All of this. The darker things turn the weirder it is to have these conversations with people where they insist how you should just stick to voting and law and order. Like my sister in Christ, is the law and order in the room with us? Does it make sense for us to be following the laws they break at will? How does this play out?
and it is scary! to think the only thing that stops us from descending into a brutal, free-for-all, purge-land are the thousands of laws that most of us don't really have any real knowledge of. it is scarier to realise that those laws aren't the mission-impossible-security-bolted lock system that separate us from the animals but is simply a paper door chain that we pretend holds fast all our morality. as it becomes clearer that it isn't, there is pushback, yearning for nostalgia, nihilism, defeatism, all pouring in spades. none of it is confronting the reality.
Clock it. The people who are so violence-averse think it’s violence for violence’s sake rather than a valid response to an abuse cycle that’s actively trying to kill us. All of us.
I truly love this piece, thank you for writing this, Inigo. It almost leaves no room for a strong rebuttal against your stance on violence except that I kinda have one. My nation gained independence over its violent, foreign colonizers by impaling bamboo spears into the chests of their armies and with the help of rifles and what have you. Yes, non-violent negotiations and the law wouldn't have helped at all, but look where this spirit of violence ended, the Bersiap killings. Thousands of foreigners and non-foreigners who were accused of anti-revolutionary sentiments were killed over the paranoia of them dominating over the indigenous and reoccupying my nation once again. I guess I'm just curious about how do we delineate the limitations of this justifiable violence from absolute barbarism?
thank you for commenting, mera. a big part of my answer is that my writing doesn't contend with the context of violence in the global south--which has different paradigms to euro-america. i don't know enough about indonesia specifically but your testimony reveals a similarity across many liberated lands--removing colonisers from a nation often results in perpetual unrest in the country.
i have no idea how to resolve that, even in my own homeland of naij because i've lived in the west my whole life. violence has a certain sanitation in the west that i believe needs to be disrupted, not to the point where barbarism ensues, but enough to not see violence as this faraway thing that the west is divorced from. there will be consequences to that, i'm sure. but there are consequences to the rug-sweeping happening now.
there is also a tendency, mentioning violence, to leap straight to the act of killing. i concur, i did say "sometimes the good guys murder the bad guys", but when speaking about protestors defending themselves and their communities from kidnappers in the US, i'm not necessarily speaking about killing. what i think you're saying is that resorting to violence begets a precedent of violence--which i definitely agree with.
western docility has allowed for elite power to control the violence in exchange for the illusion of safety and i suppose the delineation you're asking about comes not by utilising violence in isolation but in tandem with wings of nonviolent/pacifist organisation (which, most importantly, do not make public condemnations of violence unless they do cross the line into barbarism)
Ah so I think I went a little out of context there with my initial comment, I apologize for that. Your answer clarifies a lot of my points, thank you. I’m not familiar at all with how violence is generally treated in the West and would really love to read how it compares with the East. Maybe there are studies on that, I’ll search it up later.
Vigilantism is a big part of my nation’s culture because the law enforcement institutions are corrupted. We have a “serves you right” attitude towards the perpetrators (usually thieves or racists) when the mob finally beat up these bad people—usually to death. But it’s not always fair. I saw a 70 year old grandma covered in her own blood after the mob gave her a beating for stealing some garlic. (the poor grandma was in abject poverty and couldn’t afford food). I know that at this point it has digressed so far from the relevant discussion but I just wanted to kind of paints the picture on why I promptly had doubts and raised questions. But then again, you have mentioned that it doesn’t apply here in the East although I wonder how big is the difference between the West and the East when it comes to this?
Also, I just can’t get enough of your writing, ugh. And just your whole substack. You’re such a creative at an aspirational level to me. Love ur work!!! Big fan here!!!
no apologies necessary, discussions dip in and out of context all the time, you were just talking from your experience, s'all good. and you're welcome.
its difficult to explain how violence manifests in the west, there is an insidiousness to it, an ambient presence of it. its like there's a perpetual knowledge that violence is committed far away and internally in order to keep the lights on but its necessary and we're not supposed to talk about it. it doesn't mean its safe domestically, just that its concealed, hidden away or sensationalised.
the vigilante justice you described sounds intense, no-tolerance approaches to things like theft strike me as typical in countries in the global south which are often overcorrections and/or to conceal the country's own neglect of their citizens (but i'm just theorising).
it isn't irrelevant at all to mention the poor grandma who was beaten, i think its an example of a disproportionate violence that would be seen as a horror in the uk. it would be on the news as something unconscionable. in that respect, i don't know how one even goes around rectifying such an environment. it would require a great deal of social change--likely in a nonviolent/collectivist direction. violence is something that is hard to put back into the jar but never impossible.
your proximity to excessive violence means the difference is quite big! but the nature of the vigilante justice you've described makes your questioning of my violence completely valid. quite a difficult conversation to have as we both have very different contexts. and thank you very much for reading and sharing your thoughts! i appreciate it
All of this. The darker things turn the weirder it is to have these conversations with people where they insist how you should just stick to voting and law and order. Like my sister in Christ, is the law and order in the room with us? Does it make sense for us to be following the laws they break at will? How does this play out?
Badly. It plays out badly.
and it is scary! to think the only thing that stops us from descending into a brutal, free-for-all, purge-land are the thousands of laws that most of us don't really have any real knowledge of. it is scarier to realise that those laws aren't the mission-impossible-security-bolted lock system that separate us from the animals but is simply a paper door chain that we pretend holds fast all our morality. as it becomes clearer that it isn't, there is pushback, yearning for nostalgia, nihilism, defeatism, all pouring in spades. none of it is confronting the reality.
Yup, all of this.
More very solid material.
Thank you.
Sharing.
So incredibly powerful Inigo. Thank you.
thank u for reading, darling 🙏🏾
Clock it. The people who are so violence-averse think it’s violence for violence’s sake rather than a valid response to an abuse cycle that’s actively trying to kill us. All of us.
I truly love this piece, thank you for writing this, Inigo. It almost leaves no room for a strong rebuttal against your stance on violence except that I kinda have one. My nation gained independence over its violent, foreign colonizers by impaling bamboo spears into the chests of their armies and with the help of rifles and what have you. Yes, non-violent negotiations and the law wouldn't have helped at all, but look where this spirit of violence ended, the Bersiap killings. Thousands of foreigners and non-foreigners who were accused of anti-revolutionary sentiments were killed over the paranoia of them dominating over the indigenous and reoccupying my nation once again. I guess I'm just curious about how do we delineate the limitations of this justifiable violence from absolute barbarism?
thank you for commenting, mera. a big part of my answer is that my writing doesn't contend with the context of violence in the global south--which has different paradigms to euro-america. i don't know enough about indonesia specifically but your testimony reveals a similarity across many liberated lands--removing colonisers from a nation often results in perpetual unrest in the country.
i have no idea how to resolve that, even in my own homeland of naij because i've lived in the west my whole life. violence has a certain sanitation in the west that i believe needs to be disrupted, not to the point where barbarism ensues, but enough to not see violence as this faraway thing that the west is divorced from. there will be consequences to that, i'm sure. but there are consequences to the rug-sweeping happening now.
there is also a tendency, mentioning violence, to leap straight to the act of killing. i concur, i did say "sometimes the good guys murder the bad guys", but when speaking about protestors defending themselves and their communities from kidnappers in the US, i'm not necessarily speaking about killing. what i think you're saying is that resorting to violence begets a precedent of violence--which i definitely agree with.
western docility has allowed for elite power to control the violence in exchange for the illusion of safety and i suppose the delineation you're asking about comes not by utilising violence in isolation but in tandem with wings of nonviolent/pacifist organisation (which, most importantly, do not make public condemnations of violence unless they do cross the line into barbarism)
Ah so I think I went a little out of context there with my initial comment, I apologize for that. Your answer clarifies a lot of my points, thank you. I’m not familiar at all with how violence is generally treated in the West and would really love to read how it compares with the East. Maybe there are studies on that, I’ll search it up later.
Vigilantism is a big part of my nation’s culture because the law enforcement institutions are corrupted. We have a “serves you right” attitude towards the perpetrators (usually thieves or racists) when the mob finally beat up these bad people—usually to death. But it’s not always fair. I saw a 70 year old grandma covered in her own blood after the mob gave her a beating for stealing some garlic. (the poor grandma was in abject poverty and couldn’t afford food). I know that at this point it has digressed so far from the relevant discussion but I just wanted to kind of paints the picture on why I promptly had doubts and raised questions. But then again, you have mentioned that it doesn’t apply here in the East although I wonder how big is the difference between the West and the East when it comes to this?
Also, I just can’t get enough of your writing, ugh. And just your whole substack. You’re such a creative at an aspirational level to me. Love ur work!!! Big fan here!!!
no apologies necessary, discussions dip in and out of context all the time, you were just talking from your experience, s'all good. and you're welcome.
its difficult to explain how violence manifests in the west, there is an insidiousness to it, an ambient presence of it. its like there's a perpetual knowledge that violence is committed far away and internally in order to keep the lights on but its necessary and we're not supposed to talk about it. it doesn't mean its safe domestically, just that its concealed, hidden away or sensationalised.
the vigilante justice you described sounds intense, no-tolerance approaches to things like theft strike me as typical in countries in the global south which are often overcorrections and/or to conceal the country's own neglect of their citizens (but i'm just theorising).
it isn't irrelevant at all to mention the poor grandma who was beaten, i think its an example of a disproportionate violence that would be seen as a horror in the uk. it would be on the news as something unconscionable. in that respect, i don't know how one even goes around rectifying such an environment. it would require a great deal of social change--likely in a nonviolent/collectivist direction. violence is something that is hard to put back into the jar but never impossible.
your proximity to excessive violence means the difference is quite big! but the nature of the vigilante justice you've described makes your questioning of my violence completely valid. quite a difficult conversation to have as we both have very different contexts. and thank you very much for reading and sharing your thoughts! i appreciate it
This was very cogent and addresses what many refuse to face.
Violence is a tool.
Non-violence is a tool.
Both must be wielded intelligently or risk destroying the wielder.
amazing writing, like all your posts Inigo, thank you for sharing.
thank you, friend! i appreciate your reading 🙏🏾🙏🏾
😮💨😮💨😮💨 YES.