Sunday, June 11, 2017

A Tremor along the Fault Lines of Justice

This event which occurred quite some time ago is seemingly perennially relevant, and is based upon my viewing of :

A short documentary about murder inside the black metal scene. Varg Vikernes of Burzum killed Euronymous of Mayhem in 1993. There are several resources used which tells the real truth and reason behind murder.
That is the short description of the video which documents the events involving Varg Vikernes as just described. There are some issues which, however one may feel about the persons and actions involved, stand out as difficult, if not impossible to deny, and present themselves as problems for Varg in my analysis, going from the particulars of his case to the general issue of the Rights of Man.

One problem with Varg's story, from a legal standpoint, is that he went to meet a man whom he suspected of having murderous intent toward him, and to be armed, and to have a deliberate plan for killing him. And he visited him on terms he suspected to be disingenuously given by this same asshole whom he didn't and shouldn't trust. That's the first problem. So the same evidence that characterizes his act as self-defense (his knowledge of the motive and method, and the identity of his would-be murderer), gets him into trouble as to HIS OWN intentions (because knowing identity, motive, and method, HE fairly supplied the very opportunity!). 

The second problem is that he went there armed, under the state of knowledge that he had. That aggravates the notion that he went to fairly supply an opportunity for a crime to be attempted (like baiting or entrapping, when the cops do it, which is far too often), and so he raised the stakes for both parties in a way that prevents a worse case scenario (going there like a dupe and making his enemy's fantasy a reality), but creates ANOTHER problem, which is that going there at all is problematic, but going armed and with the will to kill in self-defense if necessary, is basically waging private war, albeit a war of self-defense given the grounds. It is engaging in a deadly feud, not merely being the victim of one. And that can only be done right or is stupider than doing it at all (or not at all, depending on your view), and to do that, one MUST go armed AND with the will to kill at the right time (which is probably at the first meaningful opportunity... given that just going there and saying hello is to invite being killed!). I reference the simple wisdom of General Patton to the defense of that assertion.

This creates a third, and this a moral problem, (whereas the first two were pragmatic). If going there unarmed would be stupid for a special reason that he would be visiting an enemy with deadly intent who both plans evil against Varg and has the means to carry it out, that is, stupid either because he goes at all or if he were to go unarmed or without the will to kill if necessary, then that means he must go armed and with the will to kill if necessary, just to avoid being THAT stupid

This creates a fourth problem. So as not to be stupid, he had to be cunning, and go armed, knowing, or believing, that he would be going into a likely kill-or-be-killed situation with a clumsy, would-be assassin. Doing this, under these conditions, with the will and knowledge that he had, that is to wage private war, which is not only illegal, but prohibited by the cult of the state because it is their own special weapon which no one else may use (it's their "power"). The law is the public face of what has a deep, sordid private aspect. So they have monopolized exactly what Varg has done "on his own". 

Such a thing might not be shameful, because he seemed like an alright guy compared to his foil who, if stories are true, was a sadistic miscreant who did plan to do a foul deed to him beyond being just killing him. In this aspect it might even seem just like Varg were an honest citizen investigating a crime, or a vigilante out for justice, or if he were in a uniform, a detective who was investigating a conspiracy to commit murder, a murder against himself... (let's call him a very brave and brash investigator if he were on the police force). 

But even in any of those cases, including the hypothetical police Detective Calahan scenario, it is indistinguishable from going to visit the guy, and doing so specifically in order to kill him, though in self-defense. He knew what might transpire, or though he knew, and he did go there armed, and he did pursue his would-be killer until a lethal, perhaps simply self-defensive, stabbing of his attacker ensued. If his story is true, then he went there to confront him, not necessarily to kill him, but if his story is true as he stated it, then in this knowledge he intentionally catalyzed the actual event, in a sense helping his enemy commit the intended crime.  On this head, Varg used his knowledge of his enemy's intent to take tactical advantage by going along as if unwitting with what might have been a ploy to harm him.  That is, in effect, to take the fight to the enemy, and that is a method of warfare, where a force will gain intelligence of the enemy's plan, then go along as if not knowing, at a key moment surprising and getting the better of his would be lier in wait. The problem is, that's one of the most prohibited acts a civilian can take, which is to preemptively seek out someone who plans harm, and to be prepared to use force against them should they attempt it. It borders on entrapment when objective evidence is insufficient, and it is indistinguishable from calculated retaliation when the person threatened engages in it.  Either way, only the military actively gets away with it, or intelligence agents, or law enforcement, or criminal miscreants that work privately as outright criminals for hire for corrupt elements of those groups. They are protected by a thin bureaucratic line, which is tenuous at best for them, and this works only if it can be plausibly denied, and only as long as those involved can claim to be doing so for the best interest of the public, as their duly appointed officers with that specific authority, whether to defend the Constitution, or the public safety, or an individual, or themselves (here in the line of duty).

So this all creates a vexing problem for Varg.  Knowing that an honorable killing by way of duel was basically the intent, they couldn't let him get away with it or they'd have by precedent ignored their own standing policies for internal control and public justification for their authority to use force in defense of the law. Officially, those who judged Varg could do so only because they claim that they themselves are the only one with the right and duty to approach Varg's would be killer, and that Varg hadn't the right to do so on his own behalf, let alone any duty to do so.  When those who have the official right and duty engage persons to neutralize their violent intentions or actions, they still tend to utilize forces who have no special interest in the subject they are pursuing, treating it as an abstract matter which they are handling on behalf of the public. Elements of this class will use their authority to take care of matters of personal importance to themselves, but only let themselves get away with this for special reasons under centralized control, as it is a "precious resource" in their eyes, which they will guard jealously, even within their ranks. Abuse of authority, even among this select group of people, is a perk that is managed according to a pecking order.  So Varg. perhaps upright and cunning as he may be, should also have understood that the state wouldn't let him get away with this, this being what they have refused as a right to private individuals and made only their own, private privilege to carry out as a public duty FOR any such individuals, as well as for themselves on the side in certain special cases ...  Varg was not in that pecking order, nor did he operate according to its preferences or interests, so they put him in a secure confinement that resembles a very nice group home.

It seems Varg actually suspected this outcome was possible, and probably became sure of it at an accelerated rate as the case proceeded.  So it seems his anger, as he would admit himself, got the better of his concern for such a fate, even to the point of being willing to risk death or imprisonment. What ire!

I say such ire is right in principle, and that people should be able to settle their disputes of honor in ways that are satisfying and primal, and that dueling and blood-feuding should be admitted by the constitution of a just land, admitted to be men's RIGHT, not just the overall basic right of the state, and hence those who represent it's legal authority, perhaps spuriously and corruptly!  It is more the right of all men than it could be of a select few who were simply voted into that position.  It was once the case that this would be voted on strictly by the warrior class, the military and police, if you will, and not by every namby pamby person and numbskull.  But modernity in our world is tantamount to the going from what is often bad, to what is definitely and always far worse.

Lord Shiva, a Warrior par excellence without peer, will address such a world with the purest Ire you can imagine, and much worse besides. Unlike Odin, he will not be killed by the demons he slays, nor his hand stayed or punished by anyone.  So I'd say that while Varg may be guilty of a crime by the sociopolitical law and by custom, he is not guilty of violating any moral or natural laws.  This situation can be improved only by enabling such disputes to be settled openly and rightly, just as they would have been by honorable men throughout the past.  And then we can say "may the best man win" instead of creating an unnecessary and very debasing category of "naughtiness against the law". Who would you rather have around if Varg's story is true?  Eronymous, or Varg, if it had to be one of the two?  Someone who will plot to torture and assassinate you in a snuff film, or someone who would put at end to that sort of evil, at least for himself (and possibly those he loves), if not for anyone else. Look at the sheer hypocrisy of the status quo on this issue, for this is a Right in principle, and you may surrender it, but it can never be given to you or taken from you!  As Etienne de la Boetie relates in his political philosophy, a Sovereign isn't possessed with different Rights than a subject, but rather he is simply exercising His Right, which all his subjects may also inherently possess, but who, unlike their Ruler, have opted not to exercise theirs in favor of His being exercised, supposedly in their best interests as His subjects...

This can only have a limited, highly conditional plausibility for a person to have done this, such as when we defer to another's trusted expertise, superior virtue or faculties, or better objectivity or position in which to act, which are all conditions that vary between persons, situations, and objectives and are not immutable nor irrevocable.  The Scales of Justice weigh these and all other nuances, whether men do so or not who pretend, presume or truly happen to be Just.  Such Justice, though seemingly abstract or grandiose as a notion, is actually the most forceful and final reality whose substance is truly sufficient.  Especially as regards any systematic and pernicious obstruction to Their application to any matter!

These Scales, Weights, and Measures of Justice have been counterfeited by those which are unbalanced, crooked, and unjust. This corruption is as vast as the world as we know it.  The damage is just as irremediable as it is corrupt and vast.  There can be only one possible result, therefore. Since common sense and honor will not prevail among these beings from within and among them; and since all this has been and is increasingly becoming a mockery of not only Fate and Destiny, BUT OF VIRTUE AND SPIRIT; and since it is systematic, worldwide, and both ancient and unremitting; because, in other words, it is sheer evil lunacy, then the only outcome that there can be is destruction. Because Justice and Right have been themselves plotted against by the social networks of scheming hypocrites of this world.  And that is how the world sealed its own Fate, in trying to bypass Fate and secretly dictate to men, in order to co-opt and subvert the Best Men and the Best in Man.  Such a world cannot be fit to exist, cannot be redeemed, and must end with an inglorious result, a justly destructive rebuke!

No comments: