We are a nation of liars. Fortunes are made and nations now conquered on
the backs of outrageous lies. We are governed by the professional
classes, the most respected members of our society — MBAs, lawyers,
CEOs — professional liars, all. (The American university system is
designed to teach one lesson to its students, and only one: how to lie.)

A man has two tools to display his manliness, to show how big a dick he
has: deeds of daring through violence and lies. The banishment of
violence has left man with no alternative but to sharpen his tongue for
battle: in the courts, the office, the media, in his own home.

With the banishment of violence comes the wilting death of honor. Few
now can bear that word without a laugh. Honor? What is that? How
embarrassing. Something from the Middle Ages, right? Bringing up honor
leaves us feeling uncomfortable, vaguely sensing there is something
wrong, unable to put our finger on what ills us.

Honor signifies that means do not justify the ends; that a man’s good
name is based on his methods, not his results; and that a good name
unjustly smeared is worth fighting and dying for.

Consider the following scenarios.

A man finds out another man seduced his girlfriend. He challenges the
man to a duel. The seducer, knowing that if he does not fight will be
seen as cowardly and dishonored, must fight. The wronged man shoots and
kills him. The wronged man’s girlfriend will, in the future, have the
good sense not to cheat on him, unless she wants her next lover to be
killed on the duelling field like the first one was.

A man kills his wife, hires a fancy lawyer and gets himself acquitted.
The father of the victim challenged the accused to a duel and kills him.
In the future murderers will know simply winning the lying contest known
as a trial will not be enough, they may have to face down the gun barrel
of an angry relative of the victim.

A large corporation is found to be polluting a nearby river. Hundreds of
people have sickened and many people are developing strange and unusual
cancers. One man, whose family has died, challenges the CEO of the
corporation to a duel, and kills him. In the future corporate management
will take care before “accidentally” dumping toxic chemicals into the
local rivers and streams, all in the name of profit.

As I am not a lawyer it remains unclear whether enacting statutes
permitting and regulating duelling should be done on a state-by-state
basis or at the federal level. As opinion is likely to vary from state
to state, and it is generally easier to bribe a state legislator than a
federal one (oh for the good ol’ days), it will probably make more sense
to implement this at the state level.

Special duelling fields will need to be set up where men may fight
without stray bullets venturing beyond its confines. An armed sheriff or
police officer will need to be in attendance to inspect the weapons and
ensure a fair fight; firing before the signal is given shall be
punishable by being shot down by the presiding police officer.

Depending on each state’s tastes, each dueller should be permitted only
one, two, or three bullets in their pistol; a duel with 15-shot
automatic handguns would most likely result in mutually assured
destruction, which is not the point of duelling at all. (Although
special “duel-to-the-death” statutes could also be enacted, if you were,
say, a legislator in Texas.)

One of the thorniest questions involved in the legalization of
duelling is the question, must a man challenged to a duel fight the
duel? That is, may a man be forced to fight a duel, or, say, all his
property be forfeit?

Most people would probably say avoiding a fight to the death is a smart
thing to do. Under our current moral code, there would be no stigma
attached to refusing to fight a duel — instead of the coward being
dishonored, he’d be slapped on the back for “doing the smart thing”.

Such a scenario would, of course, completely neutralize the desired
effects duelling would have. Therefore I must conclude laws must be
implemented mandating that a man challenged to a duel must fight.

There would need to be some sort of exemption to this for our elected
officials, or else Congress would be quickly depopulated and the White
Houses constantly changing occupants. I would propose that, much as
members of Congress and the President are exempt from ordinary
prosecution while in session, they be also made exempt from being
required to accept a duel while in office. (However the moment they
leave office they would no longer be bound by this statute, so they
should think long and hard about how they conduct themselves in office.)

There should, of course, be a waiting period; say, two weeks. Let the
challenger be sure a duel is desired. This will also give both a chance
to practice their marksmanship before the final day.

Inevitably the feminist is going to pop up asking why I have only used
the male pronoun in this essay. But don’t worry, ladies, I propose there
be an equal system of duelling for women. First, men and women will not
be permitted to duel — just because he dumped you doesn’t give you the
right to shoot him.

Rather, I propose that special ladies’ duelling rings be set up. No
firearms or pointy objects will be permitted; rather, these duelling
rings will contain bleachers, so that we may watch female contestants
settling their differences by pulling each others’ hair and clawing each
others’ eyes out. The winner would, of course, receive any proceeds,
minus that local jurisdiction’s fees.

The use of seconds would no longer be necessary. Originally seconds were
present to ensure a fair fight, and assist the wounded; but this
function would more reasonably fall to the presiding sheriff and an
ambulance waiting outside the arena.

The re-introduction of duelling will put a damper on the excesses of
unfettered, unchecked laissez-faire capitalism; reduce infidelity and
the transmission of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases; teach
a whole new generation the value of honor; and cut enormous amounts of
waste out of our judicial system.

Write to your state and federal legislators now and tell them you want
duelling legalised!

– this essay originally appeared at www.jensporup.com/essays.

The Fascist State desires to have citizens of a certain type: namely,
obedient. A questioning, wondering, thinking citizenry is by definition
a threat to the Fascist State.

The thing we must remember, also, is that in general fascism is
something the majority of people desire: they wish to be ruled by a
strong hand, they wish to obey, they wish to lose the omnipresent
burden of self and the painful options of choice available in a truly
free society.

Computers, I am beginning to think, and specifically computer games, are
a cultural expression of a desire to give up free will and be ruled by
autocratic fascist forces.

Let’s consider the model of most computer games. The player must go on a
virtual journey, killing monsters, collecting valuables, advancing
levels, and finally defeat some evil baddie at the end in order to win
and make it into the list of high scores.

At each step the player must do only one of a very few things or his
character, his avatar, will die. A computer game is generally not a
venue for creativity, but for learning specific response mechanisms,
without which the player’s avatar will most certainly die.

(It should be noted there are a very few computer games that do involve
and encourage creativity; but their lack of popularity proves my point:
no one wants to think during his time off.)

Consider the effect this sort of learning has on the human mind,
especially the developing young mind. The lesson is clear: to succeed
and get ahead, there is a narrow band of options that will take you to
the top. Any deviation, any creativity, anything resembling free
thinking or exploration will lead to inevitable failure.

Computer games are also highly addictive. They are designed to be. You
always want more. Dying only makes you want to play again and get
further ahead, like a lab rat in a maze, obediently solving the puzzle,
all for the sake of a digital piece of cheese that does not even exist
in the real world.

It is as though an XBox were some sort of pagan deity, before which we
sit cross-legged, bowed, as though in worship or prayer, with a joystick
(the word: a joy stick!) between our legs, attempting to please the
god-in-a-box, receiving a steady IV drip of calmative anti-psychotic
digital drug each time we kill a monster or collect some virtual
treasure.

This is true of computer use in general as well. The convergence of
fictional computer games and computer-aided real life should not be
underestimated. Information in general now becomes that anti-psychotic
drug: what else can explain the unbearable itch to check your email
every five minutes?

Why waste hours chatting on instant messenger when you could pick up the
phone and just call the person? With skype you can call anywhere in the
world for about $.02/minute — is it really “just to save money” that
you IM? Or is it to spend time, to get rid of time, to force the digital
hour hand to move faster, to obliterate the hours that might otherwise
be spent thinking unspeakable thoughts, engaged in the horror of self-
examination?

There is, of course, no ultimate satisfaction to be found in computer
games, any more than television or summer movies provide the catharsis
of true drama. The aim of all three — computer games, television, and
the summer blockbuster — is to leave you wanting more, craving more,
tickled but, at bottom, never ultimately satisfied.

It is only by putting the citizen on a hamster wheel of always-craving-
more than he can be kept tame, kept down, kept submissive.

This sort of entertainment, or rather, propaganda, creates the sort of
citizen the United States of America wants: obedient, unreflective,
compliant individuals who don’t ask questions, salute the flag, and
worship Jesus. Hallelujah.

– this essay originally appeared at www.jensporup.com/essays.