Skip to main content

VIOLENCE, HATRED, FEAR, (and REVOLUTION)


Violence never solves anything. That old cliche. Of-course it’s not entirely accurate. History alone should prove that. The revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the civil war, just to name a few. So why is this said and what does it really mean? Violence never solves anything. I like to say it a different more accurate way; If there is a non-violent solution, that’s always your best one. At-least always better than the violent one. Now how is that different? Because I’m not saying there always is or will be, sometimes the violent solution may be your best bet, but it will never EVER be if there is a non-violent option. In other words if violence is not used as an ABSOLUTE last resort, it is bad.
Hatred on the other hand is always bad, although natural and inevitable. Though it is always, and inherently bad, because it actually never solves anything, EVER. Hatred hurts everybody, the hateful, the hated, and even the non-hated/hateful indifferent folk. This emotion can however be appropriately utilized, and must be, as it is inevitable. It can be used to fuel rage, and that can actually have a use. And not just when the shit hits the fan and violence is necessary. But before that, way before that, and hopefully stop it from ever getting there to begin with. And that, as I stated at the beginning, would be preferable.
Fear is basically equally good or bad, depending on a number of factors. Rational fear is good, it helps us survive, learn and adapt. Irrational fear (AKA phobias) are bad. They hinder our ability to function, they hurt ourselves and potentially others. Like violence, except about 50 percent of the time you experience fear it will be valid. Whereas like 99.99% of the time you get violent, it is not valid, necessary, or helpful in anyway. And 100% of the hatred you feel is hurtful to you and everyone else around you as well.
What I'm trying to get at with this, is essentially activism. Though no marches or picket-signs are needed, only criticism. Criticize bad ideas where ever you come across them. When you feel fear, identify it’s variety and strive to formulate a solution. If you feel hatred, channel it into your rage, to form passionate criticism. And as for violence, hope you never need it, but always be ready for it. A good rule of thumb is “always play defense”. You may have heard the saying “sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire”. Well that's bullshit, never a good idea, there is literally no situation where that is a good idea. Though one may argue it’s like fighting violence with violence. But you fight something with it's counter. You fight fire with water and offense with defense. And that should tell you, generally, if you are in the right or not.
My point in writing this is to express my feeling when it comes to protest, activism, and revolution. We need to be strategic and defensive, We need to be pragmatic and Utopian. And most of all we need to be beacons, everywhere we can, no matter what, be like the doctor, “a man who never would”. And remember what angel said “it doesn't matter where we come from, what we’ve done, what we’ve suffered, or even if we make a difference, we live although the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mutual Credit Confederation

So years ago I was talking to my dad about Milton Friedman and other “free market” “libertarian” economists, and I said that I thought it was kinda funny how a lot of these guys want government intervention in every aspect except the economy. My dad responded, saying that if anything he takes the opposite perspective, basically that all the government should do is regulate the economy. Now Years later, after reading Proudhon, understanding mutualism, and realizing the inevitability of a mixed economy, I keep coming back to this idea. Maybe this is what libertarians have gotten wrong since they became capitalists. Now I don’t fully take my dad’s perspective, as I do not see a bureaucratic state as trustworthy (in any regard). Though here I will sort of defend this perspective and explain how a government of sorts could operate in this regard and the advantage of such a system. Now I’m an anarchist, so I oppose coercion, monopolies, and centralized power. And so, as stated, a centralized

The Sophistry of Parents' Rights & The Importance of Children's Liberation

In this article I am going to talk about one of the most oppressed demographics of all time, A demographic who continues to be oppressed, enslaved and controlled under the guise of “taking care of” and “for their own good”. Arguments that I’m sure are familiar to any anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-oppression advocate for liberty. Though it seems no one is focused on the liberation of this demographic, it is ignored. Plenty of people advocate black rights, women's rights, queer rights, animal rights and even the bullshit “parents rights” but everyone forgets the children. Sure people love to scream “won’t somebody please think of the children” but no one seems interested in advocating for their rights as the autonomous agents that they are. Children are human beings and they ought be treated as such, and it’s about time someone talks about this demographic and the rights that they have been denied for too damn long.      To start, let's talk about the bullshit that is “paren

The Egalitarian Advantage; Rise of a class redutionist

                                       So the first part of this “The Egalitarian Advantage” is a rant, primarily against feminism. And although I stand by what I said (otherwise it wouldn’t be up anymore) the fact still remains that it was a rant. Not an expression of valid criticisms, which is what I will aim to do here. I will also clarify my positions, talk of other movements that I oppose for similar reasons. As well as express the true advantages of egalitarianism and class reductionism. Check out the first part ( https://conthestonerlin.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-egalitarian-advantage.html ) if you haven't or can’t remember it. Intersectionality, the much more accurate, or at least precise defining feature of fourth wave feminism. Now my problem with intersectionality is that it is an analytical framework, not a troubleshooting methodology. That is not to say it is invalid. It is valid. As an analytical framework, but not as a troubleshooting methodology. I’ll explain mo