Furthest Right

Dissident Right Requires Force, Not Humility


Someone recently stated that men of the dissident right are above all characterized by their humility. That may be true in the American sense of humility meaning politeness without ostentation, but in terms of the characteristics needed for survival it does not make sense.

The dissident right are men of intelligence. The unfortunate thing is that intelligent men are not violent, while their enemy is. In such a scenario, violence will always win. For the sake of completeness, see the five biggest threats to humans where intelligence is mentioned as a human weakness. We need to stop being too clever and focus instead on end results.

It may therefore be prudent to demonstrate that intelligent men can and should be violent, by first reviewing history. One example is Alexander the Great while another is Julius Caesar. In America, Alexander Hamilton died in a duel while Washington led a ragtag Army against trained British Forces.

However, violence does not only apply to physical fighting, it also applies to a forceful nature (or conviction) such as Edmund Hillary‘s victory over Mount Everest. It applies to people overcoming a crippled state and it also applies to students having to master the art of abstract thinking.

Violence in this sense — sudden, decisive change — can harm humans as well. Common cases include post-traumatic stress from divorce, job loss, or even military conflict. Few know apparently that the sight of animal blood will severely damage young children unless they are properly prepared for what they will see.

To survive these conditions, one has to be quite forceful in confronting what people nowadays call stress. Insurance companies refer to such stress management as “Employee Wellness.” People have to react sharply to stressful situations because there is just no other way of both addressing the challenge and coming out of it mentally intact.

Should one review human genetics, it will be established that humans are gregarious animals, prone to socializing, consuming fruits and born without fangs. They are classified as placental mammals with similar behaviors such as breathing air and keeping families safe in little homes. One problem though, is that nature does not provide a predator to keep humans in check, as it were.

Despite these similarities, humans are identifiable in eight genetic forms caused by different environmental conditions across the earth. But evolution allows migrating humans to adapt to their new environment within a few generations, while cultures remain unchanged a lot longer, since it arises from inner traits like preference instead of mere physical adaptation. Inner traits regulate civilization and personal goals; outer traits regulate the methods used to achieve those.

It would seem that having access to big brains should enable humans to overcome the natural and predictable appearance of threats. In these cases, having a known adversary is an advantage because it eliminates the mental instability that is the weakness of having big brains. Humans are therefore pitted against each other, but also against the unknown, forever, which apparently does not require fangs, with the alternative being a “forceful” culture. A forceful culture expects threats and knows how to deal with them.

There is one genetic human trait in the act of violence that is interesting though. There are three typical violent responses as follows:

  • Paralysis. Freezing while hoping the threat goes away.

  • Flight. Running away from threat.

  • Fight. Engaging the threat, physically or otherwise.

Another interesting aspect is that above three responses only occur when the actual threat is in play, while very little is known about the time period leading up to this condition. This means many different reactions are possible for many different reasons.

Organizationally humans can be compartmentalized as follows:

  • Spread across six continents (so much to learn?)

  • Involved in ten or more different religions (for that unknown threat?)

  • Citizens of hundreds of countries (to limit threats from the other?)

  • Working for thousands of companies (develop potential and adding value?)

Through organizations we realize that human death is a tragic loss, but also that that such losses must be replaced. The inability of a gregarious human to accept death is therefore anathema to civilization, and is strange within the animal kingdom. It is a challenge inherent to humanity which requires humans to re-educate themselves toward acceptance of a forceful, instead of pleasant and obliviously bourgeois and eusocial, society.

For example, in an organization the loss of an employee is viewed functionally, analogous to when the machinery comes to a stop because one of the gears needs to be replaced. An organization is not a machine, however, and in fact exhibits human characteristics in its own limited but significant way. Replacing the human gear is not a simple act as has been proven by thousands of companies.

However, that the gear is replaced, or needs to be replaced, is a common event. That is why organizations developed risk management, to avoid the loss of a human gear, but also other gears that affect output. There are four possible reactions to risk management as follows:

  • Ignore the risk because it won’t affect the organization.

  • Avoid the risk because it is possible and more effective.

  • Mitigate the risk by taking preventive steps and ameliorate effects should it happen.

  • Engage the risk forcefully.

The following summarizes the above into several heuristics which can apply to more specific situations:

  1. Intelligent people should use force as one of the tools in their considerable toolbox.

  2. Loss of life is difficult for individuals, but organizations can handle it more logically.

  3. Genetically, at least a third of all humans are prepared to use force under threat.

  4. Organizations must allow forceful engagement as a fourth option.

Force is an issue today because people and organizations are unsure how much of it can be used. Intelligent Special Forces soldiers working under well controlled conditions will return home to find that their families at home are at more risk than they were.

One example frequently used is the population growth rate comparison between Afghanistan and South Africa. Both are small countries, but one is at war while the other is in a much publicized state of democratic peace, yet population growth rates are/were the same. The use of force is less likely to impact reproduction than the state of chaos created by a lack of force.

Another example is the Benghazi disaster where people were executed by violent armed perpetrators, but the cause was actually at home. This resulted in Kris Paronto taking up “arms” in a forceful manner against Hillary Clinton. His reaction to the threat is not some knee-jerk reaction, it is careful, calculating and inexorably moving forward.

The question now becomes one of how people and organizations in civilian society stopped doing risk management, and gave in to their fear of death, which they translate into a fear of force. A neutered society, rendered indecisive by democracy and pacifistic by manners, seems to most people to present less of a risk than one in which force is used. The examples above show that the contrary is true: the non-forceful society simply transfers the risk to existential, social and mental stress which causes deleterious results.

Risk management deteriorated over the last century like other social institutions, but the ancient knowledge that risks require a specific set of responses appears wherever dangerous or difficult situations appear. The rest of society distracts itself by pretending that no risks exist.

From above we surmise that the biggest risk that humans face is from other humans, in addition to the unknown.  Force is required to address risk caused by the threat of “other” humans. Here are a few examples:

  • Buying a car requires forceful thinking in order not to use risky financial third parties.

  • Paying for electricity to a third party instead of directly to the service provider is a risk.

  • Not managing what your council is doing in your area has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

  • Not managing what your school is doing has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

  • Not managing what your media is doing has been demonstrated as a massive risk.

Through these examples, we can see that the organization of society has failed to regulate certain predictable risks through force. These failures were flagged as risks but were ignored because elected officials are avoiding a social risk, which is that they might lose the next election. After all, it’s not like somebody is going to die or anything stupid like that, right?

As a result, our society adopts a posture of humility, or harmlessness. This makes people feel outwardly safe but because they do not trust it, they internalize stress for negative health and existential well-being. Death rates are up already and it is intelligent people like you getting buried.

Fear of force thus begets ambiguity and delayed but inevitable failure of the whole, where use of force endangers individuals but makes civilization thrive. Forget about humility and use force to fix social failures because it is easy –- even Kris Paronto can do it — and eliminates the helplessness that modern people so often feel.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn