Aggression and Defence

Thus might all be a bit tedious, but anyway having written it I might as well post it.

If one group of people, or say a nation, is preparing to attack another, or is actually attacking - for instance these aggressors could be using some hyped threat to massively erode civil liberties - if only the aggressive side is aware of the nature of their relationship, then obviously the other side is in a very weak position, and until it acknowledges the aggression virtually helpless with only its previous reserves, independent of this current situation, amounting to its powers of resistance. 

It is in the interests of the aggressors that the targeted group remain for as long as possible in ignorance of this state of aggression. Thus it can enact its aggression without resistance.

Why would the passive side be unaware? The thing about aggression, including its preparations, is it is generally pretty visible and obvious, so there has to be a lot of deception in operation but there must also especially be wilful self-deception by the targeted peoples. In truth the aggressor can count to the point of certainty on this helpful passivity and even cooperation from very significant numbers of these targets of their aggression. 

Why? Without going into it, issues like servility, cowardice, the gullible submitting of minds to the influence and pressures of a corrupt propagandist media, and so on may be relevant.

Dealing with aggression and toxicity for most of us is very unpleasant and stressful, so the desire is very strong for it to to not be real. 

 Maybe being polite and nice to the aggressor will placate them and the unpleasantness will vanish. 

“Be nice to the bully.” Not effective. In the animal kingdom, in such situations of one seeking the dominant role, finally one animal or group of animals submits, and this submission is acceptance of the other’s dominance, and subsequent freedom to exercise this dominance.

Only active resistance or its palpable threat can weaken the dominant from exerting itself as it wills. Otherwise the submitter is simply at the mercy of the character of someone whose very nature is to dominate, and who will most likely push their power and the other’s submission further and further. 

A toxic bully is not interested or impressed by reasoning, pleasantness, etc. Appealing to his better nature will simply buy him time before going further down the same path, and presumably from a position of greater strength. For example, appeasement of Hitler through the 1930s. 

When people are so toxic, their toxic thought processes work along the lines that you trusting in their better nature is a mark of your stupidity, and so a weakness to be deservedly exploited. You are not meeting them on the relevant plane which is power, not morality.

They have to feel the weight and power of the opposing spirit rising against them to significantly affect their actions. They also of course have a huge drive to achieve victory of their ego, and the crushing of the felt rival to this ego’s sense of triumph. It takes a lot for such people to relinquish these very important pleasures.

In a war only an aggressor can finally win. Even if one side is apparently in a defensive state for so long, this still has to turn to aggression to defeat the enemy. Muhammad Ali against George Foreman comes to mind where Ali absorbed ineffective attacks for round after round from a physically superior but now tiring Foreman, before suddenly switching to attack and swiftly ending things. Ali still had to turn to attack to decide the fight. To add, with its set parameters, one could win a boxing fight on points, but in normal aggression, matters aren’t decided by an external judge awarding points!

Without actively defeating the aggressor, even if this aggressor temporarily exhausts his resources through his unsuccessful campaign, his retreat will amount to regathering his resources before planning to attack again later with more force, if at all plausible.