The mark of the epistemically competent is producing things which are true and novel. Unfortunately, everything important in Yarvin can be found here: Revenge is Sour.
"The condition of her being able to get close enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse."
"Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also."
"He looked with disgust at the bomb-wrecked town and the humiliation the Germans were undergoing, and even on one occasion intervened to prevent a particularly bad bit of looting."
(In particular, punishing the slave for the orders of the master is simply wanton cruelty.)
In short, once punishing the Transgressives is possible, there is no further need to do so.
Attempting to punish them will only impose costs on everyone; the only reason to depose the Transgressives is because they impose costs on everyone. Founding your rebellion on the idea of punishment will only make them fight harder. Sun Tzu: leave somewhere for your enemies to retreat to.
The fact they are literally devils wearing human flesh makes this somewhat tricky, admittedly.
Note Orwell's humility. Both Orwell and Yarvin would immediately admit they might be wrong. The difference: Orwell would also believe what he's saying. Orwell had a Socialist phenotype, but managed not to be a Socialist. Orwell was introduced to his own fallibility via Reality's usual blunt-object approach, but reacted by admitting to it. You can tell from his style that it really is just his opinion. He's merely telling you what he sees and what he thought about it. He's not trying to oppress your opinion with his own.
By contrast, Yarvin has a literally-Communist grandfather, and doesn't want to piss him off, whether he's still alive or not. Family is important right? Only a Transgressive would politico-religiously condemn grandad at Thanksgiving.
I would like to read many modern-day Orwells to help break some bad habits I've picked up. I, too, can be a fish trying not to breathe the water.
In certain cases it is important to throw the book at some human refuse. This is not some glorious triumph, however. This is not a song for the bards or a saga for the ages. It is taking out the trash. Victory is guaranteed supposing it occurs to you to fight. Sophists know this and work very hard when ensuring [fighting back] occurs to nobody.
P.S. 1984 is essentially a diagnostic like Eco Pretends to Think About Fascism, but poetic rather than concrete. Longer, also. It should not be surprising that Orwell set out to depict a Fascist country and ended up depicting Current Year America. The trends were obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
To pardon the wrongdoers the instant it becomes possible is extreme - it's not possible to set aside anger this way.
ReplyDeleteAnger is irrelevant. In revenge-based law, such as Talionis, making the victims carry out the revenge is a huge problem. Have to make elaborate shaming mechanisms to repeatedly prod them into indulging the dark impulse.
ReplyDeleteYou can see this now. USG transgresses against its peasants constantly, and the peasants don't do shit about it. "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to ever not take it! Let me bend over so it's easier for you!"
The wrongdoers aren't pardoned, they just aren't punished, so guilt is irrelevant.
However, as per Orwell, when revenge is impossible folk really do set out to take revenge. It's a way of tricking themselves into fighting for higher social status and thus making them immune to events that would give rise to vengeful desires.
As per his example, this forms an ad-hoc shaming mechanism which then enforces the irrational revenge. So, per Orwell, Yarvin: don't set out to take revenge.