|
Dualism by Nature, Not by Choice
When you look at Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon, and other politicians, you wonder just how many of their ways they have borrowed from women .. yes, even of "the most honest woman."-Thomas Pollock
Chivalry is the one issue that is causing many traditional men to hang on to the old ways and not come to embrace MRA ideas more whole heartedly, and thus stops us from going over the top in gaining enough quality men to take on this Medusa-like world we find ourselves in. So here in Part 4 we will deal with chivalry in conjunction with the ideas of honor. To do this we must come to see certain key features or traits found in people that may be genetic or culturally instilled.
One of the first things we must ask ourselves is, "Are chivalry and honor the same thing?" Well those who know me can attest to my firm answer of "absolutely not!"
Yet here I will show you in detail why this is so, and to those who throw their good deeds consistently at young pretty women & older 60s women, over ugly and or dirty children & men, I would ask you to not mix your (or other men's) good deeds with those terms or ideas that you may not know very well. The one way traffic of good deeds is almost always directed to pretty women, and if older ladies are your chosen target then the 60s feminists (that have now aged to look like kind little old ladies, and who started the destruction of your chivalry code in our life time) do not deserve to have what they made old women feel bad for wanting. These are not the women you should continue the practice with.
These aging feminists shouldn't want to be treated this way, and unless you wish to treat these women as you do those few ladies that remain (and hope to hold on to any sense of justice) you should save such action or gestures to those who are more deserving. To treat the women who ridiculed the generation of women before them, and then reward these same decriers for such behavior after such a dishonorable set of actions, goes very long in an argument to being against chivalry all together. For in any such revised story this would be like rescuing the witch and treating her the same as the lady like maiden. Very backwards "in deed".
These, now older 60s women, degraded the ideas of those older women as lesser forums of womanhood, as they dismissed their advise on finding a nice man and bringing up children, not smoking & drinking etc.
For the record I am not confusing your good deeds with those who do such appeasement actions to women out of fear of their wife's bitching (and in having their homes quieted by their passiveness), for such men are mangina in nature not men of chivalry (for they simply use chivalry to cover their yearning to have sex and make mommy happy).
Honor supercedes chivalry, and if you look closely you will find in the establishments posturing yet again, and you will see how they boost chivalry and undermine honor at every point they can. Like the word "hero" which they give out like honors in such an easy fashion as to make many qualify, as if "hero" and "honor" come from being merely effeminate in nature. You will see many soldiers, who are heroes, not take the mantel of this word, funny enough. Honor demands they not take more credit than there buddies, and thus they aren't comfortable being raised to a higher plain than those others who are their equals not their lessers.
Years of being a pencil-neck gets you honors from the bureaucracy upon retirement, and saving your own ass in dangerous situations gets you a media label of hero ever so easily now (because it helps viewers stay tuned).
Chivalry came about as I had dealt in my book Honor Verses the Amazonian World (Effeminate leadership of the Chattering Class) from an underlining theme of effeminate leadership that is ever present and leads societies to ruin, just as bloody lion like war does.
Pareto: A society does best when there is a predominance of lions among the population as a whole and a healthy element of foxes in the leadership. The leadership must allow for new blood to avoid degeneration. In war more lions again rise to positions of power, and as surely as the war disappears so do the majority of lions. Lions being ready to use force, relying on it rather than their brains to solve their problems. They are conservative, patriotic, and loyal, to tradition and solidly tied to supra-individual groups like family, the church and or nation. In economic affairs they are cautious, saving and orthodox. They dislike the new, and praise character and duty rather than wits. Foxes being ones that live by their wits. They put their reliance on fraud, deceit, and shrewdness. They do not have strong attachment to family, church, and nation and tradition (though they may exploit these attachments in others).
In Pareto's time the males made up these lion & fox types in affecting events and women were not a major part of the social equation as of yet, though they were growing in importance very quickly. Yet Pareto saw in France what had been touched on by others before him. It is this out of sorts' position, when states are like France was and is, that quite clearly show the bases for our effeminate fox-like decline even now. These kinds of falls are always the result of fox-like ways run amuck.
You may be surprised we are not alone in this idea. Yet there are others like Mosca, Sorel, Michels, Machiavelli, Burnham to go along with Pareto and myself. As well as hundreds of men that I have read in this generation of men that state many aspects of the same problems exactly, unaware of the writings of all these other men.
The best balance in good leadership, stated best by Pareto in the above quote, is not 50/50 of the fox/lion model, or any other egalitarian stretch. Quite to the contrary it is clearly presented by Pareto that with too much effeminate fox-like characters in leadership, and the population as a whole, leads any state to find themselves headed fast towards to collapse, as surely as they do with too much lion-like leadership fighting wars outside or inside the boarders. In fact this kind of effeminate weakness brings on attackers from outside and inside, but are quickly used by fox-types to state how bad these lion-like men are for being so direct in attempting to bring down foxes, when it is the foxes "unheard of levels" of corruption that has grounded the state into permanent paralysis.
In this major effort I've taken with HN I started merely looking for female forms of the indirect fox-like or weasel-like characters in history, and then hoped to compare them to the far fewer lion like women in history to show how we could learn to deal with the over abundance of such charactered women in our present dysfunctional society of the effeminate fox-type. Victoria, Elizabeth I and Boudica have all kept their shine in the history books, even today, but watch as Hollywood turns them into something they were not (Young Victoria seems the latest deconstructionism project).
Effeminates need not be told that controlling the present leads you to changing and controlling the past, and still further effeminates know that controlling the present & past will lead to one controlling our future. Women have learned these rules in gossip games when they are young, as healthy boys learn to overcome fears.
How hard is it for a young girl (let's call her AW) to learn to tell another "friend" that so-and-so said she was "a slut" the other day, and receive the benefits of this controlling of events? As women will not go and ask "the significant other" whether this is true (and can't even be assured that the average other would fess up to such words if even confronted) we are left with AW's free hand at control- threw controlling information.
So therefore the starter of lies has a free hand in an effeminate run neighborhood, town and or state, that prizes politeness and rationalized fears over truth. An AW can learn these ways in her pre-teenage years.
Men used to risk getting beaten and humiliated for such practices, but with the slow removal of any personal form of giving justice, we have only justice through getting others to hand it out, and for that lying is more of a plus than a negative.
When someone is a liar you must from then on take everything they say with a can of salt. Yet so many of us quickly let the lies slip past and go on to trusting, ignoring the brain for a fun personal conversation and pretty face and ass. Any woman who lies must let sleeping cats lie, or suffer hearing her own lies played back when she receives justice herself, so best one not call anyone on their lies and keep to those who go ape on those who do. Thus violence in any form is evil and lies become common, as women in family court who lie seem to escape all real punishment as the court has documents often proving the husband is telling the truth. Yet it doesn't matter for the courts are all effeminate by their very nature and have a bit of lying of their own going on (ruling from the bench being one).
Learning to control history at a young age still doesn't turn women into successful players at men's roles. For Elizabeth had no children and Boudica’s were killed along side her, most likely, when she was completely defeated. So the line ends, which for men is also a threat too, but is often a lesser one due to our horny nature and lesser need to always be around the children.
Still, why is a complete failure, where many of Boudica's followers were all massacred, placed as something to be admired? Can we do this with men? Can we list all the men who failed and then have statues of them, over men that succeeded (Small>Big)? Why is this so, for women who say they want to be equal?
Yet these more lion-like women leaders, that we hear much more about than the Medusas of history (you may have been unaware before reading Part 1), are still very much the tiny exception of women that don't go at it and risk success or failure by truly taking to the front- and not getting others to risk for them instead (the fox way in total).
So even though we have women of the right stuff in history they continue, as do many of our greatest men, to not pass on their genes. Nature allows the successful idea of dying for your kin to then pass on your genes through the surviving kin (which you took part in defending) to continue. Yet the scale and sheer numbers of lion like males killed in world wars, and modern wars in general, has thrown a wrench or spanner into the works. With many surviving kin most likely having a harder time of it, due to the bureaucrats nature of saving money on the backs of now absent dead soldiers (or survivors unable to cope with their many kinds of injuries).
World War I being the best recent example, as surviving soldiers came home to be more likely be killed by the great epidemic between the great World Wars, as the grief stricken families of dead soldiers were also more likely to suffer greater susceptibility to the epidemic as they were more likely distraught with the soldiers loss. Loss of a wage earner, father figure, and more are nothing to be dismissed in the success of their children, unless you worship nature over nurture. An aggressive bright and confident family ready to be decisive in mangaging risk with a father is quickly turned into a melancholy family playing it very safe with the death of the father. So as to not let the wife be alone the mystical family compass can get stuck on fox behavior, as the family then gets stuck on the true north of rationalized cowardice. As all become aware of risks' risks.
The same problem of the most honorable suffering is recorded in ancient Greece during their great plague of Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars. Thrucidites says how the honorable ones went into the homes to help neighbors and friends at the outbreak of the plague to die first, and then came down with the disease shortly there after, to give it to their kin. The survivors must be of a different ilk don't you think? For they avoid war and helping others when it is costly to do so? How does this affect the population, and does this lead to permanent decline, as it did with Athens and France?
The good men play the proper use of chivalry to those others that have proven to deserve your risk for them. This is called honor, for chivalry is no where to be found in antiquty. These people have acted when it was truly dangerous to do so, when those likely obsessed with politeness now fear to follow, for it is one thing to be nice when there is no risk, but all together a different thing when real dangers lurk on doing the simplest of nice deeds in front of no one, to then die alone with no one to be with you as you die.
On the political scale the preponderance of one or the another of these two forces will tend towards two different extremes; the masculine towards complete freedom, the feminine towards a complete totalitarian society. We can understand then why Aristotle wrote; "women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies .. since under them they have a good time," because the essential characteristic of oppressive government is feminine unity, which involves a "centralization of power." -Thomas Pollock
Women are dominated by fears and only indirect total control eliminates these fears along with freedom, and so women warm to oppressive government at this level because they prize their rationalized cowardice. They go after careers when new fields become accepted and predictable, and push their men and boys to do the same. Effeminates will rationalize everything else to this core character flaw, if need be.
Weak mangina men, who suffer from having no such power over their lives of fear, then later when given such desired powers must over play it, like a women in a revengeful like manner too. They still fear going back to having no power, and still fear losing the power they have gotten through plotting. They are not likely to give up the way they have gained power and go back to none or less, and still further are unlikely to say they were wrong as a boy to say that directly overcoming of fears isn't manly (and the effeminate course, of rationalizing cowardice, was in fact the wrong way to go at life).
It should be easier now to see who would be the natural allies - or tools, of women, and that would be weak and corrupt men. The weak ones cannot resist the demands of women, while the corrupt ones willingly sell their brothers into slavery if they can get their 30 pieces of silver. We read in the Book of Isaiah; "As for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them." The meaning of which we find in The Abingdon Bible Commentary; "their rulers behave weakly and foolishly like children, and the queen mother and the ladies of the court rule over them." Throughout history, whenever a society is in a decline, we see this same combination of strong women and weak men; Jezebel and Ahab, Agrippina and Claudius, the French kings and their "left hand mistresses," right down to Hillary and that overgrown boy and pretender to the presidency. Weak men, corrupt men, boyish men, effeminate men, pretty boys, and just plain boys, such are the sorts that women can control and who they set up in power to exploit all men. - Thomas Pollock
Once you accept the fact of there being dualism in the nature in many ways, or by Gods hand, you then must see that the force and problems we are dealing with in our modern day are not new. Human design is certainly more complex than the dualism found in the 2 sexes and the political animals that come to power, but these are the mainstays, and any others have been merely part of a supporting cast to date. We still continue to fluctuate between the 2 types of leadership of the fox (weasel) or lion.
Yet it is the inside threat to the state that is of the greater threat than that of the outside one. A very common trait of traditional men is the need to see foreign males as the problem over that of the inner female or effeminate in any of its forms.
The most extreme forms of the effeminate fox political animal affects us at present. These fall into 2 political camps seen in the Frankfurt School Followers and Effeminate Corporate Class Followers. To understand these in detail it is important for you to watch two video elements linked below.
The first video item is called the "The Century of the Self" and the second is the "Frankfurt School." What we have in these 2 parts of the political spectrum are the 2 effeminate fox-like opponents pointing out how bad the others foxes are. The socialist/communist (or harder elements of modern liberals) will point to the conservative business elite and say, "See they are so sneaky and manipulative towards the population", and just as vehemently the conservative base, egged and financed on by their corporate supporters, will point to how sneaky the socialist/communist/ modern liberals are," In bring their underhanded ways into education, government and psychology."
Both sides treat strangers, familiars and there betters very dishonorably, when there is no need to do so, for they do not know if strangers are of the same dishonorable breathe as their enemies. Fear drives them to do so, and religion is no safe guard for the effeminate church allows, "Sinning a lot and repent a lot" as male chivalry allows, "Heavy effeminate sinning over minimal male sinning." This comes in rhetoric, such as, cowards are "Only human."
These right and left foxes show us their nature at its core in how they treat strangers (sheep to be sheered for business, or to be used as cannon fodder in the cultural wars of political correctness), yet honor is merely a word to both sides and nothing more to them.
Both of these documentaries are excellent critiques of the other side, and appeal to the thinking members of both sides of the political divide, but both leave honor out of the equation for to bring up honor would demand they show why they are not as bad as the other side, and all would fail in showing why their form of the chateau cliqueism are any better then the other sides chateau cliqueism. They both deconstruct the other side and use truisms to represent their own side. Their truisms must be truisms to avoid being deconstructed. "Motherhood and Apple Pie" has turned into "Tolerance and Free Markets", that give no details, for that would leave them open to weakness in the fox & weasel wars! Please watch both of these for they are well worth the time and I apologize for the length:
Part 1: Conservative Effeminates
Century of Self (COS) & Happiness Machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5NYme0Ptg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsZ8UkkVAdM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W22Gna9J5eU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOaugmZTmD8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q64Pgm-YJ4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApMGX2sOvX8
The following discussion is based on the video and you may be lost if you don't watch it in its integrity.
Unlike many I'm not against corporate America having a disproportionate influence on the running of the country. With proper checks & balances of course, and "above board" disclosure of financial support for candidates though (for their influences should simply be known to all). A flat tax system would remove most of the motivation to getting involved in controlling politics like foxes too much.
The fact that these corporations wish to hide their influence is more bothering than their naturally having a bigger say. Big means a bigger say, but that doesn't mean for me not having anything near a Plutocracy. It is the foxes on the other side that say such influence should be removed completely (small> big). In the past those with a stake in society had more of say than those with nothing to lose, for the mob is the mob. What we need is a expansion of the checks and balance system to include one for male/female issue, for the foxes on both sides continue to use women and effeminate men to destroy males as they say they care for mankind in the same breathe.
By preferring to sell to the infantile and effeminate parts of all customer base, as is shown in COS, they no-doubt increase the characters traits as they are rewarding them. Like a dog that gets a treat by good or bad behavior we are encouraging the population into massive debt, desires before common sense, and much much more social destruction that will come around to do more than bite our males' balls.
We are beginning to see some writers use terms like childish to talk about the population's dysfunctional nature now, but it is really effeminacy proper that ills us, and the term childish is simply used to not offend the dominate base that supports the system on both its sides or party elements.
The worship of youth comes from the effeminate and can be seen in who is targeted for the products (both sexes buy more for the women). Yet science has terms for this and this is called "Affection Beneath" (women caring for those beneath them only) and not for those above (men and the old persons who play a supportive role for her and thus check effeminates domination of the family are not treated well at all).
All this has made corporate America no different to the next Frankfort School in their fear of male lion-like leadership in the population (or even in the family), and hence their endless methods to weaken such men, so as to have the added bonus of no one troubling their rule, as lion-like men always come together in their aversion of fox ways.
The power we find in these corporate forces is in attaching themselves to women's desires, for they have much less say in men's, because men are more inflexible and logical. Business ads use sex as a be all and end all of controlling men. All products lead to sex and they don't have many other quivers to use. Men crave power too, but those in positions of power can't give up parts of real power, so they create false ones, so that men can get lost in acting powerfully, looking powerfully and boasting powerfully. In other words all the forms of power women like to use are now craved by too many men, teenagers and boys.
Any youthful young man or women can crave sex too, so there is nothing really they can manage to motivate men in isolation, that will not bring them problems in controlling them with their power systems. You see this in Hollywood movies. Hollywood likes senseless violence over reasoned violence. Yes bad guys use violence to gain power in the abstract in movies (for things like money and ego boosts), but not for a political goal that is clearly stated as just. Therefore they go sky high with senseless violence, and sex too, so as to take men away from something they see as very dangerous to their rule. Medium levels of action violence with a strong purpose are frowned upon, as they are claimed to be "boring". Even things like the History Channel must confuse real history and entertainment. It should be no surprise then that boys and teenagers fill the dwindling seats of the threater for men, along with those effeminates filling their half of the seats to the rafters.
Therefore by catering to women in the market place, and in politics and more, they give the state the illogical direction we now find in most western nations in business and inside the home. Both sides can't deal with men, fear men and therefore go to indirect war with men.
While next we will see how the other side of the political divide favors the bureaucratic side of government, and also in the family as well .
We should be very worried that both political sides are taking the fight into the family for control, as men would have never allowed that to happen in the past, but with single mothers, and their tolerance of the state involvement due to more fears (as they have more such fears without a man around), we can expect more grabs by the state into the family's zone.
Both back the female horse (or cow) to give them their way indirectly, as women will tolerate loss of real rights for security and false forms of fashionable appearances of individualism. Many men who still can't see what is happening hold on to chivalry like Linus does his blanket. With no philosophy/ theology, no honor and only mild levels of even loyalty, it is left to chivalry to rest the dysfunctional system's future on. Just as both sides of the establishment would like it instinctively, creatively or structurally.
How is all this possible, and is this unnatural? Not really important to the task at hand. The screwy blend of dysfunctional chivalry and equality is of course the key to this continuing unmolested. It's fall is a must and the defenders must be set upon in debate, or other means, to come to heel on following this way to ruin.
Most clearly this can be seen in the removal of fathers from their children, as has now reached unheard of proportions. For example chivalry means dads must pay and not have any access (if the mother desires it), but the jobs must go to women because of the equality rules apply in the same breathe with the help of affirmative action. Affirmative Action that takes positions from women to give to black men is stopped, as the groundwork to remove the freedom of rap singers to bad mouth women gets into high gear as we speak. The deafening sound of Bill Cosby on women is Mangina-like, as he shows his braveness with non-represented men ( I've never seen him have it out with some gangster rapper face-to-face).
Sam Donaldson, another puffed up loud male, also learned the golden rule of not crossing women on This Week, almost flipping his toupee, as he was hammered for crossing the effeminate line of control of PC language.
Such men can rationalize this, for they can rightly see they wouldn't get to be heard in the large media if there tone rested any blame on single mothers or feminists directly.
Bill Cosby attacking other black men & absent fathers is fine, but not fine (it would seem as of late) to attack bitches or hos, let alone the Holy Grail of the present system "hysterical shopping obessed single mothers." There are many more examples but I'm not writing to convince those "sheltered to the facts" that are going on, but the battle scared vets of the new rational warfare.
Men are less alike, for they have had to strike out into new areas to succeed, while women are the safe sex and are therefore a collection of the safe characteristics (which are therefore much more the same by the conservative nature of no risk!). When women risk they usually have sex or dress like a whore, talk like a drunken sailor or make themselves defeaters of tempests in a tea pot.
The establishments fear, expressed in COS , is real. Yet to say English speaking men are the same way as eastern German or Russian men, with no other proof other than that of those shrinks who fled Europe to live again in another culture they don't get, is very flimzy. For these same men to then undermine the host country they cling to, as these same lion-like men protect them from the males they don't understand to the East is obviously weaselly.
Part 2: The Frankfurt School
Here we will see the major factor of effeminacy running most wild in our cultures, via the western governments bureaucracy, and I ask you to endure just one more video documentary, that is much shorter in length than the Century of the Self (COS) and more to the point of the direct connection of undermining from within.
Link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCz2E1cZuNI
The following discussion is based on the video and you may be lost if you don't watch it in its integrity.
So again we see the pure weasels in action, as one weasel is followed by another in the search of a way to undermine the culture that they hate for it's jading of their ideas (the working class male wanting little of their agenda).
Think about that for a moment. Who are they unable to attract in the working class anymore? Why would that be? Of course men are less friendly to socialism than women. In Sweden the products come fast enough for women to warm to socialism, yet these socialists are very much pure jadedness, and have but one last wish before their agenda is relegated to the history books, and that is to bring down the state. Usually logic would turn away many from failed theories, but with effeminates (where fear is your compass) you can't go with such facts and are faced with very strange rebirths of causes.
The purpose of their socialist world revolution is now really lost and all that is left is the need to undermine those closest to you. Like some jaded women who undermines her husband, even though it will bring her own world down. Many MRAs talk with relish of bringing the system down, for they are returning the favor now in kind, and are not going to be like stupid lions by continuing to support the state as it treats them so very poorly (as we have too many foxes, as in Pareto's model now).
It is the male lions that have turned last to the fox game in going to war with the state, and to blame them for doing so "last" is like treating the witch better that maiden who has finally chosen to pick up the sword to deal with the witch herself (as the hero sees nothing wrong in the witch's actions for she is as pretty and sexy, as Hollywood can now muster in making small > big in so many colorful ways).
Stupidity is no longer an excuse in the creation of our world, where men are not allowed to be stupid, and women are endlessly defended by so many elements for being so.
What credit should a woman get from giving birth? Nature or God has given her those instincts she has and there is little thought that goes into the contractions and more at birth, so comparing all male inventions to an instinctive act on her part doesn't seem very fair at all. It is like a man in any debate over which gender has more to offer by saying he gets credit for his ability to throw overhand better than most women. Should we stoop to such arguments as overhand throwing verses the woman's glory of giving birth to show who gives more to the success of a successful society?
These points to both genders strengths & weaknesses are not equal. You may have a super idea, but if fear makes you unable to act on it is means the same as if your are bone stupid. While acting on stupid ideas can have the issue of luck and make you succeed despite the stupidity of the idea, and also the added bonus of being able to learn real issues of life from these lucky experiences, which can't be compared with inaction on the important issues-the policy preferred by effeminates.
This can be seen in a normally functioning think tank, the worst people at such efforts are those who give no ideas and simply criticize others (again another effeminate pastime).
If women wanted to improve themselves for real they would do well to kill the most stupid and weak of themselves in their ranks, marry the smartest and strongest males they could and study issues unrelated to their instinctual desires, that are way too much in abundance now. It is just plain stupid to have even more kinds or levels of fashion, talking & dancing of any kind. The supply is making everyone's eyes brown.
Women would become more male like in taking such actions stated above, and smarter and stronger for real, and then they would not need to hide these facts of their being weaker versions of men too. This is the role a smart boy takes with a mentor! There is no dishonor in it, but much humble pie. Yet boys see they will get to be greater in this exchange later and see the father's love in making him stronger and better, while a women can't but see the harsh tone, hard labor, unattractive issues and toughening coldness of the coaching as anything but bad bad bad.
Chivalry is a Fashion, a French/Moslem One at That
As the reader may know the old French (Franks) are responsible from saving Europe from the Muslims, before any of the Christian Crusades into the Middle East had even been considered. In fact the taking back of Spain and the defense of France from Muslim invasion should and sometimes are considered one of the first acts of a crusade (and was purely defensive).
If a single man were to march into any gathering and take credit for all good deeds, and imply there were none before his arrival (of any note), and in addition was to add all future good deeds that were to come after him to his own credit too...well let's say he would have a hard going with other real men. Yet in many ways this is what chivalry has done.
Chivalry started in a manly act of a French lord taking a Muslim Moorish castle in Spain (William the 8th of Aquitaine), and he found there 100 Muslim girls. Undoubtedly after having his fun with them brought all these girls back to his region of southwest France. He then shortly there after died, no doubt with a smile on his face.
These young singing girls fell into the lap of his son (William the 9th of Aquaitaine). William (who we will call Billy) then a young boy of only 15, with no dad to bring him up and too young to have learned much from his warring father, took to fancying these young Muslim girls and their stories, songs, and no doubt morality (or lack of it). For these 100 didn't die for their castle, now did they?
Billy then learned (and then translated, or likely had these women learn French translate their efforts for him) and sang monophony songs that would today be considered highly simplistic- to say the least. Think Brave Sir Robin in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
At present the Muslims ironically resent our culture for what they actually gave us in many ways long ago, and we think these ideas are our own and must defend them from those who gave them to us in a kind of defeated gesture.
As for how this altered Bill's character it is recorded that he was a man who loved scandal and shocking his audiences. For example he composed a song about founding a religious convent on his lands, "Where the nuns would be picked from among the most beautiful women in the region, or from the best whores."
HA Ha ha....hh had to be there drinking the French wine I guess. So he sounds like he wasn't so nice to nice women and not really so nice to bad women either. A sexual bad boy maybe?
From here Billy proceeded to be the latest thing in France since liver pate'. Billy became the first dandy Troubadour.
Definition of Troubadour:
"Of Arabic origin in the word tarrab, 'to sing'. The trope is a speech where the words are used with a meaning different from their common signification."
So a musician with no harmony, lots of shock and based on Muslim Sufism.
Sufism:
"Sufism is a mystic tradition within Islam and encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices dedicated to divine love and the cultivation of the heart. "
Mysticism, diverse beliefs, love and the heart, reads like a women's playbook to me? Well at least the cornerstone of Sufism is good for our culture right?
"Sufism has been defined as a type of knowledge by the great Sufi masters. Shaykh Ahmad Zarruq, a 14th century Sufi who wrote "The Principles of Sufism" defined Sufism as, "A science whose objective is the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but Allah.”
Turn away from all things except Allah, God be praised that we have such a good cornerstone to follow as this. "Let's drop everything and accept Allah," seems to be what many European artists are going to end up with soon. Here is a shot of Billy below:
A Medieval news item:
"The Troubadours' Tour Starts in Paris and Spreads All Over Europe"
It was the obsession with defending pretty women at court that greeted the new Muslim copying minstrels upon their arrival in Paris.
Start with a few pretty royal blooded women, who were relatively protected by being related to the king (or other royal blood and their kin), then groom them endlessly & dress them in the finest cloth and place them in a room with many more men who all wanted these fewer women for sex, their wealthy dowries, and alliances with other families (and or the king's) and you have a hit soup opera of epic proportions. Surely to change full grown men into prancing dandies in no time, with these spoilt women demanding the men do as the Troubadour, with the ringing of approval in their giggles and laughter leading the way.
What on earth did you think you’d get but a long historical path of men trying to out do each other to get the hand on the few women that weren't peasants, and therefore the only ones without dirt for make-up and rags for cloths, BO for perfume and a "Please don't beat me Lord" psychosis for a personality?
In Paris in the Medieval times knights would take their frustration out on the handmaids no doubt, for not all could win the hand of the best prize. Still the endless infighting has another interesting motivation in France back-stabbing history. Matched with the fact that Franks thought they were the descendent of Troy- (aka Paris) who destroyed his family, kingdom and honor for stealing another married women- and you have a perfect storm of endless steps to endless inner conflict (which the Gauls were renown for before they took up the Roman’s claim of being connect to Troy). The French are still obsessed with courtesans and replacement forms of court life to this day. It is like a slow death curse from those they conquered.
Yet for the Romans their connection to Troy was more of an after thought, and was used by some traditionalist to distance the Roman population from the fashion for everything Greek back then. This fashion was more of the problem in their time, as the effeminates were for everything fashionable Greek /Asia Minor obsessed then (any culture but their own). We have that now in our own cultures, with our own population of effeminates and their obsession for everything French.
Defending the weak, as code word for defending pretty women as a policy, surely came from the Parisan women at courtesan court in this time of the French. Being sot after by so many lords these women wanted a nice husband who wouldn’t beat her at his leisure and wanted the other men stopping one of their hornier number, who couldn't satisfied himself with a handmaidens anymore, from robbing her of her chastity and honor. Yet fear is no way to make any code you will find.
These privileged women then glorified by giggle and and smiles whichever man was the best peacock of the arts, for such women were likely to be interested in these safer issues (Small > Big), for going around like Joan of Arc would have to wait until all these men were lovers more than fighters, and that takes generations of Troubadour/Moslem chivalry fashioned to be in the tune of spoiled little attention whores of Paris France's court life.
So men started down this path of taking up the interests of women to romance then into bed, and to make it more French, tried to disconnect it from its Muslim/Sufi roots.
So chivalry is not male and not even clearly western, it is a French Muslim creation and follows roots closer to Paris of Troy instead of Achilles of Greece.
The same peacock show for the goddess to choose her male, based on submitting to her whims and flights of fancy and fashion, is to be found in the court of the goddess of Cybele and her like too. So again when women use culture and fashion to trump higher issues, in their quest to use new ideas, they bring down cultures long term as they usurp better ideas to gain standing and attention with fashion.
Honor came before chivalry and one could say chivalry is a very cheap discount version of honor. Honor tends to come about, from my study of history, when Lion-like men came to see that conflict could not be settle (because each had bastions of their own that were unassailable, and also a desire to not take part in indirect ways of the fox to win). Then with more respect of one another, and trust, they were able to see their peers as having the same individual and stronger character more clearly.
In my book I give examples of wear this happen in history and the development of a code arises, though with personal versions and conflicts still arising.
The steppes of Asia is such a place with roaming bands of horsemen, with endless ways to outflank one another, where war was a constant almost non-stop force, that honor has a tough time coming to be agreed upon.
Likewise city-dwellers tend to love the indirect conflicts too much and warm to effeminate ways of non-stop indirect conflict too, so we do see no codes arising in this environment as well as laws coming into play that remove freedom as their is a lack of an agreed to code. Too much direct conflict, or too little leads to effemiante dishonor.
A state needs to have outlets for direct males, like sports, real debates on substance, logical education and proper manly justice encouraged, but fox men would suffer in their self-image and attractiveness to the other sex, and women would suffer in their hyper-sensitive self-esteem in such a world, and that is why they oppose such ways and prefer control to real freedom.
Such characters need to face the simply fact that they are indirect because they are rationalized cowards (nothing that anyone would like to hear), and are not stooping to indirectness themselves as a result of the other side, but doing so first because of their endless rationalized fears. They are in fact part of those using it first and always, and thus have no reason to complain about anyone taking their turn at such measures, or in fact those using indirect or direct violence first or second. When you dismiss your own indirect violence you have no right to cry wolf, weasel or lion.
Maybe a lone Frank spoke up at the time of chivalry's arrival from the Moors and said, “Well maybe we shouldn’t take up their ways or the next time they come round we won’t want to fight very well, like they lacked in our lifetime with us?”
But this lone voice wasn’t heard over the art show talk, songs, dance or catcalls of ridicule. I really don't know if there was a male Cassandra there at the time, but today I'd like to accept this hindsight judgment with the sound of Homer Simpson ringing in our ears, all be it out of tune, with a loud “Doh! Doh! Doh!”
|
