Why do people accept violence because ''if they kill us, we win''

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

 

Posted on #ancap_discussion of r/ancap linked discord

 

 

Quote

 

So I was thinking about the statement "Atleast I have my principles". For a long time I've taken that road but maybe that's not right. I got to that by the statement "If they kill you, we win". Which is a stupid way of thinking. We don't have to prove with our deaths that our idées are right. We made the agreement that we use discussion instead of violence, and those that used violence lost. But that doesn't mean we just merciessly accept violence which seems to be most peoples respons. Why the fuck do we/they accept it? When did we start this self destructive way //a bit ranty and unformulated

 

 

 

 

nobody? anything

 

 

[Gavitor]

I return like for like. If they can use violence against me I can retaliate with violence. I don't see many people dispute self defense being valid.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

9 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said:

 

Posted on #ancap_discussion of r/ancap linked discord

 

 

 

My thoughts? I think most young "principled" people, at least ones who think like this, have a suicide/martyr fantasy that arises from childhood neglect and a desire for both attention and recognition. I have no evidence to substantiate this claim, therefore take it with a big bag of salt, but it seems logical to assume the type of people who'd want to become martyrs for "muh principles" would either be people who want positive attention...badly; or happen to have grown up in some extremely principled environment (like Islam, as an example of a "principle" that'd encourage suicide to strengthen itself) wherein the parents took their actions and the possibility of their own blood for their cause very seriously.

That's where I assume this whole "if I die for muh Muhthaland, maybe I'll die a hero..." mentality comes from, although I could also say it comes from Stockholm syndrome (an abusive government beating its subjects into subservience) or a more fundamental desire to be a hero (perhaps a boy for example growing up with a single mom hearing the typical "shadow penis that goes crazy" garbage excuse story).

As for whether it's better to die with "muh principles" or send the enemy to their graves...well, I'm old school to the Biblical degree here; if the enemy marches in the streets napalming cops, we ought to march in the streets beating them back with batons and shafts. We should meet force with greater force until the enemy is utterly destroyed; if they refuse to debate us and fight us legally, then they're inviting us to rob them of all their civil liberties and impose the most primal of moral laws; the laws of the jungle. 

However I ought to mention: the idea of meeting force with greater force is not a moral principle; it is a practical response to a situation in which morality has been stripped, i.e., a situation in which principles and ideals alone are no longer valid. 

Naturally if at all possible I'd rather we end such a scenario peacefully, with a diplomatic talk, however history tends to favor heavily the side with greater force and numbers in ending these terrible conflicts.

[Dad]

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Dad said:

Lol.... Often times the best refutation to an established idea is a meme describing why a principle sucks by stating that it also validates/praises cuckoldry. 

 

[RichardY]

Shouldn't that be the French President instead?

[OfficerJones]

What you're referring to are two different effects:

1. The seductions of martyrdom (a lemming's tale). The questioning of oneself that arises when a person visibly overcomes their animal instincts and endures torture or death for a "principle" or "movement". This was particularly ingenius in the Christian/Muslim invention of an "afterlife". It is always a startling spectacle (and emboldening) to see men and women courageously entering the jaws of death. (also notable of family honor in Rome)

This is closely related to social virtue signaling. Exhibiting accepted values to herd members in the hopes of a raised social status. In the absence of an audience, this performance is directed to a "ghost" official or benefactor.

 

2. The sympathy acquired when an injustice is exposed socially (especially when a benevolent narrative is patently falsified). Ghandi was positively brilliant at publicly exposing how British actions did not correspond to their declared intentions. He provoked responses in a way that could never have allowed the British to pretend that they were motivated by humanitarian aims.

This is a direct play on the maternal and paternal instincts, directed toward those who might intervene on an act of predation.