Reader Brett comments on a recent event in Houston, in which a dying man attacks his wife’s lover on camera
People forget that before there was society, we were roving familial
bands of people who could not save much knowledge between generations.
With society, we give up that lone wolf attitude. We are no longer
creatures of “I’ll do it my way” but an interconnected group depending
on each other for survival, including the seemingly paradoxical
necessity of killing or ejecting those who are truly sociopathic, or
predator-parasites.
Now that we have a civilization, many people like to pretend that there
was never a time before civilization, and that civilization doesn’t
require upkeep or even participation. Just go to your job and buy stuff,
and you’re a perfect citizen.
With that mentality comes the idea that you can’t interrupt anyone else
from doing the same, which produces an absurd moralism of sins of
omission glorified as self-sacrifice:
Why film yourself hitting your wife’s lover? Why even hit your wife’s
lover? No man owes you a vow of fidelity. If your wife cheats, it’s on
her. (Via ATL.) Attacking the man is infantilizing the woman. Why not
punch her? – CF
Like all liberals, they think it’s personal. They think you hit the guy
only because he upset you. Why do it at all? They ask. There’s risk to
you, and you could just stay at home and take passive-aggressive revenge
on your cheating wife:
Or, since they live in Texas – a community property state – why not ring
up a bunch of credit card debt? If you’re going to die of cancer, 50% of
that debt will pass through to your surviving spouse. Make the bitch
file for bankruptcy just as she’s applying for bar admissions.There’s nothing cool about sucker punching a guy. Plus, the guy in the
video is fat. He’s probably an intellectual alpha. Outside of an
academic environment, there’d be no way he’d pull a chick who looks like
the woman in this video. Let the fat guy have his 2-3 years of glory.
Only a hater denies another man his brief moment in the sun.
This supersonic stupidity misses the point, as do all liberals when
perceiving a true or honest action: it’s about the principle. The
principle is that you don’t move in on another man like a coward; you
challenge him and steal his woman if you need to, but no sneaking around
behind the scenes.
They disguise their laziness as compassion or morality — don’t hurt the
fat man; take it out on the wife, she’s the whore! — but really, the
principle here is that cheaters get punished and since no man wants to
hit a woman, you take it out on the other moral actor in the situation:
the other man.
What’s so wrong with this? The cheater needs to see intolerance for his
behavior. The wife needs to see a disaster truly come about that ruins
her illusions. The principle needs to be upheld: don’t cheat on your
spouse, or bad stuff happens.
And no matter how bad that is in any individual case, it’s better than
letting the principle decay. If you ignore a murder, more murders
happen, because people see that there’s no penalty for going to the dark
side. If you let other men cheat with impunity, you’ll soon have a
society of whores.
