The Duke of Sheh informed Confucius, saying, “Among us here there are those who may be styled upright in their conduct. If their father have stolen a sheep, they will bear witness to the fact.”
Confucius said, “Among us, in our part of the country, those who are upright are different from this. The father conceals the misconduct of the son, and the son conceals the misconduct of the father. Uprightness is to be found in this.”
Using the example of free speech, it becomes obvious the left does not value this. therefore, would the proper tactic be to deny them speech as they would deny us, and then reverse such things once we’ve ‘won’?
if the answer to that is yes, i think i’ll have too much trouble abandoning principles. one argument for abiding by principles is that if you do something to your enemy, they are justified doing such to you. i understand that the enemy will do the “something” to you regardless, as they lack the principle, but i find it too hard to treat someone in a way i would not like to be treated. i wouldn’t want to live that way.
i’m hoping i’ve misunderstood, because it sounds like i’ll never win otherwise, but so be it
It won’t be different. That’s why I personally don’t want to win power. I just want to be better able to protect myself (and my principles) from it. Both the pain of its iron first, and the draw of its velvet glove. Some of Gray Mirror has excellent advice for doing so. But make no mistake: if Yarvin’s regime ever comes to power, we will still need that advice. This latest post proves that.
I share all your doubts. And I think Yarvin needs to explain exactly when and how his regime would restore those sacrificed principles. But I would be hesitant to trust any promises that this new power would do so. If you were one of Odysseus’s crew members, you need more than a promise that he won’t answer the siren’s call. You need him tied to the mast.
For the record, this could be a cope on my part – I have no prospect of winning power, so my opinion might be a case of sour grapes. I might be making myself feel better about my situation by portraying my permanent lack of power as a principled stand.
I also agree on your reply about if this is just us losers coping. I’ve had the same thought.
Yarvin makes the hilarious point that Silicon Valley oligarchs have no power. They are autistic geniuses who merely want to earn money as if it were points in a video game. After all, once you have a mansion, a harem, and a legacy, what else is there?
Yarvin assures us that his patrons, that fund him, the Silicon Valley oligarchs, they are merely libertarians. They don’t want to make rules about who can use the platforms and what counts as “free speech.” They want someone else to decide that – the government, via “regulators,” or some civil society institution like the Anti-Defamation League.
It takes a smooth tongue to explain how the oligarchs have no power and in fact don’t even want power. It takes a smooth tongue to convince people that what they are seeing with their own eyes isn’t real.
Perhaps a way to understand the truth content of Yarvin’s propaganda is that the Silicon Oligarchs don’t want responsibility. Specifically, they don’t want the responsibility of noblesse oblige. They want the power to act, they do not want the responsibility for the results of their actions.
So if Uber puts the entire cab industry out of business and economically extorts their own drivers, inducing them to burn the little capital they have in the automobiles, that is them exercising power, but the social disruption isn’t their responsibility.
This is how right-wing propaganda works, generally, especially of the neoliberal variety. The very definition of “right-wing” is “submission to apparent authority.”
We also see the weakness of Americans, “whites,” and especially conservatives. They believe that power and responsibility go together – so much so that they will not even contest power, even in self-defense, because they do not feel up to the responsibility.
This is the weakness of the individualist mindset; for these people “America” is the collective and “free speech” the ideal of that collective, and they do not believe they have enemies.
They would indeed turn in their own father for stealing a sheep. Of course the leader may steal any sheep from anyone, because when real power steals a sheep it is not stealing, it is right, it’s a tax. In war time stealing a sheep is perfectly justified because of the war.
Do you side with your Father, or the Emperor?
This tells you whether you are a loyalist or a rebel, a citizen or a subject.
Yarvin’s young commenters a) don’t believe they are in a war b) fear the responsibility that war, an exercise of power, comes with.
Obviously these types will be no help.