I always laugh when I hear people say they are "Anti Violence.” It’s such a unintelligent thing to say. If you say you are “Anti-Violence” you are basically admitting to the fact that you are anti self preservation. If an “Anti-Violent” individual, or an individual’s infant son or daughter, was being attacked by man or beast, would they not use violence to protect themselves or their offspring? Violence is circumstantially necessary, in this existence, and possibly in any existence that we know of. There is a great Maynard James Keenan lyric, “The Universe is hostile, so impersonal…” and it is very true. For, one thing we know about the universe is, it will kill you. Time itself is violent. Although, sometimes slow in its approach, It will eventually cripple you and end your existence as we know it. Violence is a part of life, especially if you are intent on surviving, well, surviving until a ripe old age that is, because, in the end, we all succumb.

So, when I hear individuals talk about "Anti-Violence," what they really are trying to say is, they are "Anti - unprovoked - immoral - violence.” Because, Moral, righteous, justified Violence, is completely, 100% acceptable under all circumstances. Yet, I have actually heard people say when confronted by a single example: - If someone breaks into your home and tries to kill you and your family, would you not use violence as a deterrent...? and I swear I have heard people say, “I wouldn’t use violence, I’d call the police.” And this is absolutely ridiculous, and those people I’ve heard say it, usually are so bent on proving they are “Anti-Violent,” that they’d swear off any admission suggesting they’d commit violence, even if they would instinctually. But even within that, they are not "Anti Violent,” because the police, whom they’d call for, will come and use violence to kill and/or apprehend who ever is perpetrating the criminal act. So technically, you are not "Anti Violence", you are just too big of a pussy to protect yourself, so you rely on others to commit violence on your behalf. 

Self preservation is instinctual. So, violence does have a place in our world. Because of the nature of our existence, we have to except that violence, when used morally, and righteously, is a circumstantially necessary solution. I was watching the original Star Trek series last night, and I thought it was interesting, that part of Roddenberry's premiss of the Star Trek lore, was that the future offered a far more civilized version of our humanity, and yet, almost every episode had some bit of violent altercation with another species or environment, etc…So even in this projected utopian future, the specter of violence could not be avoided, and in most cases, the solution to the trouble, was ironically found in the use of Moral Violence. When we accept that righteous violence is a part of our existence, embrace it, teach ourselves, that it is not to be feared or despised, but harnessed, and the ability to physically dispense it when necessary is an attribute, that deserves respect and admiration, then we will step into the future a stronger, more intelligent species.


Kiss, hug, and choke if necessary.