Home Stopping the Cycle of Violence
Home Stopping the Cycle of Violence

Stopping the Cycle of Violence

The "Cycle of Violence" is a phrase that has become a fundamental part of the liberal lexicon. Its key point is to imply that violence is itself a useless tool for stopping violence, in the process it morally equates all forms of violence, whether it is the police officer returning fire at an armed robber, a soldier firing on a terrorist, or a homeowner firing in defense of his family. The phrase "Cycle of Violence" renders them all equally wrong and equally hopeless.

That is where "Breaking the Cycle of Violence" comes in. Since the phrase itself presumes that violence cannot stop other forms of violence, only keep the violence going, the cycle can only to be broken by agreeing to an end to the fighting... on any terms. The more popular word for this is known as appeasement.

The two obvious flaws in the premise of a "Cycle of Violence", is that first it presumes that violence cannot be used to stop other forms of violence. This is blatantly false as anyone with even an elementary knowledge of history would understand, after all much of human history was built on the successful use of violence. Secondly it treats violence itself as the key characteristic, while sidelining the political and moral identities of the participants themselves.

By treating all forms of violence as equally wrong, the moral equivalence behind the idea of a "Cycle of Violence" does not distinguish between the relative validity of one side's position, or the relative evil of another's. In the liberal lexicon all sides are presumed to be equally bad for resorting to violence, with the only moral parameter allowed is the relative strength of both sides. The stronger side is presumed to have more alternative options for settling the conflict rather than violence, while the weaker side is presumed to have less.

This premise has run through centuries of revolutionary thinking, justifying the worst atrocities by the "oppressed" on the grounds that they had no choice. From the French Revolution to Native Son, from Hitler and Che to the Palestinian Arab suicide bomber, this element within the cycle of violence demands concessions from the stronger party and none from the weaker party. Accepting the demands of the weaker party then become the means of resolving the conflict and breaking the cycle of violence. Once again, appeasement.

Stripped of all the high minded rhetoric of social and global justice, talk of breaking the cycle of violence, most often serves to reward the aggressor, the terrorist, the warlord, the guerrilla and the thug. It plays perfectly into their essential strategy of bleeding a larger more organized force and waiting for negotiations to begin. The negotiations themselves of course only prolong the cycle of violence, because it is a one sided desire to end the violence that has brought about the negotiations in the first place. Violence then becomes a negotiating tactic, "Give me what I want or the killing will resume." Naturally blame for the violence falls on the stronger party that rejects the offer.

The truth of the matter though is that violence is only a cycle until one side gains a decisive victory. That is why the liberal agenda is to prevent such a victory by restricting the tactics available to the stronger side, through lawfare, boycotts and political pressure; handicapping its offensive capabilities to break the faith of the public and the nation's leaders in its own military, thus leaving them no option but to begin the appeasement negotiations.

Violence is not a hopeless cycle. It is a matter of strategy and tactics. In some situations it is better to make peace, when it is with an enemy who in turn wants peace, rather than concessions, and who does represent an ongoing threat. In other situations it is vital to act decisively and end the violence by waging a comprehensive assault against the attackers.

Violence only becomes a cycle when liberals successfully handicap the military to insure that they cannot win, while leaving the enemy an open field and easy forgiveness for any tactics they might choose.

Yet the most potent weapon on and off the battlefield is morale. The perception of a war as going uphill or downhill is key to the morale of both the public and the troops. It is a tactic that Cronkite and the Viet Cong understood quite well during the Vietnam War. It is a tactic that the Israeli and American left, and Islamic terrorists understand quite well too. Their victory cannot come on the battlefield, only as blows struck against the morale of their First World opponents.

The Cycle of Violence theory is key to creating the perception of an unnwinnable and futile conflict that can only be resolved when we sit down at the table with the barbarians and butchers, and discuss what we can give them to make them stop killing us. And there is no idea that serves the enemies of civilization better, than that war against terrorists is futile, and that it is better to be a live dog cringing at the totalitarian boot, than a dead lion. Better Red than Dead, or better Dead than Red? Better Green than Dead, or better Dead than Green. A civilization that can no longer answer that question properly has already bowed its knees to the enemy, and is only waiting to discuss the price of its own slavery. All to end "The Cycle of Violence."


  1. Yes. There is no cycle.
    It is nasty nations who are greedy and aggressive and want what doesn't belong to them.
    It isn't wrong to say no to them and slap them if that's what it takes.

  2. Anonymous20/7/09

    The consequences of appeasement have always led to more & greater violence. Had Hitler been stopped in 1938, it would have been a short, successful, & not particularly bloody war. Instead, leaders chose appeasement & we got the carnage of WWII.
    Liberal proponants of ''dialogue'' the new way to describe appeasement, do not care about consequences. This can be seen most clearly in the example of Vietnam. No one cared what happened to the South Vietnamese people. Korea is not so disimilar.
    Cuba is another example.
    The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is even worse. Advocates of a Palestinian state just don't care about consequences. Their belief that this is a solution has become a theological discussion, a pseudo-religious belief, not anchored in reality. They don't care if a Palestinian state is viable, if it functions, if it becomes a terror-state, if it becomes another out-post for Iran. All consequences are dismissed or ignored, details ''conveniently'' overlooked.
    The two-state solution has become basically an irrational belief in a magic solution.

  3. Well said indeed.

    We see this liberal and frankly wicked mentality at work in so many situations. Op Cast Lead is a prime example. The world didn't care that Israel endured years of terrorism because Israel, in the liberal mindset, is the 'Goliath' in the equation.

    Thus violence against Israel is seen as a 'rational response', whereas any violence *by* Israel, no matter how justified, no matter how reactive, is seen as inherently wrong. Context is ignored, history is ignored, the facts on the ground are ignored.

    The long and tragic list of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism does not exist as the international media trots out its weary old 'only 13 Israelis have died' line.

    We see it here in the UK all the time. Some years ago Tony Martin shot and killed one of several burglars who had repeatedly terrorised him on his own property. Who was widely condemned? Tony Martin, of course, and never mind that he was a homeowner defending his property. He was the one with the gun and again, never mind if said gun was only used *because* Martin had been burgled repeatedly by these men.

    I do not understand those who believe that violence is intrinsically wrong. Clearly they have never known anything worth fighting for.

  4. Jew With A View20/7/09

    LOL - still simmering with righteous indignation after reading this great post, I picked up today's newspaper to read that a mother is in trouble because she confronted the school bully who was reducing her child to a quivering wreck...!

    Typically, the school has lambasted the mother, while dismissing the physical assaults committed by the bully...

  5. Sure, when all violence becomes equivalent, then standing up to the bad guys makes you the villain. After all "it takes two to start a fight."

    Even when it doesn't.

  6. Jew With A View20/7/09

    I think 'anonymous' has put it extremely well.

  7. Great post.

    Indeed much of the world has the "it takes two to start a fight" in which the innocent victim is blamed for anything and everything that may have provoked the attacker. Why, how dare women dress in nice attractive manners. Why, how dare people actually carry purses. Why how dare someone live in a nice part of town.

    I remember the time my brother's house was burglarized. At the time, he still lived in the city and in one of the nicer sections. When the burglars were caught they said they picked the house because it looked rich ie. because most of the people in the neighborhood kept their drapes open day and night and all of their nice things were on display so to speak.

    On display or not an honest person just doesn't break into another person's house.

    In this break the cycle of violence I've even seen police departments try to give legitimacy and instill honor on street gangs, thinking that the gangs will somehow become honorable just because they're treated with honor.

    I think the US military is even resorting to these tactics in Iraq.

    It just doesn't work. The only way to stop violence is to stop the aggressor hell bent on harming innocent people.

  8. What most people mean when they talk about breaking the cycle of violence and conflict resolution is that the victim/wronged party should just surrender and then knock on wood, cross his fingers, throw salt over his shoulders and hope everything is resolved and made better.

    Conflict resolution without justice, without finding the guilty party guilty and holding them accountable is just plain wrong. That's the world is trying to strong arm Israel into.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like