Virtuous Violence

To progressives, violence by the oppressed against their oppressors is virtuous.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this:

• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.
• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.
• The actions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• Traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to the oppressed.
• Violence by the oppressed against the oppressors is virtuous.

WorldviewTree_p115

 

virtuous violence n : violent behavior which a particular worldview sanctions and honors

Progressives see violence by the various pseudoppressed groups as a righteous rebellion against oppression and exploitation. Violence by the poor exudes progressive virtue because they are felt to be fighting their wealthy exploiters. In some neighborhoods, police are perceived as tools of the rich or of European-Americans, and become targets. Violent behavior by women, whether Thelma and Louise fantasy style or in real life, tends to be seen in devoutly progressive circles as a legitimate tool of liberation, or an understandable reaction to years of abuse by a man or men in general. Similarly, violence by non-European-Americans tends to be seen by newthinkers as righteous rebellion by ethnic groups oppressed by European-Americans. For instance, progressives depicted the Rodney King disorders as an “uprising” caused by a difficult social and economic climate* Violence by non-Christians tends to be progressively virtuous because it is believed that they have faced historical oppression by Christian culture. And violence by non-Americans tends to be progressively-virtuous because of America’s perceived exploitation of foreigners. Fascist dictator Fidel Castro, who is documented to have murdered 14,000 people by firing squad, and that just a fraction of his complete murder toll on his own people, was lionized by newthinkers such as Norman Mailer, who called him “the greatest hero of the century!”**

To be fair, the traditional American worldview has its own virtuous forms of violence: the homeowner defending his family against an intruder, the policeman arresting a criminal, the soldier fighting for freedom. But the progressive worldview’s virtuous violence takes a different form: that of the pseudoppressed battling their pseudoppressors.

The traditional American worldview has its own virtuous forms of violence: the homeowner defending his family against an intruder, the policeman arresting a criminal, the soldier fighting for freedom. But the progressive worldview’s virtuous violence takes a different form: that of the pseudoppressed battling their pseudoppressors.

The more extreme Progressive Crusaders may use progressively-virtuous violence in their battle against their perceived oppressors. To devout progressives, even jihadists are righteous (although perhaps overzealous) warriors whose violence against their Christian oppressors is justified. As President Bill Clinton pointed out 58 days after the 9/11 attacks, “In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound.”***

These violent Progressive Crusaders are very diverse, ranging from Al-Qaeda, Black Panthers, urban gangs and radical environmentalist groups to the Weather Underground, Castro’s fascist rebels, Nazis, Russian communists, and others. On the face of it, they all seem very different, and some such as Al-Qaeda are influenced by more than one worldview. But omnimarxism creates strange bedfellows. These groups have much in common: their certainty in their own virtue, their struggle against their perceived oppressors, and their violent tactics. The ubiquitous oppressor/oppressed dynamic of omnimarxism is clear in a statement by al Qaeda’s former number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, “I want blacks in America to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from the Muslims only. We are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind.”†

The perceived legitimacy of newthink’s brand of virtuous violence feeds thug culture. For instance, the African-American prison population is being converted from non-religiosity or Christianity to Islam on a large scale based on a narrative of oppression and a sanctioning and honoring of past crimes as virtuous violence. The fastest growing religion in American prisons is Islam, with about 200,000 followers, mostly African-American men.†† Malcolm X talked about how Muslim prison recruiters worked on black inmates: “When one was ripe – and I could tell – then away from the rest, I’d drop it on him, what Mr. [Elijah] Muhammad taught: ‘The white man is the devil.’ ”††† Thus the burden of guilt and self-responsibility is lifted: crimes against “the devil” are not crimes at all.

Why has virtuous violence flourished under the progressive worldview? Omnimarxists tend to believe everyone is either oppressor or oppressed. The pseudoppressed see themselves as oppressed, which leads to a feeling of righteous anger, and often to violence. After violent acts, even thugs may need rationalizations to soothe their consciences. Newthink provides them.

 

* Lou Cannon, Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the riots changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, (Westview Press, 1999), p. 348.

** Humberto Fontova, “Historians Have Absolved Fidel Castro”, NewsMax, August 15, 2006, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/14/172147.shtml, accessed July 8, 2011.

*** Dick Morris, Off With Their Heads, (HarperCollins, 2004), p. 134.

† “Obama Blows His OBL Moment,” Investor’s Business Daily, March 8, 2007, p. 13.

†† “The New Face of Terror”, Investor’s Business Daily, June 28, 2006, http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20& artnum=4&issue=20060.627&rss=1.

††† Malcom X, as told to Alex Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, (Ballantine Books, 1992), pp. 199-200.

The Knockout Game: Thug Culture in Post-Civilized America

Here’s my definition of thug culture from a March 2013 post:

thug culture n : a social pattern characterized by the inherent tendency, especially in males, toward seeking social status based on violence, the maintenance of face, and primitive behavior

Civilization is the historical exception, not the rule. One need only peruse a book on ancient history to see the violence, slavery and degradation that were a part of everyday life. Western civilization and the American worldview slowly imposed civilization. But as the progressive worldview has taken over, the fabric of civilization has worn thin, and thug culture, the human norm, is re-emerging.

As David Geary points out in his book Male, Female, men universally compete for social status and for the control of resources which sustain reproduction. Throughout preindustrial societies, nearly one in three young men are killed during this competition, and those who have killed have gained a definite social asset in many or most prestate cultures.*

Thuggery is also an asset in the post-civilized subcultures emerging throughout America. The “knockout game” – in which a young thug, on video, tries to knock out an unwitting stranger with one punch — is a textbook example of thug culture. The thugs are seeking social status. In their subculture, social status is based on violence, primitive behavior and the maintenance of face.

Unfortunately, there’s an ethnic component to the knockout game, too.  Virtually all of the “gamers” are young blacks and the victims non-blacks.  A higher rate of violence is the norm in African-American neighborhoods: almost 40 percent of violent crimes are committed by young African-American men, who only comprise about 3 percent of the population.**  A young black man is 13 times more likely to commit a violent crime than the average American.  This statistic is the deplorable result of the progressive worldview’s effect on ethnicities who see themselves as oppressed.

The appalling savagery, unfairness and cowardice of these attacks is shocking to civilized people. But don’t worry — as civilization unravels, as newthink usurps Americanism — you’ll get used to it. After all, it’s the historical norm.

* David C. Geary, Male, Female, (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 318.

** Larry Elder, 10 Things You Can’t Say in America, (St. Martin’s Press, 2000), p. 43.

Thug Culture

The beliefs that we’ve been discussing – that most bad behavior is caused by society, and that we only think a behavior is bad because it has been criminalized – have created the progressive trend of excusing those who act antisocially, even when those actions are horrific. Because of this progressive social trend to sympathize with those traditionally seen as evildoers, human evil and barbarism are less recognized and therefore inadequately suppressed or channeled. A license to be bad leads to more bad behavior.

Males, if they are not civilized into men, tend toward barbarism.

Thug culture starts to thrive when human primitivism is not being channeled or suppressed.  Human thuggery is an eternal problem because it is eternal in human nature – especially male nature. Males, if they are not civilized into men, tend toward barbarism. Americanism successfully civilized boys into men for centuries. It is the height of foolishness to tamper with that successful male-civilizing process. But civilizing young males is an uneasy and unnatural process, and as Americanism has weakened, thug culture has reemerged.

thug culture n : a social pattern characterized by the inherent tendency, especially in males, toward seeking social status based on violence, the maintenance of face, and primitive behavior

Thug culture, whether today or in the distant past, is about being respected rather than meeting standards of behavior. In a cross-cultural and historical study including records from over 700 years ago, more than half of all male-on-male homicides were connected to competition for status and the maintenance of face.  This pattern of human male violence is the same as that of other polygynous primates.* As Martin Daly and Margo Wilson write in their book Homicide, the reputation of a man in most societies hinges on his maintaining a believable threat of violence.  This believable threat is obscured in today’s world because the government has a established a monopoly on the lawful use of force.  But when that monopoly weakens, society-wide or in a violent sub-culture, the usefulness of that believable threat is again clear.**

…men universally compete for social status and for the control of resources which sustain reproduction.  Throughout preindustrial societies, nearly one in three young men are killed during this competition, and those who have killed have gained a definite social asset in many or most prestate cultures.

As David Geary points out in his book Male, Female, this inherent male barbarism is not concentrated in any particular ethnicity. In fact, men universally compete for social status and for the control of resources which sustain reproduction.  Throughout preindustrial societies, nearly one in three young men are killed during this competition, and those who have killed have gained a definite social asset in many or most prestate cultures. For instance, about two out of five men in the Yanomamo tribe have murdered at least one person, and have thus achieved a higher social status and more wives and children than the non-murderers.*** In other possible examples, the homicide rates in England, Amsterdam and Stockholm in the 15th and 16th centuries were very high, about equal to the most murderous cities in America during the 1980s and early 1990s – which were at the time the most violent places in the industrial  world.****

While this murderous behavior is found among different ethnicities, the same is not true of gender.  These were mostly male crimes – relatively few women committed grave acts of violence.†  Thug culture affects everyone, but in its origins it is essentially a male phenomenon.

These modern studies of preindustrial (traditional Americans would say pre-civilization) societies are reminiscent of the traditional American view of preindustrial Indian society described by McMaster in his 1901 children’s history book: “No young Indian was of any importance till he had killed an enemy and brought home the scalp; and the more scalps he brought home, the greater ‘brave’ he was thought to be.”‡ Pre-civilized societies, regardless of ethnicity, typically had very high rates of male barbarism and murder. Post-civilized societies such as the most murderous American cities of the 1980s and early 1990s – which are, not coincidentally, centers of progressive culture – are likely to suffer the same problem.

* David C. Geary, Male, Female, (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 318.

** Martin Daly & Margo Wilson, Homicide, ( New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988), p.128.

*** David C. Geary, Male, Female, (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2005), pp. 317-318.

****Eric A. Johnson and Eric H. Monkkonen, The Civilization of Crime, (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p. 8.

† Jan Sundin, “Crime and Local Justice in Preindustrial Sweden”, Eric A. Johnson and Eric H. Monkkonen, The Civilization of Crime, (University of Illinois Press, 1996), p. 189.

‡ John Bach McMaster, A Primary History of the United States, (American Book Company, 1901), p. 20.