“Only writers of genius can have the right to modify the language. In the past generation, I can think of practically nobody but Schopenhauer who could have dared to do such a thing. As long as a language evolves, as long as it’s alive, it remains a proper medium for expressing new thoughts and notions.” – Adolf Hitler
Communication is usually the initial means by which one individual gets to know another individual first-hand, and is the basis for any functional society based on division of labour. One of the most foundational processes for uniting people into a folk is standardizing communication.
Veteran reporter who broke mainstream media silence on Jewish power
Multilingualism erects unnecessary barriers between linguistic groups by increasing the difficulty and lowering the quality of discussion. To this day nobody is sure what was going on in the attempt between Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano to communicate by post across a language gap that produced one of the most mystifying lines in all of esoteric Hitlerist literature: “Dear comrade and friend, I am writing in English as you tell me you do not read German (a statement which I can hardly understand, as among the letters you sent me, some are in German).” Throughout world history, all great unifying states achieved unification between formerly distinct populations by, among other measures, state-enforced monolingualism. This was also Third Reich policy in administrating annexed territories, with all school classes being taught in German. In contrast and in opposition to such state efforts, Jews maintained Jewish identity throughout their existence not least by retaining knowledge and usage of Hebrew among Jews regardless of the country they were living in. Present-day endorsement of multilingualism within even the same country at a time when the various cohabiting non-Jewish groups desperately need to build mutual trust and friendship is, needless to say, a Zionist tactic to start fights between different groups of non-Jews and prevent unification against Jewish domination. In opposition to this, the Aryanist movement strongly encourages everyone to use the vernacular of whatever country you are living in for all day-to-day communication (private as well as public), and to voluntarily cease to pass down ancestral languages to your descendants.
“We were never hyphenated as Arab-Americans. We were American, and I have always rejected the hyphen and I believe all assimilated immigrants should not be designated ethnically. Or separated, of course, by race, or creed either. These are trends that ever try to divide us as a people.” – Helen Thomas
Just as Hitler had hoped to phase out the use of Cyrillic script, replacing it with the simpler Latin script, we do not believe in preserving any language (or any feature within a language) merely because it exists, but consider it a positive development to discontinue any and all that burden us with unnecessary communicative complications (such as need for translation) when simpler alternatives achieving the same communicative function are available.
“Look at my school reports—I got bad marks in German!” – Adolf Hitler
However, there is much more to standardizing communication than merely promoting national monolingualism, indeed much of communication goes beyond the narrowly linguistic. What we aim at is the establishment of a distinctly Aryan style of expression.
Avoid the foppery of arguing over which languages are “more Aryan”. Nobility or ignobility exists in the ideas expressed through language, not in language itself.
The Human Problem
“My dog understands perfectly everything I say to him; I am the one who does not understand.” – Adolf Hitler
One of the greatest differences between human societies and animal societies is that, whereas the latter relies primarily on non-verbal communication, the former has evolved to rely primarily on verbal communication. In non-Aryan culture, this is glorified as a mark of human advancement. Gentiles are known for deliberately making “monkey noises/gestures” to insult ethnic minorities - this has been especially common behaviour towards professional athletes by racist sports spectators in recent years. Jews have been consistently measured to possess the highest verbal intelligence of all humans, and Jewish culture is heavily based on articulacy (for example, in Jewish prayer it is considered more acceptable to speak the words of the prayer without thinking them than the reverse). This is the basis behind the Judaic claim that Jews are ”more human” than non-Jews, as in the Midrash: “Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”
Aryans, in contrast, are aware that the ability of verbal communication has given human societies far greater capacity to withstand non-empathic members compared to animal societies. This is because non-verbal communication (which animals rely on exclusively) demands active effort at empathy between the communicators, whereas language – essentially a blunt cryptography of thought - has enabled a mode of communication that permits bypassing the faculty of empathy altogether while mimicking it, in Hitler’s words: “For [the Jew] language is not an instrument for the expression of his inner thoughts but rather a means of cloaking them.” This has facilitated insincere, soulless social dialogue to an extent inconceivable in non-verbal societies. Aryans are unique in our successful retention/recovery of empathy despite our parallel use of language; this could be described as reversion to a pre-human trait, which we are proud and grateful to share with whichever non-human species might possess it also. As such, it does not bother us in the least when Jews claim to be “more human” than us, or when Gentiles use the term “subhuman” as an insult; in our worldview, their anthropocentrism is proof enough of their inferiority.
“The Jew is what is least similar to the animal on this earth.” – Adolf Hitler
Aryan use of language is discernible by our perpetual consciousness of its limitations. While we set high standards towards semantic precision and grammatical rigour, we are ultimately aware that almost every word we utter already creates departure from what we truly wish to express, therefore we will never revel in verbosity for its own sake, nor indeed use more words than are strictly necessary to convey our meaning, preferring concision wherever possible. As Hitler put it: “We must take care not to attach too much importance to words. The form is only a means. The essential thing, always, is the inspiration.”
External link: How to be a Grammar Nazi
The Socratic Method is one way to deal with the limitations of language. Whereas attempting to illuminate an issue using statements makes it possible for the statements to be misunderstood without either side being aware that misunderstanding has occurred until summary (and even then it often takes a while to go back and find where the misunderstanding occurred), the use of questions for this task precludes such confusion, as any misunderstanding of a question will immediately be revealed by the other side giving a non-sequitur answer.
Moreover, one who is brought to a correct conclusion via skillful Socratic guidance experiences the conclusion not merely in the words of the guide but as a personal (ideally wordless) experience, thereby at least momentarily touching the realm of non-verbal communication (albeit induced by a lengthy verbal buildup – which just goes to show how far we have fallen). More detailed techniques to this end can be found in Zen and other esoteric schools, but these are beyond the scope of this page.
“A man may acquire and use a new language without much trouble; but it is only his old ideas that he expresses through the new language. His inner nature is not modified thereby. The best proof of this is furnished by the Jew himself. He may speak a thousand tongues and yet his Jewish nature will remain always one and the same.” – Adolf Hitler
In Judaic English, the noun “philistine” (cognate with “Palestinian”, used in the Tanakh to refer to uncircumcized people) is a word used with negative connotation, roughly meaning ”barbarian”. We must remove this and all other Judaic influences from our languages. In Aryan English, “philistine” will be used with positive connotation, meaning ”resistance fighter”.
How we use language in speaking and writing reveals a lot about our personality. While there is much room in our movement for different personality types, and thus many individual styles of speaking and writing, nevertheless we should explicitly establish broad elements that our individual styles should spontaneously share, thereby making our individual styles personal projections of a general Aryan style, and then reverse-engineer languages themselves to suit our style, similar to how Ashkenazi Jews in Germany developed Yiddish from German or how Dutch Gentiles/crypto-Jews in South Africa developed Afrikaans from Dutch. Our concern is to lay down the qualitative characteristics of our style. This section will only use examples in English, but similar characteristics could apply to other languages.
“The difference between an Aryan and a Turanian language is somewhat the same as between good and bad mosaic. The Aryan words seem made of one piece, the Turanian words clearly show the sutures and fissures where the small stones are cemented together.” – Max Mueller
Homophones should be eliminated. Distinct pronounciations should be standardized for words spelled differently but currently pronounced the same. Many homophones can be eliminated simply by giving proper respect to phonetics. For example, the “pawn”/”porn” merger, the “caught”/”court” merger and many more are automatically resolved by a rhotic intonation. Others will require a proactive decision to change the pronounction of all but one of the words in each homophone set. For example, the ”sew”/”so”/”sow” merger and the “threw”/”through” merger can be resolved by pronouncing “sew” and “threw” to rhyme with “few”, “hew”, “pew”, etc. instead. (This also increases the regularity, and thus the aesthetic consistency, of the “-ew” set.) “Sow” (verb as well as noun) should also be pronounced to rhyme with “cow”, “how”, “now”, etc.. Alternatively, it may be more convenient to simply remove one of the homophones from the vocabulary if an exact synonym is available. For example, the “father”/”farther” merger is easily resolved by using the word “further” instead of “farther” in all instances.
“As long as a language has a letter for every different sound, it’s not proper that the exact pronunciation of a word should depend on a knowledge of the language in which the word originates. A word should be written as it is pronounced.” – Adolf Hitler
Homonyms should also be eliminated. No word should have several unrelated meanings. For example, “sow” can be a verb meaning “place seeds into soil” or a noun meaning “female pig”. Only one of these meanings should be retained. I would recommend retaining the verb meaning. Different words to refer to the males and females (or even castrated and uncastrated males) of the same animal species is non-Aryan in the first place.
Words currently used as synonyms in casual parlance should be made more distinct. To use examples from our propaganda activism, “freedom” should never be used as a synonym of “liberty”; “duty” should never be used as a synonym of “responsibility”; “race” should never be used as a synonym of “ethnicity”; “nature” should never be used as a synonym of “biosphere” and so on. (Also, none of our team members are ever to be described as a “Messiah” no matter how awesome you think we are. “Superhero” will do just fine.) As this process begins, we will see an spontaneous increase in vocabulary relating to subjects that occupy a high priority in Aryan thought, along with decrease in vocabulary relating to subjects that occupy a low priority in Aryan thought.
“There was originally in all the Aryan languages a case expressive of locality, which grammarians call the locative. In Sanskrit every substantive has its locative, as well as its genitive, dative, and accusative. Thus, heart in Sanskrit is hrid; in the heart, is hridi. Here, therefore, the termination of the locative is simply short i. This short i is a demonstrative root, and in all probability the same root which in Latin produced the preposition in. The Sanskrit hridi represents, therefore, an original compound, as it were, heart-within, which gradually became settled as one of the recognized cases of nouns ending in consonants. If we look to Chinese, we find that the locative is expressed there in the same manner, but with a greater freedom in the choice of the words expressive of locality. “In the empire,” is expressed by kuo cung; “within a year,” is expressed by i sui cung. Instead of cung, however, we might have employed other terms also, such as, for instance, nei, inside. … The people with whom language grew up knew nothing of datives and accusatives. Everything that is abstract in language was originally concrete. If people wanted to say the King of Rome, they meant really the King at Rome, and they would readily have used what I have just described as the locative; whereas the more abstract idea of the genitive would never enter into their system of thought.” – Max Mueller
“The chief objection that I have to Pantheism is that it says nothing. To call the world “God” is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word “world”.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
“Logic would bid us, whilst we’re giving up a word, also to give up the thing this word signifies. It wouldn’t be honest to retain the thing whilst repudiating the word.” – Adolf Hitler
External link: Terminology and glossary guide for fighting games
Maybe after we destroy Zion we can get back to talking about video games and other good stuff.
The above are only a few instances of how language will change as Aryan culture takes hold of it. The full metamorphosis will take a long time, and even some aspects of grammar (or at least sentence structure) may undergo alterations in the process, in addition to vocabulary. For example, grammatical gender will be eliminated from all languages which currently use them. The general trend of such alteration must always be simplification, never complexification, and with particular emphasis on removal of irregularity.
“It is very likely … that the gradual disappearance of irregular declensions and conjugations is due, in literary as well as in illiterate languages, to the dialect of children. The language of children is more regular than our own. I have heard children say badder and baddest, instead of worse and worst. Children will say, I goed, I coomd, I catched; and it is this sense of grammatical justice, this generous feeling of what ought to be, which in the course of centuries has eliminated many so-called irregular forms. Thus the auxiliary verb in Latin was very irregular. If sumus is we are, and sunt, they are, the second person, you are, ought to have been, at least according to the strict logic of children, sutis.” – Max Mueller
Additionally, we should expect the emergence of an Aryan accent. In an Aryanist society, effort should be made to encourage everyone to speak with the same accent in order to avoid regional differences, class-based stratification, residual intonations from foreign language backgrounds and even gender divergence, all of which have the potential to divide society. The Aryan accent should emphasize phonetic accuracy over habituated complications in pronounciation, and hence disregard conventionally silent letters in favour of respect for the actual spelling of a word.
“I pretended not to hear, although I was sitting right in front of him. He repeated it several times, but without result. When he had identified me, he asked me why I didn’t answer. “My name’s not Itler, sir. My name is Hitler.”" – Adolf Hitler
“I recalled, also, the title chosen by the most Aryan of all the Pharaohs, Akhnaton, son of the Sun, to be adjoined to his name through the ages: Ankh-em-Maat — Living-in-Truth.” – Savitri Devi
In an Aryan society, the so-called ”honorific” style of titles (Mr., Mrs., etc.) of the old bourgeois convention would no longer be used, as there is nothing actually honourable about it. On the other hand, this does not mean we follow the undifferentiated communist style of calling everyone “Comrade”. Instead, our folkish National Socialist style is to address people in formal settings using their occupational titles.
Such a style is typical of political and military occupations; we simply extend it to include all occupations, thereby acknowledging and appreciating everyone’s unique contribution to society. In communication where there is reason to de-emphasize occupations, or where generality is required, the folkish title “Citizen” should be used. Non-citizens can be titled according to their own self-proclaimed tribal identity. For example, in National Socialist Germany, Jews were given the title “Israel” (if male) or “Sara” (if female). Gentiles can be given equivalent titles pertaining to their geneaologies.
In informal settings, first-name address is fine. What is unacceptable, on the other hand, is asymmetrical address in the sense of a senior addressing a junior by first name but requiring the junior to address him by title – the mark of a hierarchical society. In a folkish society, either both sides use first names or neither side does; anything else is dishonourable and unworthy of compliance by Aryans.
Similarly, a folkish society cannot tolerate multiple personal pronouns of varying levels of deference (a feature of many hierarchy-heavy languages) which are then used for asymmetrical personal pronoun address. Under National Socialist government, such languages would be reformed so as to leave only a single personal pronoun for each grammatical person (ie. no more than one word for “I”, no more than one word for “you”, etc.). Until then, Aryans should at all times practice symmetrical pronoun address in conversation. In short, the “T-V Distinction” must be phased out.
External link: T-V Distinction
As for choice of names for Aryans, most obviously the names of Jewish and Gentile champions are to be avoided. (Note that this does not necessarily mean Biblical names as a whole are to be avoided, on the contrary the names of Biblical adversaries of Yahweh would be fine choices.) When names are chosen for etymology, the meanings should aim to reflect our values or aspects of our prehistoric lifestyle, rather than those of the other root races.
“It must be regarded as a survival of an ancient custom, which originally signified: “See, I have no weapon in my hand!” I introduced the salute into the Party at our first meeting in Weimar. The SS at once gave it a soldierly style.” – Adolf Hitler
The correct way to salute an Aryan
The correct way to salute a Jew
Communication occurs not just when we actively conversing, but whenever anyone looks at us whether or not we are aware of them looking. Facial expression and body language send strong signals to observers; despite all the Zionist lies heaped upon National Socialist Germany, NSDAP rallies still manage to look heroic on camera and give off a completely unique, romantic vibe, because they were indeed different and expressed what they were in each smallest motion. (Editing by Leni Riefenstahl obviously also helped a lot, but she still had to know what to edit for in the first place.)
For street activism in groups, paramilitary deportment is essential in order to present our movement as an orderly and unifying force. Activists should march in formation to and from any event and organize themselves based on following orders down a chain of command. But deportment compatible to our folkish outlook is important even when we conduct ourselves as individuals in daily interactions.
We should never try to do several things at once, but should only engage in a single activity at a time, so as to focus our energy rather than divide it. When we are talking to others or listening to others, we should not be doing something else at the same time. This means that either we should stop what we are doing in order to give the other person our full attention, or else we should ask the other person to wait until we have finished what we doing. Nor should we even allow ourselves to think about something else while doing something, or while someone is talking to us. If we find our minds wandering, we should take a brief break and then resume rather than carry on with only half our attention. This is actually standard procedure for physically dangerous tasks such as use of firearms or power tools or operation of motor vehicles; we merely recommend extending it to communication.
“Nobody will have the courage to say: ‘Gentlemen, I am afraid we know nothing about what we are talking about. I for one have no competency in the matter at all.’ Anyhow if such a declaration were made it would not change matters very much; for such outspoken honesty would not be understood. The person who made the declaration would be deemed an honourable ass who ought not to be allowed to spoil the game.” – Adolf Hitler
We oppose the popular notion that people need to “grow thicker skins” as an appropriate response to disrespect in social communication. In our worldview, anyone who fails to recognize and feel violated by disrespect from others is also incapable of treating others with respect, and therefore more sensitivity, not less, is what we need in society.
Much of a culture’s characteristics is discernible from what is considered polite or impolite, which differs widely between cultures. In Aryan culture, sincerity makes for politeness, and insincerity makes for impoliteness. Whatever is sincere, as long as it is not cruel, implies faith in the recipient’s fortitude to deal with what is said, and thus is fundamentally respectful to the recipient. Whatever is insincere, regardless of its apparent content, is an insult to the recipient’s intelligence, as it suggests the recipient is incapable of detecting the insincerity as well as incapable of handling the truth.
Directness is part of sincerity. If one wishes to know what another thinks of something, for example, one should ask the other person directly so long as he is readily available for communication, rather than try to obtain this information behind his back via a third person. If one wishes to tell another something, similarly, one should deliver the message in person wherever possible.
“A man who is serious about the maintenance and welfare of an institution will not allow himself to be discouraged when the representatives of that institution show certain faults and failings. And he certainly will not run around to tell the world about it, as certain false democratic ‘friends’ of the monarchy have done; but he will approach His Majesty, the bearer of the Crown himself, to warn him of the seriousness of a situation.” – Adolf Hitler
Manners obfuscate sincerity, therefore our society must never be one of manners. Greetings, thanks, best wishes, farewells and other friendly expressions should either come from the heart or not be given at all. Children in particular are emphatically not to be instructed to perform such expressions for the sake of manners. As long as they are aware that such expressions exist, they will spontaneously give them when they sincerely want to, and never otherwise, which is as it should be. Children pressured to greet, thank, etc. someone they dislike have been conditioned to be slaves.
“We don’t become intoxicated with sounds. When we open our mouth, it’s to say something.” – Adolf Hitler
The notion of a “white lie” is to be considered patronizing rather than considerate. The same is to be considered of false compliments. Moreover, no information (e.g. bad news about loved ones, pessimistic medical diagnoses, etc.), no matter how potentially traumatic, should ever be purposefully withheld from one entitled to know it, except on occasions when he has explicitly requested not to be disturbed during a certain time interval. Otherwise, at most it can be delayed for a brief moment in the interest of not breaking his concentration on his immediate task.
In general, due regard for anyone engaged in a task is important. Except in the face of true emergencies, others should try their best not to disturb him. All offers of assistance in the task should be made prior to the beginning of work; once work has commenced, no further offers of assistance by others should be made, as this could adversely affect the confidence of the worker by implying that he needs help. If during the course of the task the worker finds that he indeed needs help, it is up to him to request it.
One delegated to do a task is obliged to inform the delegator of any relevant changes in circumstance, or of how the task is going in general. The delegator is not obliged to (and should not) regularly “check up on” the delegate in order to ask how the task is going, as again this could adversely affect the confidence of the delegate. In absence of news from the delegate, the delegator is only to assume the task is proceeding smoothly and steadily. (If it turns out otherwise, the delegate thus demonstrates that he is undutiful.)
Temperament should not be hidden. If you are in a bad mood, it is generally better to announce this fact to others at once, than to try to conceal it and risk others wondering inconclusively whether or not they might be responsible for your upset. People can only accomodate what they know about. To hide a bad mood is the social equivalent of using painkillers to numb a headache; it is bad for longer-term health.
“Complaining is the bowel movement of the soul. We do not need to make a capital offense of it. We get along with such people. They are just like us. We complain too when something goes wrong or we make a mistake. But that is that, and one gets back to work.” – Joseph Goebbels
Joy should also be openly expressed without reservation. There should be no need to wait for birthdays or other pre-designated festivals for friendly meetings or giving of presents; if you feel an urge to see someone or give a present to someone, do so at once! There need be no reason for such an initiative beyond the feeling of affection itself.
On the other hand, falsified displays of emotion are unacceptable, and far worse than hiding real emotions. If you do not internally feel the emotion, to externally simulate it is dishonourable towards whomever is watching. Sincere emotive communication is about a real emotion from one person generating a similarly real emotion in another person. In this light, to keep a real emotion in oneself hidden from someone else is for the most part merely reticence (which is always regrettable but in many circumstances understandable), but to use a fake emotion from oneself to generate a real emotion in someone else is manipulation (which is unforgivable). The only case in which keeping a real emotion hidden counts as manipulation is when it is done with the calculated intent of generating emotion in someone else.
“This teacher had no authority at all. The boys were afraid of him at first, so it seems—because he used to howl like a madman. Unfortunately for him, one day he was caught laughing immediately after being angry. The boys realised that his bouts of anger were mere play-acting, and that was the end of his authority.” – Adolf Hitler
All disagreement in views should be expressed unambiguously and at the earliest possible opportunity. How to do this without sounding aggressive or mean should be a matter of empathy rather than of tact. In particular, all disagreement should be positive. Any criticism of an idea that is unaccompanied by a suggestion of a better idea does not deserve to be taken seriously.
A genuinely humble person would never feel a need to make his humility known. Active self-deprecation during communication is not humble at all, but is actually an attempt to impress the other side with an exhibition of one’s “humilism”, indicating to us self-consciousness and hence lack of genuine humility. (Genuine humility is purely about not allowing compliments received or positive reputation gained to lead inwardly to conceit, and has nothing to do with outward reactions.)
One practice that will be considered supremely vulgar in an Aryanist society is pranking. In an empathic culture that reveres sincere emotions and dedicates itself to precise and accurate transmission of honest thought, and in which deception is only permissible as a war tactic (as expounded by David Myatt: “A man or woman of honour may use guile or cunning to deceive sworn enemies, and sworn enemies only, provided always that they do not personally benefit from such guile or cunning and provided always that honour is satisfied.”), the use of lies as entertainment should be regarded as at most criminal and at least as certain evidence of barbarism. Pranking (by which we refer not only to elaborate setups, but to even the slightest instant of insincerity for the purpose of entertainment, including for example giving false information or expressing false emotion) is, in essence, use of its victims’ trust in the prankers to frighten or embarass the victims in some way. Besides being a form of non-physical violence – betrayal of trust - instantly recognized as such by all honourable minds, its practical effect is to condition victims against emotional commitment in future interactions to guard against being pranked again, which then lowers the quality of all subsequent communicative experiences that the victims are able to have - even with sincere companions. Prankers are psychological polluters. If this makes us “humourless” in non-Aryan parlance, so be it. That non-Aryan cultures lambast every kind of unorthodox romantic relationship despite sincere emotion on both sides, yet hold a neutral or even positive opinion towards pranking, shows us abundantly that they have not a clue what they are talking about. (Actually, it is inaccurate to say we are humourless. Our humour consists in highlighting the irony and ridiculousness already present in the world, just as in everything else our emphasis is on cleaning up the mess that already exists instead of adding to it.)
If there is a unifying principle of Aryan etiquette, it is this: communicate with others each day as though it were your last day in the world. Just as use of language reaches its highest quality when we understand the limitations of language, so etiquette reaches its highest quality only when we feel the limitation in our remaining time available to communicate.
“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 … a test of courage, of nerve, of character, of personal honour itself.” – David Myatt
While it is generally preferable to settle interpersonal disputes through reasoned discussion, duelling must always be available as a recourse in order to ensure an honourable resolution where discussion proves inadequate. Any society in which duelling is illegal is a society that does not value honour. That litigation has replaced duelling in most modern societies runs in parallel with democracy replacing autocracy; the root in both cases is the idea that popular opinion (be it of a jury or of an electorate) is more valuable than personality. With this said, it is an Aryan duty to never duel over trifling matters of ego, but to duel only based on noble motivation, such as in defence of innocent victims under oppression. Hitler spent much of his spare time trying to prevent ego-based duels involving NSDAP members: “Hess was there, with his wife and sister-in-law. In comes a half-drunk student, who permits himself to make some impertinent remarks about them. Hess asks him to come out of the inn with him and clarify his views. Next day two hobbledehoys come to see Hess and ask him to explain the insult to their comrade! I forbade Hess to become involved in this ridiculous affair. … We had an irreparable loss in Strunk … His wife was insulted — he was killed. Where’s the logic? In 1923, Dietrich Eckart was simultaneously challenged to a duel by sixteen or seventeen flabby adolescents. I intervened, and put the whole affair in good order.”
To arrange a duel, the challenger must issue his challenge publicly, and the challenged must either accept or decline publicly. If the challenged declines, he must publicly issue a personal apology regarding the issue over which offence was taken, and must satisfactorily compensate the offended. If the challenged accepts, the duel should proceed as promptly as practically possible, with at least one additional witness from each side plus an impartial referee acceptable to both sides (in a National Socialist state, police officers would referee duels as required). To ignore a challenge, or to fail to show up after the duel has been scheduled, would be criminal offences in a National Socialist state.
“I challenged these individuals to a duel with deadly weapons, according to the etiquette of duelling, because of the dishonourable accusations they made against me in books and articles written by them and because of the rumours they had spread about me. I sent them a personal challenge, and also made my challenge public. I did this because I believe in the concept of personal honour – thus, this is the honourable thing to do when such accusations are made. I do not regard the so-called “Courts of Law” in this or any Western land as honourable or as allowing for personal honour, and therefore cannot in all honour have recourse to them in such matters… Both of these individuals refused my challenge and thus I considered my honour vindicated, in public just as I considered that by refusing this challenge they have shown themselves to be dishonourable and cowardly. Accordingly, whatever they have written about me can be dismissed – it is the product of dishonourable cowards. Furthermore, anyone of any honour has a duty to dismiss the writings, the rumours, the ramblings, the opinions, of such people…” – David Myatt
Duelling is not about skill, but about mettle – that is, whether or not one is ready to die for one’s beliefs. Thus, not only must duelling equipment be deadly, but the best duelling equipment creates an encounter in which skill does not significantly improve chances of survival. For example, an unarmed duel is a very poor duel. A sword duel is also a poor duel. Either of these pose little risk to a combat expert facing a novice. A dagger duel is better. A double-dagger duel is better still. A poisoned double-dagger duel is even better. These increasingly allow a less skilled combatant a greater chance of killing the more skilled combatant provided the former is willing to sacrifice his own life to do so. A handgun duel is among the best duels in this respect. Not only are bullets virtually impossible to parry, but also someone who has been fatally shot by a single round might still be able to return fire before dying. Indeed, for handgun duels, David Myatt stipulates: “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.”
To duel in present-day societies where deadly duelling is illegal, we recommend simulations using harmless weapons (e.g. paintball guns), but which require the duellers to agree that suicide will be committed afterwards as appropriate to the results of the simulations.
Our aim to restore duelling in culture is not necessarily because we want a lot of duels to occur in actuality, but for the sake of re-ordering society so as to give social leverage to those ready to die, as opposed to those with money to hire expensive lawyers, or those who know how to be popular with juries, or those otherwise capable of pulling bureaucratic strings in the legal system, or else those who would rather deploy thugs and assassins to terrorize and kill dishonourably.
“One of the most noble of Muslims was Ali. … At the battle of the Trench he fought with Amr ibn Abd Wudd because nobody else had the courage to accept the challenge. Amr ibn Abd Wudd was the most famous warrior in Arabia at that time, renowned for his swordsmanship. … Ali had a set of principles which he applied in all situations whether of war or of peace. In the battle of the Trench, the Muslims and the pagans saw a demonstration of the application of those principles. Whenever he confronted an enemy, he offered him three options:
1. Ali presented Islam to his opponent. He invited him to abandon idolatry and to accept Islam. This invitation made Ali a missionary of Islam in the battlefield itself.
2. If the enemy did not accept Ali’s invitation to accept Islam, he advised him to withdraw from the battle, and not to fight against God and His Messenger. Fighting against them, he warned him, would only bring eternal damnation upon him in the two worlds.
3. If the enemy did not accept the second option also, and refused to withdraw from the battle, then Ali invited him to strike the first blow. Ali himself was never the first to strike at an enemy.
Amr ibn Abd Wudd disdained even to consider the first and the second options but accepted the third, and struck a mighty blow with his ponderous sword which cut through the shield, the helmet and the turban of Ali, and made a deep gash in his forehead. Blood leapt out from the wound but Ali was not dismayed. He rallied, and then struck a counter-blow with the famous Dhu’l-Fiqar, and it cleft the most formidable warrior of Arabia into two…..” – David Myatt
(Contrast the above with the cowardly way in which David (Jew) killed Goliath in the well-known story from the Tanakh.)