Justice & Divine Vengeance Pursuing Crime, by Pierre Paul Prud'hon (1759-1823), French Neoclassical painter[/caption]Central to any civilization and society which is civilized, is the notion of revenge - and central to revenge is the blood fued. When the "State" - of whatever political hue or any large organized governmental structure, reserves for itself the means and control and dispensation of "Justice" then true freedom does not exist: the individual has become controlled and enslaved, if not physically, then mentally.
Any healthy flourishing society not only allows revenge, but encourages it, and any society which does not is already a form of tyranny, however much clever, vapid, intellectual and political words may be used to try and obscure this reality. A healthy society is one that tends to respect the individual right to justice and thus revenge: the two are linked and cannot be separated without destroying both, leaving an empty shell. A healthy society seeks to respect the individual, and extend their responsibilities and duties, and one of the most important responsibilities and duties of any individual is to avenge.
This view is not upheld by many today - and certainly by none who form those cliques of legal and social 'professionalism' which infest society today. Instead, the present System seeks to convince us all, from childhood, that only the State has the "right" to deal with "Justice" - and that only this is "civilised". But if you believe that, you really are ill - one of those pale specimens inebriated by the clever words and ideas of the half-men (and half-women) who unfortunately proliferate today in our comfortable and monied societies.
Revenge is natural and necessary. An illustration here might be instructive. A young motorist, high on drink and drugs, deliberately runs down and kills someone: the classic 'innocent passerby'. After some trouble, the police find this driver and he is charged. When his case comes to court, he manages to wriggle out of the murder charge('lack of sufficient evidence'/some legal problem) and is instead convicted of manslaughter. He shows no remorse. He is sentenced to 3 years in prison. After a little over 2 years he is released, and some months later is arrested for drink driving and driving while disqualified. A few more months in prison. Then he is free. Now, in this instance (and many like it) the relatives of the victim have a duty to kill this piece of scum - and should be ashamed of themselves if they did not. Naturally, they would give all sorts of reasons as to why they would do nothing - but basically they are, if they do nothing, (a) spineless cowards; (b) degenerate bastards who do not care; (c) so ground down by the System, by the lies and propaganda, that their natural instincts have been destroyed. They - one or some of them - should have killed the offender. Naturally, in the feeble societies of the Western tyrannies, had they done so they would - if caught - have faced "Justice" and the legal system themselves: and probably spent longer in prison than the bastard who deserved to die (such is the sickness of the "West"). But, until this whole rotten System is destroyed, they should have used the rules of the System against itself - why not, for instance, run the bastard himself down? You would, if caught, only get a few years. But at least you would be able to live with yourself - still have your honour.
Of course, an impartial assessment (like a Judge) is still necessary - but once judged, relatives are honour bound to act. Anything less is gutless.
ONA, From Hostia II, 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment