Page 1 of 1

Violence versus Aggression

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:36 pm
by Grayling813
Violence versus Aggression
https://www.americanpartisan.org/2019/1 ... ggression/

Interesting thoughts on violence..
We have to define interpersonal violence as the intentional use of physical force against another person. Violence is not a random act. We must form an intent and a recognition that in that moment, such force is justified. Recognizing this definition, being armed becomes an implicit, and in some ways explicit, promise of violence.

I am armed, with the explicit implication of violence should you take any action of unjustified aggression against me.

Most are familiar with the right to be armed, while wholly unfamiliar with the duty assigned to that right. The preservation of such right is predicated upon first being armed then proficiency at arms, followed by the assurance of violence should any other right be taken. Your duties accompanying the right of being armed is the capacity for all three of those qualifiers. And that violence must be both quick and decisive; violence has no other legitimate purpose aside from the preservation of one’s liberty.
versus aggression..
Aggression is separate concept wholly independent from violence. While aggression usually accompanies violence, in most contexts aggression is a posture and almost always precedes a violent act. It is a reaction. Aggression can be understood as weakness feigning strength. The raising of one’s voice, the beratement of the other, the unnecessary posing with one’s weapons for no purpose other than vanity; these are forms of aggression which precede violence. Each are forms of posturing. Posturing is much akin to a growling dog. The truly menacing dog won’t growl, he’ll just bite. He needs no confirmation of his own power, nor does he need any other justification than his prey is infringing on his territory. The small dog on the other hand will growl and snarl in an attempt to intimidate, inherently ceding their inferiority. Violence is thus natural when threatened, and among the prepared, aggression is unneeded.
When I am told “Yes we are going to take your AR-15!” I consider this aggression with an implication of violence. Robert Francis O’Rourke, a product of a life of great privilege, acts through aggression. The man couldn’t disarm a child much less a trained adult, but he’ll send someone else to- make no mistake of that fact.

Re: Violence versus Aggression

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:22 pm
by joe817
Wow! What a powerful treatise separating the two. Great article Grayling813! Thanks for posting. :thumbs2: :thumbs2:

Re: Violence versus Aggression

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:36 am
by Paladin
Thomas Jefferson had, I think, a similar line of reasoning:
Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former. Real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries.
The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.
The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.

Re: Violence versus Aggression

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:57 am
by Paladin
...it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier. this was the case with the Greeks & Romans and must be that of every free state. where there is no oppression there will be no pauper hirelings. we must train & classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. we can never be safe till this is done.
Thomas Jefferson