It used to be recognized as honorable that a man went to work and earned the means of taking care of his family.
Then all those miserable writers of the '50s came along and won prizes for novels and short stories and plays about how miserable a thing it was to be trapped in the dreadful daily routine of going to work and earning the means of taking care of a family. The wife and children became enemies of a man's inherent dignity. They were the parasites who destroyed his any hope of finding his true unencumbered self.
And John Cheever with the short story "The Enormous Radio"--and them Angry Young Men who dominated postwar British playwriting and the grim films made from their work--
--honor is certainly to be found in getting up early every day and taking the subway to one's shitty office job downtown because the baby needs diapers and milk and you love the baby and the woman who bore him to you. Perhaps time to mock out of existence the voices saying otherwise.
I don't disagree completely, but there needs to be something in it for men besides the responsibility of providing. Contemporary society strips them of authority while expecting them to 'man up' regardless.
I read an essay last year or so via Twitter on the purported glory of war as exemplified in Homer, and I disagreed absolutely with the author's thesis and conclusions, which held to this topic of honor, and he replied cordially enough but it was of course my woman's perspective that was so off-kilter.
But Homer in my view showed the absolute waste and futility of war; it was remarkable that a work of such a time should have portrayed so unflinchingly the cost to women and children and society of guys flailing around making mincemeat of each other because of that concept of "honor."
I've always thought Sam was the truest hero of The Lord of the Rings, and he found his fulfullment in being a family man, and Tolkien knew what he was talking about.
Even Beorn, my hottest fave, was really a home and hearth sort of guy too.
Consider that this is your woman's perspective; historically, the woman's perspective has never really understood war, and why it attracts men so readily. So it is not surprising that you feel this way.
Consider also that as the woman's perspective has come to predominate in our social order - leading to e.g. the virtual disappearance of casual violence, forget about war, even fist fights are incredibly rare now - the male spirit has withered.
There is the woman's perspective on what they think they wish men were, and there is what men actually are. Put another way, if you try to turn your lion into a vegan, you will end up with a sick lion, and ultimately a dead one.
Yes, see - that's very much a woman's perspective, that male vigor is primarily useful in defense of women and children. And it IS important for that, obviously. But that isn't the whole story.
Here's the problem. In a world where all of the men are always in a defensive posture, there's nothing to defend against, and that vigor gets flabby. Along with everything else. The men start to rot. Not good for men, not good for women.
There needs to be a certain background, baseline level of aggression in the world to keep the edge sharp, in other words. The optimal level is probably something like, too much violence for women to be entirely comfortable, but not enough violence for men to feel fully satisfied. Right now we're very far into the 'too little' category, which is why so many men are sad and neurotic. Their spirits want to be dueling and going on cattle raids, but there is no possibility of this in modern, ultrasafe society.
This goes back to that predator/herbivore discussion of the other day. Them lions sleep because of the energy expenditure required for hunting and then tearing apart and digesting the meal. It's a very delicate balance.
There's war, and then you get war-games like sports which breeds useless hooliganism because that hunger for an actual kill hasn't been satiated.
Before we had reasonably competent medicine society could count on a lot of war leading to plenty of death even amongst the victors. Burning off the excess manliness and leaving just enough behind to keep things running.
But this over-romanticizing of that manliness is in my view the luxury of the thinking class.
I've been writing a book on Bushido for the past year and I took a deep dive into Honor, among many other virtues. There's a section in there about "Honor over Money" which looks at how feudal warrior cultures structured society - and where the merchant sat in the that structure. I battled with the libertarian / Austrian econ part of myself as I worked through this.
I might put an excerpt of this chapter on the blog at some stage.
Anyway - just dropped by to say that these podcasts are a great idea. Very high signal.
Elevating the Vaisya above the Kshatriya was a mistake imo. The Indians set their caste system up as they did for a reason. The axial role of a virtuous elite is indispensable in maintaining the proper alignment of society.
Indian castes are really just a formalization of the same social structure Indo-European society has had for 5000 years. Until recently, and the new way is an ill fit.
For sure man! Later this year or early next. It’s with the publishers now. Follow my Substack here or my Twitter @SvetskiWrites and you’ll know when it goes out
Honor is a goal to strive for. Something intangible but acknowledged by oneself and others in an otherwise chaotic world. To achieve higher than oneself. No wonder it’s lacking in a world bereft of spiritual frameworks in the western world.
I have a slight advantage when it comes to the topic of 'Honour'.
First, I was born in 1943, when honour was still a word with everyday currency.
Second, I was raised in a family in which books were the most valuable of possessions and I had everyday access to the books of three previous generations, in which the word 'honour' was prominently featured, and in myriad contexts, not just in accounting, warfare, relationships, commerce, sport, or winning and losing.
Third, the family motto of all Ryans is "Death is preferable to Dishonour.
I should add the caveat of British Empire context, balanced somewhat by the stridently counter-Empire sentiment of the ultra-Irish Ryans.
Thus, the word 'honour' continues to be part of my thought vocabulary, but I have occasionaly tossed it into conversations. For example, a decade ago, I was present at a hot debate on football club decisions and in which all participants appeared to flounder when it came to suitable criteria upon which to form judgement. Eventually, I interrupted with the comment that "the club had abandoned its sense of honour; that it had behaved dishonourably".
There was a stunned silence and I figured that, once again, I should have just kept my mouth shut. Then the club president and coach stood up and addressed everybody saying that, over time, we had entirely forgotten that most important of behaviour guidelines and values... Honour. When I left an hour later, everybody was still discussing 'Honour', and its supreme importance as the most basic value.
I relate that story because it suggests that if we commence using the word 'Honour', it will once again have currency. Personally, I think most men would find life a helluva lot easier to navigate if they are guided by Honour. The right thing to do, whatever the context..
It has other expression: "You must be true to yourself"; "You cannot deny your culture"; "The values that were handed down by our parents and grandparents are the most important values in life".
It is no coincidence that the globalist-created UN has inculcated student schoolteachers with the directive to "sever the intergenerational transfer of values" of children. What they ultimately target is the destruction of family. Basically, the words 'homour' and 'family' are indivisible, leading on to a code of behaviour that ensures the survival of cultural integrity, which in turn flows to regional and national sovereignty and patriotism.
Not only the family is severed. That's a mere means to an end. What they wish to annihilate is the golden thread that binds us to the past, the source of all meaning in a temporal world.
May 14, 2023·edited May 14, 2023Liked by John Carter
Men crave self annihilation, back in the day it was found in war. Now they kill themselves in disgust. To bet ones life is the way of dying with dignety.
I think I just proved the premise of your statement incorrect from a strictly logical standpoint, but still seems to be a kernal of sad truth in it. Maybe not all men think alike?
Nice discussion on an under-explored topic. The best presentation when I considered this topic several years ago was “Honor: A History” by James Bowman.
It used to be recognized as honorable that a man went to work and earned the means of taking care of his family.
Then all those miserable writers of the '50s came along and won prizes for novels and short stories and plays about how miserable a thing it was to be trapped in the dreadful daily routine of going to work and earning the means of taking care of a family. The wife and children became enemies of a man's inherent dignity. They were the parasites who destroyed his any hope of finding his true unencumbered self.
It's quite revealing, John Updike's review of Jarrell's The Animal Family. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/08/01/specials/jarrell-fly.html?scp=8&sq=Fly%2520by%2520Night&st=cse
And John Cheever with the short story "The Enormous Radio"--and them Angry Young Men who dominated postwar British playwriting and the grim films made from their work--
--honor is certainly to be found in getting up early every day and taking the subway to one's shitty office job downtown because the baby needs diapers and milk and you love the baby and the woman who bore him to you. Perhaps time to mock out of existence the voices saying otherwise.
I don't disagree completely, but there needs to be something in it for men besides the responsibility of providing. Contemporary society strips them of authority while expecting them to 'man up' regardless.
However, there is more to it than that.
I read an essay last year or so via Twitter on the purported glory of war as exemplified in Homer, and I disagreed absolutely with the author's thesis and conclusions, which held to this topic of honor, and he replied cordially enough but it was of course my woman's perspective that was so off-kilter.
But Homer in my view showed the absolute waste and futility of war; it was remarkable that a work of such a time should have portrayed so unflinchingly the cost to women and children and society of guys flailing around making mincemeat of each other because of that concept of "honor."
I've always thought Sam was the truest hero of The Lord of the Rings, and he found his fulfullment in being a family man, and Tolkien knew what he was talking about.
Even Beorn, my hottest fave, was really a home and hearth sort of guy too.
Consider that this is your woman's perspective; historically, the woman's perspective has never really understood war, and why it attracts men so readily. So it is not surprising that you feel this way.
Consider also that as the woman's perspective has come to predominate in our social order - leading to e.g. the virtual disappearance of casual violence, forget about war, even fist fights are incredibly rare now - the male spirit has withered.
There is the woman's perspective on what they think they wish men were, and there is what men actually are. Put another way, if you try to turn your lion into a vegan, you will end up with a sick lion, and ultimately a dead one.
Well, there's women and there's women. I'm of the sort that recognizes the essential and necessary ferocity required in defending one's own.
Yes, see - that's very much a woman's perspective, that male vigor is primarily useful in defense of women and children. And it IS important for that, obviously. But that isn't the whole story.
Here's the problem. In a world where all of the men are always in a defensive posture, there's nothing to defend against, and that vigor gets flabby. Along with everything else. The men start to rot. Not good for men, not good for women.
There needs to be a certain background, baseline level of aggression in the world to keep the edge sharp, in other words. The optimal level is probably something like, too much violence for women to be entirely comfortable, but not enough violence for men to feel fully satisfied. Right now we're very far into the 'too little' category, which is why so many men are sad and neurotic. Their spirits want to be dueling and going on cattle raids, but there is no possibility of this in modern, ultrasafe society.
A little leisure has always been bad for men.
This goes back to that predator/herbivore discussion of the other day. Them lions sleep because of the energy expenditure required for hunting and then tearing apart and digesting the meal. It's a very delicate balance.
There's war, and then you get war-games like sports which breeds useless hooliganism because that hunger for an actual kill hasn't been satiated.
Before we had reasonably competent medicine society could count on a lot of war leading to plenty of death even amongst the victors. Burning off the excess manliness and leaving just enough behind to keep things running.
But this over-romanticizing of that manliness is in my view the luxury of the thinking class.
PS: It's when the reasons for fighting are faulty that too many of the problems arise.
Great episode gents.
I've been writing a book on Bushido for the past year and I took a deep dive into Honor, among many other virtues. There's a section in there about "Honor over Money" which looks at how feudal warrior cultures structured society - and where the merchant sat in the that structure. I battled with the libertarian / Austrian econ part of myself as I worked through this.
I might put an excerpt of this chapter on the blog at some stage.
Anyway - just dropped by to say that these podcasts are a great idea. Very high signal.
Keep them going!
Sounds like a very interesting book.
Elevating the Vaisya above the Kshatriya was a mistake imo. The Indians set their caste system up as they did for a reason. The axial role of a virtuous elite is indispensable in maintaining the proper alignment of society.
It’s going to have a special angle. Hopefully have it published before years end if I can manage to juggle everything.
I’m not too familiar with the Indian castes but just had a look. And yes - I’d agree with you.
Nobility serves a role, and there’s a code that comes with being noble that transcends anything material.
That’s lost on moderns.
Adding this to the next rabbit hole.
Indian castes are really just a formalization of the same social structure Indo-European society has had for 5000 years. Until recently, and the new way is an ill fit.
INDO-ARYAN
An ill fit indeed, all slaves must be equal
I am a huge fan of all things pre-modern Japan, please let me know how I can get my hands on your book, I NEED it for my collection.
For sure man! Later this year or early next. It’s with the publishers now. Follow my Substack here or my Twitter @SvetskiWrites and you’ll know when it goes out
Thanks so much man I cant wait
Honor is a goal to strive for. Something intangible but acknowledged by oneself and others in an otherwise chaotic world. To achieve higher than oneself. No wonder it’s lacking in a world bereft of spiritual frameworks in the western world.
I have a slight advantage when it comes to the topic of 'Honour'.
First, I was born in 1943, when honour was still a word with everyday currency.
Second, I was raised in a family in which books were the most valuable of possessions and I had everyday access to the books of three previous generations, in which the word 'honour' was prominently featured, and in myriad contexts, not just in accounting, warfare, relationships, commerce, sport, or winning and losing.
Third, the family motto of all Ryans is "Death is preferable to Dishonour.
I should add the caveat of British Empire context, balanced somewhat by the stridently counter-Empire sentiment of the ultra-Irish Ryans.
Thus, the word 'honour' continues to be part of my thought vocabulary, but I have occasionaly tossed it into conversations. For example, a decade ago, I was present at a hot debate on football club decisions and in which all participants appeared to flounder when it came to suitable criteria upon which to form judgement. Eventually, I interrupted with the comment that "the club had abandoned its sense of honour; that it had behaved dishonourably".
There was a stunned silence and I figured that, once again, I should have just kept my mouth shut. Then the club president and coach stood up and addressed everybody saying that, over time, we had entirely forgotten that most important of behaviour guidelines and values... Honour. When I left an hour later, everybody was still discussing 'Honour', and its supreme importance as the most basic value.
I relate that story because it suggests that if we commence using the word 'Honour', it will once again have currency. Personally, I think most men would find life a helluva lot easier to navigate if they are guided by Honour. The right thing to do, whatever the context..
It has other expression: "You must be true to yourself"; "You cannot deny your culture"; "The values that were handed down by our parents and grandparents are the most important values in life".
It is no coincidence that the globalist-created UN has inculcated student schoolteachers with the directive to "sever the intergenerational transfer of values" of children. What they ultimately target is the destruction of family. Basically, the words 'homour' and 'family' are indivisible, leading on to a code of behaviour that ensures the survival of cultural integrity, which in turn flows to regional and national sovereignty and patriotism.
Not only the family is severed. That's a mere means to an end. What they wish to annihilate is the golden thread that binds us to the past, the source of all meaning in a temporal world.
And yes - honor is intimately related to this....
Daym nigga you old
As it happens, I am 80, Bala. But lived many lives in one..
I would just like to say hello - I saw you over at Luke's place and thought I'd check your place out.
Men crave self annihilation, back in the day it was found in war. Now they kill themselves in disgust. To bet ones life is the way of dying with dignety.
Men don't crave self annihilation, they realize manhood means sacrifice of oneself to an ideal.
I'm a man. I don't crave self annihilation.
I think I just proved the premise of your statement incorrect from a strictly logical standpoint, but still seems to be a kernal of sad truth in it. Maybe not all men think alike?
Dying with dignity though - that is my plan.
Better to burn out than fade away...
And man does not function on logic, it is not his fuel.
I'm not sure I agree with this in full.
I'd rather fade then burn.
But I'd rather burn then fade...
Tis a quandary.
Nice discussion on an under-explored topic. The best presentation when I considered this topic several years ago was “Honor: A History” by James Bowman.
(https://www.amazon.com/Honor-History-James-Bowman-ebook/dp/B0046REGJE/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=2GA3G47IT9YLI&keywords=honor+history&qid=1683914174&sprefix=honor+history%2Caps%2C99&sr=8-1)
Yes, that looks very good.
Zeus god of the Abrahamics exterminated mankind out of disgust, perhaps Aryan destiny is to mimic Skydad and pass judgement on humanity?