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.
They also have Israel to escape to. Yeah, I'm pretty sure our prison is so retarded because we are basically ruled over by criminals that want it easy if they ever do get caught and "punished".
You will start reading it and then you'll be so interested you'll read the rest.
Do it faggot.
David Myatt is the founder of the Order of Nine Angles.
Consider me the founder of the Order of No Fucks, nigga. I ain't reading shiet.
ain't nobody reading that shit, OP
For fucks sakes I hate you ADD ridden idiots this literally all fits in a short pastebin and will take you 5 minutes to read. This is the size of a small article. It's not even a book. It's like 2-3 pages of text at most. I am surrounded by mental midgets on Holla Forums.
tl;dr
care to green text this?
...
I thought they banned it because high ranking military men kept killing each other in duels, and the state got tired of all these experienced and skilled men dying for no good reason.
You literally just repeated what I said. Congrats.
No, not if you're the guy who said kikes banned dueling because they didn't want to get smoked for being dishonorable shits.
You dumb motherfucker, you're still repeating me.
duelling is gay as fuck. Real men fight with their fists
No, you're copying me. I'm telling mom.
Might makes right is the stupidest argument you can make, the very idea that "no, facts are subversive, the only way to truly settle a conflict of two views is to kill your opponent." Only a fucking leftist would make the argument that it is morally right to kill your political opponent. Please kill yourself instead of someone else.
What could possibly be truer than might makes right? It's a foundation to build on, not the end-all-be-all, granted, but it's still true. A man can be morally upstanding, have noble ideals, and do great things in his life, but in the end it means nothing if some dipshit kills him and forcefully dismantles all that he built.
In the end it means that we'll go back to the dark ages, and science will make no progress for another 1000 years, you fucking heathen. Part of what makes scientific advancements we appreciate matter is the fact that they contest previously posited scientific notions.
If Bill Gates could have dueled Steve Jobs and we lost either Microsoft or Apple there would have been no competition there, and we'd still be using simplistic terminals with text-based interfaces, because there'd have been no reason to keep innovating and trying to outdo themselves. Dueling doesn't even make sense either, because you could knowingly challenge a man to a duel while he's sick just to exploit his ailing health to your advantage. Do you feel like you're the better man if you manage to defeat someone who can hardly stand in his weakened state? Dueling is cowardly because it empowers cowards to never question their views, and instead you hammer home that you are right on the virtue that you got lucky and killed someone who might have been much smarter than you so that he couldn't make you change your mind.
Fuck off.
I did. It was amazing.
Hit me right in the feels OP. You captured and annunciated something deep inside my psyche, something I would have considered indescribable. We have lost our honour. Most people have absolutely no idea what honour is, what it means to keep your word, what it means to have conviction.
And it is no surprise. They took our heroes away. Our heroes now are some fucking sodomite movie star, running on a carefully designed script engineered to mould our thoughts and actions to a 'desirable' outcome. The 'good guys vs. bad guys' meme is possibly one of the oldest, and easiest to impress on children.
We live in a fake world. A slave colony. Global government and currency was implemented decades ago, hidden behind a thin veil of 'democracy' and 'sovereign nations'. We spend our lives chasing coloured pieces of paper. Why?
Everybody says "I wish I had a million dollars". Have you ever heard someone say "I wish I had 50lbs of gold"? Or "I wish I had a thousand head of cattle"? Never. If they had those things, they'd happily exchange them for the coloured scraps of paper, just like the dancing ponies they've been trained to be.
...
So if Tyrone murdered a father, his 14 year old son would have to challenge Tyrone to a duel (where he will be killed obviously) and Tyrone would walk free?
Also OP, modern firerarms are very accurate. Pistol duels would be suicidal for the party that doesn't get to fire first (unless their opponent delopes and they reconcile peacefully), so the only practical duel would be a phsical duel where the most barbaric chads and groids will simply kill everyone they face and literally get away with it.
Listen dumbass, I'm not saying it's ideal, or the best way to do things, I'm saying that it's at the root of EVERYTHING. It doesn't matter how to try to dress it up or how noble you try to be, if some guy kills you because you were weak and he shapes things in his image instead of yours, even if yours was objectively superior, then there you go.
Whether or not you like it, coward, might makes right is the closest there is to an ultimate truth. Now sure, we should try to advance past that and pursue greater ends instead of just running around killing each other like a bunch of niggers, but in the end it's always there. You can be right, intelligent, noble and everything else, but if you're weak, some dumb but tough guy can take you out and ruin everything you believed in.
If you're not willing to fight for what you think is right, then you've already lost.
nigger
...
The 'dueling' was as much of a metaphor for true freedom and a willingness to actually risk your neck for something as a call to reinstate our right as men to settle disputes as warriors. It'd be dishonourable for me to challenge someone clearly weaker than myself to combat, and my personal value, the rightful and true measure of my worth as a man, would suffer in the eyes of my peers. Perhaps somebody even bigger than I would take slight at my bullying.
It's organic, and natural. It has very little to do with killing, and everything to do with personal responsibility.
I wish I was OP fag. Corner of Maple & Smith, sunrise, bastard sword.
not an argument ;^)
I'll be there .. with a gun. Cause you let the challenged pick the weapons of choice, and you chose a sword ahead of time like an idiot.
please read my argument:
You're not wrong, but that's why it's important to be strong even if you hold other ideals to be higher. The son should get his friends together and kill Tyrone, because otherwise Tyrone is gonna keep snuffing out good men. Shit ain't fair but that's the way it is. Evolution doesn't select the best of us, that's why we have to guide it ourselves at times. And sometimes that means genocide. We act like we've left the natural world behind, like it's some vague abstraction that we don't have to bother ourselves with because now we have cops and lawyers and shit like that. But none of that stuff can stop some fucker walking into your house and killing you.
Wait how is a bunch of people attacking a lone person 'dueling'' ?
You're very stupid if you think society would be better if resort to Afghan-style honor killings and blood feuds for the sake of genetic selection. It would be much better and efficient to simply abolish welfare completely and leave the poor to their own while instituting an inheritance tax to make sure the rich don't get too rich and promote a meritocratic culture.
Why not both? Also I'm not necessarily talking about dueling, still reading through OP's posts. Pretty good stuff even if I don't entirely agree with it, but like said I think he's using dueling as an example of something greater, a sort of metaphor.
duelling is primitive dick rating
op is a childish retard
this is the current year
So explain your inheritance tax. Because this sounds very much like socialism/communism, and I'd like to know how you can impose an inheritance tax that isn't simply something like 90% and levels everyone down to the same level as if this is somehow fair. If there's nothing I can leave behind for my children, then why would I not just give them the money before I die, thus subverting your tax system? If I can't even do that, then why would anyone ever try for anything int his life? The whole point of building wealth and power is to sustain and help your family. What would be the purpose of having hundreds of millions of dollars in cashola if it all goes to the state when I die to promote the false idea that meritocracy is the rule of the land?
You know who gets rich? People who get helped up by the rich. You know who doesn't? People who try to eke out their own living and rise above others, because nowadays it's so fucking difficult to do that.
If there's no welfare state, then what is the point of there being an inheritance tax, what is that money being used for? Please, explain the morality of your idea.
>>>Holla Forums honestly your family means NOTHING when compared to the betterment of humanity. You mean NOTHING when compared to the betterment of humanity.
That was a nice deflection of the question, but it doesn't make me or my question go away. How do you morally justify taking away the majority of someone's property upon death? You know who did that? Communists. Russia used to do that in the USSR, people who developed ideas and inventions could not capitalize on them because by Russia's determination, the people were owned by the state, so the products of their labor too were owned by the state.
Communism does not foster progress.
hard work is how you get rich. that's why donkeys drive ferraris and monaco residents are mostly retired bricklayers
prove me wrong lefties
Pretty much sums up you pigs always thinking about yourself.
Again, not an argument. Thank you for proving my point. Can this thread go away now?
Prove this then Genius
"Prove this" exactly what am I to prove? It's not really an ideological argument, it just looks like a tongue-in-cheek post that pretty much lampoons the viewpoint I was railing against, if anything it's up to you to prove why this form of communism would be good instead of why capitalism is good.
What country are you from?
I am not proposing the total confiscation of inheritances or estates. I am proposing that a progressive inheritance taxation system be levied on the top levels of society to ensure that stuff like this:
Is not possible. Ideally the most people could aspire to is to be upper middle class because decadence and the kind of thing that website shows seems to skyrocket.
What is wrong with altruism? I am for a limited universal healthcare scheme that covers diaseases and injuries that are not self inflicted or can be attributed to being caused by personal actions (smokers shouldn't be covered if they get lung cancer but non smokers should, etc)
Also the money could be used for infrastructure projects (much needed in the US), repaying foreign debt or at least restructuring it and subsidizing high-tech STEM research
I forgot to post the website, my apologies
This is why you are dumb
Nothing, but the fact of the matter is, there's not enough resources among a small business owner's possessions to elevate their business to the point it could become a million dollar business. Rich people invest heavily into something, it grows, becomes a chain, becomes a multi-million dollar business. Million dollar businesses rarely happen without outside funding. So you're asking people to put in all the effort to become rich, but dooming them to only get mediocre returns because they don't have the resources to do so.
This is a bad idea because the state will split hairs over what is self-inflicted and what is not, and then something beyond someone's own ability can be rationalized as being self-inflicted. The shelf racks in the back fall apart one day, the state rationalizes it was self-inflicted because the faulty shelf rack should have been inspected more thoroughly, therefore the now crippled individual gets nothing and no support, and fuck you.
Well if the idea that your bad habits are your own responsibility, then I guess we should just execute all the obese people, because obesity leads to more cancer than smoking does. Obesity also causes heart attacks, strokes, diabetes (which contributes to all of these as well as early onset parkinson's and alzheimer, et al).
No, I was being facetious the idea that the state can moralize and choose what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behavior is in and of itself unacceptable, and this leads to a communist dictatorship. Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you could get hit by a ricochet at the gun range, are you going to justify that this means that guns should be confiscated to help protect people from themselves? You can't rationalize with baby steps, you need to figure out why your policies would impact someone in every facet of their lives, and figure out a solution to every problem. You have not done this, you've only thought of the things that pester you and that is amoral. The fact that you are not a trust fund kid does not moralize your ability to take away his trust fund and force him to partake of meritocracy, besides your idea wouldn't work anyway because the sons and daughters of the rich typically create and capitalize their own businesses during the lives of their mothers and fathers, so they would still have access to these resources before the state took some of it away. All you would do is hurt the poor, because you can't morally tax the rich and not the poor. Fuck you, communism and socialism are evil and this is why this whole idea is a problem.
"Kids" living that lifestyle will spend themselves into oblivion. Their Daddy's money will be funneled into businesses and other peoples pockets. It essentially already exists but instead of giving it to the government you give it to people directly letting them climb the social ladder.
Real dynasties are very rare.
...
What about all those mom-and-pop small and medium enterprises doomed by wallmart and giant retail chains? All those people who could have started businesses if it werent for the monopolies that strangle the current economies? Local businesses and community ties killed, probable owners turned into cashiers and shelf-stockers?
There should be papers on this after broad consultation with academics, medical professionals and safety experts to create an acceptable framework to define what is self-inflicted, self-caused and what is not. If we can differentiate between murder and manslaughter, free speech and libel, surely this is within our capabilities to define.
I am not advocating communism or socialism, which, if you actually read on those to know your enemies, you would understand.
What kills those mom and pop shops is before anything else, the idea that they don't need to compete that people should morally avoid Walmart because it's cheaper.
If your idea is that you shouldn't have to only make $2 for every scone you sell instead of the $5 you were making before Walmart showed up, then I have no sympathies. Competition is required. If you are not competitive, then you are the problem.
But once monopolies are established you have no competition. It's a self-defeating argument
MMMMM
yet income disparity is at its highest and foreign debt is too. So is personal debt.
You sound very jewish to me. It's not often I meet anons who are so blatantly for megacorporations
In my town there are small businesses, mom and pop shops as you say. They complain that you should shop locally. Shop locally the town hall says, everyone wants to encourage you to shop locally. But here's the thing, I can go to Walmart in the city and get bread for $0.98 a loaf, or I can shop locally and pay $4 for a loaf of bread.
Now if I just need a loaf of bread, it's more economical for me to just buy locally because it costs less in petrol, but if I'm going up to the city anyway, I would obviously buy the bread from Walmart. I only shop locally because I am begrudged to do so. I would be more than happy if a Walmart opened up within 5 km of my house. That is the essence of competition and capitalism. And this is just your plain old shit bread, no one fucking cares about it anyway, they eat it because it's cheap and simple. Wonderbread doesn't care who sells their bread, but Walmart sells it cheaper because they have other things they sell that NO ONE else sells that makes up for the money they might be losing on that loaf of bread.
There's a bakery nearby, they sell their bread at roughly $14.50 for 4 loaves. That's quite a bit, but the thing is, it's not shit bread. It's very high quality well made bread. I can rationalize the fucking cost of this bread, because it tastes better, stays fresh longer, and I don't mind thawing it from the freezer because unlike Wonderbread, it actually reconstitutes well.
So the idea of SHOP LOCAL is a great idea in concept when the locals aren't fucking you over the counter for their own profit. Mom and pop shop overcharging me for a loaf of bread is not a moralizing argument to make me care about the spirit of competitiveness. The fact of the matter is, there's more than one supermax convenience store, Walmart is just one example. Despite their existence, mom and pop shops still exist. Just like a head of lettuce costs $1.39 at the local grocer, but $0.60 at Walmart, and it's the same lettuce from the same sources. So explain why this anticompetitiveness and anticompetitive attitude is my problem?
Also this is pretty much an argument that the mom and pop shops are not competing, and that it's their own fault if they go under. They know that Walmart's bread is cheaper, but they figure they have you by the balls because otu of the way town, so they don't have to compete.
Why is it my duty to give up more money in order to keep afloat sycophants?
The rich get richer. You sound jealous and megacorporations are our best bet for a better future at the cost of the present. Governments are incompetent, corporations are the closest thing we have to meritocracy. We are going to have to use it as a bridge and its here to stay.
I don't care about Walmart but they do elevate the poor's struggle. Megacorps biggest enemies are moral consumerism not regulating it by government.
No I am not Jewish.
Are you kidding me? Megacorporations promote cultural marxism and pander to the lowest common denominator. It is a sinister and dark world where they wield the lion's share of power.
How rich are you btw?
Would you like to be Jewish, goy?
Walmart can afford such prices because they make use of every anticompetitive trick in the book. They often drop their prices when moving into a new area, undercutting local stores, and then increasing them after they ran the others off. They take massive losses in this period, but they can afford it because they're incredibly wealthy.
They pay their employees at just the right amount so the government picks up the slack and the employees get food stamps and other government aid, effectively making local taxpayers subsidize all of Walmart's goods.
They lobby for increased regulation in industries they're involved in, increasing the barrier of entry and preventing any major competition from springing up.
I'm pro capitalist too but let's not act like Walmart is a shining example of the industrious capitalist, improving his surroundings by improving himself. Walmart makes things shittier for everyone and couldn't exist, or at least be so widespread and profitable as they are today without government helping them out. Mom and pop shops are not "overcharging" you, they're charging a reasonable rate. Walmart can go lower because they can either afford to eat the loss and gain a new regular customer, or because their economy of scale. They can get discounts on bread from manufacturers when they buy millions of loafs a month.
I don't know how rich he is, but I'll tell you that I myself live below the poverty line, as does the majority of people. The rationale that "fuck Walmart, pay more and have less money" to spite a megacorp doesn't really sit well with me, because Walmart HELPS impoverished communities. Ever notice that urban dwellings have a lot of disenfranchised communities? The trailer parks of Iowa, the slums of Detroit? Yeah, those are impoverished neighborhoods. Walmart sets up there, and they give good paying jobs to the people there, and it boosts the economy of the entire neighborhood.
Greenfield, Massachusetts did not have a Walmart for something like 15 years because of one asshole who opposed the idea of a Walmart opening up there, well you know what happened? All the local businesses went out of town, and the people became poor, because it wasn't sustainable. There was not enough economic stimulus. Walmart opened a store there 10 years ago, and now all the old businesses are actually reopening _BECAUSE_ of the Walmart providing money to the economy and stimulating the community.
They went from impoverished to rebound economy because Walmart provided their people with money they otherwise didn't have. The idea that megacorps are inherently bad and kill communities is stupid, they do the opposite, Greenfield can now afford to pay for medicine, afford to run their own restaurants and shops.
Did EVERY business make a comeback? The answer is obviously no, because some of them were not sustainable and didn't really help anyone. It can't be rationalized that every business should have equal outcome, because that is socialism and communism ideology.
Haven't seen it happen yet. A case of Pepsi Cola is $5.99 regular at any standard retail store, $3.97 at Walmart. Is the argument that after 25 years, it hasn't been long enough, therefore they need to keep trying to kill off the local stores before they try to capitalize on that? I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about.
I won't even read the rest of your post, because you've yet to provide me with anything but backchat and boar leg. Provide moralizing and rational arguments, not a fucking appeal to emotionalism. I'm a man of logic and rationale, not a god damn sniveling child.
Why the fuck would I make another post if you're not gonna read it, you disingenuous fuck? I gave plenty of other examples, but you're gonna conveniently ignore them because wah wah I wanna live in a cyberpunk dystopia run by corporations like Walmart.
Walmart is not some shining example of capitalism, as you'd like to believe. It could not exist without government aid. It's a great example of corporatism and corruption.
Walmart is not some 'great thing'. Sure the prices are lower, but is it really worth it to have a single corporation hold a virtual monopoly? To be able to break and bend local city councils at will?
Walmart's low prices are not entirely due to bulk efficiency. Think about the wage slaves, the long hours, the lack of advancement. You've been deprived of any decent employment for so long that when a man gives you a pittance you call him a philanthropist.
Salty.
I'm not calling anyone a philanthropist, don't fucking twist my words. The fact of the matter is, your bleeding heart doesn't touch me because I know something that pierces your moral argument about the slave labor.
Those child sweat shops where they manufacture the goods? Yeah, those HELP those nations. You know what those child workers would be doing if they weren't manufacturing goods and making an honest living? Sucking dicks for pennies. It's been proven that child sweat shops keep children from becoming child prostitutes, drug dealers and thieves instead. I've no tears for children who are grateful that they don't have to know what a man's semen tastes like to keep their family fed and healthy.
When you pressure a company to close their child sweat shops on a moral level, saying "it's better for them if you don't do this," you are condemning them to starvation and prostitution. I am not okay with this.
This shit is getting real
You've all bought the meme. What's truly important? Food, shelter, security. We have these things in abundance.. The greatest abundance of these things in human history..
Of course we're all struggling because the global paper and 1s & 0s shortage is totally real and not just an abstraction to enslave us all.
Fuck man I plan on doing a video very soon about the three egalitarian lies.
Aka equality of opportunity (muh merit), equality by force (muh affirmative action), and equality as a delusion (affirming we are somehow equal when everything in reality suggests otherwise).
Look for it, I'll be uploading it on my channel and make a thread here.
We should round them up into concentration camps.
Getting organic sourdough bread from me (I sell bread at the market) for $2 CDN (like $1.80 US I would think) is cheaper for you than going to Walmart and buying white bread which is not going to have the same nutritional value and going to give you a variety of health problems.
Buy muh bread
I've seen this happen. It's annoying as fuck.
Why not just ban members of the military from participating in duels then?
There's no reason we can't build a bullet proof gymnasium with cameras and a countdown clock and allow willing participants to sign up with notarized info etc. and fight to the death with pistols, swords, or what have you, normies bitch about online bullying and trolls all the time, this would pretty much put an end to that if you knew someone might call you out on your shit and you would either have to agree to duke it out or cowardly submit and apologize.
Violence is a part of humanity even if we don't like it and eve if we try to legislate it out of existence, it would probably be best to just put it to good use by getting rid of the edgy fucks who can't chill out.
What is fascism?
I'm ok with them starving to death tbh fam. The prostitution thing has to be stopped though, I don't want subhumans being able to earn an income and prolong their misery. The real solution to most of the world's problems is to end humanism, end egalitarianism, end philanthropy, and kill of the untermensch. Those who remain after the purge will be much better off for it.
You forgot health and race.
We need food, security, shelter, health, and racial purity.
I am on board with this. How do we push for legislation to make these battle arenas a thing? Only voluntary warriors would be allowed in, cameras and drones would catch all the action, they'd be equipped with weapons and body armor as agreed upon, then they'd go all out Unreal Tournament on each other for our entertainment in 4K resolution.
...
youtube.com
Today, user knew he was a fascist.
I like what I've read but how do I know it's credible and that the actual fascists / self-identified fascists throughout history would agree with that?
Actually I guess the root word it comes out of explains it best.
Why only this type?
t. master of le serated steak knife
I honestly think it's impossible. The status-quo is almost impossible to disrupt, and there are no political parties in the US willing to bring up the issue as none feel they will benefit.
Capitalism and Communism are both complete and utter irredeemable shit
Merit based Royalty when
Look up the economic and social policy of Fascist Italy, NatSoc Germany, Francoist Spain and the pre Whitlam Australian Labor Party
All in line with what was posted
Though that said many in the Alt-Right claim to be le based facists when really they're larping Libertarians and Paleocons, which really is the cause of aminosity between the Alt-Right and Holla Forums