The Modern Demonization of Violence and Aggression

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

We live in an age of increased security. Technologies and governments have done a relatively good job at inhibiting full on primal chaos and bloodshed. No longer does man need to hunt, pillage, and plunder in order to survive. Violence and war still exist in the modern world, of course, but they aren’t as prevalent as was in ancient times. But the main point I want to talk about is this modern abhorrence with violence and aggression. We hear sayings such as " Violence is never the answer “, " Make peace - not war”, " Be the bigger man and just walk away", etc. The modern human ( Western mostly ) is so used to living within the confines of comfort, order, and security that it has caused him to forget about the more primeval nature of reality. Man is gradually starting to lose his claws and fangs, his ferocity.

I understand that within societies, there has to be some sort of order and cooperation. People can’t be warring with each other all the time, so pacification is, ultimately, inevitable to a large degree. But it seems like things have gone a bit overboard. Our best qualities have evolved due to struggle and warfare. Conflict leads to hypertrophy. Perpetual peace will lead to atrophy. War brings out the best qualities in man, e.g., bravery, leadership, grit, strength, etc. The truth is that we would not even exist right now if it wasn’t for the superior aggression of our ancestors, so why are violence and aggression so demonized today? Why do so many schools oppose competition and rough housing? Boys aren’t even allowed to acts like boys anymore in many places. Have we gone soft as a species? Have we forgot about the way of nature, our nature?

The modern world is a cosmic disappointment for the most part to many of us men that desire a more virile and masculine lifestyle. The warrior ethos is almost nonexistent, except within the military, martial arts ( E.g., MMA, boxing, etc ) and other aggressive sports. There are only a few avenues for the rugged type in a world that is becoming increasingly more hostile towards the warrior ethos.

Just from personal experience, most of the men I come into contact with in the general public are too soft and cowardly - out of touch with their more primal masculine side. Don’t take this as me being the quintessence of machismo; it’s just an observation of mine. Political correctness, feminism, increased security, etc are promoting the degeneration of the warrior type. This has caused suffering for both genders believe it or not; many women are ’ hungry ’ for that higher type of man, the warrior archetype. No longer are the majority of men sexually aggressive; it is a demonized behavior thanks to many feminists inculcating the minds of females to believe it is ’ creepy ’ or immoral. But secretly, women, in general, are attracted to those assertive types. Males suffer from the feministic demonization of traditional masculinity too as they become walking contradictions ( Their genes are telling them to be aggressive and the memes are telling them to be passive and soft ).

To me, a society becomes degenerate when it loses touch with manly virtues. So what do I propose as a solution? I propose that people get over their silly idealistic, pacifistic positions - that they try to acknowledge the positives of aggression, that rugged competition be promoted from an early age, and that there be more career opportunities for the manly type, and that the warrior ethos be revived.

2

I think cannibalism can be anti-survival, and it happens in more than one species, but as a general rule, animals are meant to either work together or avoid each other as regards the same species.

I really doubt the warfare part of that. However, struggle and difficulty do cause things to evolve and strengthen in some ways.

Is Liberia manly? There’s allot of guns and fighting. Does that mean it’s manly? Why are places with allot of fighting such shitty and unsuccessful countries?

I think you are claiming non decadence is decadence. You’re inverting value.

3

This applies to sex too. It is very quickly becoming ‘illegal’ for a man to merely want to fuck a beautiful young girl. It’s a thought crime in and of itself. Males are “not allowed” to sexually desire young girls, without permission.

Everything in civilization requires explicit, written “permission” from women, who acquire more and more power. Even if women have 99.9999999999% of social power, they will still not be satisfied, until they wrest control of that 00.0000000001% of social power. Women want absolute power, absolute control.

This is a critical aspect of this topic, perhaps even, the seed and core of it. Male sexuality is inherently illegal and evil. Females are automatically legal and good. Women can never do any wrong. This also applies to abortion, where women can murder their own unborn children, the most defenseless humans in society, without any punishment OR social demonization. For example, if I said that women who have abortions are evil and deserve to go to jail for murder, then imagine how much recourse and punishment I would receive for merely voicing these opinions. I wouldn’t dare do such a thing.

Because women have the real power (abortion, murder of the unborn, without recourse or ANY negative consequence), in our postmodern, global civilization.

This puts an immense pressure on males to “leave”, abandon, escape society, so males gather to seek release in male only institutions, which are also demonized for being “too male, too exclusive” (think philosophy forums here).

This also represents the youtube sensational social male movement “MGTOW, men going their own way”.

4

-Harrison Clench
The Downfall of Man

5

Do you agree with the thing you quoted?

6

Claiming only specific certain things are manly is inferring the claim that all men are either meant to be the same, or naturally are the same.
You have not replied to me yet.

7

Dan, sure - Liberia could be considered manly in the sense that there is a lot of violence, but it could likewise be considered feminine because of the lack of order ( a masculine characteristic ). My ideal society would be a warrior culture akin to Sparta.

8

Ok. What if there was someone stronger and smarter than you which wanted to control or profit from you?
You like the whole power-&-intelligence thing, but what if it went after you?
You would probably change your views or try a new method for dealing with the threat.

In some ways cancer cells are stronger than regular cells. The body can die from cancer.
I feel like there is a social-cancer, things which evolve and have a certain power, but run counter to the progress of the human species.
These build up and have their own culture.

I don’t know much about Sparta at all. Was it just a city state with its own philosophies on manliness and selection? Have you read any history books about it?

Now, another idea: imagine if there were 5 sick persons per 1 healthy person. If there was a war, the sick persons would probably win. Even while sick, there is strength in numbers. I don’t think darwinism works. A lot of people assume darwinism. I know some selection happens, but it is not pure modern darwin ideal. Someone, for example, could be a genius with composing music, but have now womanizing skills, and it ends up that even if he got money or fame, he did not successfully repeat his genes. On the other hand, a base perverted man-whore would spread more genes around. Things like forest fires are more darwinian. It goes around destroying and using up energy until there is nothing left. The virus is the epitome of darwinian evolution.

I like the classic age white-man’s idea that nature should be dominated and subdued, in some ways. It may seem tyrannical, but I think that is better than the other option, savagery.

9

“The” other option? Lol.

10

I’m glad you find it amusing, but I am not saying there are only 2 choices.

11

Glad I read you too literally.

12

We have all kinds of “natural” responses to reality and events.
Some are more harmonious, some are not.
We are people of many natures.
The idea is for idealism to dominate the natures, to make them be more than what they were. It is like quelling anarchy.
A big part of christianity is all about self-control / self-regulation. I believe that is what produced, indirectly, the classical ideal of dominating nature. It was a mix of multiple cultural influences. Now, instead of that, we have liberalism, which is basically do what ever you want as long as it does not break any laws/codes. I think we can be free while also being highly suppressive of the crude inner forces that we have. Christians are just as free as atheists. It’s just a different type of control.

13

Is that what liberalism is? A synonym for libertarianism? Is that what they do in Liberia?

14

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberty ism. A mix of free ism and equal ism.

In a theocracy, we have a focus on law ism, instead of “personal choice”.

In one case, it’s hard to enforce rules and control things, but freedom is sort of meaningless if you don’t use it for higher goals.

Liberia is in basically anarchy. That is different than liberty.

15

I love the irony of the thread’s title: the “demonization” of violence and aggression–as if it were so unnatural to think of violence and aggression as demonized forces, as if its some big conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes. The “evil” of violence and aggression are almost analytic of the terms themselves–they just wouldn’t mean the same thing if we didn’t think of them as demonized by default.

16

Sounds like you are trying to Demonize demonizing.
SHAME on You!!

17

:laughing: That’s funny James.

18

Within the context of Western civilization and many places, your statements make sense. But not all cultures viewed aggression and violence as, inherently, negative things, e.g., the Spartans and Viking warriors; they valued even mindless violence.

It boils down to Master and Slave morality; Slave morality values things like peace, compassion, love, gentleness, etc. Master morality values aggression, hardihood, strength, power, and so on. Most places, most people subscribe to slave-morality. Those who openly subscribe to Master morality are often called Psychopaths, evil, Tyrants, etc, etc by the masses.

19

Btw, “demon” means “to divide the unity”, “de-unify the whole”, or “divide the monarchy”.

Violence and aggression presume an existing division and advances it into action.
Violence and aggression are “offspring of demons”.

20

Good point, but your thread title almost seemed to insinuate that Western civilization demonizes violence and aggression unfairly or unjustly–as if the other cultures you speak of (Spartans, Vikings) had it right.

I mean, I can see how a master class would think violence and aggression are good–but only because, as the masters, they come out the winners in these struggles. It’s not really the aggression or the violence that are good–it’s being on the winning side (even one who abhors violence and aggression would probably engage in them in self-defense and think it good to win in the end)–so it’s no surprise that the winners will often conflate the two.

BTW, how’s Joker doing? I haven’t seen him around these parts in a while. I haven’t seen him at arkham asylum either. What dark crevices of society’s underbelly has he been hiding in?