“Nonviolence” and “nonaggression” 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?
via The sick glorification of non-violence. | alexandermcnabb.
TransMillennium 