ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE That stuff that makes you frustrated i

ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE

That stuff that makes you frustrated is my attempt to remove from the negotiating table the assumption that we have only two choices: cooperation or avoidance. But we have the third choice (Ternary Ethics) to not cooperate, not avoid, but prey upon. This statement is necessary in order to establish the premises from which all other political negotiations (trades) must rest. I suppose I don’t need to explain why negotiations are different between soldiers in battle, merchants in a city, friends in civic discourse, and family in matters of the home. The military and judicial order creates conditions under which negotiations in commerce, commons, and family can prevail without resorting to violence. But this is only a convenient consequence of military and juridical order. In matters of truth, in matters of politics, in matters of war, the option for violence always exists, even if in ordinary daily life we ignore it. I must end this contrivance because all of libertinism is built upon it. All of social democracy is built upon it. Yet classical monarchy, and classical liberalism within those monarchies, is not.

So please read my ‘colloquial verse of violence’ that you describe as so disturbing, as successful by disturbing you. Its purpose is to disturb you. Because all of western philosophy is riddled with this little lie of convenience that has evolved from mere good manners, to metaphysical assumption upon which much of the falsehoods of philosophy are built, no different from the falsehoods of the approval or disapproval of a god are built. they serve the same purpose: to create the lie that violence is not possible, and therefore parasitism, as a consequence must be TOLERATED.

in other words, I’m lowering the false bar of moral discourse to its truthful origins, and removing the presumption of ‘us’, created by prophets and philosophers. Us is me. my family, my kin. The only other ‘us’ is a contract we make for reciprocity: mutual gain.

And if that contract either is broken, is insufficient, or is undesirable then there is no ‘us’ to assume in rhetorical negotiation. Instead. Only me which I defend and you which are candidate-for-prey.

Only the weak perpetuate this lie. Because the strong do not need to.

Curt Doolittle