Duelling is right – a moral duty for an honourable person – because the only just and fair law is the law of personal honour. The most fundamental ideal of civilization is the noble ideal of personal honour.
Accordingly, a civilized, noble society would restore the custom of the personal duel as it would expect all individuals to resolve questions of honour through a duel. Thus would justice for the individual become once again the fair and true justice of the duel and trial by combat, and thus would real personal freedom be created with personal character respected and upheld as an ideal. This is in complete contrast to the inhuman, unfair so-called “justice” of all modern societies which in practical terms reduce individuals to complete serfdom.
No words are too strong to condemn the abstract inhuman laws of our modern societies which take away all the natural rights, freedoms and dignity of an individual and which render individuals powerless before the tyrannical might of the forces of the State. No words are too strong to condemn the inhuman treatment which the Institutions of our modern societies – such as Courts of Law – metes out to individuals.
One example of how powerless individuals have become is the tyranny of modern legal trials. What matters most in a modern so-called Court of Law is abstract evidence, and individuals are convicted and often sent to Prison on the basis of such evidence – or rather, on the basis of whether or not such evidence is believed by a Jury, a Judge or a Magistrate. The personal character, the honour, of the individual who stands accused is only of secondary importance – if it is considered at all. Further, the individual has for the most part to rely on “experts” who present the case for the defence. Thus, once the due process of modern Law is started – say with a person being arrested by the Police for transgressing some modern Law – then the individual is literally at the complete mercy of the System.
What really and fundamentally matters is not abstract evidence – but the honour of the individual and the freedom of the individual to defend their own honour through the test of facing death in either a trial by combat or a duel. If a person is innocent of some charge or accusation, they are innocent, regardless of how much abstract evidence is produced which seems to condemn them. For decades – for centuries – innocent people have been unjustly convicted of crimes on the basis of evidence which is either false or mis-interpreted
The truth of the modern system of Courts of Law is that such Courts deny the individual the most basic right to defend their personal honour. Technical rules of evidence, technical procedures, obscure points of law and often the glib words of professional Barristers and lawyers rule such Courts – not the honour of the person accused. What fundamentally matters is not evidence, not glib words, not obscure points of law – but the honour of the individual and the right of the individual to personally defend their honour through trial by combat or a duel.
The fact that so few people today accept this, or even understand it, just shows how far our societies are from the freedom and nobility of personal honour. Until a majority of people in society understand and accept the need for questions of honour to be settled by a duel, and until a majority live their own lives in accord with a Code of Honour, there will never be a truly free and thus noble society, for it is only personal honour – and the willingness to defend that honour to the death – which creates and which maintains such a free and noble society.
Until such time as such a free and noble society is created, based upon honour, honourable individuals must champion the duel of honour. They, through their belief in honour and their desire to live by a Code of Honour (of which the duel is an integral part) must strive to restore this custom of personal duelling to our present societies – regardless of the fact that our present societies see such duels as an illegal act. The laws which make such personal duelling illegal, and which are invoked against those who have the noble courage to fight a duel, are the dishonourable laws of a repressive tyranny and as such they deserve to be circumvented, and if necessary, totally ignored. A person of honour has a moral duty – a right – to disregard such tyrannical ignoble laws. For what matters – more than individual life itself – is honour.
Why Duelling Is Right
Other urls found in this thread:
therkoi.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Honour, Justice and Penal Reform
The abstract Law of the modern world has displaced justice. Real, or natural, justice is a fairness, deriving from noble conduct. The system which has been created to enforce modern Laws – Police Forces, Courts of Laws, professional lawyers and Judges – and the prisons which have been created to ‘punish’ those found guilty of actions contrary to these Laws, are fundamentally ignoble, as they are expressions of the impersonal, tyrannical, societies which have been created. Prisons, in particular, are dishonourable institutions which seek to physically intimidate prisoners and impose their tyrannical will – or the will of the System – on prisoners by force. Prisoners are forced to obey whatever orders or instructions they are given, either by the threat of physical force (and sometimes actual physical force), or moral blackmail (“you will released early if you abide by our rules and do what we say”).
A real tyranny has been created in the majority of modern countries because the system which has been created makes the individual powerless – before the might of ‘the Law’; before the authority of the Police; before the threat of punishment by Prison warders – and because the legal system itself no longer gives anyone accused a fair chance to defend their own honour and physically fight, in a fair way, to clear their name.
Real genuine freedom – the basis for a civilized way of life – lies in the ability of individuals to determine their own lives by being able and willing to physically defend themselves, their own honour and that of their family and kin.
Fundamentally, the whole system which has arisen in Western nations derives from medieval times when monarchs had absolute authority, and they tried to maintain their absolute authority by harsh punishment. This was the situation that still existed, for instance, in France in the time of Louis XV. His authority was supreme, and he strove to show and maintain this authority by harsh punishments inflicted in public. Gradually, due to reform movements, the harsh nature of such punishments was reduced, in France and throughout Europe, as gradually the public exhibition of such punishment being inflicted died out. Prisons, however, remained, and although reformed and less severe than previously, they still deprived a person of their liberty as they still tried to make prisoners obey, on pain of further punishment.
However, what did not fundamentally change was the absolute authority exercised over the individual, and the disregard of individual character. The authority was merely transferred, from the monarch, to the State, with Institutions being developed which possessed the authority to arrest an individual, deprive individuals of their liberty, and try those individuals in an abstract way in a manner most individuals could not understand. The individual, in most cases, had to rely on ‘experts’ to represent them in Courts of Law, as, once arrested for some offence, the individual forfeited most of their rights. The individual then had to wait until the ‘due process of law’ was complete, and if innocent and found guilty, could do very little, or nothing. The individual was powerless once caught up in the System.
The System continued the barbaric medieval practice of treating people like serfs. The System itself behaved like a feudal lord – the serf or peasant could be forced to forfeit what rights and freedom they possessed if that serf or peasant ‘transgressed’.
This whole system is tyrannical because it undermines and seeks to break individual character and individual spirit. It does not allow the individual to defend themselves – and their honour – by such things as ‘trial by combat’. Instead, it de-humanizes the individual; it seeks to make them obey and conform to an impersonal system over which they do not have any control or influence. It does not given them a chance to prove, by their own wits and strength, their innocence.
This system is dominated and made by abstract, impersonal, ideas. Real justice depends on personal honour – on individuals allowing their honour to be tested. Real justice gives the individual a fair chance to go free, if they can triumph in a test of physical skill or courage.
The only reason dueling was made illegal was so the kikes and their tools would have one less way to deal with the responsibility of their actions. If their tools aren't killing each other for "honor" and civilians are punished past the point of wanting to kill them out of honor, it's that much easier to get away with thriving off the proles.
Justice means testing the honour of an individual – – it means allowing God, fate, ‘the gods’, or the cosmic Being, to decide if a person is honourable, or not; innocent or not. Real justice does not depend on technical ‘evidence’, on obscure points ‘of Law’. It depends on individual character. An innocent honourable person will always wish to prove their innocence, their character, by allowing themselves to be tested, by combat or in a fair fight with their accuser, since that person feels that given such an opportunity, ‘justice will be seen to be done’. Furthermore, an accused person who for some good reason cannot so fight, can be championed by someone else, who will fight on their behalf, this champion being so willing to fight, to champion the honour of that person, because they have made a personal decision based on their assessment of the accused person’s character.
Likewise, no human being should be caged like an animal, deprived of their dignity, and be kept confined and at the mercy of other people.
Such feelings as these, such assessments as these, derive from noble character; they allow for character. Basically, justice exists in fair, noble individuals who uphold honour and who live by honour. Justice does not exist and cannot exist in anything abstract, be it in a law, a court, an Institution or whatever. Real justice is based on a human scale; it is always individual and takes account of the character of the individual. Real justice lives only in individuals – it has no life, no being, outside of individuals, and it cannot be made to live in dead, lifeless, or abstract forms.
The modern world, in its ignoble decadence, has tried to make justice something impersonal and abstract. As a result, an inhuman, tyrannical, system has been created which is destroying individual character and which has almost eradicated honour. This system seeks to break the spirit of an individual. As such, this system represents everything which is dis-honourable, and uncivilized. It is fundamentally inhuman, irrational, cowardly and ignoble: opposed to the spirit, the nature, and the well-being of all human beings, manifest as this is in honour.
Our honour is what makes us want to look after ourselves – and carry weapons to enable us to do this, if necessary. Our honour is what makes us want to settle some disputes and arguments by a fight – by a trial of strength. Our honour is what makes us feel that no one has the right to take away our freedom, and enslave/imprison us, for whatever reason, and that if by some chance we are so enslaved/imprisoned we must fight and struggle to regain our freedom. It is our duty to try and escape if we are caged like some animal. Our honour is what makes us hate any system or institution designed to keep us enslaved/imprisoned, where escape is made difficult, and where other people have power over us, and where we are supposed to obey, on pain of punishment. Our honour is what makes us feel that the only justice which is right is that obtained by trial by combat – where we will have a fair chance to prove ourselves and secure our freedom. Our honour is what makes us feel that the only system of justice which is right is that which tests the validity of any charge or accusation brought against us, by anyone, by this trial by combat.
For too long there has been a dishonourable, inhuman system of justice, and ignoble laws. The system of so-called justice we now have – with Laws, a Police force, with Courts and law officers trained in ‘law’ – is a system designed by decadent capitalist cowards to create and maintain a society of decadent consumers. It is a system designed to emasculate us; designed to break our spirit of honour and so destroy what makes us human. It is an impure, barbaric, system.
An noble system of justice is a system created for, and maintained by, honourable individuals. These individuals live by a strict Code of Honour – a strict code of human ethics. Such a noble system of justice is based on personal honour, and thus on the right of the individual to defend themselves, and their honour, by trial by combat – or have someone champion their honour. Such a system is healthy, natural, civilized and for honourable individuals.
To create such a natural system of justice – or rather to return to it – the present system will have to be totally destroyed. This requires a revolution – particularly in people’s attitudes. There has to be a return to valuing personal character; to upholding honour. There has to be a return to morality and reason – to humanity itself. There has to be an understanding of what justice really means. The present impure society has to be completely overthrown. In brief, there has to be a revolution and then the practical implementation of the ideals of honour, duty and loyalty. Anything other than a total revolution brought about by changing people’s attitudes and way of living is uncivilized, and a compromise with tyranny.
Of course, creating an entirely new system based on individual honour, and allowing for individuals to defend their honour in a practical way, by such things as trial by combat, is difficult. But it is not impractical. The obstacles which exist are only there to be overcome. And they can and will be overcome given our human inventiveness, our human determination and a noble desire to implement noble ideals in a practical way. All that is required – all that is ever required in such circumstances – is a ‘triumph of the will’: a re-affirmation of our humanity. of using our will to change ourselves for the better.
Honour demands penal reform. The present penal system, where individuals are kept in prisons, is uncivilized and dishonourable. Furthermore, prison simply does not work – it seldom makes individuals change their attitudes or behaviour, as it just wastes the lives of those imprisoned, giving them little or no opportunity to make something of themselves. In a noble society, created after a revolution, no prisons would exist, just as there would be no such thing as ‘the death penalty’.
The basic and unalterable principles involved in an honourable, human, treatment of those who, having been accused of transgressing the noble customs of a society of honourable individuals, are found to be guilty, are: (1) Exile to another land; (2) Community service; (3) Compensation paid by the accused to recompense those they have offended; (4) Character building exercises.
Exile means the individual is allowed to go and live freely in another land. Community service means the individual is given a chance to show some noble character. It provides them with an opportunity to reform themselves, so that they can take a full part in the community. Compensation means a restoration of the honourable custom of Wergeld. Character building exercises means arduous and/or dangerous adventure-type courses or training designed to test the individual, take them to their limits, and bring out the best in them; it also means giving them an opportunity to prove themselves by doing heroic deeds – for example, in battle.
Only these principles – of reform of the accused or exile of the accused – enshrine civilized, honourable, behaviour, toward those who for whatever reason are found wanting. Anything else is uncivilized and inhuman. Anything other than these principles does not represent a conscious attempt to create an entirely new type of society based upon noble, civilized, ideals. A truely human society must strive to implement noble principles, however difficult it may seem.
Fundamentally, a noble society is optimistic where individuals are concerned, believing that most, given the necessary guidance, understanding and opportunity, can and will change themselves for the better. What is important is allowing for change – creating structures which aid such change in individuals and which provide them with the opportunity to become useful members of their community. What is important is seeking to build individual character, by practical means based on a striving, or quest, for excellence. Those who cannot or will not change, after being given the opportunity to do so, will be a minority.
The notion of punishment – particularly prison – as a ‘deterrence’ to uncivilized behaviour has to be replaced by the notion of personal honour. There has to be a complete and fundamental change in people’s attitudes: away from abstract often political ideas back to a human morality based on individual honour.
For the minority that cannot or will not change, and who persist in uncivilized behaviour, even after being given opportunities to change, there can only be exile from society, for such recidivist individuals have proved themselves to be ignoble, and they are not wanted in a civilized society.
The most acceptable and civilized form of duel is by pistol, and those abiding by the Code of Honour are expected to use this form as and when necessary.
A formal challenge to a duel must be personally issued, by one party to the other, at which a date, time and place are specified (Dawn is traditionally favoured). Each duellist must be accompanied by a Second, to ensure fair play and an honourable outcome, as there must be a referee.
At the appointed time and in the appointed place, two revolvers, pistols or duelling pistols, as similar as possible, are checked and prepared by the referee, (ideally a man of honour should keep or have access to a matched pair of pistols specifically made for duelling, capable of firing one round and one round only). These revolvers or pistols, and the bullets, are also checked by the duellists and their seconds. [Note: whatever pistol is used it should be loaded or so adapted that one round and only round can be discharged from it when the trigger is pulled.]
The referee then allows the duellists to choose a weapon. The duellists stand back to back. At a sign or word from the referee they then walk a set number of paces agreed beforehand (ten being usual) before turning to face each other. The referee then says: “Take aim!” at which they take aim. The referee then says: “Fire!” at which they discharge the weapon. It is considered dishonourable conduct to aim and/or fire before the referee gives the signal to so do.
Should one person fire and miss, or hit and injure, the other duellist before that duellist has also fired, then the person who has so fired must wait, without moving, until his fellow duellist has also fired, if he is capable of so firing.
Honour is satisfied if the duel is undertaken in the above manner.
There are four things which need to be understood about personal duels of honour.
(1) The etiquette, or rules, of duelling must be followed, for it is these rules which make this encounter between two individuals a civilized and thus an honourable encounter. A duel of honour is not a brawl, or merely a fight between two individuals – it is a dispassionate meeting of two individuals who use their own will, their own strength of character, to fight in a particular way.
The rules, the etiquette, of duelling make it such a dispassionate encounter – for a duel is a test of courage, of nerve, of character, of personal honour itself. Any and all conduct which is against the rules is dishonourable, and as such the person who does not abide by the rules is not an honourable person, and thus forfeits their honour and their honourable reputation.
If the rules are not followed, it is thus not a duel of honour.
(2) In a duel of honour, deadly weapons must be used. It is the deadly nature of the weapons used, with the possibility of death, which makes the encounter an honourable one. Deadly weapons include pistols, swords and long-bladed fighting knives of the Bowie type.
(3) The duel is a private affair between the two individuals concerned. As such, only the nominated Seconds, and a referee – acceptable by both sides – must be present. It is against the etiquette of duelling for any other people to be present.
(4) A person challenged to a duel must either personally accept the challenge, or decline the challenge. It is dishonourable and cowardly conduct to ignore a challenge once it has been formally issued. If a person who is challenged declines the challenge, then they must issue a personal apology, and if necessary, or called upon to do so, a public apology.
A man of honour will only challenge to a duel those individuals whom he believes can physically defend themselves and their honour with deadly weapons. Thus, it is dishonourable and cowardly if someone who is challenged to a duel tries to get someone else to fight the duel on their behalf.
Holy shit, OP. Nobody is going to read all of this.