Old vs. new, past vs. future

Today I was reading a discussion on a blog in which the question was raised: is it more useful to our cause to be ‘forward-thinking’ and future-oriented, rather than take a reactionary tone, focusing on recovering our traditions?

The question, I thought, was loaded in favor of the ‘future-oriented’ option; the way it’s put, of course it makes more sense to try to envision a better future — and given our dystopian present situation, almost any change for the better is preferable.

However — and it will surprise no one that I’m in favor of trying to reclaim as much of tradition as possible — how can we focus on a future which exists only in imagination? And how can we even imagine, much less create from whole cloth something which has never before been, without becoming like the would-be utopian leftists, who have succeeded in creating a nightmare in their quest to make real their bizarre visions of the future?

The Jacobins, like all their leftist/progressivist ideological progeny, thought they could raze everything and build something new and perfect from the ground up. How is that working out so far? Unfortunately some on the ‘new right’ under whatever label they call themselves, are so soured on the past, and on all the works of their forebears, that they are essentially adopting the Jacobin attitude toward junking the past altogether because “it didn’t work”. Why didn’t it work? “It was imperfect.” Why was it imperfect?

The gist of their answer seems to be that the past generations were to blame; they were flawed in a unique and irremediable way, a peculiar kind of original sin, unique only to certain past generations — but absent in the present generation of young people. No; they are exempt from this particular taint; it was confined to certain time periods and generations. Once those uniquely guilty sinners are dead and gone, the present generation of young people, freed of their toxic presence, will then proceed to build their own Future, unimpeded. Many of the younger rightists share this way of thinking with the ‘mad-dog left’ of their age group.

In my early blogging days I wrote a piece asking what happened to the old optimistic America of the 1950s? Does anyone remember how the 1950s vision of the future, as seen in Sci-Fi movies and Disney cartoons, showed triumphant science and technology solving all the world’s problems: we would conquer disease and hunger; Science would show us all how to live together in peace and plenty. The problem was ignorance and want, and Science had the answers. By the 21st century we’d live in ‘Jetsons’-style cities with our own personal sky-cars to fly around in. There’d be colonies on the Moon and Mars, if not in outer space. And on and on. I think many people assumed that given the recent successes of science and technology, this was all guaranteed. Onward and upward; the human race always progresses, and progress is always good, always for the better. We are all ‘evolving’ toward a higher, more enlightened state of being, growing up as a species. So they said. And so some people still say.

But surely most of us are seeing Science (capital-S) as hardly the savior of mankind. Science is, as the character ‘Shane’ said in the 1953 movie of that name said of guns:

“…a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything..as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

Science is flawed human understanding and reason. It’s served us well in many cases but it cannot save us. The human element alone makes it imperfect, and its discoveries susceptible to being misused or corrupted. Think of the ‘global warming/climate change’ scam, as well as the mountain of lies surrounding the issue of race/HBD.

What then, imparts an aura of ‘magic’ to any of our visions of the future as enlightened by Science? Do we really think that we can conjure up this shiny, antiseptic future world as gleaming utopia, just by thinking positively?

And what good will adopting this as a tactic or strategy for pragmatic purposes (“to appeal to the young”) do? Isn’t such a strategy cynical? Would it not be better to work from what is true — as in tried-and-true — and workable as we know from real experience?

Guido Bruno, writing in 1916, said this:

“It will not do to say that all the ways of old were the only good ways, and that those of to-day are turning us from paths that were good enough for our forefathers, to those that lead, we known not where; but on the other hand we can say, that many of the old ways have been discarded only because they were old, and not because we found something better.

What we call up-to-dateness and modernism is, in the analysis, a product born of excitement, a restless desire for change, a going from one thing to another, and although there is a measured tendency in some directions for a return to some of the ways of old, the fear of being called old-fashioned is the tyrant that speeds us on to seek new activities and novelty in entertainment.”

I’ve lately wondered if some of the obsession with ‘diversity’ and the desire to outmarry is nothing more complicated or profound than just this juvenile seeking for change-for-change’s-sake, coupled with the desire to repudiate one’s old fogy elders. Forget pathological altruism and all the rest; what if it’s just novelty-seeking?

To return to Guido Bruno’s remarks:

“All things up to date have their places, and by invention do we measure progress, but on the other hand a change is often times a going back, rather than a moving forward.”

Advertisements

On propaganda

Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.” – Unknown

Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups…So I ask, in my writing, what is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not trust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.” – Phillip K. Dick

A refreshing read

Some of you may (or may not) have noticed my absence for the last few days. I go through these phases periodically where I am disheartened about it all, and when I feel quite isolated in my opinions and viewpoint. Even among people who are somewhat like-minded, people who are part of the dissident right, it seems that I find myself out of step with the consensus or the popular viewpoint. The controversy over Milo is one example. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of bloggers who see things as I do on that issue, and most of those few are traditional Christians.

On the Al Fin Next Level blog, he refers to me as ‘the last of a dying breed.’ I don’t know how I feel about being described that way, but it seems to be accurate, judging by how alienated I often feel towards 21st century, post-modern “America, ” yes, even amongst fellow ‘rightists.’

My blogroll contains a link to a blog called The Wrath of Gnon, which I do follow on Tumblr — it’s one of the few worthy blogs in that morass of porn and teen-aged lefty lunacy — and I’ve occasionally posted memes here from Wrath of Gnon, many of which I find very thought-provoking and apt.

On the Amerika blog there is an interview with the Wrath of Gnon blogger, and I highly recommend it for those who haven’t yet seen it. Much of what the blogger says resonates very much with me, and having read it, I feel (for the moment, at least) a little less isolated and alienated. It’s always good to know that there is someone else out there, someone who is obviously of a sound mind and a sharp intelligence, who sees things similarly to the way I see them.

“To maintain the progressive mindset it is vital that people remain detached from reality (from their roots, families, friends, communities), and plugged in or attached to the propaganda machine. Take a man away from media for a fortnight and you will see emerge a more sensible, realistic human being. My own reactionary thinking has only strengthened the more I remove myself from modern media and groupthink.

It is not difficult: stop looking at mass media, distance yourself from all writing that “feels” modern; keep going backwards in times until you find what you are comfortable with.”

This is the core of my viewpoint: I’m a ‘cord-cutter’, living without regular TV and watching only streaming media of my own selection. Some people resent hearing this; they feel that they are being ‘judged’ for still consuming the media product, and they are defensive about it. Fine. My personal decision is simply not to partake of Hollywood movies or other popular culture if at all possible. I read old books to restore my sanity. Some people aren’t ready for cutting themselves off from the media or pop culture. Still, everyone in our society, willing or not,  is steeped in postmodernism and everyone is exposed to the constant barrage of propaganda, try as we might to disconnect from it and to shun it, so it’s a constant effort to examine our ideas for any trace of the taint of the corrupt culture we live in.

Still I agree with the Wrath of Gnon blogger that there are still things worth saving.

“The good thing is that everything we need to turn things around is already here. All the material, all the plans, all the accumulated wealth and knowledge of millennia of human thought and creativity is scattered all around us. We even have a time table for how to do it (and this was suggested by someone on Twitter three or four years ago), we just start turning the clock back, step by step, reversing history as we go along, keeping only the reality compliant, Gnon friendly parts.”

How often are we who are of a somewhat reactionary mindset told by the cynics that ‘we can’t turn the clock back’? I’ve always objected to that. No, we can’t make it 1965 again, but we can hold onto and restore much of what is still there to be used and revived. If we believe we can’t, then of course we can’t; it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a defeatist one. So it’s a good thing if we reject that attitude.

It’s worth reading the whole interview at the Amerika blog. Having read it I feel somewhat less discouraged about the state of things, and more importantly I feel less isolated and alone in my opinions and thoughts. We all need to connect with like-minded people. We can’t be ‘lone soldiers’ in this hostile world.

Whose agenda is being served

The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.

Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.

And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.

Before political correctness…

Speaking of popular music, noted opera singer, Clarence Whitehill of the Metropolitan Opera Company, said in 1931:

clarence-whitehill-vocal-atrocities_radio-digest1931

Imagine: he said that, and he was not pilloried, called a ‘bigot’, made to apologize, or driven from public life.

The comments appeared in an article in Radio Digest, titled ‘Why Not Prohibit Vocal Atrocities?’ Maybe his opinions were extreme by today’s PC standards but they were probably representative of the ‘highbrow’ section of the American public, which was larger then than now…

 

Worth it?

The Anti-Gnostic posted a piece on the recent disturbing story about a teen-aged Hispanic girl who, having recently fallen into the company of MS-13 gang members, was murdered. No less than six juveniles and four adults appear to have been involved in the killing. All the names of the suspects are Hispanic, and it seems probable most were foreign-born. Whether they were illegal is irrelevant; they could just as easily be here legally, or some might be ‘anchor babies’, considered legal by some.

This story, though it’s the latest, is one of many, as MS-13 and its equivalents put down stakes all over this country — even in the small community where I live, which is not all that ”diverse and enriched” as yet. It’s sad for the families and sad for our country as we risk becoming inured to this process of assimilation towards Third World norms.

I just began wondering, though, suppose the liberals’ hoped-for scenario comes into being, and that we gradually become used to all this diversity, and we become a rainbow nation wherein we all ‘accept and celebrate our mutual differences.’ Granted, Whites will be a small minority amongst the rest, but what of it? Race is a social construct; we all bleed red, and this is a proposition nation, after all. The Salvadorean and other gang-bangers’ progeny will be just one more variety of Americans amongst the colorful mosaic. And on and on.

But a hundred years from now, will people shrug their shoulders and accept the presence of these violent gangs and their ways as just one small price to be paid for the rich pageant of ‘diversity’ — much as most Americans now think that the Mafia isn’t so bad; we’ve enjoyed lots of good movies, novels, and TV series about the Mafiosi (the Sopranos, the Godfather, etc.), and then there’s all the wonderful food and cultural enrichment. So the introduction into our country of the Black Hand Society, the Mafia, and in our day, the (((‘Russian mafia‘))) and so on are just part of the package. Really not so bad, if we keep a sense of perspective, right?

One appalling story after another of gang murders and various atrocities and it’s all old hat, yesterday’s news. We have a way of growing jaded and accepting of things which should never be thought of as acceptable. That’s probably what the powers-that-be are counting on.

 

Wasted time

I had trepidations about re-posting that piece on chivalry. I should not have bothered. It seems chivalry has fallen victim to the war between the sexes, so it is not in favor with today’s ‘right’, neither is it acceptable to the totalitarian left, with its bizarre ideas on gender and its intolerant feminism.

It seems I am out of touch and out of favor with both right and left.

 

Popular music and race

In a recent post I linked to Steve Sailer’s piece about the race card being played at the Grammy awards. The question was raised whether Whites should apologies for winning awards, with the implicit assumption being that the awards are ‘stolen’ from blacks, who are of course the rightful winners, or would be in a ‘colorblind’ society.

I’ve often pondered how it is that our popular music (and popular culture in general) is so dominated by blacks. Most people — even those who are somewhat racially aware — would defer to blacks by saying that blacks are just more talented at music, as they are supposedly in athletics. But the black ascendancy has black people accusing Whites of “cultural appropriation” when they emulate, even unconsciously, black styles.

Could we not say rightly that blacks have a kind of cultural hegemony in our society, in all Western societies, given their disproportionate numbers in entertainment and their pervasive influence on White performers and composers of music?

This is not a new thing. I came across an article in an old (dated 1927) article in an Argentine magazine, Cine-Mundial. The article was titled ‘Melanomania‘, a term that the writer, R. De Zayas Enriquez, apparently coined himself to describe the craze among White people for black entertainment. Maybe we should use that word; the ‘-mania’ suffix is apt, and it has become a more pronounced trend since the time that the article was written.

As we are in black history month, wherein many claims are made about blacks having invented just about everything, we are bound to hear that blacks invented, among other things, rock ‘n roll, a claim which is usually conceded by most Whites. Yet it could just as convincingly be argued that rock ‘n roll derives more from country music in the form of old-time string-band music, via what was called ‘rockabilly.’ Chuck Berry’s music shows more influence from White country/rockabilly than vice-versa. Does it matter who invented it? Rock ‘n roll is something I grew up with, as did most of us today, and I enjoy a lot of it, but it isn’t exactly our crowning cultural achievement. Still, the truth matters, and it does serve the cultural Marxist, anti-White agenda to claim that blacks are the source of all our popular musical genres, as does the writer of this following excerpt. The writer is Isaac Goldberg (are triple parentheses even necessary there?) in a book called Tin Pan Alley, from 1930. [NB: the language in the following is the author’s;  everyone was politically incorrect in 1930].

“Before the various types of jazz was the modern coon song; before the coon song was the minstrel show; before the minstrel show was the plantation melody and the spiritual. It is safe to say that without the Negro we should have had no Tin Pan Alley; or, if this sounds like exaggeration, certainly Tin Pan alley would have been a far less picturesque Melody Land than it is to-day.

Why has the coon song become so representative of our popular music? Why is it impossible to think of our street songs for long without encountering the influence — whether pseudo or real — of the black? Why, whether in the early days of the southland, or in the contemporary life of Gotham, is the rhythm, the lingo, the accent of the Negro so persistent?

The Negro is the symbol of our uninhibited expression, of our uninhibited action. He is our catharsis. He is the disguise behind which we may, for a releasing moment, rejoin that part of ourselves which we have sacrificed to civilization. He helps us to a double deliverance. What we dare not say, often we freely sing. Music, too, is an absolution. And what we would not dare to sing in our own plain speech we freely sing in the Negro dialect, or in terms of the black. The popular son, like an unseen Cyrano, provides love phrases for that speechless Christian, the Public. And the Negro, a black Cyrano, adds lust to passion.

Can this be one of the reasons why the American Anglo-Saxon has held aloof from the exploitation and particularly the creation of songs in the musical vernacular? Can it be only a coincidence that the three races who have contributed most to our popular song — the Negro, the Irish and the Jew — should be the familiar example of oppressed nationalities, credited with a fine intensity of inner life and with passions less bridled than those of the more conventional — not necessarily the more frigid — American Anglo-Saxon?”

We can see the politics showing through the writer’s statements involving ‘oppressed’ races, and his biases towards Anglo-Saxons.

I will explore this further in future posts, because it seems that the cultural revolution has been more insidious and more important than the gradualist political revolution.

 

 

Our vanishing heritage: chivalry

Because it’s St. Valentine’s day, I am re-blogging a piece on that subject from the old blog. I think it’s still relevant today, even though I’m aware that in the years since I wrote this, chivalry has become more denigrated for various reasons. I hope readers will keep that in mind and bear with me in this post, mindful that things have changed even in the short span of time since I wrote it.

“As another Valentine’s Day is here, some news articles on the subject give us pause to consider the gulf between us in the West and those in the non-Western, non-Christian world.

In a society which insistently tells us that we are really all the same, and that our respective cultures can easily be thrown into the blender and retain their flavors, let’s think about the differences in worldview displayed in these stories:

Indian Hindus protest Valentine’s Day

‘In India, hardline Hindu nationalists have been burning Valentine’s Day cards in protest against what they consider a corrupt and commercial Western celebration.

As South Asia Correspondent Peter Lloyd reports from New Delhi, every year in the capital and other northern cities the radical fringe of Hindu politics gather for noisy protests against Valentine’s Day.

This year was no exception.

They denounced it as a corrupting influence on Indian culture.

This article from India, while more pro-Western, shows again the gulf that exists between Western ideals and customs, and those of non-Western cultures.

‘ …, it is evident that such days, and the general ethos of romance and love conveyed through advertisements, serials and books, is raising aspirations in the young. They dream of a chance to “fall in love” and live “happily ever after”. Sadly, that is where the dream ends. For Cupid’s arrow, in this country, must land in a preordained space — it must strike a person of the right caste and creed. Otherwise, the love match is rejected. Increasingly, that is the hard reality that thousands of young people, who delude themselves into believing that things are changing and that they will be able to make a choice on the basis of the dictates of their hearts, are being forced to face. They are firmly brought down to earth by families who refuse to accept their right to make a choice. If a couple refuses to fall in line, they must face rejection, ex-communication, and even violence. The happy endings are few and far in-between.’

It’s a commonplace among those who are wary of Islam to label it misogynistic, oppressive of women. And it is. But to a great extent, most non-Western cultures place a lower value on women than our culture. It’s ironic that Western feminists are the loudest complainers about the supposed oppression of women in our countries, seemingly oblivious to the fact that generally speaking, women have enjoyed the highest status in Western countries, in Christendom. than in any other culture. I invite anyone to show me an example of a culture outside the West in which women had higher status and more respect.

Around the 14th century, the feast day of St. Valentine became associated with romantic love, which in turn, developed as an ideal along with the Code of Chivalry. But that’s not the sum total of chivalry, though many think it is.

I’ve long been fascinated with the Code of Chivalry, which is a legacy of our Norman ancestors. Now these days, for some reason, our Norman ancestors are not well spoken of; it’s more fashionable for those of British ancestry to claim kinship to Anglo-Saxons and Celts, while the poor Normans are disavowed. Why? They were too strong, and too capable. In our modern world, the strong are devalued, and the weak, the underdog, and the victim reign supreme. Ironically, that grotesque exalting of the weak is something of a perversion of the chivalric tradition. Under the chivalric code, men were to treat the weak generously and kindly, but they were not to relinquish their power, and strength was honored, not disparaged as it often is now.

Here is one writer’s modern take on the meaning of chivalry

‘Chivalry spells out certain ethical standards that foster the development of manhood. Men are called to be: truthful, loyal, courteous to others, helpmates to women, supporters of justice, and defenders of the weak. They are also expected to avoid scandal.
     Beautiful ideals! They attract us with a sense of nostalgia that is almost religious. That’s because they are part of us already. Unfortunately, they must contend with powerful, often destructive influences, like commercial television, that bombard us with outrageously bullish images of men that are, at best, inappropriate.
     The virtues of chivalry offer more than pleasantries and politeness. They give purpose and meaning to male strength, and therefore support the overall workings of society. They remind us that Camelot is an ideal worth striving for, the reflection of who we are when we are at our best. Here is a short summary:

         Truth provides the foundation of chivalry. A man who lies cannot be trusted. His strength and ambitions cannot be counted on. Truth should always remain our greatest concern.
         Loyalty denotes a relationship that is based on truth and commitment. If we are fortunate, we have companions who are loyal to us—but we must be loyal to others as well. Remember, loyalty is a virtue to cultivate, even when it is not reciprocated.
         Courtesy provides the means for cordial and meaningful relationships. A society cannot be healthy without courteous interaction. We sometimes admire people who trample on courtesy to get what they want—but keep in mind, the contentious world they create is very disappointing, and we all have to live in it.

  […] Justice involves little more than treating people fairly. It also calls for mercy. We all make mistakes.
         We admire men who are strong, but if their strength is not directed to uphold what is good, what value does it have? We are therefore called to use our strength to defend those who cannot defend themselves, and commit ourselves to just causes. “

And here is an excerpt from a 19th century work on Chivalry.
From G.P.R. James, The History of Chivalry, 1830

‘The first point required of the aspirants to Chivalry in its earliest state, was certainly a solemn vow, “To speak the truth, to succour the helpless and oppressed, and never to turn back from an enemy.”

[…]the knights for long after the first institution of Chivalry, were “simple in their clothing, austere in their morals, humble after victory, firm under misfortune.”

In France, I believe, the order first took its rise; and, probably, the disgust felt by some pure minds at the gross and barbarous licentiousness of the times, infused that virtuous severity into the institutions of Chivalry which was in itself a glory.
[…] [N]o words will be found sufficient to express our admiration for the men who first undertook to combat, not only the tyranny but the vices of their age; who singly went forth to war against crime, injustice, and cruelty; who defied the whole world in defence of innocence, virtue, and truth; who stemmed the torrent of barbarity and evil, and who, from the wrecks of ages, and the ruins of empires, drew out a thousand 14 jewels to glitter in the star that shone upon the breast of knighthood.”

[…]There cannot be a doubt that Chivalry, more than any other institution (except religion) aided to work out the civilization of Europe. It first taught devotion and reverence to those weak, fair beings, who but in their beauty and their gentleness have no defence. It first railed love above the passions of the brute, and by dignifying woman, made woman worthy of love. It gave purity to enthusiasm, crushed barbarous selfishness, taught the heart to expand like a flower to the sunshine, beautified glory with generosity, and smoothed even the rugged brow of war.

For the mind, as far as knowledge went, Chivalry itself did little; but by its influence it did much. For the heart it did every thing; and there is scarcely a noble feeling or a bright aspiration that we find amongst ourselves, or trace in the history of modern Europe, that is not in some degree referrible to that great and noble principle, which has no name but the Spirit of Chivalry.”

Our age has forgotten the roots of our civilization, going back to European Christendom, but some of the remnants of the Code of Chivalry still survive, and those traditions are what divide us from the Moslems and the Hindus and the rest of the non-Western, non-Christian world. And to those agnostics and atheists who are indignant at any mention of Christianity and Christendom, I can only say that history cannot be denied; even if you dislike Christianity, it is part of our European heritage. All of us of European ancestry had Christian ancestors going back many generations, and Christianity largely shaped European culture.

The high ideals of Chivalry are all but forgotten today, and the word is rather an archaic word . But it encompassed both love and war, and it encompassed faith as well. The knight was strong yet compassionate toward the weaker: children, women, the old. A knight fought fairly, and did not attack the unarmed. Please notice how those basic rules of civilized warfare are not observed by Moslems or most non-Western people. Perhaps the Japanese code of bushido was akin to the Western chivalric tradition, but in general, chivalry, as known in Christendom, was unique in the world.

Our more humane standards in warfare, as compared to the Moslems, make a striking contrast. Unfortunately, they put us at a disadvantage in our war with Moslems. If we are fighting by the old chivalric traditions, as we have been, trying to avoid harming civilians and noncombatants (and how can we tell, when our opponents are not regular, uniformed soldiers) and they are fighting with no holds barred, we are at a disadvantage. Our chivalric traditions leave us vulnerable, when facing an opponent who is not principled. How can we deal with an enemy who is not above using women, children, and the old, as human shields? An enemy who sends children out in harm’s way, purposely? Our chivalric codes took the barbaric edge off warfare, as long as our enemies were others who observed the same rules. Now, this is not the case.

And notice how in every Western country where there are Moslem colonies, there seems to be a pattern of rape against the indigenous Western women, often gang rape.

Our prolonged contact with Moslems can only result in conflict, unless one of us is conquered and dominated culturally, To survive among Moslems would require that we become more like them; we can no longer cling to our age-old traditions of measured, civilized rules of warfare. We would have to match them in ruthlessness if we are to continue to try to coexist in the same space with them. And in fighting to survive, we would lose something of ourselves, of who we are and who we have been for thousands of years. This would be as tragic as the mere physical or political conquest by Moslems: the surrender of our standards, ideals, and civilization.

St. Valentine’s Day may be thought of as just a sentimental, but ultimately silly, holiday by many people, but it is symbolic of what makes us in the West what we are, with our idealism and sentimentality. The celebration is emblematic of the stark contrast between us and the non-Western world. To them, our idealized romantic love is corrupt, decadent, and intolerable. I think they see it as weak and feeble. And, isolated from the rest of the chivalric code, maybe it is. Christendom, the West, must rediscover the strength and justice aspect of chivalry, and not only the softer, tenderer side which, alone, makes us vulnerable to the predators abroad in a dangerous world.