Symposium on Equality

Bundsman A: I find this concept of Equality as you describe it so deep within our people’s malaise. On the one hand, our ancestors really valued it, but at the same time they were race realists and lived by natural law more than we do. It is a contradiction that I think we in the mannerbund can work on elucidating more.

Are there precedents for this discussion of this paradox of Equality in religious history?

Bundsman B: Equality as a concept that means “equal treatment and application of the law” morphed into “all humans are equal in ability and nature”

Bundsman A: But even our ancestors didn’t believe this since blacks specifically didn’t have the same legal rights. Or am I wrong?

For example, within the bund we have hierarchy and equality.
I mean by that not that we have equal responsibilities or duties or roles, but equality in that the hand of the racial body is equal to the arm is equal to the chest or the heart. All parts of the body have a role.
Does that make sense?
Kind of like how men and women are not equal but each have critical roles for the racial body

Bundsman B: But is this equality?

There’s an inherent value of each part, sure, but they aren’t equal in their contribution or “value”. You can’t have the whole without a part though.

I struggle to see any modern application of equality

Bundsman A: Agree, and I’m trying to square this concept with what our ancestors were thinking.

Bundsman B: I think they were being idealists and that as our population grew so did a common sentiment that a man shouldn’t have more than you.

Just shooting off the hip here
The noble side I guess could be the dislike of being a colony and a loss of power in parliament. A different set of laws as a colonist.
But often times I think of equality preached by the man who doesn’t work hard and wants what his hard working neighbor has
There also a religious element here
Universalism was a big thing.
“We are all gods children, we are equal before him” was extrapolated out quite a bit I imagine.
I look to my feelings of equality when I was a liberal. It felt good to think everyone was more or less the same, kind of a smug good but also it was just pleasant that everyone was like me
That’s a big piece I think, we project and really want people to be like us.
The world had suddenly got very big and it was easier to make sense of it through that lens.

Bundsman A: It’s kinda feminine idealism though- it’s like the church just filled with cat ladies who are disconnected from the harsh realities of nature.
There were women like Hannah Dustin though who knew the score and even as a Puritan she used her axe

How far does it have to get for the Puritan to pick up an axe?
It’s like waking the Anglo Saxon.

Bundsman B: I think it really comes down to the differences between Europeans being small enough to have the moralistic nature of equality be useful for conflict avoidance

But not so much applied to the rest of the world.
We got tired of all the killing. Men would die so easily and for so many reasons 1500 years ago.
We put moral system in place to lesson the killing

Bundsman C: Equality was a French Republican trick. Universalism prior to the Articles of Confederation and formal independence was distinguishable from seperatism.

Bundsman A: So you feel it was only French influence and there was no Anglo tradition of equality?

Bundsman C: Sorta kinda. We quickly became allies with the French to oppose the Motherland. But the influence from the Continent began earlier. If that makes any sense.

Bundsman A: Thinking about where this tradition of equality came from, I’m personally more likely to look at the English Civil War and places like Holland for equality influences that shaped our country

An idea of overthrowing human hierarchy and using a republic as a way of ruling was a Pandora’s box for equality

Maybe it went all the way back the Greeks? Fundamentally, a republic must have shared leadership, which implies equality

Spartans had an interesting idea of “citizenship” which carried some level of equality but they were also a very hierarchical society- think about their relationship with the helots.
Athens was more of an “equality for all” kinda place from my basic impression, but the masses were easily swayed by an oligarchy that was talented with rhetoric. The first use of gibs for votes.The contradictions are baked into equality from the beginning

Bundsman B: I see “equality” in oaths to our shared code of honor and in the concept of brotherhood
But is it the same root equality?

Bundsman A: When looking at history- an honest discussion of these contradictions would be what a true education could provide.
It’s like talking about contradictions in ShakespeareReally gets you thinking. As a side note- these discussions about history are what the current system suppresses. No nuance in the discussion of history. Either all good or all bad. No discussion of contradictionsIn an honest way

Bundsman D: Equality amongst equals is very different from the modern concept.
Greek democracy was also much more limited than it is currently pushed as being. It’s another distortion of history to say “we’ve always been like we have been in 2021”

Bundsman A: I like that phrase- “equality amongst equals” – how do we expand on that?

Bundsman D: Depending on the context you could think of the Spartan citizen soldier: you must carry your shield to have the rights and honors that come along with your station. Or the ideal of noblesse oblige that an Athenian councilman had. In a nutshell, the idea that to be a citizen there were certain responsibilities that needed to be met.
There was a caste system like anywhere else at that time – slaves and even freed slaves never had the same rights as citizens, including the ability to have political representation.Obviously I’m generalizing thousands of years of history, and there were times when other forms of government were ascendant – autocracies, hegemonies, etc

Bundsman B: As in our brotherhood we desire for men to earn their titles

Bundsman A: So part of it seems to be honors and recognition of status. Maybe part of it is an acknowledgment of dependency? We are dependent upon each other- like the man to your right with a shield or the heart to the brain for your body.
The brain fails without the heart and therefore they are both equal?
Someone who doesn’t carry a shield is not “equal” and someone who doesn’t contribute to the racial body isn’t “equal”?The word “equal” still falls apart for meIt’s like grasping at water

Bundsman D: The way I see it is that our shared responsibilities to each other grant us certain benefits and status.

Bundsman A: Yes- more responsibilities entail more benefits. No “equality” in benefits

Bundsman B: Most references to equality in law about are application of the law, but they are now also filled with discrimination as a barrier to “equality”
We obviously understand that it is madness to tell a man he cannot use things like race and gender to tell you certain things about a personBut what they mean by equality in this case is that the only reason there is an unequal outcome is because of discrimination, there’s that egalitarianism This is the type of wording: “RACE- Race is a socially constructed system of categorizing humans largely based on observable physical features (phenotypes), such as skin color, and on ancestry. There is no scientific basis for or discernible distinction between racial categories.”That’s the center of their ‘equality’
I’d go as far as to say I don’t even believe in equal application of the lawI would punish a man higher up in the hierarchy more harshly for cowardice than I would a peasantA foreigner in my lands would likely not be subject to the same laws. Different laws for women and childrenWas the hierarchical system under feudalism perfect? Of course not. But at least there was hierarchy.

Bundsman E: I disagree actually. I think law needs to be simple. Otherwise lawyers proliferate and they’re almost as bad as Jews.
If it was different laws for different parts of our people, I think that’d be too complicated.
Keep laws simple. Don’t have too many. When we’re talking about equality under the law for the society of the future I’m on board for that.

Bundsman B: Yeah I’m thinking far from now
Idealistic, not practical on the groundAnd by laws, I think I mean application of the law, as in punishmentTheft by a child different than theft by a grown man
We do that nowBut yeah I’m as cautious about an overburdened legal system as anyone
Saying all this is to recognize just how little equality there is to be found, if any at allIt’s almost an attempt to do away with honor and reputation on a fundamental levelIf we are all citizens, or bundsmen, does that make us equal? Of course it doesn’t. Men have reputations that raise or lower them in social status and respectBeing a bundsmen itself places a man above the masses and illustrates inequality At every level of the hierarchy there is a sub-hierarchy to be found within that level

Bundsman E: But I think any Bundsman deserves systematic legal process.
When he is accusedOr when he is hurt.

Bundsman B: In practice or in theory?
Let’s say I break an oath to one of youWould my punishment not be greater than an initiate?In practice, in actuality Shouldn’t it be?

Bundsman E: I’m not sure.
I’m thinking more along the lines of property disputes.Say you have a property dispute with a Brother next door neighbor in Bund City.How’s that get resolved?

Bundsman B: By an established system to determine the factual matters of the boundary

Bundsman E: But it’s disputed. So both sides might think they’re right.

So do we have a system that’s impartial to your rank and his rank? Are both men’s statements and evidence that they put forward weighed equally? Is the magistrate of this system impartial?

Bundsman F: I would hope between the two of them.

Our need to systematize really neuters us.

We create these super structures of thought and rules that on the one hand works in general, but on the other hand it makes us reliant on third and fourth parties, bureaucracies, tomes of litigation. It is no wonder the Jews chose us as their parasitic host.

Bundsman D: Any crime committed by someone of a high rank already carries a more severe punishment because they lose their status, benefits, etc on top of whatever criminal penalty exists.

Bundsman B: There also the reality that the responsibility is greater for the man of high status and I think that make his crime more severe

The damage to society by a high status man committing a crime in greater than a low status

It harms the fabric if you will

Bundsman D: Noble obligations need to be enforced

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *