On honor

You sound like you're 15.

But it is something you have to go through, so you can know the evil to separate it from the good.

Please stop this nonsense. There is nothing wrong with war, hate, and anger. They are all integral parts to ourselves as human beings. It is how you express these things which can be honorable or dishonorable. Waring against and hating your enemies in honorable. Dying for a cause is the most honorable death any man could achieve.
The stigmatization of war, killing, and hatred are what keeps our race weak. Don't call it a lack of honor. Not doing these things are dishonorable.
I believe that violent men with a cause are more honorable and commendable than weak "nice" men just looking to get by.
I think you've fallen for the indoctrination that any strong "negative" emotion or action is dishonorable. Think about where you learned this idea, and who taught it to you.

Most people are not capable of separating good from evil. Most people follow the herd. What is important is that we retake the reins of society so that the majority of people are instilled with beliefs beneficial to our race.
Jewish indoctrination is not a "shit test" to make white men mentally stronger. It is meant to change society for the benefit of the jews.

If we want to have this discussion we must first define what honor is and to whom it applies.

For example: if an honorable group fights against a dishonorable group - should the honorable group fight honorably or not? Is fighting dishonorably against a dishonest enemy honorable?

The honor code of not killing children and women is an ancient one, and is well-versed with the medieval chivalric code.

The fact you think killing children and women is honorable means you are, in fact, dishonorable.

Yes.
You are sacrificing your people for a bastardization of an ideal. If honor is protecting your own, then doing anything to harm them is dishonorable, no matter how you rationalize it.

So instead of letting people know pain, you would literally not let them know pain exist.

It's dangerous to be honest, because there exists people that are outside the herd, and they will find out what pain is.

I define honor by the medieval chivalric code.

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe.

ancientfortresses.org/medieval-code-chivalry.htm

Think about it this way
Nits make lice.
If our Roman ancestors killed off the jewish race, then we would not be suffering from the issues we are today. In essence, our ancestors sacrificed the future of their people for the sake of their enemy's future.
Every time the white man has let the kikes once again slip away into the shadows, he damned his own progeny to suffer from the same fate, getting worse and worse each time.

Having compassion for your enemies is only a value for the white man. I can see the honor in not killing the women and children of enemies of your own race. But when it comes to foreigners, there should be no hesitation.

I think it is more honorable to protect the future of your race than it is to protect the lives of your enemy's children, their future.

Most people are not capable of some sort of cathartic growth and realization like you're implying.

Then your code of honor is subjective, while I'm talking about the generally-agreed upon honor code (be nice to women, defend the weak, always speak truth…).

Your honor is practicality more than honor, since you deem anything that is good for you "honorable".

There is a time for total war and there is a time for limited war. The concept of not killing women and children, or civilians in modern times, arose from Europeans battling each other for non-existential reasons. In a sense, this is a mutual survival strategy: you and your enemies both promise to limit your wars so to ensure the long-term survival of both your people and their people.

But this is, of course, a classical prisoner's dilemma game. As long as both sides honor the agreement, there is no problem. Wars essentially become arm-wrestling matches to determine the winners of a future disagreement, and both sides get to continue to exist, albeit not always at the same level of comfort.

But when we're talking about niggers, sandniggers, or taconiggers, they will break that agreement. Prisoner's dilemma, therefore, says that we should wipe them out before they wipe us out.

The jews the Romans fought aren't the jews of today, anyone with knowledge of the jews knows this.

Further more, how could the Romans have even possibly known. By this logic, the Romans should have killed all the germanic tribes as well.

This kind of chivalry is what led to the adoption of egalitarianism by our people. Remember that most of the arguments for feminism and racial integration was religious, specifically "Judeo-Christian".

My idea of honor is protecting my race at the expense of anyone who dares to attack or persecute them. Survival trumps all other ideals of man. Without our people, there is nothing.
Anything good for my people. Tell me, what is honorable about keeping jewish women and children alive if their decedents will return to terrorize your decedents? You sacrifice your race for the temporary pleasure of "forgiveness".

Well, dude, as I said, you invent and follow your own definition of honor then.

In fact, you are closer to the 15 year old mindset, where practicality (survival) is more important than the idealism (honor).

How many times have jews been driven from their European host? Hundreds? Instead of passing on the problem to brothers of your race or your decedents, how about we do the honorable thing and eliminate this issue for good.

Well, now it seems fitting that you identify as a Christian, or at least with their values. Christians would rather have their race die off than sacrifice their faith.
You should know that your idea of honor dies with with white race. If you cared at all for the future of the world you would get your head out of your ass about idealism.
When we are on the verge of extinction, there is no time to debate over the "honorable" way of killing our enemies. You simply kill them.

In all fairness it's a good code, and when times grew more modern, many of it was adopted into the code of the gentleman.

Thinking of which, how many codes of honor were there?

I know a few:
Bushido
Chivalry
The code of the Gentleman
are there any others?

Yes, but you can't blame the Romans for that, which is what I'm saying.

Also hello FBI.

Another shit thread for larping autists.

I'm actually a pagan, but the pagan honor code is close to that.

See the 9 virtues.

In fact, honor requires you to be less practical at times, and more idealism, because to maintain honor is to maintain idealism.

Every martial society has a honor code.

We should reserve honor for honorable enemies. The jews do not deserve an ounce of it. When it comes to them, honor is weakness.

Asatru and Odinist codes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Noble_Virtues

Relax FBI, don't you have some purple revolution to follow?

I do not disagree or agree to that, but yes, there's no point to be honorable with someone who isn't honorable.

Those are actually pretty good, especially the part about self reliance.

First time I've been called FBI.

Be on Holla Forums and not knowing about the 9 virtues, bah….

Wow. I sure am glad OP made this lazy thread.

>20 year old: the world is not what it was, but it can be again. Honor is not dead and lives in our hearts, we must destroy (((those))) who have eroded our culture and turned us into a mishmash of pain. Women are inherently followers and can be made honorable through culture shifting. 1488.

This thread is not lazy at all tho.

That's a practical definition, I like it.

But imagine the following situation: you are walking outside with your wife and kids and there are other families of your nation. Then you have groups of rapefugees which attack you and your family and the other families. You defend your own family, that is honorable by your very definition.

But what then? Is running away after having defended your own family honorable? By running away afterwards, you would have brought your own family completely out of danger. Or is it dishonorable because you will have failed the other families of your same nation?

Jews did 9/11. Never forget.

You have to remember that even in medieval times, people were debating about honor code.

When Charlesmagne, one of the enforcers of the chivalric code, sneaked weapons into Saxon chief meetings (where there was a honor rule where no weapons were allowed) and slaughtered defenseless saxons, Charlesmagne has brokered his and the saxon honor code. Yet this act saves potential hundred thousands or millions of franks and saxons, because the saxons were humbled after that.

I never got into pagan LARP threads, sue me.

...

I mean together with your family, not alone of course

That is quiet the conundrum, isn't it?

Jews did 9/11. Never forget.

The other families can take care of themselves, because within my nation I am only responsible for my own family.

No honor among atheist, it seems.

But germanic virtue of self-reliance is why every freemen must have weapons, so every men can be a warrior. A militarized society where the military IS the society instead of something existing outside of it like the Roman/modern society, quite marvelous.

Jews control NORAD & Andrews Air Force Base? I don't think so.

Yeah, and they were enslaved.

Oh I agree, I own weapons, as everyone in this thread should.

Also until fairly recently I considered myself Irish Roman Catholic, but fuck the Pope.

In the song of Roland, the muslim queen/queen of occupied Hispania was captured by Charlesmagne and then she converted to Christianity on her own.

Even then, western men have spread tales of empathy.

I disagree.

It depends. To a National Socialist it isn't much of a conundrum since NS is based on out group/in group and one for all/all for one thinking.

To give a similar example: you and your group of friends see an obvious European being beaten up by an obvious Kebab. Not going to defend him is unquestionably dishonorable.

I'm not saying that anyone would have the courage to do it but the morality of it is very clear.

Yes, but they were exceptions typically reserved for aristocratic families. If you were an unimportant peasant and lost a war and were enslaved, good luck not being enslaved.

Everyone in NS nation should carry their own weight but still you have an obligation towards your people, because they are your extended family.

Exactly.

Honor is for aristocrats.

I'm a working stiff, and simply don't have any issues to confront that involve honor.

honor is for knights and ladies, neither exist anymore. You exist in a kiked world, adapt and overcome. Honor will have a place in the restored white society but at the moment it's a luxury no one can afford.

Honor exist as much as you can exert it.

It is an ideal.

literally >>>/Cuckchan/

Explain?

Honor can only exist in a community. I'm an atomized worker drone, isolated from friends, family and peers.

It's actually wrong.

Honor is a code, you can either follow it, follow it half and half or not follow it.

But it's an ideal with or without the community.

You're good at sneaking.

Good stuff, except
Honorable men follow ideals, not men nor laws.

Bowden:

Honour is the morality of the vanguard, and hence the shield of the people.