercise will help.
If you imagine yourself in a situation where what you take for granted, like food, water, oxygen, is not abundant but scarce....then every drink, breathe becomes an act of violence, because it is denying a necessity to another.

Space is a constant act of aggression....taking up space...where space = possibilities.
You occupy a fluctuating state of possibilities, denying them to another.
Your physical dimensions are an appropriation of possibilities, within which you maintain, and attempt to increase, an inherited order.

White Sharia relationship advice: How to control your bitch and have a happy relationship

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The most important part is to use male privilege. Never forget to use male privilege.

EDIT: Also, notice how every single thing they cite as "abuse" is perpetrated by the government/system itself, which is currently leftist, feminist and liberal, mostly against whites, especially white men?

Coercion and physical intimidation - making people afraid, displaying weapons, and threatening to hurt others if they disobey via its mercenaries - police and military.  

Use male privilege - be the one to determine male and female roles, make all the big decisions, treat others as its servants, act like the master of the cattle. It's what daddy state does. All enforced by violence.

Use economic abuse - the system establishes control over territory, enforces it with violence, and makes it so that most people can only survive by going through the system, then prevent ideological opponents from surviving by denying them jobs, firing them for politically incorrect opinions, etc. Threaten people's survival if they disagree with you. And through things like divorce the state can also violently take your money and property away from you.

Emotional abuse - put others down, call them names (stupid white redneck stereotype, racist, sexist, bigot...), make them feel bad and guilty (slavery, white guilt, white privilege, male privilege), humiliate them (force white men to listen to women's and other races opinions and give these people power), accuse them of being crazy for disagreeing with mainstream politics

Use children - children used as leverage to get people to do what the system wants, emotional manipulation - "think of the children" used in inappropriate contexts, threaten to take a man's child away and cuck him, possibly giving his child away to an incompetent, neglectful, vengeful woman where your child will likely be in presence of a step-father who will threaten to replace your role as father and may even abuse the child

Use isolation - The thought police. Controlling what people think and say, where they go, to whom and what about they talk to, limiting outside involvement (putting people in jail/prison, threatening with beatings or death if they refuse to go along with it)

Blame and minimise - the denial that any of this happens, playing innocent. The kind of people who will claim to be against violence and completely ignore that a threat of violence, and actual violence, when the threat doesn't suffice, underlies every social interaction that happens (saying the abuse/violence doesn't happen). When violence obviously happens to the point it is undeniable to even the most delusional of people (such as when whites are harmed or killed by non-whites), it will either go unreported (not taken seriously, made light of), they may say that whites brought it on themselves, "remember slavery" (shifting responsibility, saying the victim caused it, victim blaming)