View Poll Results: Dos honor have a reasonable, valid basis?

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. The feeling of exclusivity and posession is necessary for the homan mind somehow.

    58 93.55%
  • No. It is largely the product of rules of a certain society, obsession and prejudice. It is dispensable and counterproductive.

    4 6.45%
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51

Thread: History and Decline of Honour

  1. #11
    Senior Member Oskorei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 14th, 2008 @ 06:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Subrace
    Tydal/Litorid/Nordid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Location
    Gothenburrah
    Gender
    Politics
    Identitär
    Religion
    Indo-europeisk Traditionalist
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post Re: History and Decline of Honour

    Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

    I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

    A coward believes he will ever live
    if he keep him safe from strife:
    but old age leaves him not long in peace
    though spears may spare his life.


    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473

  2. #12
    Senior Member Lidvick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Monday, February 28th, 2005 @ 06:21 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Kansas , America
    Gender
    Politics
    Against Hypocrites Of Authority
    Religion
    Celtic/Druid/Shamanism
    Posts
    102
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: History and Decline of Honour

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

    I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

    A coward believes he will ever live
    if he keep him safe from strife:
    but old age leaves him not long in peace
    though spears may spare his life.

    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473
    I like Havamal my fav quotes would be :

    The unwise man thinks all to know while he sits in a sheltered nook, but he knows not one thing, what he shall answer if men shall put him to proof.


    There is one I can not remember but is somthing like this,

    Miserable is he who knows to much in wisdom for misery is upon him , or somthing like that.

    I can not seem to find this in the online versions I must of read it from a book in different translation.


    Lidvick

  3. #13
    Senior Member Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 02:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: History and Decline of Honour

    Quote Originally Posted by Oskorei
    Good quote. Even if it is fiction, it captures the essence of the old Germanic and Aryan world-view.

    I find a lot of that essence in the Havamal of Norse Heathenry too:

    A coward believes he will ever live
    if he keep him safe from strife:
    but old age leaves him not long in peace
    though spears may spare his life.

    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=15473
    Honour, EER, Ehre (It also exists in Arbeidt ar-)
    We never used the term at home, but the concept was omnipresent. The things not good to do <-> Honour for performance etc . Strangely in germanic languages er, ehr, ar, usually refer to honour and related terms. In English those words are mostly replaced (talking about honour)

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    Monday, May 1st, 2006 @ 11:26 PM
    Gender
    Posts
    811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: History and Decline of Honour

    Col. John Mosby and the Southern Code of Honor

    The study of Col. John Singleton Mosby, C.S.A. (1833-1916), the leader of the Civil War's most successful guerrilla command, presents important cultural findings of a man who truly became a legend in his own time. Through his own efforts to publicize himself as well as an eager Confederate press, the wartime image of Mosby emerged as a gallant knight, a defender of women and children, an inheritor of an ancient line of noble warriors. Union supporters meanwhile branded Mosby no more than a horse thief. At the close of the Civil War, Mosby simply disbanded his men rather than surrender their unit to the Union army. After the war, however, a new image of Mosby emerged -- one who supported reconciliation with the North.
    In the 19th century one's public image remained of upmost importance. Through a series of self-conscious acts, men and women created their character in the public eye to reinforce beliefs held in the existing society. Acting according to a particular code of honor was stressed, especially in the South. Fighting in the Civil War created an opportunity to manifest one's personal honor and set it on display.

    This project will argue that Mosby self-consciously created a persona that upheld the various characteristics that marked Southern honor -- a focus on outward appearance, a tendency toward revenge and violence, and an adherence to one's word -- an image the rest of the South was only too happy to accept and promote. The North, however, maintained different notions of honorable behavior, based not only on the circumstances of war but also on larger cultural distinctions. Often overlooked in the popular myth, Mosby's detractors used honor as a weapon against him, calling his surprise attacks cowardly and dishonest.

    Mosby's importance as a cultural object only can be truly understood in the context of the Southern code of honor's decline throughout the 19th century. As American society continued to become more concerned with class consciousness, secularism and egalitarianism, the code of honor slowly began to unravel. But the myth did not. The importance of Mosby as a representative of this lost "honorable" code of living has survived his historical and regional context. Despite efforts by critics to de-mystify Mosby, his legend survives to this day as a prototypical American hero -- fiercely independent, innovative in his practice yet stubborn in his ideals.
    Introduction
    A Brief Biography
    Honorable Violence
    Physical Appearance and the Code of Honor
    Mosby and Oath-taking
    The Mark of Gentility
    The Tradition of Chivalry
    Mosby and the North
    Mosby After the War
    Last edited by Appalachian; Friday, June 10th, 2005 at 08:39 PM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 01:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    http://encounterbooks.com/books/hohi/hohi.html

    Honor: A History

    by James Bowman

    The importance of honor is present in the earliest records of civilization. Today, while it may still be an essential concept in Islamic cultures, in the West, honor has been disparaged and dismissed as obsolete. In this lively and authoritative book, James Bowman traces the curious and fascinating history of this ideal, from the Middle Ages through the Enlightenment and to the killing fields of World War I and the despair of Vietnam. Bowman reminds us that the fate of honor and the fate of morality and even manners are deeply interrelated. His book is an indispensable document in a time of growing concern about the erosion of values.

    “What an engaging book James Bowman has written, and what a daunting command he has of his material. Ranging across psychology, popular culture, military history, the arts, and politics, Honor is a tapestry of the 20th century that uses a neglected thread-the evolution of the complicated bundle of values that goes into the concept of honor-to explain how our culture got where it is today. Honor gives that rarest of gifts: a new, powerful way of thinking about a familiar history”

    — Charles Murray, author of Losing Ground

    “James Bowman has written a profound and important book, at once fascinating and alarming, on the changing fortunes of the idea of ‘honor’ in America and the West. Faced with the energy and the implacable hatred of the barbaric version of honor in radical Islam, our long-term survival may well depend on the reinvention of a form of honor suitable to free and democratic societies.”

    — Robert Bork, author of The Tempting of America

    “What an engaging book James Bowman has written, and what a daunting command he has of his material. Ranging across psychology, popular culture, military history, the arts, and politics, Honor: A History is a tapestry of the twentieth century that uses a neglected thread—the evolution of the complicated bundle of values that goes into the concept of honor—to explain how our culture got where it is today. Honor gives that rarest of gifts: a new, powerful way of thinking about a familiar history.”

    — Charles Murray, author of Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences

    “You will gain a new insight on the first page of this book, and on the last, and there are fireworks all the way through, again and again. A real education, on a subtle topic—on a topic of unheard-of, silent, horizon-shifting importance, like the shifting of the earth deep below the surface.”

    — Michael Novak, author of On Two Wings

    James Bowman has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New Criterion and other publications. He was the American editor of the Times Literary Supplement of London and is currently a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Institute.

    Here's my review of the book:


    James Bowman's Sense of Honor

    The concept of honor has been at the basis of any true civilization throughout history. Over several centuries this concept governed matters of moral and social responsibilities. Yet over the past century or so, Western society has been rejecting this very concept, with the decline of cultural vitality and strength as the major result. This decline has only left the West vulnerable to attacks from Islamic fanatics (who still adhere to a primitive form of honor). If the West wishes to survive these attacks and eventually defeat its enemies, the West will have to rediscover its forgotten ideals of honor and valor. That’s the basic argument made by James Bowman in his new book Honor: A History. Within its pages, Bowman seeks to give an authoritative account of the development of Western concepts of honor and valor down through the ages: from its origins in the Greco-Roman world, to the Medieval concept of chivalry, to the Victorian gentleman, to its eventual decline during World War I to the rise of the “post-honor society” in wake of the Vietnam War and the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. Bowman then goes on to show how honor still has a place within the modern world, and it’d wise for Western society to recover at least some form of it.

    Although Bowman certainly deserves credit for attempting to bring light on a matter like this to the public eye, and to especially critique modern decadence with a call for a return to forgotten principles; yet as far as this work being an actual history of the development of Western concepts of honor, it’s not too impressive.

    For example, only a few pages are actually devoted to describing the concept of honor during the Middle Ages, which is perhaps the historical epoch Westerners most associate with honor. Exactly how on earth is that possible? We’re talking about the Age of Chivalry, and only five or so pages are dedicated to it!

    In fact when concerning the whole history of honor prior to the 20th century, one gets the impression that Bowman only glances over it very briefly; almost as if he wants to get to the modern era as quickly as possible. Only when Bowman starts getting more and more into the 20th century and describing the eventual decline of honor and the rise of the “post-honor society” does he seem to devote any kind of real attention to the matter. Why is this? Probably due to two important factors the author mentions within the pages of his book.

    Well within the introduction to the book, Bowman recalls his youthful days as an anti-war activist during the Vietnam era, lamenting the fact that he never served in the military. Furthermore, he laments the rampant decadence that was become all to prevalent within modern society and America’s supposed “weak” response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th (more on this later). So Bowman makes it clear that this book is largely intended to be a commentary on modern society rather than a full historical account of the concept of honor.

    This is further proved by the fact that Bowman admits to largely disregarding most scholarship on the matter, claiming that it is too full of liberal bias. Although I would certainly agree with Bowman’s basic assessment, however I think he simply uses this as an excuse in not having to do a more thorough scholarly work and to attack those who disagree with his positions. This is particularly true when Bowman pretty much knee-jerks Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity, for supposedly arguing that chivalry and terrorism are basically the same thing.

    Yet when it comes to providing an actual detailed historical account of Western notions of heroic masculinity and its development, Braudy’s book far outclasses Bowman’s work. Yet when it comes to describing the continual relevance of such notions in current society and into the future, Bowman shows more promise. Braudy is of the common opinion that modern society has basically outgrown any real need for a heroic sense of masculinity based on honor and such. Masculinity altogether needs to be redefined. Bowman argues the opposite, claiming that such ideals still have great relevance, but yes may need to be modified a bit in order to pertain to current concerns and needs. So in a sense, both works complement each other.

    Yet failing to give to a general historical account of Western concepts of honor is not the only flaw of Bowman’s book. His description of the relationship between the concept of honor and the Christian faith deserves a proper answer. Bowman at first praises Christianity for its immeasurable role in the development of Western culture. He even notes that Christianity was an important factor in making Western notions of honor far more unique from that found in other cultures. For example, the elevated status that women enjoy within Western honor is not found in other cultures, particularly the Islamic world.

    Yet despite all this praise, Bowman insists that at the heart of Christianity is a bias against the concept of honor. Christian teachings go fully against everything that honor stands for; and that the advent of chivalry and eventually the Victorian concept of the Christian gentlemen were nothing than an uneasy compromise between the two ideals that was doomed to eventual failure (in World War I).

    I can only say that Bowman doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The basis of the concept of honor is largely an adherence to high principles and maintaining the good will of ones peers. There’s nothing un-Christian about that. However, many times honor can too easily degrade into egotism and protecting ones pride and vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, and was a major element to the pagan sense of honor. The Christian sense of honor goes on the other hand condemns this, calling for a self-sacrificial adherence to ones principles. If one must endure severe insults to ones reputation in the name of a greater cause, then so be it. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian and the pagan concepts of honor.

    Yet it is the Christian sense of honor that Bowman seems to reject. Bowman declares that a man of honor must answer any challenge made to him, while Christian demands that a man turn the other cheek. Bowman wrongly claims that this means Christianity is pacifist in nature, it does not. CS Lewis gave wonderful insight into the question:
    "Does anyone suppose that Our Lord's hearers understood Him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?"
    Christ’s command to ‘turn the other cheek’ does not mean that the legitimate use of violence for purposes of self-defense is not acceptable. Rather Christ is telling his followers not to take the law into their own hands. Yet according to Bowman, a man of honor is supposed to take the law into his own hands, in the practice of the duel.

    There certainly is no doubt that the relationship between Christian teachings and the ideals of honor was complex, however Bowman fails to provide a proper account of it. A far better account of such is provided by Allen J. Frantzen’s Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War. Unlike Bowman, Frantzen actually gives accounts about how Christianity since its beginnings had a deep admiration for martial valor; which is clearly seen in Ephesians 6:10-18, where St. Paul calls on Christians to put on “the armor of God”, “the helmet of salvation”, and wield “the sword of the spirit”. Frantzen also explains in great detail the important role that Christ’s passion and death had on the development of chivalry. Frantzen also gives more detailed accounts about the Medieval development of chivalry and its 19th century revival.

    As mentioned before, the main value of Bowman’s work is largely detailing the decline of honor in modern society, and how a revival of such ideals can help drag us out of our rampant social decadence. Yet even here Bowman’s analysis is highly flawed, especially when dealing with the role of honor in America’s foreign policy. Long story short, Bowman advocates a Neo-Con policy of complete aggression towards the Islamic world, and that anybody who doesn’t agree with that is basically a liberal sissy who wishes to give in to terrorists. In other words, it’s a dressed up version of the famous "Dicks vs. Assholes vs. Pussies" rant made by the character Gary Johnson in the movie “Team America: World Police”. I’m sure Bowman could’ve done much better than that.

    Sadly this also destroys the potential value this book may have had. Bowman’s call for the revival of honor in the end is reduced as just another way of knocking off the liberal Democrats and an excuse for waging wars of aggression against the Islamic world. If this is what Bowman considers honor to be largely about, then count me out!

    That is not to say Bowman’s book is utterly worthless, it most certainly is not. However, one has to selectively absorb what Bowman is saying in order to get a true picture of the story.

    Also in fairness, at his website Bowman provides a collection of several articles and essays he’s written on the matter. In my opinion, these are of far better quality than many of the statements he makes in his book.

    So in a final and ironic twist, Bowman is correct in stating the West is need of reviving its now forgotten notions of honor and valor in order to maintain any kind of strength and cultural vitality. Yet the exact form of honor that Bowman advocates to fulfill that mission may not actually be what the West truly needs right now

    http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html
    Personal Virtues
    These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and, ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via Romana — the Roman Way — and are thought to be those qualities which gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize the world. Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and practice them in our everyday lives.

    Auctoritas: "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

    Comitas: "Humor" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

    Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness.

    Dignitas: "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

    Firmitas: "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

    Frugalitas: "Frugalness" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

    Gravitas: "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

    Honestas: "Respectibility" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

    Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

    Industria: "Industriousness" Hard work.

    Pietas: "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

    Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

    Salubritas: "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness.

    Severitas: "Sternness" Gravity, self-control.

    Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others.

    Public Virtues
    In addition to the private virtues which were aspired to by individuals, Roman culture also strived to uphold Virtues which were shared by all of society in common. Note that some of the virtues to which individuals were expected to aspire are also public virtues to be sought by society as a whole. These virtues were often expressed by minting them on coinage; in this way, their message would be shared by all the Classical world. In many cases, these Virtues were personified as deities.

    Abundantia: "Abundance, Plenty" The ideal of there being enough food and prosperity for all segments of society.

    Aequitas: "Equity" Fair dealing both within government and among the people.

    Bonus Eventus: "Good fortune" Rememberance of important positive events.

    Clementia: "Clemency" Mercy, shown to other nations.

    Concordia: "Concord" Harmony among the Roman people, and also between Rome and other nations.

    Felicitas: "Happiness, prosperity" A celebration of the best aspects of Roman society.

    Fides: "Confidence" Good faith in all commercial and governmental dealings.

    Fortuna: "Fortune" An acknowledgement of positive events.

    Genius: "Spirit of Rome" Acknowledgement of the combined spirit of Rome, and its people.

    Hilaritas: "Mirth, rejoicing" An expression of happy times.

    Iustitia: "Justice" As expressed by sensible laws and governance.

    Laetitia: "Joy, Gladness" The celebration of thanksgiving, often of the resolution of crisis.

    Liberalitas: "Liberality" Generous giving.

    Libertas: "Freedom" AVirtue which has been subsequently aspired to by all cultures.

    Nobilitas: "Noblility" Noble action within the public sphere.

    Ops: "Wealth" Acknowledgement of the prosperity of the Roman world.

    Patientia: "Endurance, Patience" The ability to weather storms and crisis.

    Pax: "Peace" A celebration of peace among society and between nations.

    Pietas: "Piety, Dutifulness" People paying honor to the gods.

    Providentia: "Providence, Fortethought" The ability of Roman society to survive trials and manifest a greater destiny.

    Pudicita: "Modesty, Chastity." A public expression which belies the accusation of "moral corruptness" in ancient Rome.

    Salus: "Safety" Concern for public health and wellfare.

    Securitas: "Confidence, Security" Brought by peace and efficient governance.

    Spes: "Hope" Especially during times of difficulty.

    Uberitas: "Fertility" Particularly concerning agriculture.

    Virtus: "Courage" Especially of leaders within society and government.


    True virtues for traditional masculinity European style!
    .

  6. #16
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    What is the justification for the Classical Rule of Order?

    That is, how did the Classical World justify its canon, its Order of Rank?

    It did so on the basis of its overriding need to subjugate the Chaos which is at the root of all existence, and to then impose Order on it.

    This is Fascismo.

    Cosmos out of Chaos.

    This in itself is reason enough - it is the whole reason ... to the rational man.
    But to the fanatic, to the enthusiast, to the intuitive, to the hysteric, to the believer ... it is never enough.

    The three great A's of Classicism;

    Agriculture,
    Aristocracy,
    Architecture.

    Yes, you CAN evaluate great politics, great art etc., by its very ability to impose Order, to present structures, frameworks, rules, laws, etc.,

    Ha! Up now! honour!
    Moral honour! European honour!
    Blow again, continue, Bellow-box of virtue!
    Ha!

    [Nietzsche, TSZ, Among Daughters of the Desert]

    Honour
    c.1200, "glory, renown, fame earned," from Anglo-French honour, from Old French honor, Latin honorem (nominative honos) "honour, dignity, office, reputation," of unknown origin.
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

    Quote Originally Posted by Taras Bulba
    The basis of the concept of honor is largely an adherence to high principles and maintaining the good will of ones peers. There’s nothing un-Christian about that. However, many times honor can too easily degrade into egotism and protecting ones pride and vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, and was a major element to the pagan sense of honor. The Christian sense of honor goes on the other hand condemns this, calling for a self-sacrificial adherence to ones principles. If one must endure severe insults to ones reputation in the name of a greater cause, then so be it.
    Isn't the Christian rejection of Pride, [ pride being central to the pagan notion of honour], a crucial factor in the decline of White Pride?

    Christianity 'moralised' honour, as you suggest, and rid it of everything that Christianity regarded as vain, egotistical and ... proud.

    But how can a proud people assert itself without Pride?

    Isn't a lack of pride the basic cause of decadence amongst White peoples?

    It wasn't that way with the pagan Germans. Their concept of honour [ere] was very different to the post-Christian concept of honour. Unfortunately the same word is used to render quite different concepts [leading to statements such as 'honour has always been important amongst great civilisations' etc., - but what type of 'honour'?]

    "Even if we say ... 'honor' ... we mean something essentially different by [this word] from that which our heathen ancestors meant. In any case, their concept has an entirely different nuance ...
    Above all, 'ere' should not be rendered as 'Ehre' [honor], ... the true meaning of the word 'ere' ... [is] defined as 'splendour, glory, the higher standing, partly that which arises from power and wealth, partly that which arises from courage and bravery' ...
    Scholars are fairly well agreed that 'ere' was an objective value, a good fortune without ethical overtones ... it denotes purely externally the esteem, the respected position etc.,
    ... 'Ere' was often the equivalent of 'dom', the most prevalent word for fame in the early Germanic days ... since 'ere', by definition, was also the approval or respect of other people, it would be incongruous to confuse it with 'inner honor'; and honour continued to be a worldly possession ...
    [from 'Honor in German Literature'];
    http://www.northvegr.org/lore/honor/002.php
    Last edited by Moody; Saturday, May 27th, 2006 at 06:53 PM.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 01:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Honor: A History by James Bowman

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless

    Isn't the Christian rejection of Pride, [ pride being central to the pagan notion of honour], a crucial factor in the decline of White Pride?
    No not really. There's a big difference between geniune love and egotistical pride. Christianity promotes the former, you promote the latter.

    But how can a proud people assert itself without Pride?
    It obviously cannot. But again, there's a difference between a geniune love for your folk and a egotistical pride in it. A perfect example of the latter is what commonly passes off as "patriotism" in America today. GK Chesterton went to some length explaining the difference as well:

    "The false patriot will boast of all the things that he can gain out of association with England: the true patriot will boast of all the things he will lose by association with her. To the false patriot England will be at best a sanity: to the true patriot she will be a sanctity. The false patriot will boast about the constant increase of England and sing songs about the accident of her prosperity. The true patriot will boast of her last battle and sing the song of her heroic fall."

    Within the egotistical pride mindset, your heritage must be the greatest in the world. With mindset of geniune love, your heritage only has to be your own. Whether it is the greatest in the world or not, that is irrelevant. Your love for it is unconditional, just like towards your family(again regardless whether it is the greatest family in the world or not).

    I think the decline of Europe has come about because over time, egotistical pride came to replace geniune love. And that eventually lead Europe's nations into disasterous occasions and that eventually caused revulsion among many.

    It only proves the Bible correct when it states "Pride comes before a fall, and arrogance precedes failure." (Proverbs 16:18)

    Isn't a lack of pride the basic cause of decadence amongst White peoples?
    No, in fact the current decadence is the final consequence of excessive pride among European peoples.

    It wasn't that way with the pagan Germans. Their concept of honour [ere] was very different to the post-Christian concept of honour.
    Didnt know there was a "post-Christian" sense of honour, but if you mean Christian sense of honour then yes. As I said, Bowman actually goes to some length explaining this. Christianity was the big influence in making Western honour unqiue among all the cultures of the world.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Honor: A History by James Bowman

    Quote Originally Posted by Taras Bulba
    No not really. There's a big difference between geniune love and egotistical pride. Christianity promotes the former, you promote the latter.
    I didn't mention "genuine love"; I just responded to your claim that Christianity rejected Pride.
    Is that what you actually meant, or are you saying that Christianity allows some kind of 'unegoistical' pride?

    there's a difference between a geniune love for your folk and a egotistical pride in it.
    Why can't you have both?
    Why can't you both love your race and be proud of your race?

    Love is nothing without pride!

    GK Chesterton went to some length explaining the difference as well:
    "The ... true patriot will boast of all the things he will lose by association with her [i.e., his country] ... The true patriot will boast of her last battle and sing the song of her heroic fall."
    So you agree with boasting!
    Isn't 'boasting' an example of the so-called "egoistical pride" you say that Christianity condemns?

    Dictionary definition;
    'Boast': To speak of with excessive pride.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=boast

    GK Chesterton, like all true 'men of the book', whether Jew, Christian or Moslem, could not allow that the love and pride of race and nation could exceed the love and pride of God.
    As he wrote;
    "The intellectual criticism of Fascism is really this:that it appeals to an appetite for authority, without very clearly giving the authority for the appetite".[GKC]

    Clearly, to such a one there is only one authority, and that is God.
    God comes before race & nation [and also before ego].
    And therefore, if it comes to the choice between them, God will always be chosen before race & nation.

    Essentially, the 'man-of-the-book' places the love of the Otherwordly before the love of the flesh-and-blood of this world.

    Within the egotistical pride mindset, your heritage must be the greatest in the world. With mindset of geniune love, your heritage only has to be your own. Whether it is the greatest in the world or not, that is irrelevant. Your love for it is unconditional, just like towards your family(again regardless whether it is the greatest family in the world or not).
    You must also be proud of your living family/race/nation for what it is, and must exalt that over all else - even over your 'God'.
    You must love your living family/race/nation for what it is - it must be dearer to you than even your God.

    For without the living family of flesh and blood there is nothing else; and even a God will desert such a nullity.

    Your God will just go on and find a another race to Father if He is to survive; or perhaps He will go extinct too.

    I think the decline of Europe has come about because over time, egotistical pride came to replace geniune love. And that eventually lead Europe's nations into disasterous occasions and that eventually caused revulsion among many.
    Wasn't your position that historically, Christian honour replaced Pagan pride in Europe?
    The subsequent cult of Love without Pride [moral interpretation of Christianity] has eventually lead to a Universalism which is inimical to Racial Pride.
    [Please be more specific about the "disasters" which caused "revulsion".]

    Christianity was the big influence in making Western honour unqiue among all the cultures of the world.
    The Christian version of honour was not identical with the pre-Christian and Pagan sense of honour, as the piece I excerpted made clear.

    The "uniqueness" of this post-Pagan and therefore Christian version of honour resides in its rejection of Pride as you said earlier.

    The West is indeed 'unique' in undermining its own racial pride.

    The rest of the world stands aghast as the West allows all races, all creeds into its homelands!
    The rest of the world is stunned when the West makes Racial Pride a crime amongst its own people!
    The rest of the world rubs its hands at this sense of 'honour', and craftily praises the West for displaying such 'unegoistical' tolerance!

    If a suicidal rejection of 'egoistical pride' is an example of 'Christian honour', then I think we are better off without it.

    Or I think we might rather inject a dose of Pagan Pride into our veins before all the blood is drained out of us.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 20th, 2009 @ 01:11 AM
    Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Subrace
    Uralic/Alpine/Pontid mixed
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    3,309
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Honor: A History by James Bowman

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless

    Clearly, to such a one there is only one authority, and that is God.
    God comes before race & nation [and also before ego].
    Yes, since God was the one who created the nations and races of the world(and even has the power if he so chooses to destroy them) it's common sense that devotion to God comes first.

    Of course you wouldnt understand that Moody. Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, a staunch Croatian nationalist himself, made clear the Catholic position on nationalism:


    "Modern racism blames the Church for not falling on her knees in front of its idols. But is ethnicity the highest human value? It is not, because it would otherwise have to be able to fulfill all human strivings and to make man blessed on earth. And that cannot happen; that should be obvious. And eventually, at death, all racial differences disappear. Therefore, man will not be justified in God's judgment by belonging to this or that race, but by honest life and good deeds. So if love toward a nation crosses the borders of sound reason, then it is no longer love, but passion, and passion is neither of use, nor lasting. . . . That is why the Church, in the matters of ethnicity, also puts forward this principle: what you do not want to have done to yourself, do not do to others! Love for a man's own nation must not make a man into a wild animal, which tears down and provokes revenge; it must make him more noble, so that he can gain the respect and love of other nations for his nation. Therefore love toward your own nation is not contradictory to love for the whole of mankind; they complement each other. All of the nations are children of God."


    He also once wrote these words to Archbishop Pellegrinetti:

    "I always felt horrible pain because of exaggerated nationalism, wherever in the world it rules. On its account man is no longer brother to another man, but becomes a wolf. Therefore, the next council of the Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism first among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest plague of the human race."


    Today he is rightfully honoured by the Croatian nation for his continual defense of his nation's right to existance against the Communists, but also stressed that true national devotion should not be built on a rejection of God nor on the baseless hatred of other nations.





    And therefore, if it comes to the choice between them, God will always be chosen before race & nation.

    Essentially, the 'man-of-the-book' places the love of the Otherwordly before the love of the flesh-and-blood of this world.
    You present a false dilemma here Moody. Christianity(or at least Catholicism) has never ever forced people to decide between devotion to God and devotion to ones nation. In fact Pope Pius X spoke these words to a gathering of French pilgrims on April 19, 1909:

    "If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion...Yes, it is worthy not only of love but of predilection that country (patrie) whose sacred name awakens in your mind the most cherished memories and makes quiver every fiber of your soul, that common country which has cradled you, to which you are bound by bonds of blood and by still nobler bonds of affection and tradition."

    In fact it was from Christianity that Europe adopted its concepts of nationalism and nationhood.



    You must also be proud of your living family/race/nation for what it is, and must exalt that over all else - even over your 'God'.
    You must love your living family/race/nation for what it is - it must be dearer to you than even your God.
    Yeah ok Moody....in other words you want nations to worship themselves, to become narcissists. Again, that's not love, but a perversion.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: Honor: A History by James Bowman

    Quote Originally Posted by Taras Bulba
    Yes, since God was the one who created the nations and races of the world(and even has the power if he so chooses to destroy them) it's common sense that devotion to God comes first.
    Of course you wouldnt understand that Moody.
    It's not that I don't understand that; the concept that "the nations and races of the world" were created by God is easy to understand. It is rather that I don't believe it.
    Not only do I disbelieve in such a 'creation', I also find it rather unacceptible that this one God created all of the nations and all of the races.
    Therefore, to a non-believer there is no "logic" in being devoted to God over one's own race & nation. Indeed, that would seem rather perverse, particularly when you tell us that this God was the Father of all the other nations and races and that we are all [irrespective of race & nation] his 'children'.

    Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac:" is ethnicity the highest human value?
    It is not ...[...]... and eventually, at death, all racial differences disappear. Therefore, man will not be justified in God's judgment by belonging to this or that race ...
    ... in the matters of ethnicity, [the Church] puts forward this principle: what you do not want to have done to yourself, do not do to others!
    ... love toward your own nation is not contradictory to love for the whole of mankind; they complement each other. All of the nations are children of God."
    This belief I find perverse in the extreme.
    Other nations and other races are the 'children' of their own Gods!
    The Gods of the black races of Africa have not fathered the Aryan peoples of Europe! [nor vice versa]!
    This belief [which is without evidence] in one God fathering all the races & nations of the world is the pernicious Father of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism.

    "... the next council of the Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism first among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest plague of the human race."
    Of course, to the religious fanatic, Nationalism is considered a heresy [the use of the qualifying word "exaggerated" is a red-herring]. Belloc listed Nationalism [exaggerated or unexaggerated] in his book of Modern Heresies.
    The reason is obvious; Nationalism [and racialism] challenge the belief in a Universal God who is supposed to be the Father of all mankind.
    Racial Nationalism says that my nation and my race are special and unique. And says that they are not fathered by Yahweh or by Jehovah, or any other Middle-eastern deity.

    In elder-times [pagan era] it was considered that the Nordic race and the Nordic tribes were descended from Odin, Tyr and Thorr etc., [i.e., from the specific gods peculiar to one race, and sharing the Blood of that race].
    It was never believed in elder-times that foreign races shared the same gods as our own or we theirs!

    Therefore the real 'logic' is this; when the particularist elder beliefs were exchanged for the universalist Christian belief, this paved the way for the debilitating idea that all of Humanity is One, and that it shares the same 'Father'.
    This is the very root of Anti-Racism.

    Pope Pius X spoke these words to a gathering of French pilgrims on April 19, 1909:"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion..."
    Isn't non-White immigration an enemy?
    Even if those non-whites are Catholics?
    If the Church supports the immigration of non-whites into your country then hasn't the Church actually become that 'enemy'?
    Hasn't it then ceased to be a "divine religion"?
    By their deeds ye shall know them.

    In fact it was from Christianity that Europe adopted its concepts of nationalism and nationhood.
    That I doubt very much. Tacitus & Caesar tell us [writing long before Christianity became the state religion of Rome and then by extension of conquered Europe] that the Germans were very much a pure race who jealously guarded that racial purity.

    We also hear in Tacitus of the proud nationalism of Herman [or Arminius] who fought against 'Roman slavery'.

    Herman The Cheruscan
    by Kveldulf Hagan Gundarsson(link):
    http://www.hammerofthorkindred.org/herman.html


    Herman - too Proud?

    in other words you want nations to worship themselves, to become narcissists. Again, that's not love, but a perversion.
    No; but it is you who are "exaggerating".

    However, if you are to be taken at your word, then I would say that national & racial egotism and pride is far preferable to universalism and self-hatred, if you really want to put the dilemma in that way.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Which Would Gain You More Honour?
    By Thrymheim in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Monday, October 6th, 2008, 10:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •