Sometimes violent actions, ranging from their use as a method of resolving interpersonal conflicts to geopolitical relations, may be justified by resorting to the so-called concept of a preemptive strike. In this way, violence is equated with self-defense, since the victim of the attack is allegedly the aggressor themselves, intending to carry out an attack and certainly would have done so if a preemptive strike had not been delivered. In practice, this line of thinking can easily be seen in conflict situations where, for example, violence was used in response to purely verbal threats. It is even more evident in cases where some threat of a future attack was presented as a justified reason for starting wars.
Of course, there are no preemptive strikes as a separate category of aggression, and certainly not as a form of self-defense. A certain “preemptiveness” in this case is exactly the same kind of justification as any other possible justification for violence; it in no way makes a specific instance of its use something else, qualitatively different from other cases. Certainly, if there were immediate threats of violence or a real attempt to attack, then responsive force measures can be called self-defense. But if there was no such thing, then we are dealing precisely with a violent attack, and everything else is simply speculation, invented to justify one’s violence to others.
It is often believed that the question of violence boils down exclusively to the goals that incite it, or to provoking factors. Based on this opinion, violence will be committed almost every time if it is beneficial for a specific person and carries no risks. Likewise, in the absence of risks, violence will almost always be committed in the event of a provoking stimulus. And the only thing that stops any person from committing violence is precisely such rationally assessed risks, for example, the threat of punishment following the violence, armed self-defense by the victim of a violent attack, or others.
Such a view of the issue of violence, of course, does not correspond to reality. Otherwise, the entire world would consist of evil and violent, or at least simply indifferent to violence, people. But the behavior of any person is largely shaped by a vast spectrum of feelings. Aggressive feelings are no exception; they are quite natural for a human being. However, based on the concept of the violence inhibition mechanism, every normally developing individual experiences, from a very early age, a feeling of repulsion toward committing violent acts against other people. This same mechanism plays an important role in the development of empathy, which is also characteristic of the vast majority of people.
It is also worth remembering that regardless of social circumstances, the vast majority of people never commit violence. Even in Latin American countries, all violent crime originates from a small minority of people. The driving force behind all wars, repressions, and genocides was a small minority of people. Therefore, can it really be believed that every person will indeed commit violence whenever it is rationally beneficial for them?
Regardless of the circumstances, the vast majority of people have never committed and will never commit violence, at least in its most serious forms (causing significant physical harm or murder). Violence is not formed solely by goals and provocations. These, of course, can incite violence, but only in those people who were already capable of such things because they felt no repulsion toward violence.
One of the methods of fighting rapists and violent offenders is the strategy of provocation, a “masquerade” against violence. For those who are not yet aware, this concept suggests provoking people prone to violence into attacking and applying self-defense against them, including the use of lethal weapons. This will allow for the identification of many hidden violent offenders, or even their destruction during the act of violence (initiating violence from our side toward anyone is not required; we only defend ourselves against violence). Moreover, the provocation does not suggest anything intrusive—it could be as simple as walking in expensive clothes through a dark alley or wearing LGBT symbols in a city square. If someone wants to attack a person with physical violence solely because of this, then they are a violent offender, against whom self-defense is entirely justified.
However, criticism of this concept can be heard from those who believe that force is an acceptable method for achieving goals and maintaining certain orders. In their opinion, even the smallest provocation, which involves no active actions at all, is still one of the worst and most immoral things one could possibly devise. Yet, beating someone up or even killing them for such a provocation is considered perfectly normal. I think certain conclusions can already be drawn about this position, given its violent nature.
I, of course, agree with the expression “don’t bring your own rules to someone else’s monastery”; in certain cases, it applies to this criticism (for example, if an LGBT supporter wanders into a conservative neighborhood). But if someone does venture in, must they be immediately attacked with fists? This is a non-violent violation, and therefore it can be resolved by non-violent methods. The threat of reputational sanctions would be particularly appropriate. And if someone cannot restrain themselves from attacking, then they are, again, a violent offender.
This strategy is also accused of being violent itself, since its practitioners calculate in advance that they will commit violence. But they are calculating only on defense, not on attack. Anyone who goes out into the street with means of self-defense calculates that there is a certain probability they will be attacked; otherwise, they would not take those means. So now, is everyone who wants to protect themselves a violent offender?
I remind you once again: any non-violent violation of order can be dealt with in a non-violent manner, using reputational and financial sanctions. And any initiation of violence indicates that the person who committed it is a violent offender. That is all one needs to understand to dismantle any criticism of this kind.
One of the primary methods of fighting violence can be described as achieving a balance of violence potential—that is, the general armament of the population, where every person is able to quickly and effectively eliminate a violent offender during a direct attack. However, some people may doubt the possibility of implementing such a scenario due to economic inequality in society or the simple unwillingness of some people to own weapons. But there is one interesting method through which the number of violent offenders in society can be significantly reduced, even with the help of a small group of armed activists. It will create the exact same natural selection pressure to strengthen the violence-inhibiting Lorenz mechanism in the population as in the case of general armament, but will require far fewer resources to implement.
Of course, I am not proposing preemptive violence, because for its implementation, our activists themselves would have to be violent offenders capable of initiating violence against other people. To rely on a group of armed violent offenders for one’s own security, even if they currently claim to be on your side, would be great foolishness. Activists must be people capable only of self-defense. Furthermore, it should be understood that we cannot know for certain whether a specific person is prone to violence until they find themselves in circumstances that provoke its initiation. Only if they were unable to restrain themselves and exhibited violence can it be said that they are prone to it. In this regard, preemptive violence would ultimately lead to casualties among ordinary and peaceful people, which we absolutely cannot allow.
What I am proposing is specifically a method of “provoking” violent offenders to reveal their violent nature. To make it clear what I am talking about, I will refer to one example of the practical implementation of this strategy. We are talking about the eradication of banditry in post-war Odessa, or the so-called “Masquerade” operation, organized by Marshal Zhukov himself. Of course, this operation was carried out by government decree, but in this case, that is not so important, since it still consists of using only self-defense, and therefore can be adopted by those fighting against aggressive violence. When well-dressed men, sometimes accompanied by equally fashionable ladies, began to appear on the streets of Odessa under the cover of night and in dark alleys, bandits simply could not restrain themselves from attacking. However, the victims of the attacks were actually disguised and armed officers of the Soviet militia, and upon being attacked, they shot to kill.
I think you already understand the essence of this strategy. Armed activists simply need to provoke people prone to violence into attacking. And I am not even talking about some kind of intrusive provocations (although a normal person would not respond to those with violence either); provocations on the level of the aforementioned walks through dark alleys are sufficient, and many, many variations of these can be devised. For example, walking through a predominantly conservative neighborhood in LGBT attire. When some bandit or violent offender decides to carry out an attack, all that needs to be done is to defend oneself using weapons—an absolutely normal action in the case of any violent attack.
Some may dislike such an approach for its cruelty, but it is unlikely that anything can be found in it that would make it not worth applying. It does not propose the initiation of aggressive violence, only self-defense against violent attacks, which is an absolutely normal and justified action. It cannot lead to casualties among ordinary and peaceful people, because such people simply will not attack the activists under cover; this will be done exclusively by bandits and violent offenders. And there is nothing wrong with provocations of this kind. In the scenario we have already examined, we would not justify the violent offender and blame the victim of the attack if the event took place not in broad daylight in a crowded place, but somewhere at night in a dark alley, would we? Every person has the right to walk where they want and in whatever they want; the problem lies exclusively with the violent offender who is unable to follow the simple rule “one can offend, but one cannot be offended”! If someone is unable to restrain their violence and attacks people, then they fully deserve a response in the form of armed self-defense.
