Violence Resource Controls, The Hunting Ground of the Violence Entrepreneur

Violence is the ultimate resource.  

The violence resource underlies all human interactions
governed by monopolies of violence.

All actions between individuals within the violence resource
framework (the boundaries, controls of the monopolies of violence) are aided or
retarded directly or indirectly by the institutional hierarchies that are
imposed and which emerge from those central points of violence resources, the
monopolies of violence, which I will call the violence resource controls.

The central points of violence resource control, the
monopolies of violence, become the most attractive prey grounds for those who
are looking to control and expand their personal power.

The violence resource controls offer opportunities for
individuals to acquire other resources at scales not possible without a control
on the violence resource (which the violence resource control offers the
violence entrepreneur, let’s call them).

The violence resource is neither good nor bad.  It simply is.

The violence resource exists in two ‘states,’ real and
perceived.

One can argue that the ‘real’ of the violence resource is
actually never fully known.  The nature
of the ‘real’ state of the violence resource is such that it is, probably
always, a moving target.  What is ‘real’
most of all is the perception of the aggregate of the people within the
violence resource control’s boundaries of influence. 

At some point, reality, if it too sharply contradicts
perception, may well overcome the strongest of perceptions, but, generally,
perception beats reality….almost every time (at least as it relates to the
violence resource).

The violence resource requires a preponderance of real
and/or perceived dominance in the following components that allow for violence
to be executed:

1.  Physical tools –
The gear, equipment, supplies, the physical assets that allow violence to be
executed.

2.  Planning and
design – The ability to develop, refine physical tools, as well as to
effectively execute the disbursement of that physical act of violence.

3.  Willing executors –
Be it through threat of violence or voluntary conscription, the ability of the
violence resource controls to have humans that are willing to perform the
actions that directly or indirectly support violence.

4.  Disciplined
execution – Having disciplined strategies and executors who have also been
trained, conditioned, organized to effectively distribute the violence
resource.

5.  Social favor –
Having the super-majority of the people within a violence resource control zone
morally and ethically support a particular act of violence by the by violence resource
control.

6.  Demonstrable
Examples- All of the previous aspects of the state of the violence resource are
affected by this aspect.  The examples
required need not be real, they only need to be perceived as real.  These are examples that show to the people
within that violence resource control zone that, be it for ethical or
fear-based reasons, considering an attempt to break up the monopoly of
violence, the violence resource control, is a fruitless, possibly suicidal,
possibly spiritually or morally self-condemning action.

All Violence Resource Controls recognize the fundamental threats
to their existence are two-fold, with one being external and one being
internal.

The biggest internal threat to all violence resource
controls is the emergence of a significant portion of people who reject the
social appeals to the legitimacy of the execution of violence by that violence
resource control.

With such a people, the necessity to execute more physical demonstrations
of violence will only increase, taking up valuable violence resources that
might otherwise be used to either prevent constriction or allow for expansion.

The second biggest internal threat to all violence resource controls
is the inability to field executors who are properly conditioned and trained to
execute violence when the orders are given.

Both of these factors will require violence resource
controls begin training and conditioning of the people within their realms as
early and as often as possible, especially where violence resource controls
exist in close proximity to violence resource controls that have comparable or more
effective distributions of violence.

They also necessitate the violence resource controls ensure
the social reinforcement that gives moral legitimacy to the threats and
executions of violence they rely upon.

The biggest external threats to these violence resource
controls are other violence resource controls.

All violence resource controls are limited only by two
factors, the physical restrictions (geography, climate, resources) and the
competition of other violence resource controls.

Wherever physical ‘realities’ allow for expansion, all
violence resource controls will, given time, expand, using, if necessary,
distributions of violence to do so.

This is due to the very nature of the structures that are immediately
created whenever one or few individuals secure (real or perceived) the violence
resource control mantle in some demonstrable manner.

In order for individuals to continue to merely preserve the societal
advantage they have just secured, they must create and/or support, tweak, ‘reform’
the structures that preserve the influx of useful, trainable executors of the
violence resource, as well as the social moral and ethical endorsement required
to significantly lower the necessity to spend that violence resource
controlling your own people.

Free thought and self-direction are anathema to the creation
of effective executors due to a number of factors, with the most significant
one being the unpredictable nature of such individuals, which makes them a poor
executor of an order to distribute violence.

Individuals who have greater empathy will tend to be less
effective executors as well.  The greater
your ‘ability’ to identify with the other, the less likely you are to execute
violence against them.

Effective managers of the violence resource will apply
filters to assure that individuals who fall into the empathy and/or
self-direction camp will self-regulate themselves out of the mix, but other
filters would be applied, when needed, to assure the executors were the type of
people who could effectively be executors.

Individuals who are willing to execute orders to distribute
violence, and who can do so effectively, will rise to the top of any such structures.  Who would these individuals be?  They would fall into one of two camps, they
would be low in empathy or would be low in self-direction (or both). 

When I say low in empathy, I mean specifically low in
empathy for individuals.  Some individuals
who fall into this ‘low in empathy’ camp demonstrate a high level of empathy
for, usually, groups of people.

These individuals usually have black and white portraits of
heroes and villains, with the villains not afforded the same standards that the
heroes are given when it comes to the point where executing violence against
someone holds the social approval it needs to be met with no resistance (save,
possibly, for the targets of the violence, the villains). 

More often than not, I suspect, these individuals care as
little for the heroes as they do the villains, but the heroes are the ones who
comprise the violence resource that gives these crusaders their power.

The ones who fall in the low in empathy but high in
self-direction camp are the ones that will tend to thrive the best in these
structures.  They would also tend to be
the ones the most willing to use their violence resource to expand their
boundaries of influence. 

Not only would they tend to be the ones the most willing to
seek to expand their influence through the distribution of violence, but,
unless limited by physical boundaries, they will almost be compelled to do so.

If, for instance, the individual(s) who comprised the real
power of a given violence resource control find themselves under the sway of a
more powerful violence resource control, but one that has provided them an ‘acceptable’
measure of executable influence to sate their preferences, then they might very
well work to assure no one else pushes to throw the yoke of the more dominant
violence resource control off of them.

But where there is a violence resource advantage that is
perceptively clear and overwhelming, there is no choice but to secure this
weakened zone, lest your enemies, your competing violence resource controls,
step into the void and claim the violence resource control booty that can be secured
in that zone.

This, my friends, is the practice of statism, the use of
violence to control action that is not a direct threat or harm to others.  This is violence-based governance.

It is, by its very nature and the only potential designs it
can contain, a violence-based system that rewards the least-individual-empathetic
among us, the ones with the best abilities to distribute violence and the most
willing to execute such violence for the broadest of ‘reasons.’

Wherever one geographic zone possesses little violence
resources, unless it has natural protections or lacks little booty for potential
invading violence resource controls, that zone will soon be annexed by a
neighboring violence resource control……every time.

All of the elements of any civilization that hopes to
preserve itself in the current paradigm, the violence resource control
paradigm, must produce all of the components necessary to produce the real
and/or perceived demonstrations of effective violence distribution, lest it
soon becomes an inviting target of a more powerful violence resource control.

In other words, my friends, we are a war civilization, and
all other civilizations in this paradigm are also, at their core, war
civilizations.  The goal of every
civilization is the perpetuation of wars for the purpose of preserving and
expanding power.  Those that ignore this,
soon fall, unless they are protected by natural barriers.

This is not a moral judgment, but it is something to
consider when making moral judgments against any nation-state, such as the
United States, or Israel, or Syria, or Venezuela.

These nation-states are simply violence resource controls
that serve to first and foremost benefit the self-serving interests of the
winners in those hierarchies, the people who have the greatest influence on the
distribution of violence within that violence resource control.

Even within these violence resource controls, the factions
competing for greater control of those resources produce their own fractal-like
violence resource control structures of the largest system, creating the necessity
to attempt to master the 6 components of that resource for themselves.

There is no moral high ground, no moral low ground for these
nation-states, or the competing factions within them, to take.  There is only a pragmatic assessment of which
nation-states, and internal factions, are most effective and least effective at
producing demonstrations (real and/or perceived) of violence distribution.

If, for you, you have found moral approbation in the
application of violence to influence action that is not directly harming or
threatening others, well, I leave that to you to consider what might be done in
a world in which the geographical space of this planet is almost wholly
dominated by these violence resource controls.

Remember, wherever a geographical space loses its ability to
effectively demonstrate distributions of violence, unless they have natural boundaries,
they will eventually (almost always) be taken over by another violence resource
control.

History is littered with the rise and fall of Kingdoms and
Empires as testimony to what I believe are the facts regarding the nature of
the reality of power as it has been executed for, potentially, in part, and now
mostly in whole, for the last 12,000 years.

We live in the 12,000+ year-old age of the Violence Resource
Control.  Perhaps it will last another
12,000+ years.  Perhaps it won’t make it
out of the 21st century. 

Unless and until individuals can create consensual-based
structures that still produce effective demonstrations of distributions of violence
to their neighboring violence resource controls, they cannot and will not ever
experience any significant geographical space where consensual governance has
defeated, physically, spiritually, mentally, in the fists and the hearts of the
people in that space, any violence resource control that might wish to claim
that space for their own, be they from without or from within.