Some headline, eh? The reason I wrote “several headlines” instead of one is, obviously, because I want to equate the three and explain why they are interchangeable.
Lately, due to personal events in my life, I found out that as an individual, I can’t help but internally react in “biblical moral terms”, namely: when someone infringes on my trust, rights, reputation, honor, etc. – I intuitively wish to avenge sevenfold.
Obviously, since I wasn’t entirely raised in the jungle, this is rarely what I do, but the sting is there, the desire to exact painful and regrettable revenge exists, and this is probably true for a lot of people who never consummate this desire.
Why Right-Wingness? Well, I’ll add several knots into one by saying that right-wingness as a political view is the sum total of rationalizations for what is indubitably an irrational worldview: that power ultimately is the sole means in which welfare, success and pretty much anything else can be obtained.
This is a sad state of affairs not because “power doesn’t achieve anything” (something I’m sure only the staunchest pacifist would claim) – but because power alone never does.
And just to clear up my intentions: when I’m hurt, I get irrational because I’m mad, afraid and injured – and as a result, I tend to inflict knee-jerk reactions that in retrospect seem barbaric and stupid.
When someone inflicts me with pain, he does that for a reason, and his behavior can be explained. But my ape-brain can’t compute all this when it happens, so instead of trying to figure out an elaborate way of healing my wounds, I just feel like raking the person’s skull. This is how I equate right-wingness and “intuitive martial arts” – I, like most right-wingers, am under the illusion that disproportionate response will bring results in the long run, and even while I know this, I can’t help but feeling otherwise.
There is one thing that is true, or at least, true in the short run: if you inflict disproportionate response, you inflict something akin to “teaching” or “taming”. It never succeeds in the long run, but the fact that it succeeds at all gives the illusion that it can be employed indefinitely.
The real solution is merely displaying no intention of approval for any crimes committed (and this can be relevant to international disputes as well as to personal conflicts, and that does include the use of force) – while making a firm agenda of non-violence. Violence is a force too reckless and sporadic to be employed continuously, and this very fact is something I’ve learnt in a lifetime of being surrounded by it –
Which is why I’m leaning much more to the left side of the political spectrum,
and why I will never trust violence as a long-term solution to anything.
*I wish to emphasize that by “right-wingness” (which is probably a very broad term) I mean the variety of malign idiots who subscribe to the definition I’ve described in this post – obviously, a lot of different instances of “right-winger” or “left-winger” exist in the spectrum separating the “right-winger” I’m describing in this post (and people like that do exist, in their millions), and those people who are committed pacifists.