As a part of our return to tradition, a White ethnostate should bring back dueling as a civilized social and cultural institution. Imagine the degree to which drama and insult and innuendo would be curtailed if the malefactors knew that they might have to back up their words on the field of honor? In today’s corrupt, Judaized, multiracial, pink and blue padded daycare center nanny government world, people feel free to say whatever they want to or about one another without consequence. In fact, the law literally protects them from the consequences of their actions or words, except in the venue of an even more cowardly and corrupt court of law. Lawsuits for slander and libel and defamation of character are not sufficiently satisfying, nor are they an effective deterrent, obviously. Such an environment has discouraged gentlemen, and fostered pussies.
Men would choose their words much more carefully, both in person and indirectly, such as online, if they considered that they might face a challenge to a duel as a consequence to them. Women, also, would be more demure if they understood that their closest male relative might reap what they had sown. Instead of running their mouths incessantly as they are used to, they would of necessity become more serious and circumspect. Far too many people, at best, act as if they can hurl pejoratives in anonymity. But what if your doxxing came with a published challenge to meet and settle the issue like men? What if there were permanent social consequences to refusing to do so? Those who hid in anonymity would be doing so in a long-lived mask of shame, below reproach, because they would be known to be cowards, and their opinions automatically discounted. The overall societal benefits to dueling, for the greater good, are therefore obvious.
Even some of the toughest characters seem to think that they are still living on a middle school playground, where it’s “you hit me first, go ahead, I dare you, see what happens”. If we brought back dueling, there would be less violence; at least, after a number of personal scores were settled. Absent an interesting first few months when morticians would be busy, things would settle down into a much more genteel and polite society. Eventually. After all, not all duels end in death; most, in fact, are settled through an apology or a less than mortal injury.
How would duels happen? Traditionally, there were some rules to follow, certainly. The person challenged had the right to choose weapons, so long as those weapons were potentially fatal. Women and children, of course, were exempt from challenge, but their nearest male relatives were not. Non-fatal encounters could be satisfied with a public apology and granted forgivance, if both parties agreed to the terms of mercy. Those who refused to answer a call to the field of honor were forever labeled as cowards, and dishonored from society, as mentioned. In traditional societies, they were often considered outlaws and anyone who found them could kill those persons without penalty. Rules for dueling did vary from place to place. The following is a description of some of the most common guidelines:
In 1777, a committee of Irishmen drew up the dueling code that would come to be used widely throughout Europe and America. The 1777 Irish code was called the Code Duello, and you can read the complete set of rules at PBS.org: Code Duello. This code was so popular that people worldwide came to see it as the “official” rules of dueling. In fact, the U.S. Navy included the text of the Code Duello in the midshipman’s handbook up until dueling by naval officers was finally banned in 1862 (Holland, pg. 142).
Highlights of the rules include the steps of an apology, might call off the duel; proper dueling etiquette in terms of dignified behavior; the role of seconds; and what constitutes the end of a duel.
An apology on the part of the challenged could avert a bloody duel if delivered properly. Keep in mind that most duels were carried out when one man offended another’s honor. As such, the proper apology would logically help solve the problem, even once the duel had already begun. The Code Duello dictates a complex method of deciding who should apologize first:
The rules also dictate when an apology can be accepted, thus preventing the duel, and when no verbal apology will be sufficient:
A duel is not a brawl. It is a controlled battle between gentlemen of honor. As such, a certain level of dignity was expected of all participants. Rule 13 is one that describes dignified dueling behavior. It is also one that was frequently broken, since many duelists did not really want to die, kill or maim. They only wanted to defend their honor. Rule 13 states:
Since the holding of the duel itself would usually be enough to satisfy honor, duelists might use dummy bullets, or declare ahead of time that they would fire their weapon into the air or at a non-vital area of their opponent’s body. The Code Duello frowned on this.
The Code also encourages duelists to sleep on their wounded pride and then duel with a calm demeanor the next day: Rule 15 states:
The role of the seconds is spelled out in several rules. (Note Rule 18’s reference to smooth-bored guns as opposed to rifled weapons.)
- Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.
- Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.
The Code Duello acknowledges that the seconds might get involved in the fight themselves, as mentioned in the previous section. The Code is highly specific as to how this involvement might occur:
- Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals.
When a Duel is Over
Dueling “to the death” is not considered desirable in the Code Duello, although this may have been the ultimate end to many duels. Remember: Dueling is about recovering honor, not about killing. Rule 5 states:
Rule 22 addresses the issue as well:
Perhaps one of the most important rules of dueling does not involve the mechanics of the duel itself, but rather who is allowed to duel. In medieval Europe, dueling was the sport of noble-born men. Although commoners did fight and certainly did face each other in contests that could be called duels, an actual, honor-bound duel had to be conducted between two men of noble rank. One reason for this was economic — swords are expensive weapons, and not every peasant had one. But it was also a means of distinguishing the upper and lower classes. Many countries had laws forbidding commoners to fight amongst themselves, while dukes, princes and even kings were expected to duel each other.
What reason did nobles have for constantly fighting each other to the death?