Violence

Violence, Vengeance, and Victory

Samuel Bird

There was no way he could see me. Careening down the road, above the speedlimit, he couldn’t be aware of everything. The thick honeysuckle bush was the only thing on that farm that seemed to grow. The thick and dark leaves kept my emaciated twelve year-old body hidden. The truck sped closer to me, filled to the brim with barley grain. I knew those trucks; they had terrible brakes. They couldn’t stop, certainly with how suddenly I would jump out in front of him. The moment came so vividly to me in mind as to seem in the world. The high bumper hitting my bare ribs barely draped over by a thinning green shirt, and thinner skin. I would be thrown to the ground so violently that my cranium would crash into the blacktop so hard that every thought of mine would be free to roam the world. I would be free. If there was nothing that came after, it was nearly the same number of meals I had. The thought overlaid over my vision was exchanged for another. I can’t bear to see a face in my mind, but I can see souls. Three souls fluttered across my awareness that I had gotten to know via their energies. I tear burst from my eyes like a dove beating its wings to escape its cage. It was them. My three wonderful younger siblings. I held them in my mind as something tender to hold. However, unlike some thoughts in my world, they were also outside of my mind and accessible. I longed as ever to live for myself, but at least to live for them. Their young minds and childish features needed me. So what? They could need all they wanted; what was that to me? They had become something so dear to me that it was the most selfish of goals I had to keep them safe. I was still caught against this cliff’s edge, but there was that warm wind that pushed back against my leanings. For them. For them, all I am, will be, or could be. Here it was! It wasn’t that idea that was worth it all, but it was worth what I needed today. As I would say now, my siblings being seemed to be something that, in its totality, I valued. Furthermore, I valued how I related to them. I was never allowed to like myself, and in fact was trained very well to be my nemesis. I could then use them to externalize all that love that had nowhere else to go. They were worth the living and suffering for. I left my hiding spot behind the bush and then had to go back to that world of people and words that never grasped moments like this. I went inside and saw my father working up his temper. My six-year-old little brother was trying to put the dishes away, and my father was screaming vile vitriol at him. It seemed like such sacrilege to spew such cursing at a heart so sweet. He had been a wonderful bundle of love since he came into being, which seemed so opposed to his treatment. Dark, violent rage welled up inside me like a fire ready to burst the vessel. What miscreant could hurt this thing that mattered to me so? My father reached his hand down and shoved my brother into the cabinet next to him, hitting his chest and head against the sharp metal handles. I looked to see my brother with that same wide-eyed horror I felt myself have as he then lowered those scared eyes in fear and dismay. In one moment, I checked to see that he did not need my care, and the next, I lunged at my father. “You!” I screamed as I careened toward my father and began to strike him with all the nothing I had. He grabbed me, threw me down, and began to strike me. Facing where my brother was, I saw him step away. What a beautiful sight. A beautiful child, free. I felt a tear of joy and a smile as the fists hit my back. If he was worth living for, he was worth dying for. 

I was asked the other day if I boxed. I lowered my head, knowing why he asked, and started to plan a good enough lie. “You’re ears, they give it away. The cartilage breaks from being punched and swells to new shapes that harden. Where did you train?” I looked down so I didn’t have to look at him and lie, but I knew why. My life is richly meaningful, for which I have no greater category to tell God my gratitude. It has, however, not been without its misery needed to make it so. As I have said, a meaningful life is finding the best of things to be miserable for, and I have done that. At first, it was my scared siblings. I had a job, and they needed me. Whenever my father had violence to inflict, I would act up just enough to make sure that I took it all. I have only told a couple of people about this, and they have felt sorry for me. Did they hear the same story? Did they miss the point? I had something worth being inflicted for. This was either the manifestation, culmination, or creation of the meaning. Where is love without its sorrow? How can I prove to my depths that I care for you, if I don’t change what I allow for you? I wear these scraggly little ears with honor, knowing they were my first great investment into that thing that gave my life meaning. I was always Esse Maxim, but I now have it. My Esse Maxim is that thing that is of the most value. All other facts, including the stray peripheries of my will, are sacrificed to the core of my will, which is this driving and living idea. I now have a new thing to proverbially make my beatings against the kitchen floor, a good deal. To have something worth living for, one must bow to offer one’s death. We all must die, but some deaths will be toward the consecration of an idea. This builds the idea, but it also solidifies the life ended. Esse Maxim is worth the living, because it is worth the dying. It is worth the suffering and death one could be honored to offer it. What of another’s suffering and death for your Esse Maxim? This question seems a sacrilege in the world of having one’s life and being careful not to infringe on another’s. By never overlapping lives, we never really are anything but strangers. A friend will begin behavior I believe will hurt their lives, and I will say something about it. They may point out I don’t like governance, but I will add I do value familial aid. Their life is in part mine. Their addictions and foolishness affect me. Even if not, it affects them, of who I love. It is that thing that I am, to take care of them. This is because of my evaluation for them is in terms of my Esse Maxim, not theirs. 

Man can’t escape his beastly nature without an addition to his divine. In the meantime, make sense of your mysterious nature via our zoological kin. Grasshoppers live a life of tranquil sincerity for as long as they are grasshoppers. Launching between grass blades, they drink the morning dew, eat leaves, and rest in flowers. At times, a bird comes for them, but it is only one moment before they are dispatched and ingested. What scenes of fields and valleys do men miss to see that only the peaceful grasshopper can see? Their lives are the living out of the garden in a post-Eden world. During the best of years, a greater degree of Nymphs are brought into the world. However, as their population density is not Eden, there comes a circumstance that is violently opposed to the idyllic lifestyle of the grasshopper. Perhaps a drought, perhaps a disease on the grass, maybe the population density, something now fights the grasshoppers' survival.  Now, all those extra offspring are left with less food per grasshopper. Their larger, solitary, and peaceful lifestyle will no longer suffice in keeping them alive, which, like all life, they are singularly set on doing. Life, in its will to life, brings about adaptation with no concern for other life. Genotype as sort alters phenotype as manifestation toward a more conducive state. Metamorphosis. The Grasshopper now becomes a locust? Does the locust bring something to mind? What ancestral memory recalls the horrors they wrought? In the change, their legs become more robust, they change coloration, and their behavior becomes more aggressive. A similar phenomenon occurs with domesticated pigs. After no longer being in the comfortable paddock, their fur grows in thicker, coloration becomes darker, haunches become leaner and more muscular, and their tusks protrude. Many other metamorphoses for the animal kingdom see the given creature change shape and behavior to combat against threats including the spayed foot-toed tadpole, meerkat, galapagos marine iguana, voles, polar bears, elephants, and the curiously proximate primate. Could such a phenomenon exist for man? Could the desperation and value-detracting entities wrought a change in man’s flesh and behavior? Grasshopper to locust, pig to boar, man to warman. Before I go on, and as I will touch on later, we will moralize man’s desperation, but forget the fortunate state of judgement we can be in to look down on such. You may wonder if we can just remove desperation from the equation of human endeavor. However, in doing so, you only press fate back and in the meantime make man lose his fangs and claws. The warman is inevitable, given a world with a given set of resources and man who seeks to dominate it, sufficient for survival. As my ears had a natural program to run in defense of further threats, so did the rest of my body and my mind. Technology and social complexity aside, we can derive great insight on how to inflict when the time comes; instinct. The more animalistic a thought process is, the faster and more precise it will be, often without our awareness of such cognition. Think of the blink of the eye when debris flies into your eye lashes. We have this instinctive initiative like a beast where a protruding jaw exposes fangs. The blood quickens, eyes open wide, breathing becomes rapid. Humanity claims to know ourselves, but seems to ignore that the back of our hand holds claws. This same mouth that speaks sweet words floats every word past incisors. 

As there is still rebellion in your gut against this my defense of violence, I ask you to be present with it and ask it what it says and for what end? If you come to me in vitriol and rage to oppose my defense of violence, you are not my denial, but my manifestation. Before we address ourselves, let us rid ourselves of enlightenment sensibilities. We are the beast that conquered the world. We did it with the mind’s God gave their seemingness, but we still did it with bone and flesh owned by the rest of His creative kingdom. This cognition’s associated brain required an immense amount of nutrition. Our gestation period is arduous, and the early years are formidable. We only then developed the patterns of skills God offered the latent function at our inception in the desperation of our situation. Why do we have hands that callous, skin that scares, and blood that clots if we are made for and not altered since eden? It is this desperation that God leaves us in as the exclusion of meaning to carve out a singular strain of being worthy of meaning. However, in this bargain, God made His largest risk which was risking man to himself. Sweet souls traverse the earth guided by their own feeble minds. I care for the soul and lament it was left in the charge of such foolishness. This not only left us in a world devoid of everything needed for our survival at all times, but with an ontology we had to rebel against while building to continue. You will also notice that not only does man do this desperate endeavor, he does it with company. He does so alongside others. At times, those others support him in accrual of resources needed for value manifestation, or else share a bloodline and become intrinsically valuable to that man. However, and inevitably, our values will not align with another’s objective values. We will bow before different gods. Even if we are fortunate enough to share the same value, as those values are owned by a subject, they are still at odds. For example, you and I both value life. Rather than bonding over this commonality in limited provisions, our values toward varying subjects would be manifest at odds and need resolution. Perhaps we both care for our families in a crisis, but our subjective family is different. Enlightened dimwits when confronted with man’s desperation seek to remove it. However, you then place the world in an unsustainable order that will collapse and bring about more desperation and yet more violence. We can glut ourselves into an apocalypse only to leave our children to fight over remaining morsels and feel our moral superiority. If we are to have a world that doesn’t do violence against the last remainder of the human race, it will need to allow for the possibility of violence. There is wisdom in this. We sequester man to the edge of society and push him off the cliff. He has no means for his survival but his impermissible violence against the system that attempted the more moral but more evil silent violence against this man. Millions die deaths of despair and we are told to feed the machine. The machine’s lever-puller is assassinated and the machine asks us to mourn. We now confront the issue with modern violence that happens to be the categorical concern for the whole of the human race; technology. There is an imbalance between my rifle and the afterlords weapons of mass destruction. It will be the work of my life to bring that balance back toward fist and fist. The underbrush of meaninglessness and deceit has made the recesses of modern man’s mind realize the denial of a wildfire has only built up infernal degrees of tinder. I pray mercy upon the souls attached to the flesh wrought against in the great stabilizing act of the human race. May our resurrending to fate find us with no more hubris worth the punishing. 

If we fight, there is a given thing we fight for. We believe things, and vary in how much reason we have for believing in things, but also how much we value it. For example, I saw a swarm of locusts that inspired this paper. I believe in them, but the facthood of locusts is not vital to my soul. I know less of angels, however, I make sense of my life more with this thing I know less. These values manifest as values supposed to also channel the quality of values having an evaluation of their own. For example, think of a list of those concepts manifest in their given instantiation of what you value. What matters most to you? What, then, would matter second? Third? Go down for around five such things, if you would. As a subject, we are available for variation on our values. However, given the shared qualities that make us the same sort of subject and worthy of not exterminating the other, we will find our honest ontology only grants similar sorts of conceptual hierarchies. Every honest and functioning mind would order something similar to this ordering: God, the bloodline, one’s mythos and mission, one’s people, and then everything else after that. Is it only sample bias that makes us so, as only survivors had these values? Then, let us have this bias and survive. For example, this modern, enlightened, and global system has made morality some sort of duty one must embark on to strangers. That is a stretch from morality's initial manifestation. Oughtness was a gradient to a person given their proximity. One’s son deserved nearly all of what one could muster, but perhaps a stranger could be eligible for stealing such from. Let us at least conclude for now that there is a hierarchy list, what is on that list matters, and so does the order. The effort of Esse Maxim is making something that then gives structure and cause for each following value. For each of these values, though not to equal degrees, no man is worth his skin if he will not let that skin bleed for these royal concepts. If he must be willing to bleed, must he also be willing to cut?

Once we have explored what values we serve, let us then ask what the serving of those values looks like in terms of other people. As I have spoken of often, we seek to have sharedness of value to make proximity. A nation of strangers will see revolutions more than it will conquests. To build this sharedness, there are three means to do so, we have God, love, and violence. Any one could bring about sharedness, but all are more likely to bring it about. God as sharedness would be that privileged evaluation that we all kneel before. If my values and yours are at odds, we see what values God has, and then either one or both leave our values behind for His. Godless morality supposes a value and then attempts to build an ought for us to serve. However, why must I pick your moral system over another that permits what I want. God’s will is the thing we all drop ours to attempt to seek after His. We then can act in sharedness that is easily navigable. Love also allows for the sharedness we seek, but it is as partial as one can be and requires proximity. Whatever criterion for love one utilizes, we will find it available in great disparity between persons. Love is the valuing of being. That valuing of their intrinsicness makes their values more intrinsic to us. I may not care for a certain sort of food, but if my loving wife loves it, my hard labor will seek after such and limited meals will obtain its ingredients. This sort of sharedness is again only available to persons in proximity to ourselves, though this is readily ontologically available. For example, I think there is something seriously wrong with a person who can treat the public like they have a private relationship with it. Furthermore, ill is the man who doesn’t treat his offspring with greater care than his peers. This train of thought takes me into extremity, but my nature is tempered by my Christian thought as I try to fathom how it could work to love one’s neighbor. For now, I think I will consider the choice of the word “neighbor” as wisdom of concern for another relative to oneself. As love is a love for someone, we can not impersonalize its oughtness. However, while the sharedness is tethered to the degree of love and that love is tethered to proximity, no one is “nowhere” to you. Perhaps every stranger would be proximate enough being the same species, as to make them worthy of survival, all else being equal. God as sharedness doesn’t need your qualities, but love does. If you are to be loved, you need to be eligible for that love. This is why humanitarian efforts where the administrator is directly engaged with the recipient sees the recipient being caring and grateful in contrast to the welfare recipients of the state. Insofar as we are friends, morality is for you. Otherwise, it is what keeps me concerned not for you, but about you. This wit is in awareness of the last thing that brings our sharedness and the topic of this entire consideration: violence. The implementation of my will to be, requires me to not do certain things by you, and eventually against you. With God, we share values because we submit to the same valuer. With love, because you are what I value, and so I proto-internalize a portion of your values. With violence, we are both concerned with what the other could do to oppose our values, so we reach equilibrium. You will note this law of might is contingent on us finally reaching a nexus of ability, which may take many lives before it is found. Recall that each subjective party does not want an equilibrium, but for the maximal value for themselves. However, the maximal total probable value is found in equilibrium, whatever that means. However, we don’t seek total probable value, but subjective probable value. This is game theory. We then each have a consideration of what the other person thinks, why, what they think about our thoughts, what we think about them thinking about our thoughts, and as much of this recursive thinking as we have means to employ. I have read on this subject, but know less than before I started, as always. I have come up with an idea that I will now explain with an overly long explanation. I call it the tie-breaker bias. As a controversial example, significant disparity in a series of qualities between races was explained away by the one race being inferior. Now, we explain all the same disparity with the explanation that the other race is morally inferior. Be it far from me to have an answer to such, but we can witness in this how a story being spoken into life became more than just a hypothesis, but the same story we found in the more finished theory. What do we expect that data to say? This then changes how we search for it, and what counts as said data. This will then change what we are then eligible to find. For example, if we discount countering thoughts as the pleading of an inferior race or the work of vile racists, it will change what information we work with. This is the dilemma of science to find what it finds to be pseudoscience and reject it, only to wonder if that rejection left them out of discovering its merit. This is the tie-breakers dilemma where one finds what something means based on what one expects or desires. With violence, if someone values their survival and you are a threat to such, they will mysteriously then have means to agree with you sufficient for their perpetuance. To wrap up this idea of violence as a means for sharedness, let us ask about the layman’s response to ethics. The golden rule in its iterations generates some version of, what you value for yourself, provide or don’t deny that from another. If everyone does this, how wonderful, with the expectation that our wantings not be universalizable. However, the first one to break this version of sharedness will be able to inflict on others and essentially win the game. So, do we just give up on sharedness? Violence is a means for a reminder that if you don’t follow a given rule because of a privileged God or your love for me, there is always the off chance me and the rest of the village strings you up. The interactions of two people is already not properly basic, but the endeavor of understanding an expansive series of them as a society is all the more baseless. However, we can infer basic causation, though I recommend to temper such across time. As my introduction to such, I wondered why all my peers that had an interest in history had a different set of concerns than I did. I then took up my own lay effort and acquired a similar concern. Human technology has changed rapidly, but human nature has changed little. We keep trying to make a society and forget the tender requisites needed to obtain and retain that society. In this example, we remove sharedness. An example of this is permissibility that is flooded throughout liberalism. The line I have heard my whole life is, “if it doesn’t hurt me, do it because I don’t care.” However, it will hurt you. We share the same water, air, language, and sort of minds. Everything affects everything else, and insofar as it is unnatural, it does not rot away into being belong but remains malignant. This is man opposed. If we are to have sharedness, there will be some series of behavior we value, and some series we don’t. That series we can’t have in the system will then need some penalization. This makes every rein a rein of terror. However, who you oppress and inflict upon can be carefully considered. For example, in the society I am building, we will need to oppress murderers and pedophiles for the benefits of our lives and children. Inevitably, someone will need to suffer, in order for another not to. If we cherish one more than another or their values, then let the loser suffer. For example, if you come to kill me, and I wonder if I will pick up arms against you, I can be reminded that if I strike, at least the person who doesn’t initiate killing will die. The best of kingdoms are those whose rein of terror only categorically resonates in those hearts that turn from that society’s god. After all, there is only an “us,” if there is “our God.” This privileged One gives us the direction our society is toward. This answers a question that I feel I am insane for answering alone, but what is our society for? If it is to preserve unique bloodlines, keep the species going, or worship our God, we fail at all such. I follow the average of our society to find it not coalescing around a given objective. If our society is not singular, it is composed of members who seek to tear themselves from the body from the dissonance. For example, young people in my day are dying of record deaths of despair instead of rearing cherished offspring while our society flows assets toward older generations who, unlike us, have rising life expectancies. What society’s objective allows for the old to kill the young? However, if I possess a value such as a response to this, how can I impress it on another person such that I gain power to acquire their support in responding to it? Who’s value is it? I would then need to make a plea to a shared Go to save us. God, love, and violence as belief, lovability, and fighting back require us to not just possess these ideas, but act them out. Running from something makes something fast, but running toward something sustains them. However, when we need people to stop the endangering of our people, giving them something to run from will suffice in our desperation to act any given way. 

We have addressed the role of violence in social sharedness, but now let us ask why it must burst forth from ourselves in rarity and precision. We must place ourselves somewhere in the world. The only alternative to picking an instance of relative position, is to attempt to be nowhere via suicide. We then must be somewhere, but there is no specific somewhere we must be. With our fatalistic acceptance of our positionality in the world, we have the liberty and obligation to then deliberate on the actualization of that location. In this proverbial positionality, we will be opposed to another who made the same stance of somewhere in the world. Between the both of us, this is admirable. This is my peer and brother. However, based on our positionality relative to the other, we find ourselves facing and at odds with each other. He must be my enemy, but I must admire him. We can try to be invisible or disappear to not be where we truly are, but then we are conceptually nowhere, and then eligible to want to be nowhere in reality either. Instead, we now have a meditation on whether our location is worth its cost. Perhaps you find yourself at odds often and don’t value this spot much more over another. You are then eligible to embark in the process of god killing to change your heart. However, if you find that spot is worth its cost, no matter what it pits you against, you must die on that spot. To abandon a location that your authenticity would have tethered you to, is to die in spirit and go on as a cursed and treacherous ghost. If your fighting turns from desperation to  try hatred for yourself or your fate, be reminded that you must have been somewhere. Have grace then for all parties involved. On the other side of affliction is the only chance your life meant anything. Having attempted God’s murder, and therefore finding no place in any possible heaven, modern man sees no redemption, meaning, or blessing in death. It is the sheer denial of all that could have been otherwise. From this, the afterman became as an over-protective mother who denies you life from fear of death. Let us now consider the cost of fear that denies fate. The only way to take from man that part of him which commits violence is to take that same part of him that keeps him from self violence. This will to life can manifest as will to life over another, but this is a small price to pay for such a will. If something is worthy of life, it will be worthy of foes. No escapism from fate as desperation can stop this. I value and posit it is better to die for one’s beliefs then to have none at all. I would then also conclude that it is better to die from your beliefs than their lack in a death of despair. Esse Maxim as the conceptual throne we build for God, is of the most consideration for defense and offense. All mattering post Esse Maxim is given such an evaluation because of it. As such, there are things further down the hierarchy like bloodline and people that are even worth defense to violence. However, the highest value has the most preeminent authority for calls to action and denial as well. For example, if the God primarily worth dying for tells me to turn the other cheek, then adoration of this God would be manifest as such. I will in a later chapter meditate on the Christian God and His relationship to aggression. Let us readdress Esse Maxim in terms of violence. It is inevitable. This thing that bridges you and the world to bring about goodness, beauty, truth, love, and meaning, will be at odds with someone. Their Esse Maxim will consequently call them to be at odds with you. We could allow for the devaluing of our Esse Maxim’s to co-exist, but we would then devalue what our Esse Maxim was to us, and what it would do. Instead, we must be diligent at holding strong to this thing that is that beautiful light we carry in the dark. The world puts us at odds, and what must we do? We could give up something worth killing for, then what for why to live? In the end, such a pitting of primal values against each other is what I call the admirable enemy. Though opposed. It is reasonable they are where they defend. It is furthermore defensible that they defend themselves and oppose us. However, in our adoration for such a holy conflict, we must still inflict. If we are to believe, we must have conceptual ownership. If so they become “our” beliefs. We then must act as so and not betray them. Man must be internally bound, convicted, and unfree to the idea that makes all else sensible. 

Let us further meditate on violence as aggression. I am of course using my signature hyperbole and there are many ways being opposed to one in the world is manifest. The first layer is disagreement. Even if done as politely as possible, your foe now has to rest every night knowing out there lies the manifestation of the antithesis of their cherished beliefs. They will then have to wrestle with their beliefs and be more likely to struggle to be loyal to them. Identifying the antithetical belief to yours demonstrates its contingency. One is then left to wallow in existential despair. Disagreement is then not just some small thing in the diversity of thought. It is walking past your denial. This then can lead to conflict. Conflict is when that value variance leads to value or resource denial. For example, you value peace and as we do not intersect or share these other beliefs, I will rid you of it by shouting and mocking. This then can lead to harm. Harm is when conflict’s value-denial is sufficient to have lasting effects on their personhood. For example, maybe we say something so egregious they never recover. Perhaps we use our social power to deny resources they need to flourish. Perhaps we even go so far as to inflict physical force on their body such as to disrupt the natural function needed for life. This is violence unto death, or killing. This is the most notorious iteration of violence as it is the kind people and families can’t heal from. However, it is historically rare. Death tolls in ancient wars have consistently been much less than I anticipated, knowing the numbers involved. This form of violence is extreme, but not without its place. In lazy value calculus I would be more precise if I considered it well, the violent instigated death of a person who placed toxins in the bodies of many young people could be more reasonable than the deaths of many thousands of those young people. The difference is that we caused the first death, and the deaths of those young would be at the margins of society. Our minds hyperfixate on deaths of killing, but look at thousands times more deaths of periphery as a number. I am not proposing we necessarily be more liberal in our evaluation toward the death of the few that poison, but I am proposing us to consider that while killing changes the value of a death, many dying without first-order cause could be cause to consider violence against responsible parties. Feeling I have not named this well, let us call this phenomenon implicit versus explicit violence. We can easily see the second and say it is wrong. What about all the implicit violence? It is a shame that a man should lose a son to war, but it is a tragedy for a man to have no children. Yes, the having and losing may seem worse, but it is not a negligible thing that this man went without. My society, for example, doesn’t make men go to war, but it makes them deeply question living as they are pushed to the edge of society. You will note that while I am calling for a reassessment of implicit violence, it is not to say we routinely value it as comparable or close to explicit. For example, the striking of a hammer is one man’s implicit violence and another man’s construction. The construction of the new state is the destruction of the old, which could have been valued. Don’t confuse yourself with objective sorts of chaos and cosmos, but rather iterations of how the world ought to be in each of our minds. By building your opposed world, you do violence to mine. In short, what I mean be violence is actuating harm as value denial and destruction of a person. Life is only violence, the fight, the labor, and those few sacred things worth being violent for. Our God, bloodline, mission and mythos, kings, and peoples. Everything else is a distraction to keep us from the war waging. When your enemy can’t beat you, they will say there is no war. You then don’t understand the narrative in which your conflict is housed. Conspiring evil learned engaged men aren’t defeatable, but they are distractable. Throw down your entertainment my sons and rise in might against the world that sought to destroy the only thing worth living and dying for, that same thing we serve, God, bloodline, mission and mythos, king, and people. If we are to fight for what is worthy of such, we have to be willing to be violent against ourselves to root out that which we want to root from our society. Many come to me and shout invitations to join their revolution, but one must first conquer those distracting portions of yourself such as lust, greed, and laziness. You cannot be violent for violences sake but for the sake of your Esse Maxim. You should never go to war happy to fight, but happy to fight for. If you are being authentic to your Esse Maxim, there are things it will require of you before its defense. If you can’t live by its law, but then proceed to fight for it, what case do you have that it was yours? You are then under suspicion of being an opportunist. The metaphilosophy and metavalue of Esse Maxim is nearly impossible to evaluate as it precedes any tools of evaluation. However, for this evaluation and any potential god-killing, I have three criteria: How internally consistent it is, how consistent it is with our experience of the world, how consistent it is with our experience of ourselves and our values. We then choose our Esse Maxim based very partially, on how it cares for us. It then is life affirming to ourselves. Based on our categorically shared ontology, our enemies would also have a non-arbitrary Esse Maxim be applied to them on their behalf similarly. In summary, because our belief is for us, our belief will end up being in part for them. We then have to evaluate the worthiness of violence very carefully. For example, we could say they are less proximate to our ontology than someone we defend or the net threat they are outweighs their value. This evaluative process would be benefitted by your further meditation, as does everything I say. Is this fallen world worth the warriors' pose we strike against it? Yes. It is not because the world is opposed to us, but it is not toward us. The average person will not be opposed to you on average, but they will not be in support of either. You are then left to excerpt power over the world to amass resources and values in a defensive position. You run the plow with a sword at your hip. Desperation opposes us to each other, but opposing fate as desperation will result in all men being opposed to each other in the new found hyper-desperation. Existence as it presents itself is not good or evil, but a basket of facts available as potential for labor and evaluation to make them more. We not only can’t see the world as it is as noumena, but we also in our phenomenological experience of it, see it as the thing we will make it to be. Our vision is broadcast over our sight. As we have to carve the blessedly wild world, let us procure tools. As soon as I came of age, I purchased a rifle. Every man needs a weapon, armor, and knowledge to wield as we will not be worth our skins if little ones suffer because we did not or were cowardly. In the meantime, this will be advantageous to your psyche. To unlearn helplessness, displays of power as I call them, demonstrate to you your ability to act in the world. Then, when fears come of how the world can affect you, you are reminded that you can inflict back. Not only is this peaceful to your psyche, but it does little ones well to know their loving parent can be powerful unto violence until they can do so for themselves. Preparations for war and displays of power are needed when there is peace. You will either not need the sword or need nothing more than it. By always carrying, you assure preparation for fate’s offering. I desire to be the spokesperson for that portion of mankind left behind by modernity. Few places is this feeling as manifest than on behalf of our children. If little ones suffer violence because you couldn’t inflict it on their perpetrator, let us both hope God won’t grant me visitation to your cell in hell. Christ was the manifestation of directed and wise violence, not passivity. As such his decree for the role of millstones resonates with me. Woe be to death and hell for the onslaught inflicted by our Lord on those after He willed not to inflict upon His humble creations that killed Him. We don’t need to reason with evil. We don't need to hear it out. We don't need to understand it. We need to locate it, and attempt to dissect it from the hearts of men. If those men have let that evil grow to consume them to where there is no portion without that evil, let us dissect the man's life from himself. We are past moralism, but how can I say this? We each are in threat of death from the maximal betrayal of another’s God. Let us find one God, to concede that evil. To make violence as evil manifest is evil taking the blade of the avenging angel. If one of us must die, let it be the one that doesn’t bow to my God. As we wrestle not with flesh, our enemies are ideas. However, if you can't get them to change their mind, let the survivors among them reassess their beliefs. 

I can hear the moralists now. How dare you rally up the powers within a person against the society of the status quo. Don’t you know about morality? They will ask. Who’s morality? Mine, theirs? No, that turns into the childish game of just negating what one says. The morality you cling to was wrestled from what you presumed to be the corpse of God. Past your sight, you didn’t know He shared his law with you out of love. However, it is His law, with His ends, and with His contexts. You appropriate its convenient portions to your demise. Allow me to demonstrate. The hard problem of morality, at least in modernity, is not coming up with an ought, but why that ought should be toward or not against another person. The only real ethics is metaethics and even so, one drop of nihilism can confront a tidal wave of such. What ties me to them? Why should I adopt your values on your behalf? Their only reasons are God as sharedness, love as proximate adoption, and violence as threat of value denial. In other words, if I do right by you, it is either because of command, concern, or coercion. More modern libertine ideas hope to grant every inconsistent desire, however, we share a world. If you go out to fish, why not overfish and kill off the whole race of fish you hunt after? You might say, well, because it affects other people. But, why should they care? Violence, at the very least, reminds them that their ship is not unsinkable. We would then need to be able to sink ships, in order to care for our, and all other people. Sharedness comes from God, love, and violence or a privileged Valuer, you having value to me, you being able to take value from me. Their total and partial sufficiency escapes me, so let us say all act at least as a constant conjunct we benefit from their totality. We now have a reason that a finite actor has a tie to an infinite world. Any additional moralism comes from moral luxury as the denial of fate. Not only is harm something one may be able to do, but it is something one may be ought to do, given some groundings. For example, if you love someone, you will eventually have to love them from something. Your love will be to them a denial of some activity or value inconsistent with another value of theirs or your shared God. Love would not be manifest as to give the drunkard his bottle until his body collapses under the cumulative toxin. My brother and I had a conversation some years ago that love sometimes required you to be aggressive, and that aggression was valuable and one needed to therefore be capable of it. Perhaps because I did not explain myself well, he adamantly disagreed. I then shared that one must demonstrate capability for aggression just enough that others are aware of that capability. He hated this further. The conversation became heated and my brother left. On his walk home, he was confronted by a particularly rude person. My brother then understood what I meant and took the occasion to practice. For every moral ought against violence, I not only diffuse such, but I can posit an ought for violence. One ought to reprimand the beloved child for their protection. One ought to kill the intruder who seeks to harm your family. One ought to commit war against those that you have determined undermine your God and existence. With our proverbial world positionality, as I have spoken on before, it is not just our values, but where we stand that can make us opposed to another. Again, if you and I both value not-dying, as subjects that not dying would be manifest toward our seperate persons. Furthermore, past values, conflicts as the starter to violence, are often more epistemic than ethical. For example, we both agree it would be unvaluable for me to kill our hostages, but we may disagree on whether or not that happened. Much of a conflict comes not simply from varying values and even varying subjects instantiating those values, but a variance in conceded facts. In my age of culture wars, values are remarkably similar, but the information each side accesses to apply those values is polarizing. Now let us consider the different parties at hand, and what the decision process looks like from their world positionality. In doing so, we have to be careful to not make the economist’s fallacy of reducing the human experience to variables and maximizations, but such a model is good for an illustration. All things being equal, not that they ever are, if another person is opposed to you unto threat of death, should you match and retaliate? If they instigated it, let us say the person who is instigating death is more worthy of it. However, what if you rose up against each other in equal violence? If one of you must live, let it be the person who bows for your God. Recursive decision processes as decision theories have further dramatic social effects. For example, in a world that over-utilizes shame as a social tool, it will have three parties: Those that would have fought for it that now are downtrodden, those that fight against it and still do as they don’t have the right to shame them, and a third rare category where people begin to rebel by becoming unashamed. We have this issue with violence. Good men don’t evil men do, and those trying to make up their mind pick the one that gets what they desire. By shaming violence, we certify the shameless are left unmatched. This goes back to our enemy denying the narrative of our conflict as to make us useless in it. The devil wins those battles he tells you don’t happen. We then mustn't fall for the fallacy of waiting for permission to manifest power as violence, as our enemies didn’t wait for us. My last note on moralizing, is as the recipient of shame. As a young man, I allowed others to shame me to an extent my psyche almost did not recover from. I chose to keep moving and then only recently discovered a tool I would have loved to give to my younger self and now do so to you. An entity only has the right to shame you proportional to their place in your hierarchy. God, bloodline, mythos, king, and my people can shame me in the order I belong to them. What we can not allow is for parties with no investment in your personhood to have tools for its distraction. At least partially, oughtness is from proximity and therefore so is shaming. Have mercy on your enemy on behalf of your God. However, don’t let the shameless shame you. If they won’t cheer at your victory, don’t let them shame your violence. 

Let us know revel in controversy, by now meditating on violence as the conquest of the bloodline. My organism is material portion of my tripartite nature, as unique, has unique ends. Those ends must then come into alignment with the soul and God as maker of that body, but those ends still exist. Refusal to give into all instincts. Denial those instincts exist, and you defeat yourself without a shot. Your flesh does not care for massive humanistic social projects, it does not care for words slung against you, and it does not care for shaming. It cares for the perpetuance of the bloodline. In as far as our society makes such shameful, it then only leaves the shameless bloodlines to perpetuate. I refuse to point to an extent, but it is clear to me our nature is largely set at birth. I used to overstate first, experience, and then our will, but then I notice how much of a person will be, already is while in the arms of their mother. Our born nature is also more than a static variable, but is seen to be dynamic. For example, it is more and more reasoned that it is not just what traits survive, but what qualities in what persons that do. I will refuse to speak on this much further, but this is epigenetics or the memory of the bloodline. It is not just that my fathers did not die of cold and was therefore able to handle it, but by their time in the Nordic land, their bodies began to change. There are then conversations around how this memory of the bloodline can lead to behaviors and sentiments. So far, this has been co-opted to reinforce already existing ideas of human nature and our zeitgeist, but it betrays it. I have meditated on this before. At birth, we are offered the context of our parents. We can adopt how much of their fights and passions to take up. This is tradition, culture, heritage, ancestry, and even how we treat the body which manifests as what it becomes. We can’t take all their context, or else we would just be them. We can’t deny all of their context, or else we curse their two halves that came together in love to make us. We then must assess how much of that context we must take up. I lean toward taking up that context, but averaged out over generations. One link can be weak, but a bloodline will generally be strong if you follow back the chain. In the age of physicalism, we deny that form of psychology that tracks onto our physical beast because we moralize against it. However, being and doing are intimately connected. To understand what we do, let us understand the animal we are. The issue of qualities through the bloodline to a moralistic society, is that those that succeed in bloodline perpetuance, such as cheaters and liars, are not those they value. So, we just lie to ourselves. A better route is to consider how to make a system whose nature allows those who perpetuate their bloodline, are those that upheld the society. In the meantime, you become a threat to the world run by the cult of the secret lie, when you are past their shame in your defense of your God first and bloodline second. At some point, the great will be in conflict with the weak. Their value system and greatness will lead them to not be intimidated by the weak, but if the weak are at odds with them, they should step up. Should we tell them not to, and have the one party that lives on be the aggressor and the weak? The great have tried to fit into the weak out of shame, and become the weak. Violence sures up that the living are those worthy of such. We can moralize against this and make a domesticated man, but then we will experience a crisis, natural or otherwise, that will remind us why we need the great. This is why weak societies both hate masculinity, but can’t live without it. What of those whose bloodline was broken? Perhaps a parent or grandparent didn’t invest in the bloodline and only made such a mistake of perversion. Some will say the bloodline is no tether, as the previous link broke them. However, it is then your duty to build the chain that goes past them in either direction. What if your life was ill because of a poor link? Then, be a better link, and attempt in turning the chain into chainmail, linking you to bloodlines outside of immediate directionality. Bring in a better mate to your bloodline. Live out not just the creation of the bodies of your bloodline, but their minds and souls. Bless those that proceed from you, and who preceded you. Precious blood courses through your veins, the tradition and perpetuance of the human race. Let that blood through an honorable heart to mighty to defend all loved bodies that blood courses through. Weakness isn't your privilege. Your beastly portions need you to rise in violent defense and procuring offense for those loved others that are your bloodline manifest. This would necessitate the ending of bloodlines risen against yours. Let not moralism, but might and fate decide what blood passes to seed. The flesh is weak, but let yours tower among men. The natural task of the flesh is to rise from the dust to be something magnificent, bring another from the dust to do the same, and return to that dust. Offspring don't keep us from life, they are life. As God trusts us with ourselves, He trusts us with someone else. The dichotomy of parentage and childhood is that during your tender and impressionable age, someone cares for your being and not you. They make you. You then etch someone else out. Childhood would be a curse if we see ourselves as individual offshoots of the enlightened kind. Why did they have the rightless power to make me in the absence of my consent? However, if it is the bloodline, the last serves the next with no payment but gratitude for having been served. You are not you. You are the current manifestation of your bloodline, reaching toward the divine. Your life is not yours to use as offered liberty toward pleasure. It is borrowed power to bring about the next in the bloodline, and be a shining example of those hands extended to heaven. We want to be free and say no man owes us, but then lament that to no one do we belong. You belong to your fathers and mothers. You belong to your children. You belong to your God. You do not have the liberty or right to slip into isolated nihilism. Your bloodline that owns you will never let you be alone, but with this offer their ask is that you never betray them. What mate is worth selection into this honorable heritage? How do we rear their next great generation? How did our living reach up to something more than ourselves? With fortune, the state gives me freedom, and I will shackle my soul to the few things eligible for meaning given my being. Now, in the swirling hurricane of existence, I am tied to something, and in it, and become it. 

When you start a revolution, you have to at least tailor your message to the real natural democracy of those who can inflict violence. Young men should not be pushed to the periphery of society, but we should be begging for their attention in our cause. We must be exclusive in who we invite to our cause, and as such need to pick those that can support it. I choose the controllably violent, those who can bravely will to do harm or peacefully will to do resolution. This dynamic beast is the most worthy of disciples. You can lead all you wish, but why do people follow? People don’t buy houses, but memories with family. They don’t buy clothing, but warmth and protection. They don’t buy tools, but jobs done. People follow not because of the essential intrinsic nature of a revolution, but they buy into that resolution based on what it will afford them. There is nothing worth acquiring that is not acquired, that you could acquire with violence in a non-violent world. Once you obtain your disciples, you need to optimize them for their great task. First, we make way with our pathetic portions. Any man not capable of violence is subject to it. Chain your passions to your will, son. Let your beastly flesh be shackled to the directing of the mind. Precisely execute only that violence no one will have the right to shame you for, and our elite has no such right. What does have the right to shame us, sons? Only that which is worthy of committing that violence, God, bloodline, and mythos, king, and people. Your sanctified mission and mythos, your people and heritage, your Divine and sole kneel worthy Deity. The only shame you can excuse, is that which they can turn you from the loyalty of its object. Let true hierarchical loyalty shield you from such barrages. On the scale of how intrinsic to utility something is, we hate violence more for its own sake, we are still ready to rid ourselves of violence in our nature. However, in doing so, we scalpel away that portion of us that keeps us from committing violence to ourselves and acting at all. In fact, this alone may not be enough to keep violence from happening. To oppress the natural instinct of defense and offense would lead to a degree of soul depression that removes intrinsicness itself. If something is worthy of life, it is worthy of making foes over, and as existence places us at odds, we must choose to keep the value of that life in the constant conjunct, or else consider our moral superiority along with our meaninglessness. I have said and now say again, I would rather die from the offense of another man’s god, than to die from a death of despair. We overcount deaths of violence in estimation to thousands of lives ended from an emaciated soul. There is nothing that can take intrinsic hierarchy over that thing that is the foundation of that hierarchy, our Esse Maxim. This throne we build to plead God to rest on, we must bless it with every sacrifice, including our own blood. This may seem concerning at first, as the law may be for the man. By this, I mean that our beliefs are there to serve us and to take our lives is not serving. However, for that belief to be truly ours, it needs our ownership. We do not own what we do not invest in its acquisition and upkeep. It is inevitable. This thing that bridges you and the world to bring about goodness, beauty, truth, and meaning, will be at odds with someone. Their Esse Maxim will call them to be at odds with you. We could allow for the devaluing of our Esse Maxim’s to co-exist, but we would then devalue what our Esse Maxim was to us, and what it would do. Instead, we must be diligent at holding tight to this thing that is that beautiful light we carry in the dark. The world puts us at odds, and what must we do? We could give up something worth killing for, then what for why to live?

Context makes the evaluation. How many half-stories, when informed by additional information, become the exact opposite in their meaning and imperatives as they hit our souls? For example, you have likely heard someone lament how they were treated. However, if this lamentation was also informed by their own egregious behavior, perhaps their poor treatment was too conservative. If we are to assess man’s context, let us ask what situations he finds himself in and how his nature is most often going to respond to such. There are three sorts of arguments I have seen: Man is good, man is evil, and man is nothing but what his world makes him. To the latter, well who made that initial character that made our society? To the others, they miss out on large swathes of behavior. There have been tender and laborious efforts that man works toward another. There is also precise cunning in how he labors against. Man is neither good nor evil, even assuming we had a metric for such. We are instead existent and seeking that perpetuance. All else being equal, to bestow to a neighbor that which will not kill you to give is not out of the question. What is truly baffling is man’s rare interest in giving that which he has no interest in, however this is a fluke of Christianity. Much of altruism is nuance in man addressing his ends. He seeks to live, but must die. However, he can live on through his bloodline. So, if he will die anyway and a specific instance of death protects his children, the man assessing well, will give his life for his children. He is impressive less because he is morally capable, but because his ends are to the highest mythos of himself he can reach for, and he had the power within to bring it about. Such is my seeming goodness to you. It is an extension of my existence to build a conceptual world with you. That world is incomplete at the writing, and needs your engagement, seemingness, and mental world to make it into something more. I then am not available for being burnt out, as I was paid for my service in the act. It was selfish of me to love you, and for that love you would then never owe me. To make sense of our nature in our given environment, let us address it in a variety of environments and hope in the variance of manifestation we can approximate some averageness. I had wondered why everyone that I knew who was interested in history, also had a series of views on human nature. It is because you get to see how the spirit of man arises to occasions that vary from your own. This is of course skewed by those moments in history that warrant our interest. However, in my lay studies, I find that man reaches for his God, family, life mission, king, and people. In stability, he does this by the labor of a day not worthy of a history book's pages. When this hierarchy is under attack, he confronts it with moments that then grace those same books. However, as the usage of the word “unprecedented” in contemporary publications, we have to ask another question. We are building, have built, and are on track to build an environment so alien from anything we have experienced, for us to know the implications of the manifestation of our will in this new world. This vile roll of the dice for the human race’s fate is the ashy soul regressivism takes root in. There are no godless prophets, but we can infer the direction of the world, assuming we have reasonable access to more primary variables. Where will our efforts of being non-violent lead to? We will not allow God to negate us. We will now not allow another man. We then open ourselves up to fate’s denial at the worst moment. What presses back against man’s pressing that makes his life exclusionarily difficult, as well as forces that man and his offspring to be the sort that are strong enough to survive in this new world? Man can never know the variables for an ecosystem. Violence is this small brush fire that takes out shrubbery, in the stead of the sort of fire that scorches the soil for no life to utilize it. The world we are building is not one we can be mentally oppressed to value. Our ontology gives us a fixed variety of things to value and then to not. We head toward extinction and are dogmatically defensive of what kills us. Let us kill it. The body can’t live without its forest and the soul without its heaven. Any portion of many that steals either away ought not be welcomed in either. The effort to avoid desperation has created a buildup of such. As the modern world collapses, we will be called to violence. The only question is of our role as victim or villian. We will be asked if the human race warrants survival at the expense of spilling a puny fraction of that blood from malicious hearts and broken minds that curse that humanity. They will never excuse this defense of the human race, but only our God can permit what they can condemn us for. Not one harsh word or slashing blade shall be sent, until we know our enemy and why we strike them. In that moment, we, as the pinnacle of humanity, shed its weaker portion to live on as something more. Writhe in the innocent portion that dies with your enemy, but revel in the magnanimity of the manifestation of the human person making heaven on earth by the banishment of their more untoward portions. A party perhaps fitting such a description would be our elite who are the afterlords. They betray the last bit of sharedness our people have, and are set to die comfy deaths. I pray God provides a millstone for every neck craned over our little ones in perversion. These afterlords make my people extinct as they harm our little ones. They then give me their godless ten-stanzad tables as if their doctrine is worthy of my bended knee. If that knee ever does bend for them, let it be to reextend the leg and consequent foot into their ribs. Let me once again say the prayer of my life: Make me suffer, make me fail, make me nothing, but of what you have made of me, utilize me toward your I don’t know and yet wish to possess. Don’t waste me. Do I err, Lord in consideration of what will be manifest in my retribution? Can I then borrow or at least suppose your retribution? If I no longer live toward your will, let the hand of a man who succeeded in becoming what I sought, strike me down. Let our state not earn the monopoly of violence until that violence is not used on our children but their predators. In reversing this, the state doesn’t just lose its right from us to rule, we have the right and possible obligation to resume that privilege and utilize it against the state. As I will speak on, there are only three ways to respond to existence, and all are religious. We can abandon transcendence, we can assume we have already transcended, or we can labor and position ourselves for fate in order to transcend. This leads to three parties with two possible outcomes in war. Those afterlords that assume they have already transcended and the maximalists who seek to transcend, will fight amongst themselves after the party that abandoned transcendence betrayed their life as if a poor gift from God. This disjunct of the defense of your life requiring the offense of your foe is ignored by modern man. However, if you are willing to not end your life, you must believe in something that positions you in potentiality to end another’s. Remember that only one of those lives holds all the same values that you do, and it is yours. I watched this pattern in my formative years. Violent pressure offers one to act out in aggression or act in by self-betrayal. The aggressors later needed to learn peace in an obvious social world. However, the ones that inflicted war within themselves never cared for their foe enough to learn the battlefield and relegated themselves to their own destruction. This is no prison as there is no walking from, but a hell where one places themselves where they can’t alone escape. This has harbored in me being disagreeable, and I am now an asset for my beliefs and people. I will remark that despite my defense of violence, I have elected to not be so. When threatened with violence possibly toward death, I elected to not match my actions. How could I be a hypocrite? In part, it raised in me a new violent war within my mind to open myself up to it. I will need to remedy my hypocrisy, but yet the message regardless of my efficacy, I value the sharing. At the very least, capability of violence as a specific sort of aggressive display of power, places one as an inconvenient victim. 

If you hate me for my defense of violence, let it be so. Let yourself deny this triune disjunct of sharedness to find you must either then share a cohesive sense of people, or and perhaps and, a god. I said many things here today and some I will likely change my mind on. However, what I will stand for, is as I am opposed to another in which I position myself, I must stand opposed rather than betray my positionality. Otherwise, I have no consecration ripe for meaning. Peace is not offered by any perpetuable state of the world, but by men who renew peace through blood. God blessed not the peacekeepers, but the peacemakers, of which are distinguished by maintenance versus creation. There will always be one man opposed to peace, we must oppose him. He will then critique our irony, but we will recall the order of operations. How rational is this? We are not rational. It is a tool we use, and not who we are or how we engage with existence. Seemingness has a tinge of instinct, and instincts are defensive. Peace belongs to him who can forgo it. There are peacekeepers. These are worthless as existence’s desperation will tear apart their status quo. There are then peacemakers. These are those that make peace by threatening or utilizing its opposite. The more I think, the more I find there is only the existential generalization of God, our instantiating Him, and our defense of such. The pinnacle of humanity is bloodshed for that which created it. May God's grace make me more peaceable, but make me first first something in need of peace. In the meantime let God’s creation of myself be something available for being more peaceable as being not such yet. My warrior ancestor’s blood mixed with the gospel of our Lord became an unstoppable people guided by an infinitely motivating force. Build might within yourself in wise tandem with its direction. If blood is spilt for a sacrifice on the battlefield, don't let it be to their god. May God have mercy on all the souls that we send to Him. The inescapable death comes from within so we stop or convert their bloodline. Our enemies are ideas and only bashed by the skulls of those whose brain conceals them. 

Swordtip dragged over gravel

Fingers gripped around sword handle

Blood drip from the brow

Knitted and seething now

Violence on fingertips

Hatred on my lips

What more unstolen can be offered?

Nothing to lose, nothing to proffer

How do we stop what desperation makes us to be?

In fate's hand alone, moments mount to the future we'll see