The North and the South's cultural divide can be in part explained by one thing: Chivalry. Southern Chivalry is the most known inheritance of her Cavalier ancestry, and the culture of masculinity to this day remains an easy target of the Puritan North.

The above political cartoon portrays the caning of one Mr. Sumner, an abolitionist Republican. Sumner had only days prior gone on a seething rant against Senator Andrew Butler, questioning his manhood and accusing him of raping his black slaves. This accusation is not frequently documented in modern textbooks nor taught to children, rather, it is told that Sumner merely spoke out against slavery.

Senator Butler's attack on Sumner was a demand for satisfaction for the accusation against him. When a man is accused of lacking virility and accused of being an infamis, brutal reprisal is demanded. While it is taught that Butler attacked enraged by Sumner's words against slavery, it was in fact only a defense of his manhood.

Similar responses to similar accusations existed throughout pre-modern Europe. In Rome, Viking-Age Scandinavia, and Anglo-Saxon England, among other times and regions, it was expected for a man to respond to accusations like this brutally. To simply ignore it is seen as an acceptance of the charges.

Robert E. Lee (VMHC 1957)

The Chivalry that was inherited by the Aristocracy of the South — and by large, the Yeomanry — manifested itself in every part of life. One such way was the manner in which one dressed. Until the end of Reconstruction, Southern culture insisted upon striving to look one's best (among the aristocratic classes, the lower ranking of the Yeomanry often wore whatever they could as they could not afford much else, see the brogans mentioned many posts ago) so that they can present themselves in a self-respecting manner. This sense of self-respect was important, and a defining feature of the Southern Aristocrat.

A key example of this was Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox. General Lee wished to conduct business in good grace and manner, as a gentleman, and approached General Grant dressed in the best he could wear, as though he was arriving to a parade or to meet a lady.

General Grant, however, was hardly dressed at all, meeting the bare minimum of military standard.

General of Cavalry (SCV 2004)

Another example of the South's penchant for dressing in their Sunday best was a complete lack of dress uniform. This was not because of a lack of want for dress, but rather because the commisioned officers elected rather to always dress in their best. This served multiple purposes, as it made officers and their ranks easier to spot while combining this with style.

The Austrian knots on their sleeves correspond with their ranks in an aesthetically pleasing and elegant way, and the colors of the uniform's trim told of their branch (Artillery, Infantry, Cavalry, Militia being red, blue, yellow, and black, respectively).

The sole differences for proper dress scenario are minor, such as the wearing of white gloves (this was also worn during sentry duty among others), as the officers preferred to look as daring on the battlefield as they do in ball and parade.

Remember: the good guys always got the drip 💧

Here we have another perspective which shows that knightly honor is actually an aberration and debased form of honor that is ultimately superficial in nature - being that it is premised on mere words and can be remedied with mere violence.

This is focusing on the outer levels of things and is clearly already a degeneration of the superior honor of the ancients that is held by a man independently of what those of lesser spiritual stature say.

"A man's whole conduct may be in accordance with the most righteous and noble principles, his spirit may be the purest that ever breathed, his intellect of the very highest order; and yet his honor may disappear the moment that anyone is pleased to insult him, anyone at all..."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Knightly honor ultimately amounted to nothing other than might makes right. If you can win in combat then you're correct. This sounds based on one level, and on that level, it is.

Yet, this is not all there is, and we can see how this type of honor lacks the transcendental dimension - you end up with very debased individuals recognized as being honorable.

So there are certainly flaws in this, but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Duels can and do serve a function, and trial by combat shouldn't be understood as an altogether degenerated thing.

There is an orientation within society to be upheld afterall which one could conceive of as Dharmic and that is ordered by certain boundaries.

Spare the rod, spoil the child. Spiritual children need guidelines they respect (brutal canings at the hands of aristocratic Southrons).

Like anything, it's a standard that serves a function, but that can, of course, be abused and become corrupted.

It shouldn't be a surprise to us that honor steadily became more degenerated through the centuries which culminated in modernity with abolishing it altogether.

In a Letter to his Friend Stefan; 16th July, 1910 (Otto is 13 Years Old)

"Only follow your Daimon, always, always follow your inner voice. If it tells you, compels you, to write a poem, then do it, and do not be led from the right path by the mere stupid talk of inartistic people.
And the right path lies within oneself.

Then secondly: you seem to assume as axiomatic that we are prodigies. That is not at all true. Prodigies are creatures brought up in the unnatural air of hot-houses, who spring up quickly, decay more quickly still, and then are justly forgotten. Prodigies are nearly always rotten and hollow on the inside and beautifully painted only on the surface. I'd rather have a short life like Alexander's, but one that is great, glorious, full of battle and honor, useful to mankind, than a long and insignificant one. Always obey your Daimon!"

Otto Braun

"Dreams are froth—from eternity."
~ Ernst Jünger

WHAT WE NEED, PICK YOUR SPOT ON THE TEAM

1. Dudes to get in to places of the Security state everywhere in the world.
2. Dudes that proliferate our culture through all the various forms (books, podcasts, art, etc.) and MMA/Gymbro brotherhoods.
3. Rich dudes GIBSING monies to our boys trying to make culture to sustain the control of #1 dudes (stop being cheap).

The reason why Commie/Liberal Revolutions were successful is because BEFORE aggro action was taken there were decades of cultural proliferation and effusion. Conservatards couldnt contain Liberalism/Communism bc they relied only on force which served only to prolong the inevitable. Fascism rose because of cultural underpinning that gave rise to political possibilities in the 20-30's. (Think iceberg model).

Pick your spot and do your part!

“‘Let us leave this small and barren country of ours and take possession of a better’ [said the Persians to Cyrus the Great]. ‘There are plenty to choose from—some near, some further off; if we take one of them, we shall be admired more than ever’…

“Cyrus did not think much of this suggestion; he replied that they might act upon it if they pleased, but added the warning that, if they did so, they must prepare themselves to rule no longer, but to be ruled by others. ‘Soft countries,’ he said, ‘breed soft men. It is not the property of any one soil to produce fine fruits and good soldiers too.’

“The Persians had to admit that this was true and that Cyrus was wiser than they; so they left him, and chose rather to live in a rugged land and rule than to cultivate rich plains and be slaves.”

Herodotus, The Histories (c. 430 BCE)

(Image: Cyrus the Great [c. 590 - c. 529 BCE], king of Persia)