The Sick Glorification of Non-violence

“Nonviolence” and “non-aggression” are some of the most sacred cows in modern thought. Even the extreme rebels, anarchists, and reactionaries of today greedily swallow the pill of abstention from violence like a religious sacrament. Why would groups of people so hostile to established objective moral orders or religious values still rush to confirm non-violence as a holy mantra? Wouldn’t a true “free thinker” ponder whether or not violence might be an appropriate response to many situations, particularly given the long history of violence in human and animal evolution? Why is non-violence considered to be a virtue in the first place? Why is a lack of confrontation and a hesitancy to engage in conflict seen as progress?

It”s because modern humans are domesticated livestock. Strip away the nonsense about a man being nonviolent because God, his moral compass, or some abstract philosophical construct convinced him that pacifism was the enlightened path. These window dressings are a distraction from the truth, which is that like any domesticated animal, repression of normal aggressive urges is necessary to keep these dumb cattle from killing each other in their pens, or worse, injuring their masters.

The glory of a warrior’s death epitomized by Homer’s “The Iliad” has gradually been replaced with “Do unto others.” and “Do not initiate aggression.” This is not progress for the human race in the same sense that understanding logic or discovering the laws of physics was progress. This is progress in the same manner that breeding aggression out of domesticated dogs, or teaching cattle to fear the lash is progress. As civilization evolved, there have been only two options for the human underclass: Rise up, put their former masters to the torch, and become the dominant ones themselves, or engage in passive aggressive whining about the “injustice” of their lot in life. With practically no exceptions to the contrary, most modern thought is concerned more with the “immorality” of authoritarian rule, not the sniveling weakness of those under its control. How many despots have been deposed by other governments for the stated purpose of ending the cruelty of their regimes? Why don’t their subjects end those regimes themselves?

The modern spectacle of the oppressed being pitied and the oppressor being vilified is the victory of an infantile slave morality. Rather than defiantly challenge the leaders of the pack, these runty little whelps nip at their heels from the shadows and slink away from the first sign of resistance. Has it even occurred to these cowards that their “non-violent” resistance is EXACTLY what a crafty master would love to see in the indignant peasants under his control? Valuing non-aggression is the triumph of weakness. Unfortunately, while proponents of non-aggression are plainly the discarded middle children of evolution and motivated more by modern complacent cowardice than anything else, their sheep like bleating about “The Golden Rule” is either unchallenged or cloaked in immature philosophical tenets.

Some of these unmanly, castrated rabble have actually constructed for themselves a pitiful little skeleton of pseudo-philosophy to cower behind, and have called it “The Non Initiation of Aggression Principle“. These tedious little rodents cling to ideas about objectively validating a philosophy through tissue thin natural rights arguments and other nonsense rejected by existentialists at the end of the 19nth century! Why this absurd moral pretentiousness when David Hume has already knocked the foundation out from under such philosophies with the Is-Ought distinction over two hundred years ago? Fear and terror of death are strong motivators for weak minds, so much so that it was necessary to build the idea that moral agency itself is the source of one’s right to exist, not strength or ability. (God forbid you have to occasionally secure an existence through your capacity for violence; you can’t even expect pacifists like this to kill their own food) When you ask these drones if their non-aggression principle applies to other species, to human infants, coma patients, human fetuses, or the mentally infirm, a wide range of debate ensues between the pitiable faux philosophers espousing this brand of tripe. As others have noted, no matter what axiomatic tricks are attempted to validate this philosophy, the question of which entities it pertains to in actual practice strangles it in the cradle.

But using semantics and outdated philosophical arguments to justify unmanly shirking away from violence or “aggressing” against others is hardly the most common justification for this culture of weakness. It is seen widely to be “human progress” to no longer value the glory of combat, or celebrate the victories of proud warriors. It is not politically correct to celebrate crushing an opponent, even though two thousand years ago it was common practice to march through the streets in a grand parade with the severed heads of your enemies on full display. This shirking from all forms of violence in the domesticated human is simply large scale emasculation of men in particular and the neutering of warriors of both sexes in general.

Why is it considered proper to believe in evolution, but then to stammer and protest when the weak and unfit perish under the boots of the strong? When apes gather together and strangle a former patriarch, kill his children, and then take his mates, where are the protestors and demonstrations? Why is every human being to hit the dirt on this planet considered to be sacred? Are we not simply sentient animals, just as disposable as every other creature? Is it not natural and even possibly healthy for us to struggle mightily with one another on occasion? Could it even be that the rise of spree killings in modern societies is a symptom of how repressing normal biologically driven blood letting leads to explosive random violence? Unsatisfied with creating a culture where dueling or even fist fights are taboo, the modern domesticated human cattle wishes to disarm himself and others, lest he suffer violence. It isn’t enough to remove the wolf’s soul from his body, you must yank out his teeth as well. Victory in a violent encounter can be a positively life affirming experience, but without aggression, where would the opportunity arise?

Non-aggression is not about progress or morality, it’s about the wide scale institutionalization of human cowardice and weakness.