If anyone wishes the world could just do one big group hug and be done with war and violence and conflict, it’s me.
I have long struggled to understand why violence exists in an enlightened world, why the seemingly primitive and barbaric practice of war has not gone by the wayside in civilized modern life.
In fact it’s my own inability to comprehend the purpose of violence that led to my continued pondering of its possible role and meaning.
I am a big believer that the world works the way it does because somehow something about even the most seemingly irrational behavior actually works on some level. And not only works, but works enough that it more works than it doesn’t work.
On a macro scale, that’s what the red pill is about. It is about questioning, examining, and in turn understanding the way things actually work as a way to navigate life rather than approaching life as we wish it worked, were told it should work, or how we believe it could work. How it actually works. The truth, regardless of how bitter, unpopular, or unpalatable that may be.
Why bother? Why subject oneself to that rather than put on rose colored glasses? Because as good as rosy colored glasses may feel at the time, they inevitably lead to a much more painful or pricey outcome than facing the cold hard facts of life head on and acting accordingly.
The Red Pill often focuses on gender and relationship dynamics between men and women, but it actually goes far beyond that. One could argue it applies to nearly every aspect of life.
Which brings me back to the question of violence. What purpose could violence serve? Is there any upside to violence?
It suddenly came to me that it’s the threat of violence, and if that fails actual violence, that creates peace, stability, and civilization. As paradoxical as that may seem. It’s the threat of violence that keeps violence at bay.
When threatened on a personal or national level, shying away from the threat of violence or if necessary the use of violence to restore order will not lead to peace or resolution. In fact, wavering early or ignoring reality only leads to bigger problems requiring even more violence to bring things back to order, to restore peace and stability.
So while I abhor unnecessary violence, I no longer cling to the Pollyanna notion that violence has no place in a peaceful world. Without the willingness to counter senseless violence and threats to peace with the use of force, there would be nothing but escalating war unending. The true triumph of evil.
Let those who have ears hear.
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
One of the first things they teach you in any political science class is the definition of statehood (in this case referring to countries, not US-like states). And a central tenant of what allows a state to maintain its power is the “monopoly on the use of force or violence” in a given land region. There are other factors, but having control over the military, police, and other harbingers of violence is part of what allows the state to maintain legitimacy and thereby govern peaceably. The idea being that the government holds all the power over the people, land, etc. in that region and therefore can defend it from outside forces and itself if necessary.
Violence always works
Don’t believe me? Ask the Plains Indians. Or Carthage. Or the South.
“CAN VIOLENCE CREATE PEACE?”
It has that possibility. It depends on the situation.
Interesting Lunar, I wonder how superpowers dabbling in the affairs inside the boundaries of other nations has affected the situation we face as a world today? For example, while nobody likes a faciat dictator, if that faciat dictator is only being so within the boundary of their own country, do other nations have a right to intervene? Or is that overstepping?
For example Saddam, clearly not the most benevolent leader, but were things more stable then, internally, of course “stable” being a subjective word.
These are things I ponder… And admittedly I do not know nearly enough about the situation to really answer any of those questions difinitivrly but they are nonetheless worth asking and pondering, I think!
@Ton can you elaborate? Are you saying the one with the fiercest violence is the one who defines peace? Or?
Considering your profession and experience as a front line combat soldier I am all ears on your take on all this…
@ farm boy true, it’s a pretty big question and of course situational. As for the elimination of violence altogether, world peace, as much as I would love to see that the older I get the less I think that’s a possibility. Humans don’t seem geared that way.
While I would like to see harn done to those who did violenc in Paris, fighting these guys has no end. It’s not like fighting against Nazi Germany. Against Nazis, you win when you march into Berlin. How do you know you’ve won against a stateless organization?
Future Commander in Chief she is?
An acid-tongued Hillary Clinton ripped into conservatives on Thursday for what she said was an ‘obsession in some quarters’ with the notion that the global spread of terrorism is a byproduct of the Muslim faith, denying that the two are connected in any way.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325645/Hillary-hammers-obsession-words-radical-Islamic-terrorism-insists-Muslims-whatsoever-terrorism.html
@ fuzzie that’s a valid question. It’s more of an ideaology. Maybe the history buffs can say but I wonder is this new terratory or is there a prior precedence of such?
@ Yoda I don’t know how anyone could say the two are “not connected in ANY way.” I could see someone saying that not all Muslims are extremists or agree with extremists, but those who are extremists use their faith as a primary justification for their actions.
“I have long struggled to understand why violence exists in an enlightened world, why the seemingly primitive and barbaric practice of war has not gone by the wayside in civilized modern life.”
Violence exists because people want stuff, and violence can be a means of getting it**. The key is to make violence far more costly than is worth the effort to the person/people who wants to use violence against you.
**If you want to know where real power lies, here is an illustration. A thief takes a gun into a store, points it at the store owner and tells him to hand over all his money. The store owner looks at the gun and tells the thief, “Hey, I like that gun can I buy it from you?” The thief says, sure, but it will cost you a thousand bucks. The store owner gives him the thousand and the thief hands him the gun. Who has the power now?
“For example Saddam, clearly not the most benevolent leader, but were things more stable then, internally, of course “stable” being a subjective word.”
Saddam was very stable at the end and before the second gulf war invasion. He was not a stable entity for the world before the first gulf war after he’d invaded Kuwait. The problem wasn’t the Kuwait invasion itself. If they’d only had bananas in Kuwait it wouldn’t have mattered. What mattered was the fact that he’d considerably increased his source of revenue (via Kuwaiti oil wells) with which he could buy even more weapons and have more increasing supply of both the market and the area. So the first gulf war was a correct action, the second when he was not a threat, was absurd. Even continuing the no fly zones for a decade before that was an absurd watse of resources.
The history of Saddam in that region (and our involvement) is pretty interesting and there’s a plethora of misconceptions mostly due to partial information. Which happens, with the internet.
At the end, I have no idea why we camped out there (before Gulf warII). I think it was just bumbling foreign policy on Clinton’s part combined with a desire to accumulate military contracts in the area and hopefully establish a base presence. It was the height of imbecility on many levels, inspired by greed.
Per the topic title Bloom, I would say:
“CAN VIOLENCE CREATE PEACE?” = sometimes, but not necessarily.
HOWEVER, the THREAT of violence/force is EXACTLY what keeps the peace. Laws/rules are just wishes on paper without the means of enforement. Property rights don’t exist without enforcement. The Constitution might say we’re all endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator, but we could not exercise any of those rights without the means to keep predatory violence at bay by using the threat of violence.
That’s true in the jungle as well as human society.
Just to add (yes, I blab), social mores/community cohesiveness and interdependency…and trust (that’s a big one, all the stuff that generates and fosters trust is pretty key) create peaceful and secure environments.
At the end of the day, if a society’s value system is toxic, violence isn’t going to keep things civil.
But there can never be enough of such force if the vast majority of a society doesn’t share and independently adhere to certain values about right conduct.
This is why (I’ve mentioned this before) toxic environments and big cities are more likely to foster predatory violent behavior. It’s a cost to gains equation. Keep in mind many many societies and cultures do not share our values.
Furthermore, we are in the middle of a huge cultural and value system overhaul that is NOT good for the fate of our nation. The reason I think a lot of us take an interest, and are here in the first place.
Girls, don’t take this the wrong way, but this post reminds me of one of my favorite poems.
Do not my Lady, say I am unkind,
that from the nunnery
of thy chaste breast and quiet mind,
to war and arms I fly.
Tis true, a new mistress I now chase,
the first foe on the field.
And with a stronger faith embrace,
a sword, a horse, a shield.
Yet this inconstancy is such,
as thou too shall adore
I could not love you dear, so much,
loved I not honor more.
Read it out loud a few times to find the tempo.
We don’t do sword, horse and shield any more, but the sentiment remains the same. It is the willingness of men to stand at the door and repel the invader that ultimately makes us the men we are. That’s a litmus test. Those who don’t agree aren’t men. To agree is to acknowledge the need for both the tools of the trade and the training necessary to use them.
So, yeah, it’s a “guy thing” that is the willingness to go out and patrol the borderland, to fight the unnamed battles in unknown places because it’s always better to take the fight to the enemy than to allow the enemy to attack your home. Knowing that if you fall no-one will know, and if you win no-one will care. And we do it because that’s what we are. Men. We’d rather take the fight to the enemy than have him bring it to our homes and if we fall in battle we fall in the hope that our home (that’s you and the kids, girl) will be preserved.
If anybody thinks sleeping on the ground, cold camps and moving 40 klicks a day at high alert is fun stuff they’re smoking crack. That shit gets old after about 10 minutes. Believe it or not it was easier back in the old days.
@ Liz agreed re sadam. By invading Kuait, he clearly stepped outside his bounds and needed international correction. It’s too bad about the oil being in that region bc without that huge wealth it has generated, most of those countries would still e fighting with rocks and sticks and be little threat to anyone. I also agree 2nd time around, the guy may have been a nut but he was keeping a cap on things. Maybe the lesser of two evils, hard to say.
Well said Toad. I agree with you this is something men do, men understand. I think tats why I have struggled to understand, as a woman. But I agree 100%, men do it because it needs done, and thank God they do. That’s also a good point about their turf vs one’s own, I had not really thought of that but makes total sense. Thanks for adding all that!
“I could not love you dear so much, loved I not honor more.”
THAT is the foundation of of masculinity. The recognition that men have a responsibility to protect and preserve.
Indeed Toad. Indeed.
And to add to that, knowing that makes the whole demonization of masculinity even more appalling.
I have to agre that the threat of violence keeps things quiet. However, once violence is rosorted to, it is no longer a threat.
Liz,
I have never heard a more absurd illusration than the one you gave at 11:16am. A merchant being robbed offers to buy the robber’s pistol?
appalling? Seriously? Didn’t you mean appealing?
Isn’t in your DNA to demonize masculinity? You are a woman, right?
Toad, like many women I have in the past not understood masculine behavior. While I still don’t always understand it, I do appreciate it and think it is normal, natural, and absolutely necessary to support men and masculinity. I don’t want to live in a culture of girly men!
This video illustrates what happens when guys, in this case Cookie Monster, do not have a masculine frame. Social meltdown. (Trigger warning: violence!)
JK! 🙂
“Liz,
I have never heard a more absurd illusration than the one you gave at 11:16am. A merchant being robbed offers to buy the robber’s pistol?”
This was a real life event, Fuzzie. Happened in the month of January, 1990 at the Best Food Market in Houston, TX. The media accounts made much of the apparent (well, obvious really) stupidity of the robber and described him as a “flea brained felon.”
However, I’ve always thought there was a much larger picture to be learned there, and that example is illustrative on a much larger scale…it’s just usually a more indirect scenario.
It’s such a fundamental fact of life that violence can be bettered only by superior force, not by good intentions, much less by mere pieces of paper with ink on them.
Hon, relax. You’re receiving blowback from someone else, the bitch who shall not be named. My apologies for my response, and that’s as far as I’ll prostrate myself. Seriously, I take a lot of incoming; It has nothing to do with you..
I see Toad. Thanks for explaining! 🙂
Redpillgirlnotes,
Can we take up a collection an se if we can send one of those dolls to Big Red?
Lol Fuzzie, indeed! 😀
I would make a distinction between absurdly unnecessary violence and marginally defensible violence. Exploitation and subjugation is unnecessary, defense against the same is regrettable, but often necessary.
As long as there are bad people in power, the faceoff will continue.
Good point Eccentric. It can be a force of bad but also sometimes used for the good. I was raised to think of it as always unnecessary and bad.
Eccentric, no. Not only no, but hell no.
It is the bald face of unlimited violence that keeps a healthy society safe. War is not a romantic notion, it’s the application of brutal force at a specific point to kill people and break things in the most violent manner possible. The idea of “unnecessary violence” is an absurdity. If violence is called for, there is no limit. Locate, close with and destroy.
@ toad true, if it gets to that point, half ass whoop ass don’t cut it. Like Ton points out, in war it’s win or lose. I’d also agree when men are fighting on your side, they deserve the best training and equipment possible and full support to do what needs done.
Do or do not, there is no try.
Mike offered some interesting anecdotes last night about flying with the Middle Eastern guys. Some huge cultural differences by contrast. In the US fighter community, criticism is very direct and there are no distinctions made by rank (in the debrief at least….if the Colonel messes up, he messes up and they can be brutally honest). Germans and Brits are the same. In the Middle East, you cannot criticize or lay blame so basically they just ignore any mistakes and learn nothing from them. When they go up to fly against them (for training) it’s very common for them all to retreat and go back home rather than facing an opponent and taking the risk of being bested. Even in just training. It’s weird.
He said there was a guy leading a massive mission that included lots of members from the ME (Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, people from the UAE, I think Saudis too…and so forth). One of our pilots was in the back of the lead guy’s F16. The lead guy wasn’t able to refuel from the tanker…due to his own ineptitude. He announced that the tanker was broken and sent it home so they had to scrap the whole mission.
Whenever a guy is sent over there in a pilot exchange, Mike always tells them the same thing.
“Don’t teach those fuckers anything”.
I have never heard a more absurd illusration than the one you gave at 11:16am. A merchant being robbed offers to buy the robber’s pistol?
@Liz
“Don’t teach those fuckers anything”.
Never met him, but I just decided I like Mike. That’s gold, and he deserves a reward. It’s that time of the year, so find a deer hunter and work out a deal so you get the back-strap.
Wrap the whole thing in bacon. Use toothpicks to hold the bacon in place. Wet heat because the venison is dry, so think dutch oven with a good seal and don’t be afraid to use plenty of pepper. And garlic, but in the pan, not on the meat. Put a couple of sticks of butter (salted) in there and use that to baste a few times while it’s roasting. Remove the garlic cloves at the first round of basting and add a bunch of chopped onion. Keep it moist and let it cook thoroughly, then slice into 1″ slices. Drain all the juice/onion/garlic/whatever and put it in a blender with the bacon. Liquify at high speed while it’s still hot and add a package of cream cheese (the real stuff). Pour that over the slices and serve with a side of something bland like rice or boiled potatoes.
MAKE SURE YOU GET ALL THE TOOTHPICKS!
You can thicken the sauce with cornstarch if you want, but adding another package of cream cheese will do the same. What you’re after is a nice thick sauce. Chop some green onion and sprinkle over the top for a better look if you’re into that kind of thing. You can instantly gain 3-4 pounds on a meal like this, so plan on some exercise after the meal. I’m sure you can figure that part out.
Result: very happy husband.
Hee hee. Thanks, Artisanal Toad.
Actually, we have a friend who just came back from (South Dakota I think) with some pheasant AND venison! He put it in our freezer last night.
Mmmm venison. I’ll try that recipe (not sure which part of the animal we’re got though).
🙂
Liz…cultural differences in leadership…see “Why Arabs Lose Wars,” especially the section “officers vs soldiers”
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html
There are business and government organizations in the US which are so dysfunctional that things like your tanker-refueling story could and do happen there. The business ones usually self-destruct, the government ones, we tend to be stuck with.
I believe Obama has that level of need for ego protection and inability to admit to himself any failures or bad judgments.
i wouldn’t count on what liz describes as lasting forever. While it may be a cultural thing or a vestige of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks recovered from WWI and gave a good account of themselves in Korea.
Violence is the only thing that creates peace and it always works when done properly/ taken to the full extent. However, leaving the job half finished creates problems
Rome and Carthage; Carthage was a problem until Rome gave them a full force beat down. Germany in WW1 got a semi smack down and got of the mat and up swinging. Germany in WW2 went down and stayed down.
There should be peace or genocide. Nothing in between
Not my main line of work but I have it on good authority we never teach foreigners all our tricks. We leave things out to exploit later if need be.
I say that as man who has only done the foreign training thing with Brits but I have been told that is so by reliable sources.