Click to Subscribe
▶  More from
Taboo Me?
Og and Crack Pot Discuss Honor and Slavery
[MY comments will be in brackets.]
Taboo You
12:49 AM (14 hours ago)
Hi James
Sorry about my absence. Started on Lynn's and your's March timeline book on the flu.
But a couple of questions to help me with Taboo You.
[Taboo You is about how to live as an odd-ball, an atomized man, an Omega, a man who is not a ruler or a kneeler.]
So obligations to others equal slavery?
[Obligations to conform to social norms, imposed upon you by threat of force, such as wearing a mask while walking your dog, yes, that is moral slavery in a world that only recognizes material slavery. But an obligation, internally enforced by your will to act according to your code of conduct, or any general or specific belief that you should act in that context, that is an expression of an honor system. Honor is the antidote to slavery. Honor systems are all barbaric in origin. Slavery, while existing to a limited degree in pre-civilized society, is the engine, the empty heart and tortured soul, of Civilization. Once men no longer abide by an internal honor code, then externally applied and enforced ethics, ethics always being inferior to honor, are instituted in the form of laws. So, our legalistic society is literally a result of a failure of honor systems and a lack of honor among men, the title of a book I wrote a couple years ago and is still in process.]
Is that the core of Taboo You in regards to women?
[I think that the core of being a man is to have a set of rules for dealing with women and foremost among these not treating them like men. Female honor is traditionally collective and expressed in loyalty, with the postmodern assignment of female loyalty going to the System or other religion instead of her mate or father or son or tribe. Women are not capable, as a general rule, of being honorable, as honor requires a certain unbending determination not to do certain things. But almost any woman has a weakness that can be used to get her to act against her beliefs. Look, they cannot handle Reality, let alone Truth, unless it's all gussied up with hope and pink frills. The reason why mobsters never told their wives their business, was because a woman will almost always cave under pressure from authority and betray her man to avoid harm to or separation from her children.]
That's my major weakness.
The GQ Muggling Inquest lists the 4 traits that Donovan suggests. Is Honor an obligation?
[The most direct definition of honor is a commitment to die for certain principles, something very anti-modern. This commitment extends to keeping your word as a bond. Lying to bonded brothers is strictly wrong. Lying to dishonorable enemies and to women—who cannot imbibe truth without going insane—is often necessary to preserve these principles. The modern friend is generally dishonorable compared to many ancient enemies. A code of honor based on a universalist system, like some strict interpretations of Christian ethics, that demands you tell the truth about where your daughter is hidden to a pack of rapists, is not sustainable and always devolves into externally assigned ethics. Real, heathen honor systems recognize that most people are incapable of honor. The test is, are you willing to die on principle? My honor principle was I will not submit to robbery. I am willing to be shot and killed for my empty wallet and always have been.]
I'm thinking that obligations to men isn't slavery. It's bonding. Building the brotherhood. Honorable men are equals. Am I right? Even close?
[Dead on, in my view, sir.]
Though an obligation is something you are forced to do, since it's an obligation.
[Internal obligations are self-assigned and free acts of honor. However, in our force-based and fear-based society, so emptied of honor, obligations are now generally understood to be oppressive burdens, which they are. In an honorable lawless context, defending an old lady from hoodrats is a positive expression of honor, an internal obligation. In our legal society defending her on one hand and guaranteeing the safety of her attackers on the other, are both legal obligations not to contribute to or cause harm to the physical collective of Holy Humanity, replacing an honor-based commitment to principle with a soul-eating exercise in navigating treacherous legalities.]
Having obligations to Women, who are a lesser being, lowers the Man?
[Any obligation to obey a woman, is destructive, as they are incapable of an internal honor, as are most men. Most men are craven and cannot practice honor. However, strong men typically abide an honor code that places an internal obligation to defend the weak, the dependent and the helpless attached to his society. How large he wishes his society to be, depends on his orientation, familial, ethnic, religious, purely honor-based, etc.]
Also, what do you think of the quote from the movie The Wild Bunch?
[I took this quote as an expression of the truth that submitting your honor, your binding word, to a dishonorable being, is folly. Do not make pacts with Children of the Lie.]
"It's not your word, but who you give it to."
Thanks
OG

Thank you, OG.
In Taboo You, I did not set out to convince any man to go the solitary life, but simply tried to advise those already living that lonely life on methods of sustainable, internal discipline that help navigating as a truth-seeking soul in an ocean of lies. This is because I have found that the most alienated men, are those who can see lies that others foolishly kneel to as a greater goodness.
prev:  ‘The Occasional Man’     ‹  blog  ›     next:  Runty Pirate Prose
eBook
masculine axis
eBook
book of nightmares
eBook
taboo you
eBook
the greatest lie ever sold


Add a new comment below:
NAME  
EMAIL  
MSG
 
GilDecember 14, 2020 9:22 AM UTC

Bookmarked. Lots to mull. Thanks James.

It's alot easier letting the reptilian brain and your gut comprehend/control one's street sense then getting the big brain to reject a lifetime of indoctrination to comprehend/control one's understanding of Life. Or what Life is supposed to be.

In a way, a Man's path is a lonely path. As it should be.
responds:December 14, 2020 1:43 PM UTC

I will quote this, Gil.

Thanks.
New LedfordDecember 13, 2020 3:22 PM UTC

Very true, Leo. Thanks for pointing that out.

The Bible, Old and New Testament, is also shot through with admonitions to take care of your own.

When you tell this to a universalist, he'll claim Pentecost cancelled everything that came before and now we hold hands across the world singing "Kumbaya." Or "Imagine."

I believe the desire to hold yourself responsible for all of humanity, even all animal life, is the desire to become a god.
Leo LittlebookDecember 13, 2020 1:25 PM UTC

That is certainly one of the reasons Jesus spoke in parables. If you knew you would be crucified upon reaching X level of fame, you would keep a low profile, too.

https://littlebook-ghost.nfshost.com/qs-epistemological-profile-similar-to-jesus/
Leo LittlebookDecember 13, 2020 7:47 AM UTC

The Bible assigns no obligation to answer questions, as Jesus' silence before a corrupt Sanhedrin demonstrates.

In general, Jesus avoided the habit of directly answering questions. This made it difficult to determine when he was refusing to answer because an honest reply would be contrary to his interests. He also regularly answered questions with misdirection, to the same end. Reflexive submission to interrogation should be reserved only to wise and loyal brothers. One should rarely or never give a straight answer to the crooked.
responds:December 13, 2020 1:06 PM UTC

Thank you. It is funny how secular ethics intrude.

the parables strike me, as well, as an attempt by Jesus to not directly antagonize the secular authorities.