Undoing Anti-Revenge Propaganda

[Cathal]

In honor of MLK Day, I'll use one of his famous quotes to illustrate a larger societal issue.

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Hardly shocking words from the supreme GNC prophet, but an excellent synopsis of the System's political line on that most primordial virtue: vengeance.

"Revenge makes you no better than your target."

"Killing them won't bring your friend back."

When one considers cultural portrayals of revenge, recent years have largely offered the most vantablack of Congoid coal and shown no signs of stopping or slowing down. Films, games, books, songs, they make retaliation out to be a self-destructive dead end. Even Eggers's masterpiece, Northman, has largely been misinterpreted as a criticism of the "cycle of violence," a term 'woods use to identify themselves as fit for target practice.

On the topic of old Germanic cultures, I'll risk accusations of a "we wuz" strain of Nordicism by invoking the Germanic germ theory. American frontier justice finds much in common with the colonists' European traditions of vigilantism, dueling, and private compensation. These are all anathema to the System because they can't be controlled or taxed.

From The Culture of the Teutons:

He has but one view of man; man asserting himself, maintaining his honour, as he calls it. All that moves within a man must be twisted round until it becomes associated with honour, before he can grasp it; and all his passion is thrust back and held, until it finds its way out in that one direction. His friendship of man and love of woman never find expression for the sake of the feeling itself; they are only felt consciously as a heightening of the lover's self-esteem and consequently as an increase of responsibility. This simplicity of character shows in his poetry, which is at heart nothing but lays and tales of great avengers, because revenge is the supreme act that concentrates his inner life and forces it out in the light. His poems of vengeance are always intensely human, because revenge to him is not an empty repetition of a wrong done, but a spiritual self-assertion, a manifestation of strength and value; and thus the anguish of an affront or the triumph of victory is able to open up the sealed depths of his mind and suffuse his words with passion and tenderness.

If one is media-savvy, this may ring a bell. The repression of a man's emotions, bottled up until expressed as vengeance, is an enduring theme in American fiction and history. 
In older works, it was often noble: the grizzled gunslinger whose humanity shines through when avenging his family (see The Outlaw Josey Wales for a crystalline example).
Today, it's usually smeared as the impotent rage of a school shooter.

This male capacity to redirect all emotions into anger is a common feminist talking point. It shouldn't be refuted, but embraced. Just as the artist channels lowly sexual frustration into a legendary work, so too can man melt down petty feelings in the crucible of honor. Any opposition to this comes from the underlying belief that emotions have inherent worth of being experienced.

Having established the efforts to slander revenge, how successful have they been?
Even now, normgroids post about woodchippers, because revenge is cool.
Effeminate whinging about the cycle of violence doesn't get anyone's dick hard, these things take years of browbeating.
Revenge is the current which must be fought against, not a foreign ideology to indoctrinate. All one must do is shout it publicly enough.

I argue there's an untapped potential to bring vigilantism back into the Overton Window, but this thread is an open letter to anyone with good ideas on how to do that.

[The Green Groyper]

Revenge can be self destructive but I’m of the honest opinion it doesn’t have to be.

“Revenge won’t solve anything” by this they tend to presume some sort of eternal back and forth, perhaps between races or even clans or individuals.

If you pre suppose that total victory of one party over another is impossible then yeah it’s not.

There also times in which revenge is perhaps unwise. (The one you wish to take your vengeance on is stronger than you can handle and so it’s best to wait for example):

But no one honestly thinks vengeance should be eradicated. Most people simply surrender the agency to conduct vengeance to the state.

As for forgiveness, for it to mean anything, it most be a two sided affair. If a man steals from me, faces punishment then begs my forgiveness and offers restitution with sincerity. Then I can forgive his offense.

Which contrary to what some might link-is hardly out of line with “an eye for an eye”-the idea being proportionate retaliation is what “equalizes” the offense to zero. A man takes out my eye, i takeout his.

As it stands, modern society is predicated on people surrendering their right to vengeance to a third authority. Forgiveness thus must be seen as a privilege, not a demand. It is neither something a victim is expected to give nor an offender has any right to expect. 

Only when blood has been spilled and the tally equaled can there be any “reconciliation” if such is even possible. If it’s not, (and it is often not) then punishment must satisfy.

Anyways-I’m of the opinion that a man absolutely has the right to seek Justice for offenses committed against him. Or his kin.

[Zed]

...

 
Revenge is certainly cathartic on an individual level.  Call it effeminate whinging, but the traditional issue here is that blood feuds are rather destabilizing on a local/community level - often resulting and producing divides between groups of people, even of similar backgrounds. Additionally, such things have a tendency to spiral far outside the domain of the initial cause. Vigilantism is not a good thing, unless it is employed in highly situational circumstances. Either way, simply taking into account the stupidity of most groups of people - the irrationality of the mob should never be encouraged or state sanctioned, but rather it should be suppressed with the greatest common force. 

Legally codified ritualized dueling is another matter entirely - and probably a net social positive.

[The Green Groyper]

State formation and extension tends to end clan feuds. Which are destructive over a large enough scale both in time and space.

Else you end up like Pashtuns or some other tribal people where there is no real progress as you can’t share a well or a bridge or send your children to the same school in the same twenty miles as your rival that your great great great great grandfather fought against for some reason(you don’t even know why you dislike them, they are basically your distant cousins anyway).

I do think there must be a place for honor and people may have become somewhat too soft in outsourcing justice to the police and the government-but these institutions are broadly necessary.

[anthony]

As OP says, vengeance and rage have become diffused and irresponsible rather than buried. Mutt's Law and all that warrant serious contemplation. Does anybody actually believe that first world prison standards have the capacity to reform? And if not, what are they doing? Is the idea merely to store people who are considered too antisocial for normal existence, with a vestigial obligation to free them until they justify their own reinternment inevitably? On some level, felt if not actual, prisons now serve as a form of collective socialised vengeance against perceived anti-social actors. But of course, anarcho tyranny follows diffused authority, and in practice the least antisocial actors are the most victimised in prisons.

People are angry. Good and bad. Everyone believes that people who wrong them or what they value has something coming. Most pathways through which this is dealt with are deeply unhealthy. As you say "woodchipper" brain is another. People turn on each other and start ruthlessly policing the meek for arbitrary or absurd infractions of the remaining actually sacred parts of the social order, which become more sacred as more fundamental parts are sacrificed on the altar of not putting niggers in jail.

You probably see where I'm going now, personal vengeance and vendetta I believe have been solved before by functional state justice systems. And we have this enormous resurgence of unresolved rage and bloodlust because our personal capacity to exercise justice is taken away by people who hold completely alien notions of justice to us. Alien is putting it mildly. These people are batshit insane and have things closer to a perfect backward on healthy civilised tendencies and preferences.

Revenge isn't like boredom. It won't come up in the absence of positive stimulation. If we have excesses revenge feelings that need dealing with we have two problems. One is lots of people being wronged, and two is nothing being done about it. Both are problems of libtarded "justice" systems.

I personally would rather not risk getting shot by Ptolemy because I humiliated him under his youtube video. I can see the brown hands now telling me that this is an effeminate and low status opinion. (not here necessarily, but I've seen the sentiment all over 4mex and can imagine it succeeding on twitter)

[Guest]

In honor of MLK Day, I'll use one of his famous quotes to illustrate a larger societal issue.

"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love."

Hardly shocking words from the supreme GNC prophet, but an excellent synopsis of the System's political line on that most primordial virtue: vengeance.

"Revenge makes you no better than your target."

"Killing them won't bring your friend back."

When one considers cultural portrayals of revenge, recent years have largely offered the most vantablack of Congoid coal and shown no signs of stopping or slowing down. Films, games, books, songs, they make retaliation out to be a self-destructive dead end. Even Eggers's masterpiece, Northman, has largely been misinterpreted as a criticism of the "cycle of violence," a term 'woods use to identify themselves as fit for target practice.

On the topic of old Germanic cultures, I'll risk accusations of a "we wuz" strain of Nordicism by invoking the Germanic germ theory. American frontier justice finds much in common with the colonists' European traditions of vigilantism, dueling, and private compensation. These are all anathema to the System because they can't be controlled or taxed.

From The Culture of the Teutons:

He has but one view of man; man asserting himself, maintaining his honour, as he calls it. All that moves within a man must be twisted round until it becomes associated with honour, before he can grasp it; and all his passion is thrust back and held, until it finds its way out in that one direction. His friendship of man and love of woman never find expression for the sake of the feeling itself; they are only felt consciously as a heightening of the lover's self-esteem and consequently as an increase of responsibility. This simplicity of character shows in his poetry, which is at heart nothing but lays and tales of great avengers, because revenge is the supreme act that concentrates his inner life and forces it out in the light. His poems of vengeance are always intensely human, because revenge to him is not an empty repetition of a wrong done, but a spiritual self-assertion, a manifestation of strength and value; and thus the anguish of an affront or the triumph of victory is able to open up the sealed depths of his mind and suffuse his words with passion and tenderness.

If one is media-savvy, this may ring a bell. The repression of a man's emotions, bottled up until expressed as vengeance, is an enduring theme in American fiction and history. 
In older works, it was often noble: the grizzled gunslinger whose humanity shines through when avenging his family (see The Outlaw Josey Wales for a crystalline example).
Today, it's usually smeared as the impotent rage of a school shooter.

This male capacity to redirect all emotions into anger is a common feminist talking point. It shouldn't be refuted, but embraced. Just as the artist channels lowly sexual frustration into a legendary work, so too can man melt down petty feelings in the crucible of honor. Any opposition to this comes from the underlying belief that emotions have inherent worth of being experienced.

Having established the efforts to slander revenge, how successful have they been?
Even now, normgroids post about woodchippers, because revenge is cool.
Effeminate whinging about the cycle of violence doesn't get anyone's dick hard, these things take years of browbeating.
Revenge is the current which must be fought against, not a foreign ideology to indoctrinate. All one must do is shout it publicly enough.

I argue there's an untapped potential to bring vigilantism back into the Overton Window, but this thread is an open letter to anyone with good ideas on how to do that.

"It would appear that the West was teaching "anti-revenge propaganda" (i.e., the New Testament) for nearly 2,000 years before ZOG took over."

[Guest]

Equality's conclusion is that revenge is never justified because one life is worth one life and all man (as particles) is the same as all other men (all particles are equal.) If one particle does something to aggrieve another, still it is better not to get revenge or cause trouble for them because that only doubles the trouble for the human organism (made up of men.)
As for libtard rage, etc. It is the natural part of the mind that enjoys killing things. In the lower form of course "America strong" "Russia strong" "India strong" "China strong", all the same. My army killed that person, I killed that person. It is squared away with the equality through simple calculus: Enemies of equality are enemies to all men. It's magic, and it always is.
As for blood feuds being destabilizing, lol. Blood feuds are the principle force for organization in the first place. Of course there are poor outcomes regarding this, but the greatest outcomes also came from blood feuds. It is silly to say they are "bad." Currently you have institutions with no motivation behind them, so of course they will operate without great animating force. Libtards at least have motivation. They want global latrine world, and that is a dream they can exercise violence towards. As for the various "other sides", most of them cannot even express what they want honestly (to themselves first, let alone others). This situation has changed over the last 8 years however, but I don't know where it is at the moment.