Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Fyrd Punishment.

It's painfully simple to complicate the concept, the good and the right limits of "punishment," to the point of sophistry. But let's not. Let's try to keep it as simple as a stick or a stone. Let us, metaphorically at least, utopian as it will seem, say, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Let's not talk strictly about the Law. Let's talk instead about the Fyrd, and let's talk among ourselves about Punishment.

Love that scene in Pulp Fiction, "I'm gonna get Medieval on your ass."

I've seen it in real life, so to say, and it drives me to jurisprudence. Sometimes. But sometimes the book just hasn't yet been written yet that covers things we really need to know now. For those times, many in this imperfect world, we need some authority wiser and more just than learned and reasoned tomes. Sometimes we need a blow-torch and a pair of pliers. We can call it punishment.

Recently a man shot himself to death in England. The man had been accused of "racism." In our day, an accusation of "racism" might well be enough to cause a normal and social man to kill himself over it. It happened to Roy Amor. Someone accused Amor of "racism." The man is dead now. But the accuser? Is he a moral paragon? Is he righteous?

We live in states of "Anarcho-Tyranny." The common man is illegal in his social being, and the criminal is lauded for his victimhood. We can no longer ask Roy Amor. Soon we might not be allowed to ask Geert Wilders or Ezra Levant or Ann Coulter or, maybe, me. Nor will we be allowed to ask our silent accusers, they who will remain masked and hidden from public view. Today we can know Lorna Pardy. Tomorrow we might only know that someone in has called us to The Trial and has questions we cannot answer. A crime? Maybe this:

"Woman, 86, hassled for eating cookie in wrong place"

A British pensioner who bit a chocolate chip cookie in a store café found herself being threatened with ejection for eating in the wrong place.

On a day out with her family, Thelma Williams sat down for a meal in the Marks & Spencer restaurant with her daughter and grandsons.

The 86-year-old widow from Blackburn, northwestern England, enjoyed a toasted sandwich, but wanted a bit more to eat.

She reached into her bag for the cookie she had bought for 60¢ in the store's food section.

That's when a woman staffer moved in, telling her she could not eat it in the café.

The employee claimed it was because of the difference in tax paid on items bought in the café and the store.

She called the security guard, who was equally insistent on following the rules, even though Ms. Williams tried to reason with him.

"I thought it was petty and ridiculous. I realize they have rules to stick to but it was so silly, I felt stupid. They made me feel like I had committed a crime," she told The Lancashire Telegraph.

Read more:

There is no law against this kind of stupidity practised by dullards. There is no law to appeal to even when dullards drive a man to suicide. Instead, there is Velvet Fascism. I argue that this is not a complicated story. It's not a deep philosophical problem. It is a matter of stupidity at all intellectual levels and levels of society generally that men and women have a grasp of the rules and no sense of the game. That sense is lost in a welter of moralisms and officiousness and sentimentality and profound idiocy rewarded by our cultures. I argue it needs quick and brutal punishment. I mean blood should flow in the streets, men should be beaten, buildings set ablaze, harm done. I mean real and hard punishment.

There is a public and cultural madness overtaken the people of Modernity that moralism is moral. There is a moralistic fad in the air that demands of ordinary people that they terrorize the people around them for the sake of showing the terrorists' moralism in public. It is a theatric performance of the nihilist idiot gone mad-- thanks to our culture gone mad in pursuit of perfect utopia. Blood must flow in the streets to waken the masses from this madness.

In our time, stupidity poses as genius, and few are courageous enough to call it out; fewer still to beat it silly till it bleeds. Instead, we see fools, high and low, tormenting the masses for the sake of show. Men die, women are ruined, life is destroyed. Tyranny rules raging in our democracies. Some large lot need to be punished.

Because people for a large part have lost a sense of public propriety in this age of hippiedom, rules follow, requiring a rule of arbitrary lawlessness built up on whimsy and feeling and intention. Driving a man to suicide is not the intention of the "anti-racist" who drove a man to suicide. The intention was to be seen as self-righteous and smug and "moral." There are no rules but feeling right, of intention.


"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" is thought to have originated with Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote, "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désires" (hell is full of good wishes and desires). Wikipedia.

The Velvet Fascist demands that all obey the rules of good intention. Law gives way to legalisms. Feelings take priority over Reason. A look, a word, it is the sin. The life of man has no proper place in the life of man today. No, we must look only to the intention and its purity. If the intention is pure, then there is no wrong. The theatre of denunciation is the purity of the moralistic, and it is our law.

It is a commonplace among moralists that the intention is the chief among the determinants of the concrete morality of a human act. Hence when one's motive is grievously bad, or even only slightly so, if it be the exclusive reason for doing something, then an act which is otherwise good is vitiated and reputed to be evil. An end which is only venially bad, and which at the same time does not contain the complete cause for acting, leaves the operation which in other respects was unassailable to be qualified as partly good and partly bad. A good intention can never hallow an action the content of which is wrong. Thus it never can be lawful to steal, even though one's intention be to aid the poor with the proceeds of the theft. The end does not justify the means. It may be noted here in passing, as somewhat cognate to the matter under discussion, that the explicit and frequently renewed reference of one's actions to Almighty God is not now commonly thought to be necessary in order that they may be said to be morally good. The old-time controversy on this point has practically died out.

Uh Oh.

That tells me it's punishment time. This tells me it's time to get Medieval on the asses of asses.

The current fad of mindless and moralistic pettifoggery is crying out for rampant resort to punishment. I mean blood in the streets. No, of course the fools who think themselves moral geniuses have no intention of causing needless harm when they drive men to suicide, when they destroy lives in smallish ways by sanctimony. So what? Need we care about the intentions of the wicked stupid? I say, "Blood in the streets." Beat them senseless.

Raise the Fyrd, the men of the commons who come to the aid of our people in times of need. Be men of Fyrd, and mete out punishment to those who know no sense, morality, or law. Beat the fools, no matter their fine intentions, and punish them hard.

No comments: