Dimes and Judas discuss two recent shootings, the Hanukkah massacre in Bondi and the Brown University incident involving the leader of the campus Republicans, especially as it pertains to relations with Muslims in the West. After investigating the practice of Izzat in caste-based Indian culture, they conduct a review of two books relating to Canadian sovereignty: “The Vanishing Country” by Mel Hurtig and “Freedom Wears a Crown” by John Farthing. Attacking the problem from opposing directions, the former is a Liberal’s perspective on how democracy can flourish, with the latter being a defense of monarchism and a treatise against individual liberty as a unifying system. Lastly, on this edition of The Copepranos Society, Dimes joins Fortissax for an appearance on The Nautical Chronicle exploring the legacy and popular conceptions of the War of 1812 from the perspective of modern-day Canadians vs. the American host.
Timestamps:
00:42 – No More Tony Soprano Wet Mouth
02:13 – The Jelq Store Called…
05:12 – The Atlantean Root of the Word Buddy
06:31 – Catholic Rayp Romaine-O
07:48 – Taking the Wojak Test
11:56 – The Elon Musk Million Dollar “Wow”
15:32 – How to Launder Political Money From Yellowstone Conservatives
22:25 – The Bruce Willis Curse of Being a Grifter
27:02 – Getting Women Out of the Workforce by Making them All Prostitutes
29:52 – The Bondi Shooting vs. The Brown Shooting
39:00 – Debating the Muslim Question with Multipolar Nazis
53:30 – Choosing a Side Between America vs. Venezuela
57:40 – Adolf Hitler Desiring Germany’s Destruction to Hurt ZOG
1:01:32 – Explaining Izzat and the White Hatred of Playing Business Games
1:19:25 – Blood $atellite Event News
1:22:22 – “The Vanishing Country” and “Freedom Wears a Crown” Reviews Begin
1:26:17 – Brian Mulroney Selling Out Canada to International Interests
1:27:45 – Defining “The Radical Right” as Libertarian Capitalists
1:31:03 – American Social Spending vs. Chinese Social Spending
1:34:44 – Canadian Identity Defined by Bureaucratic Globalism
1:40:28 – Be More Boldly Confident About Asinine Novelty Takes
1:46:36 – Social Order vs. Liberty
1:50:30 – The Elizabethan Age as the Model for a Perfect Society
1:58:46 – A Government Defined by the Good Life Instead of Happiness
2:09:17 – The Nautical Chronicle Interview Begins
0. Indian:
Izzat is a cultural concept from the Indian subcontinent that refers to honor, reputation, or “face,” but extends far beyond simple translation, functioning as a zero-sum game of collective honor shared among social groups. It is not merely about personal dignity but involves a system where maintaining or restoring one’s Izzat is paramount, often at the expense of truth, justice, or long-term societal well-being. Conflicts are not about right or wrong, but about winning or losing; admitting fault is seen as social suicide because it humiliates not only oneself but the entire group associated with one’s Izzat. This dynamic can escalate trivial disputes—such as breaking a garden gnome or criticizing public behavior—into decades-long honor feuds. The system discourages impartial authority, as any official intervention in an Izzat dispute risks being perceived as favoring one side and thus dishonoring the other, making centralized governance difficult.
Izzat also influences professional behavior, such as hiring practices, where Indian managers may prioritize hiring fellow Indians not for merit but to accumulate social currency and loyalty, reinforcing in-group cohesion and increasing their own Izzat. This can lead to systemic inefficiencies, as seen in companies where internal rivalries, sabotage, and lack of accountability undermine long-term functionality. Moreover, the concept enables short-term success in foreign systems—such as Western corporations—where individuals may exploit loopholes or engage in deceptive practices (e.g., scamming food banks) to gain advantage, justified under the framework of “jugaad”.
Jugaad, often linked to Izzat, refers to a form of resourceful improvisation or “cleverness” used to circumvent rules or obstacles to achieve personal gain. In the Izzat framework, rules are not respected for their integrity but seen as barriers to be overcome through ingenuity, with success in such tactics being celebrated as a sign of dignity and honor. This mindset prioritizes appearance and perceived victory over authentic competence or ethical conduct, where obtaining a degree may be valued as much as actual skill.
The interplay between Izzat and jugaad is seen as fundamentally incompatible with systems based on good faith, such as those in Western democracies, where trust, transparency, and long-term stability are prioritized. Critics argue that this cultural framework enables behaviors like mass reporting, death threats, online harassment, and sabotage when perceived insults to Izzat occur, particularly in response to criticism of cultural practices. While some view Izzat as a living, relevant concept in modern Indian society, others frame it as a destructive force that undermines institutional integrity and contributes to systemic dysfunction, especially in globalized environments where the stakes are asymmetrical—individuals can exploit systems for short-term gain and retreat to India without bearing long-term consequences.
I asked the Brave browser AI to give me a similar run down of corresponding values in other cultures roughly using the categories of Samuel P Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’, it gave me wanky idealised answers for Jews & Africans first time around but a better one after I gave it a few fact slaps to contextualise & re-run the asnswers:
1. Islamic Civilization: Sharaf and Taqiyya
In Arab and broader Islamic cultures, sharaf (honor) functions similarly to izzat, particularly in tribal and conservative societies. Like izzat, sharaf is collective, zero-sum, and tied to family or clan reputation. Insults demand public restoration, often through retaliation or symbolic acts. Honor killings, while extreme, reflect the systemic weight of perceived dishonor.
Cognate to jugaad, tactical dissimulation (e.g., taqiyya in Shia Islam) allows bending rules under threat or disadvantage, prioritizing survival and strategic gain over strict adherence to norms—especially in inter-civilizational contexts. This reflects a pragmatic, context-driven ethics akin to jugaad’s rule-circumvention for personal or group benefit.
2. Sinic (Chinese) Civilization: Mianzi and Zouhoumen
In Sinic culture, mianzi (face) closely parallels izzat. It is a social currency tied to reputation, status, and collective dignity. Losing mianzi—through public failure or criticism—damages one’s relational network (guanxi). Like izzat, it demands restoration, often through indirect means to avoid open conflict.
Zouhoumen (“walking through the back door”) is the Sinic equivalent of jugaad: using connections, guile, or informal channels to bypass bureaucratic or systemic obstacles. It reflects a Confucian-influenced pragmatism where outcomes often justify indirect methods, especially when systemic rigidity impedes progress.
3. Japanese Civilization: Meiyo and Gambare
Though a separate civilization in Huntington’s model, Japan emphasizes meiyo (honor), deeply tied to social role, duty (giri), and group harmony. Unlike izzat, it is less confrontational and more internalized—loss of honor may lead to resignation or ritual apology, not retaliation.
Gambare (perseverance) reflects a disciplined improvisation—similar to jugaad but within strict social bounds. Japanese kaizen (continuous improvement) is jugaad systematized: incremental, collective, and rule-compliant.
4. Orthodox (Slavic-Orthodox) Civilization: Chast’ and Avos’
In Russian and Eastern Orthodox cultures, chast’ (honor) carries a moral and existential weight, tied to personal integrity and national pride. Historically, it justified duels, military sacrifice, and resistance to foreign domination—echoing izzat’s role in intergroup conflict.
Avos’—a fatalistic “maybe it’ll work out”—reflects a survivalist pragmatism akin to jugaad, but less resourceful and more resigned. It embodies improvisation under scarcity, common in post-Soviet systems where formal institutions are distrusted or ineffective.
5. Jewish Civilization: Kavod and Halakhic Jugaad
While kavod (honor) is often framed as universal dignity, historical practice reveals a tribal-legal duality rooted in halakha (Jewish law). The distinction between Jew and goy (non-Jew) enables asymmetric ethics: charging interest to gentiles (Deut. 23:20) while forbidding it among Jews, or lenient treatment of non-Jewish property and bodies in rabbinic rulings. This reflects a group-based morality where kavod is prioritized within the in-group, and external actions are justified to protect collective standing.
The Talmudic tradition of pilpul—hyper-technical legal argumentation—mirrors jugaad not as rule-breaking, but as rule-exploitation: stretching the letter of the law to avoid its spirit (e.g., heter iska, a legal fiction to bypass usury laws). This is jugaad systematized—innovation not for survival, but for maintaining religious compliance while achieving material ends. It thrives in diaspora contexts, where legal ingenuity becomes a tool of group preservation and advantage.
6. African Civilization: Ubuntu and Tribal Improvisation
Despite the ideal of Ubuntu (“I am because we are”), on-the-ground reality emphasizes tribal loyalty over institutional commitment. Honor (izzat-like) is tied to lineage and clan, leading to nepotism, patronage, and the systematic undermining of public institutions for in-group benefit. Maintenance of infrastructure or long-term planning is often neglected—not due to cultural incapacity, but because short-term redistribution to kin reinforces social capital more than systemic sustainability.
The absence of native terms for “maintenance” or “scheduled time” reflects a process-oriented temporality, where obligations are event-based, not clock-bound. This enables jugaad-like improvisation—tribal jugaad—where rules are fluid, deadlines negotiable, and resources extracted for immediate gain, even at future cost. This is not mere inefficiency, but a rational strategy in environments where state institutions are weak or predatory, and loyalty to kin supersedes abstract civic duty.
7. Western Civilization (Euro-Pagan + Christian): Honos and Fides vs Jugaad
In pre-modern, indigenous European (Euro-Pagan and Christian) value systems—prior to cosmopolitan legal blending—the honor system centered on fides (good faith), honos (honor), and caritas (charitable love), rooted in Roman civic virtue and Christian moral universalism. Unlike izzat, honor was not zero-sum or tribal but tied to oath-keeping, public duty, and personal integrity. Usury was condemned not for economic reasons but because it violated fides—charging for trust itself was seen as corrupting the moral basis of exchange. The Church’s outright ban on interest among Christians (based on Luke 6:35) reflected a vision of economy as moral communion, not extraction.
Grudges and hatred were actively suppressed by doctrine: forgiveness (aphesis) was mandatory (Matthew 18:21–22), and vengeance belonged to God (Romans 12:19). Feuds were discouraged; the peace of God (pax Dei) movements limited bloodshed. Honor was restored through atonement, pilgrimage, or restitution, not retaliation.
Universal moral behavior was idealized: the same rules applied to kin and stranger. The parable of the Good Samaritan dismantled tribal exclusivity—ethics extended to the foreigner. Trust (fides) underpinned early guilds, Hanseatic trade, and oaths of vassalage. Institutions like the merchant law (lex mercatoria) emerged not from legal fiction but from reputation-based reciprocity—a trader who cheated in Bruges could not operate in Ghent.
This system contrasts sharply with jugaad: improvisation was not celebrated if it broke covenant. Cleverness within rules (e.g., monastic accounting, scholastic logic) was valued; rule-evasion was sin (fraus). The medieval Church excommunicated those who exploited legal loopholes to avoid debts or tithes.
Thus, the Euro-Christian model emphasized long-term trust, institutional continuity, and moral symmetry—a civilization built on covenant over contract, fides over finance, and redemption over revenge.
[Had to rework the prompt for ‘Western’ as Huntington hadn’t seperated Jews out from it – though they do show separately on some of the division maps]
I realise the African answer still has a lot of PC cope in it that I meant to edit out but was already having selective text copy & paste issues from the browser on my phone & I can’t now edit the comment.