Confusing history with literature.

One of Vox Day’s readers argued:

As Dalrock has explained, all that cultural bomb-throwers have to do is to borrow from the Satanic inversion that is chivalry, that puts women in the place of Jesus.

Vox objected, responding:

That’s not what chivalry is. Dalrock is confusing the literary tradition with the actual military ethos. This is basic Wikipedia-level knowledge.

[Vox quotes Léon Gautier’s Ten Commandments of Chivalry]

There is nothing inversive about it. Ironically, Dalrock’s description of chivalry is the inversion of the concept.

The problem with Vox’s dismissal is that it isn’t me that is confusing literary tradition with history, it is the culture at large, and (as I will show in this post), Vox himself.  It was this very confusion that Infogalactic tells us Gautier sought to stamp out when he wrote his ten commandments in 1883:

Léon Gautier, in his La Chevalerie, published for the first time in 1883, bemoaned the “invasion of Breton romans” which replaced the pure military ethos of the crusades with Arthurian fiction and courtly adventures. Gautier tries to give a “popular summary” of what he proposes was the “ancient code of chivalry” of the 11th and 12th centuries derived from the military ethos of the crusades which would evolve into the late medieval notion of chivalry. Gautier’s Ten Commandments of chivalry are…

The problem, as Infogalactic points out (and as I pointed out here), is the very strong tendency for modern readers to mistake fictional Arthurian tales for historical accounts.  Yet we can’t blame this entirely on modern readers.  This confusion was built in to the Arthurian literature itself.  As CS Lewis explained in Allegory of Love (regarding Chrétien de Troyes and his Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart from circa 1177):

Chrétien de Troyes is its greatest representative. His Lancelot is the flower of the courtly tradition in France, as it was in its early maturity…

He was among the first to welcome the Arthurian stories; and to him, as much as to any single writer, we owe the colouring with which the ‘matter of Britain’ has come down to us. He was among the first (in northern France) to choose love as the central theme of a serious poem…

…combining this element with the Arthurian legend, he stamped upon men’s minds indelibly the conception of Arthur’s court as the home par excellence of true and noble love. What was theory for his own age had been practice for the knights of Britain. For it is interesting to notice that he places his ideal in the past. For him already ‘the age of chivalry is dead’.40 It always was: let no one think the worse of it on that account.

This confusion of Arthurian tales of what was much later termed courtly love with actual history is endemic, and has been from all but the very beginning.  Wikipedia’s article on the term chivalry likewise explains:

Fans of chivalry have assumed since the late medieval period that there was a time in the past when chivalry was a living institution, when men acted chivalrically, when chivalry was alive and not dead, the imitation of which period would much improve the present. This is the mad mission of Don Quixote, protagonist of the most chivalric novel of all time and inspirer of the chivalry of Sir Walter Scott and of the U.S. South:[19]:205–223 to restore the age of chivalry, and thereby improve his country.[19]:148 It is a version of the myth of the Golden Age.

With the birth of modern historical and literary research, scholars have found that however far back in time “The Age of Chivalry” is searched for, it is always further in the past, even back to the Roman Empire…

Sismondi alludes to the fictitious Arthurian romances about the imaginary Court of King Arthur, which were usually taken as factual presentations of a historical age of chivalry. He continues:

The more closely we look into history, the more clearly shall we perceive that the system of chivalry is an invention almost entirely poetical. It is impossible to distinguish the countries in which it is said to have prevailed. It is always represented as distant from us both in time and place, and whilst the contemporary historians give us a clear, detailed, and complete account of the vices of the court and the great, of the ferocity or corruption of the nobles, and of the servility of the people, we are astonished to find the poets, after a long lapse of time, adorning the very same ages with the most splendid fictions of grace, virtue, and loyalty…

And as I noted above, Vox himself encourages the false belief that Arthurian tales are descriptions of what chivalry was like in the middle ages.  In his post 800 percent and rising, Vox was very proud to announce that he was adding back teaching on romantic chivalry to Castalia House’ 2020 edition of Junior Classics, as this would teach modern children about Christian history and values:

To explain why it is important, consider the following preface from Volume 4 of the 1918 edition, “Heroes and Heroines of Chivalry”, which was excised from the 1958 edition for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who is conversant with the concept of social justice convergence and the long-running cultural war against Christianity and the West. And it probably will not surprise you to know that all three of the stories referenced in this preface were also removed from the 1958 edition.

The preface and all four stories will, of course, appear in the 2020 edition.

The preface (and tales) Vox is so proud to have returned to the Junior Classics does exactly what Vox is accusing me of doing.  It confuses pure fiction with historical fact.  Even worse, it encourages young children to adopt this very confusion:

The word chivalry is taken from the French cheval, a horse. A knight was a young man, the son of a good family, who was allowed to wear arms. In the story “How the Child of the Sea was made Knight,” we are told how a boy of twelve became a page to the queen, and in the opening pages of the story “The Adventures of Sir Gareth,” we get a glimpse of a young man growing up at the court of King Arthur. It was not an easy life, that of a boy who wished to become a knight, but it made a man of him…

The preface goes on to explain that an essential part of making a man of a boy was to teach him to follow the ethic of courtly love:

His service to the ladies had now reached the point where he picked out a lady to serve loyally. His endeavor was to please her in all things, in order that he might be known as her knight, and wear her glove or scarf as a badge or favor when he entered the lists of a joust or tournament.

Finally the preface explains that the Arthurian version of chivialry, which combines both martial virtues and servility to women, is historical and is what the word chivalry means:

The same qualities that made a manful fighter then, make one now: to speak the truth, to perform a promise to the utmost, to reverence all women, to be constant in love, to despise luxury, to be simple and modest and gentle in heart, to help the weak and take no unfair advantage of an inferior. This was the ideal of the age, and chivalry is the word that expresses that ideal.

What is going on here is a classic game of Motte and Bailey.  When Vox wants to sell courtly love as Christian, he points to Arthurian tales that teach chivalry, what it used to be like to become a man.  This is nonsense, not only because Arthurian tales aren’t history (not even close), but also because the values of Arthurian tales aren’t remotely Christian.  They are, in fact, a parody of Christianity, and were from the beginning.  Courtly love was a devious joke decadent medieval nobles used to mock Christianity.  As the 1918 preface to Junior Classics demonstrates, long ago Christians forgot that this was a mockery of Christianity and accepted it as not only Christian but history.  The courtly love version of chivalry is the bailey that Vox is selling not just to his readers, but to their unsuspecting children.  Yet when my assertion of the evil of courtly love is mentioned by one of his readers, Vox retreats to the motte, claiming that everyone knows the Arthurian/fictional/courtly love version of chivalry isn’t really chivalry at all!  In the process, Vox accuses me of falling for the same misdirection that he is so proud to include his his revival of Junior Classics.

Vox needs to choose either the motte or the bailey when it comes to chivalry.  Either we need to teach modern children Arthurian tales of courtly love in order to restore Christian culture and values, or we need to annihilate this abomination and replace it with the Ten Commandments of Chivalry Léon Gautier wrote in 1883 in a failed attempt to reframe chivalry to Christian values (away from the dominant fictional/Arthurian view of the term).  If he wishes to do the latter, he will quite literally need to stop the presses.

H/T Sir Hamster

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Courtly Love, Vox Day. Bookmark the permalink.

236 Responses to Confusing history with literature.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is similar to the legend of Prester John. Somewhere “to the East” his awe inspiring kingdom existed, and he would surely come to rescue the Christian pilgrims with his army…if he could be reached by a messenger. All one has to do is go far enough East. Persia? Not quite far enough. Try again…just a little further East.

    There is always a “golden age of chivalry” in the past. The problem is it’s always further back in the past. Is it in the 15th century? No, further back. Is it in time of the Crusades? No, just a little further back; Eleanor of Acquitane’s troubadours sang of it — in the past tense. Further back in the time of Charlemagne? Maybe further back a little further? In the time of Patrick sailing to Ireland?

    Keep this up and one winds up in the 5th century, not long after Rome was sacked, and there’s still no True Chivalry. As with the kingdom of Prester John it’s always “just a little further”.

    Belief in the existence of Prester John may or may not have been harmless.
    Belief in True Chivalry is very much not harmless, as can clearly be seen in the modern world all around us. A man being ground up by the divorce industry puts a gun to his head, in a final, attempt to prove his True Love…this is not harmless.

  2. The Question says:

    The entire matter could be made moot if a new foreword or some sort of footnote were included in the books to explain the issue at hand for the young reader, or revised versions were made eliminating the courtly love aspects of the story.

  3. Lexet Blog says:

    Don’t take Vox seriously. After all, his best friend is Owen Benjamin.

  4. cshort says:

    I think @Lexet has the right approach here.

  5. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Question

    Such a disclaimer would have to negate the core of the story. It would either ruin the tale, or be so week as to have no effect. Because the tale is the message; Courtly Love is embedded into such Victorian / Edwardian era stores as a fundamental premise. It is so deeply embedded that many do not even notice it, because it is still a fundamental premise of many churches today.

  6. DrTorch says:

    Wow, that vivisection was the work of a true cruelty artist.

  7. white says:

    The last part confuses me. Aren’t both Motte and Bailey here just Courtly Love?

  8. jsolbakken says:

    “Vox needs to choose either the motte or the bailey when it comes to chivalry. ”

    I remember that I enjoyed reading “The Once & Future King” when I was a kid. If I recall correctly, it says right in the book that it is not history, but fantasy, and tragic fantasy at that. I also enjoyed watching the movie “Camelot,” especially when Lancelot sings his theme song “C’et Moi.”

    But, sadly, Vox Day is once again using his high IQ for evil rather than for good. If only someone besides Owen Benjamin and SirHamster could reach him? What a pity.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @White

    The last part confuses me. Aren’t both Motte and Bailey here just Courtly Love?

    The bailey is the desired place, which is what Vox is so proud of adding back to the Junior Classics anthology. But when the bailey is attacked, he retreats to the motte, which is something unassailable, and something entirely different. Here is the ten commandments of chivalry that Vox quoted in his response:

    Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.
    Thou shalt defend the Church.
    Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
    Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
    Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
    Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
    Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
    Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
    Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
    Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.[18]

    As Vox concluded after quoting this, there is nothing about courtly love there! This is true, but this isn’t what Vox himself, and the culture at large is selling as chivalry.

    And again, the 10 commandments of chivalry was itself an invention of Léon Gautier in 1883, in an attempt to supplant the version of chivalry that Vox himself wants to teach to children. So Vox leads with courtly love as chivalry, but when courtly love is challenged, claims that everyone knows the real chivalry is the set of rules proposed in a (failed) attempt to rework chivalry back to martial/Christian virtue.

  10. jsolbakken says:

    “So Vox leads with courtly love as chivalry, ”

    Amongst his other myriad and manifold faults, Teddy Spaghetti is a blue pilled monkey simpanzee on steroids.

  11. feeriker says:

    Careful, Dalrock. You just dared to disagree with and challenge the Supreme Dork Lord. Now Teddy’s gonna label you a Gamma and probably ban you from ever posting anything on Vox Populi.

  12. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    I don’t think Vox confuses fairy tales with actual history.

    Also, it’s never ceases to amaze me how hated he is in just about every corner of the Internet.

  13. poetentiate says:

    Who knows, Vox might engage in debate…

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    swiftfoxmar2
    I don’t think Vox confuses fairy tales with actual history.

    Did you read the original essay carefully? It appears that you did not.

  15. SirHamster says:

    Thanks for the substantive response, Dalrock.

  16. The Real Peterman says:

    Vox Day full of crap? Don’t stop the presses for that revelation.

  17. I’ve been silently following along with your incredibly interesting and well-argued rejection of chivalry for some time now, and nagging at the back of my mind the entire time has been the unspoken question of this article. Namely, if chivalry is indeed mythical, which I am satisfied that it is, isn’t there cultural value enough in the myth to preserve it? In other words, is the stumbling block chivalry itself, or merely the wrong-headed immanentizing of it, as if we can return to a Golden Age? Many human – and particularly Indo-European – cultures have a Golden Age, but it is almost universally something to be admired, not resurrected (a fool’s errand comparable to commanding the tide). Is it that chivalry needs to be excised like a tumor, or do we merely need to abandon the seemingly irrepressible Puritan Yankee need to build the physical Kingdom of God (or in this case, King Arthur’s Court) right here, right now?

  18. Would it not be better to call it a “bait-and-switch” argument, rather than a “motte-and-bailey”? In this use the two rhetorical villainies are indistinguishable, but with the benefit to the former that one needn’t explain to the audience which was “motte” and which “bailey” in the denounced passage.

    2d.

  19. A Portuguese Man says:

    Annihilate it.

    Curiously, the fake chivalry never got a strong foothold in Portugal and Spain, where crusading was daily life instead of a sort of Christian military equivalent of pilgrimage to Meca.

    D. Quixote is satire. Quixote is the fool that actually deludes himself that fake chivalry aka courtly love is the real deal. Quixote is ridiculous precisely because fake chivalry is ridiculous, more so in the sober, strict, hard-boiled Catholic meseta castellana.

  20. Dalrock says:

    @swiftfoxmark2

    I don’t think Vox confuses fairy tales with actual history.

    This would be an appropriate rebuttal if I had merely written “I think Vox confuses fairy tales with actual history”. But that isn’t what I wrote.

    Is it your assertion that the chivalry Vox is so proud to include in his revival of Junior Classics is the same chivalry as Gautier’s Ten Commandments of Chivalry? If so, I’d love to see you show your work.

  21. Pilgrim of the East says:

    honestly, it was too hard to take Vox as a serious Christian after expressions of his racism (talking about mudsharking etc).
    He can’t be taken seriously even as an intellectual anymore when he enclosed himself in his own echo-chamber where there is no-one to to tell him that Neil Armstrong walking on the moon wasn’t just conspiracy, that the earth really is almost perfect sphere sphere and that the US doesn’t deploy its satellites from balloons. And all that just because when establishment lies about single thing, it surely lies about everything :/ (or he is just a smart villain who indulges his clueless fan base to profit from them)

  22. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    @dalrock

    Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that I don’t think Vox confuses literature with history. I’m fairly confident that he is grounded enough in reality to not do that.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @Walter Devereux

    I’ve been silently following along with your incredibly interesting and well-argued rejection of chivalry for some time now, and nagging at the back of my mind the entire time has been the unspoken question of this article. Namely, if chivalry is indeed mythical, which I am satisfied that it is, isn’t there cultural value enough in the myth to preserve it? In other words, is the stumbling block chivalry itself, or merely the wrong-headed immanentizing of it, as if we can return to a Golden Age? Many human – and particularly Indo-European – cultures have a Golden Age, but it is almost universally something to be admired, not resurrected (a fool’s errand comparable to commanding the tide). Is it that chivalry needs to be excised like a tumor, or do we merely need to abandon the seemingly irrepressible Puritan Yankee need to build the physical Kingdom of God (or in this case, King Arthur’s Court) right here, right now?

    Thank you for your kind words.

    The fundamental problem is that it sells vice as virtue. Part of the con is the idea that this is an ancient virtue, lived by real Christians. But the core con is replacing Christianity with a mockery of Christianity. Christianity teaches that marriage is what makes sex moral (marriage is sanctifying), and that marriage is the moral place for sex and romantic love. Courtly love twisted this and taught that romantic love is what sanctifies sex, and that adultery is the only right place for romantic love. Christianity teaches that a wife should submit to her husband with fear and reverence. Courtly love taught that a man should submit to another man’s wife with fear and reference. This is, in a word, evil, and the wreckage of this evil thinking is all around us.

    It is worth noting that over the centuries the idea has been morphed, until the idea of courtly love was moved (to some extent) from adultery into marriage. If anything this only completed the corruption of Christian marriage. It also is the logical basis for no fault divorce, as a noted Puritan poet realized back in the 1600s. With this newly morphed version of the disease, where Christianity teaches that it is immoral for a husband or wife to deny the other sex, modern Christians now believe that it is immoral for a wife to have sex with her husband if she isn’t in the thrall of sexual desire (which is difficult to distinguish from romantic love).

  24. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    I would like to add that the link you shared to Vox’s post to prove that he is delusional with regards to Chivalry has nothing to do with how to treat women, which I believe was your original point of contention with the concept.

    You are comparing apples and oranges here Dalrock as what Vox posted as chivalry has nothing to do with your treatment of women. That was always your primary focus in dispensing with the ideas of Chivalry.

  25. Dalrock says:

    @swiftfoxmark2

    @dalrock

    Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said that I don’t think Vox confuses literature with history. I’m fairly confident that he is grounded enough in reality to not do that.

    For clarity, I doubt that Vox actually believes the tales of Camelot are historical. But he does present fictional tales of Arthurian chivalry as a window into how Christians used to live*. The latter is what I’m focused on. If you believe that Arthurian chivalry is Christian, I’d love to see you make the case. I’ve made the case that it is not in great detail, so you will have something concrete to rebut if you so desire.

    *You and I may be using “confusing” in different meanings.

  26. @Walter Devereaux

    As one who has read (and enjoyed) my share at least of medaeval literature, as well as trained in the profession of arms, I would add to your observation about “Golden Ages” something that, I suspect, played a not insignificant role in the corruption of ACTUAL martial codes that would have been known to Roman and post-Roman warrior cultures into the effemanized and proto-Feminist “Codes of Chivalry” C.S. Lewis explicates and our host (@Dalrock) excoriates. The so called “Codes of Chivalry,” as passed down by Malory, Chretin des Troyes, and others, are written by court bards, whose lives and livelihoods were based on currying the favor of the court and its women (it doesn’t matter WHICH court). They were not written by the knights themselves. In our own parlance, these men were generally Betas, attempting to define for posterity (and tragically succeeding!) what it meant to be an Alpha in their or their predecessors’ time. This was another tragic outcome of the suppression of the scriptures from the common tongues and devaluation of literacy during the middle ages: those who could read and write, and those who could fight, were frequently two very different sets of people. The only major work of medaeval Arthuriana I know of that was written by an actual knight (not just “a soldier” of dubious military record, like Thomas Malory) is Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parsival. And there, Courtly Love is not an ideal as much as a nefarious temptation.

    In other cultures, from Japan to Pakistan, and the Roman legions to the Viking hordes, codes of honor (martial or otherwise) are very robust, masculine things, requiring strength and valor, protection of women but not obsequience to them. It was only in the half-literate European courts, it seems, that we see the martial strictures tied to milady’s apron-strings.

    (On the topic of Parsival, a classic Grail-Quest story, it’s interesting to note how thoroughly the quests for the Grail– the Cup of Christ, variously either the cup He passed ’round at the Last Supper, or one that caught his blood dripping from the cross, or both– with its explicitly Christian (medaeval RCC) imagery and symbology, are interlaced with and set up in counterpoint to the openly non-Christian quests and morës of Courtly Love, even in arch-beta Malory. Even when it was at its apparent height, the bards themselves could see its doctrinal irreconcilability to Biblical Christianity.)

    (For a more mature treatment by Lewis, though not a renunciation of “Courtly Love”, see the video below.)

  27. princeasbel says:

    Vox Day definitely has a blind spot in this area. I was taken aback when he revealed that he was going to republish that old promotion of cuck-chivalry. Like, how can he not see why promoting this nonsense is a bad idea? I don’t know, because the man is a genius of another kind.

  28. Mocheirge says:

    I find Vox’s disagreement with Dalrock here ironic because he’s usually very good about rhetoric vs. dialectic. The popular impression of “chivalry” is a man in service to a woman or women. Bringing up Gautier to correct this idea is like the dialectic pedant who begins his argument with “well, ackshually…” 99% of an audience will ignore what follows. Bad rhetoric. Calling out chivalry as anti-Christian grabs their attention because it’s counterintuitive to a modern Westerner.

  29. jsolbakken says:

    “Also, it’s never ceases to amaze me how hated he is in just about every corner of the Internet.”

    Teddy Spaghetti makes enemies for no good reason. Which is a big mistake in politics. I still read his blog, I still agree with him most of the time. What I cannot forgive him for is sowing discord amongst the coalition brethren. Teddy Spaghetti is a stupid POS who wants to be right more than he wants to win. Winning in politics means forming coalitions. He damages the coalition for no purpose. So, I hate him for functional political reasons. I used to enjoy his brash invective, I found it bracing. But he takes it way too far. He thinks nothing of antagonizing people who would otherwise be supportive of our cause.

  30. Dalrock says:

    @swiftfoxmark2

    I would like to add that the link you shared to Vox’s post to prove that he is delusional with regards to Chivalry has nothing to do with how to treat women, which I believe was your original point of contention with the concept.

    You are comparing apples and oranges here Dalrock as what Vox posted as chivalry has nothing to do with your treatment of women. That was always your primary focus in dispensing with the ideas of Chivalry.

    Yes, it does have to do with how to treat women. I provided the quotes from the link in the OP. But I’ll include them here again:

    His service to the ladies had now reached the point where he picked out a lady to serve loyally. His endeavor was to please her in all things, in order that he might be known as her knight, and wear her glove or scarf as a badge or favor when he entered the lists of a joust or tournament.

    The same qualities that made a manful fighter then, make one now: to speak the truth, to perform a promise to the utmost, to reverence all women, to be constant in love, to despise luxury, to be simple and modest and gentle in heart, to help the weak and take no unfair advantage of an inferior. This was the ideal of the age, and chivalry is the word that expresses that ideal.

    Follow the link and see for yourself. I didn’t make it up.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Mocheirge

    I find Vox’s disagreement with Dalrock here ironic because he’s usually very good about rhetoric vs. dialectic. The popular impression of “chivalry” is a man in service to a woman or women. Bringing up Gautier to correct this idea is like the dialectic pedant who begins his argument with “well, ackshually…” 99% of an audience will ignore what follows. Bad rhetoric. Calling out chivalry as anti-Christian grabs their attention because it’s counterintuitive to a modern Westerner.

    Good catch. I had missed that.

  32. jsolbakken says:

    This is what makes you the boss, Dalrock. Nowhere else could I even imagine seeing this hard to grasp issue explained so succinctly. Vox Day, with his massive 150 IQ, totally misses it.
    I’m coining a new term: “Rock-splaining,” where a complicated issue is spelled out so that even a blue pilled simpanzee can understand it.

    This is great:

    “The fundamental problem is that it sells vice as virtue. Part of the con is the idea that this is an ancient virtue, lived by real Christians. But the core con is replacing Christianity with a mockery of Christianity. Christianity teaches that marriage is what makes sex moral (marriage is sanctifying), and that marriage is the moral place for sex and romantic love. Courtly love twisted this and taught that romantic love is what sanctifies sex, and that adultery is the only right place for romantic love. Christianity teaches that a wife should submit to her husband with fear and reverence. Courtly love taught that a man should submit to another man’s wife with fear and reference. This is, in a word, evil, and the wreckage of this evil thinking is all around us.

    It is worth noting that over the centuries the idea has been morphed, until the idea of courtly love was moved (to some extent) from adultery into marriage. If anything this only completed the corruption of Christian marriage. It also is the logical basis for no fault divorce, as a noted Puritan author realized back in the 1600s. With this newly morphed version of the disease, where Christianity teaches that it is immoral for a husband or wife to deny the other sex, modern Christians now believe that it is immoral for a wife to have sex with her husband if she isn’t in the thrall of sexual desire (which is difficult to distinguish from romantic love).”

  33. Pingback: Confusing history with literature. | Reaction Times

  34. Cane Caldo says:

    Christianity teaches that a wife should submit to her husband with fear and reverence.

    This is what Westerners–Christian or otherwise–hate and fear. Anything else is acceptable.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    His service to the ladies had now reached the point where he picked out a lady to serve loyally.

    In modern terms, this is a form of “oneitis” and “pedstalization”. That stuff kills men.
    In Bible terms this gets close to “Idolatry”.

  36. Spike says:

    AS a child, I read “Ivanhoe” by Sir Walter Scott. It was to me at the time, a good story. It was also helped by the 1950s-era film with Robert Taylor, Joan Fontaine, a young Elizabeth Taylor and Cedric Hardwicke.
    A few years and a bit of critical thinking later got me wondering: Why did the knoights wear plate armour, when it was set with the Crusades as a backdrop? Plate hadn’t been invented until at least the 1300’s. So too the Arthurian legends put to film. They wear plate, but it is supposedly set in an era pre-dating even the Crusades.
    All of this told me even as an older teenager, that the whole chivalric-fiction universe needed to be treated with a very liberal grain of salt.

    As a Christian young man, I was taught to be polite, kind and honest, treat men with respect and women with deference but to have a backbone. That is, if there was behaviour clearly not in accord with these teachings, I was not to be a party to it , not to be involved with it. This was “Right from Wrong”, not “chivalry”.
    This to me at least is where Vox gets bogged down. Undoubtedly he wants a return to a world with better values and better judgements as we all do, but it is a mistake to call it “chivalry”, since that institution in it’s modern interpretation is a parody of Christianity as pointed out here.

  37. Opus says:

    The republication presumably out of copyright of Junior Classics seems a worthy project of the sort that parents tend to like but will it appeal to children. I was once when presumably irritable forced by my Father to read a book popular in his day. Forty years on from its publication I thought it unreadable. In the 1920s Arnold Bennett wrote a small book explaining that for the outlay of just a few shillings a week one no matter ones lack of education could be as well read as an Oxbridge Scholar. Wiki has the list of Bennett’s recommended books but recently when looking at that list again I was again shaking my head, Times change and what was once thought Canon is now so no longer.

    Dalrock wishes to get back from Chivalry to real or true Christianity yet reading Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity recently I was met by his assertion that real Christianity had not been seen for centuries. Is Christianity then, I wondered, like Chivalry always as Anon Reader explains just that little bit further back than one thought.

    I am shocked to hear the assertion as to Arthur. As I understood it he was a Romano Briton who being pushed out of the Home Counties by immivaders fought a last ditch battle in the west in about 500 A.D. My, it does look as if History is going to repeat itself.

  38. 7817 says:

    The man that said the following things is not
    Chivalrous. There is more going on here than an argument about what Chivalry is. Those whose response can be summed up as “Teddy spagheti bad!” are emotionally triggered, and because of that unable to look beyond the surface level of things.

    Stop trying to be “nice”, gentlemen. There is a reason why “the Perfect Gentleman” was an involuntary celibate. And don’t believe the music, ladies. It’s not mere coincidence that the guy who sings about how he can treat you better and how you deserve a gentleman is a closeted homosexual.

    Only a white knighting gamma or a clueless fool doesn’t know that many women are aficionados of the “let’s you and him fight” game. If I don’t know the couple involved, there is very little chance that I am going to risk injury or jail on behalf of a woman with a taste for the thug life. And since women are so strong and independent these days, why should they expect help from anyone of either sex? I respect the right of women to not only make their own decisions, but also to experience the full consequences of those decisions.

    As the foolish Mr. Skripka discovered, even men who get physical with women are usually holding quite a bit back; a man who is dumb enough to white knight in these situations is simply offering an already angry and violent man a target upon which he can fully unleash the force he is still partially controlling.

    Basically, unless what you’re seeing definitely merits putting someone in the hospital or the morgue and would be considered justifiable in a court of law, let it pass. Based on the statistics, half the time the woman attacked first and deserves the beating anyhow.

    I used to believe that women civilized men. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that it is more the other way around. Men civilize women, while women incentivize men to pursue civilization.

    Western civilization is not compatible with the unrestrained female psyche or the unrestrained male psyche. It requires discipline and a mutually beneficial partnership between the sexes. African culture is the result of the unrestrained female psyche. Arab culture is the result of the unrestrained male psyche.

    Churchianity and the feminized church:
    It’s really rather remarkable, that as Christians lament declining attendance in their churches, and particularly, the growing absence of men of any age in them, they continue to double-down on the Churchian doctrine of the Holy Lady Parts. Rollo Tomassi observes that there is a material price to the structural and spiritual violations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, to say nothing of 1 Timothy 2:11–12 and 1 Timothy 3:11.

    It’s a joke, obviously, but one does wonder what the women-can-do-no-wrong pedestal preachers think is likely going to be the consequence of their extremely extra-Biblical teachings…

    Women are not only every bit as fallen as men, but they have been the primary weapon utilized by the architects of the decline of the Christian church. I won’t attend any church with a female pastor, nor will I attend any church that habitually excoriates men while elevating women. Whatever it is that they are teaching, it isn’t from the Bible and it isn’t compatible with Christianity.”

  39. Jake says:

    This post legit kept me from backing that campaign. I like vox but not all that is old is good. I’m sure he has said there is nothing new under the sun, but this underlined that well.

    Well said Dalrock.

  40. jsolbakken says:

    “I won’t attend any church with a female pastor, nor will I attend any church that habitually excoriates men while elevating women. ”

    This is what I meant about Teddy Spaghetti being right most of the time. Of course he’s right most of the time. But why does he have to ruin it by inserting his head in rectal defilade and make enemies for no darn good reason? Why does he have to insult and antagonize and say stupid emotional rhetorical things when he could just as easily state his case and leave it at that? Why does he have to call people liars and cowards and sodomites and worshipers of Satan when the justification for such accusations is astonishingly weak to nonexistent?

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817 @jsolbakken

    Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

  42. jsolbakken says:

    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    Yes, and those with sick twisted minds like Teddy Spaghetti call people liars and cowards and sodomites and Satan worshipers without cause or reason.

    Tell your boss Alphaeus says hi.

  43. “This is what I meant about Teddy Spaghetti being right most of the time. Of course he’s right most of the time. But why does he have to ruin it by inserting his head in rectal defilade and make enemies for no darn good reason? Why does he have to insult and antagonize and say stupid emotional rhetorical things when he could just as easily state his case and leave it at that? Why does he have to call people liars and cowards and sodomites and worshipers of Satan when the justification for such accusations is astonishingly weak to nonexistent?”

    Ego

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Books of fiction reflect the times and culture when they were written. A professor in history used to always require reading fiction of the time. To understand 19th century Russia, it is helpful to read works such as Anna Karanina and Fathers and Sons[1]. Modern YA fiction is so bad and so heavily pawed over by SJW censors that it is arguably criminal to give it to anyone, especially a teenaged person. Hence the impulse to reprint classic works of fiction from a time before women were given the right to vote. It is a good idea to use fiction from a foreign country called “the past” to instruct young people in virtues to cultivate and vices to avoid.

    All that said, the books in question were products of the Victorian / Edwardian era, and therefore will reflect the culture of those times. The Victorians were peculiar in their own way – on the one hand an arguable “cult of the woman”, on the other hand wide spread prostitution.

    But at the bottom line, we live in a time when girls are exalted and boys are denigrated. We must exercise caution in what young men read. Because even a home-schooled boy is still floating in the wider culture, and therefore soaking in feminist fluid.

    With publishing easier than ever before, perhaps the time is ripe for someone to write new takes on old stories. I am not that facile a writer but there are some who could do it.

    [1] Tergenev’s book is the first known appearance of the word “nihilist”. The university student Bazarov is asked what he believes in, and the answer is “nothing”. The 1862 novel in a sense forshadows Russian politics of the next 60 years.

  45. Anon says:

    Wait, Vox actually thinks the Moon Landing was faked? That itself is a litmus test of lunacy and an incurious mind right there.

  46. white says:

    @Dalrock

    Thank you for the detailed explanation

    @Opus

    That’s my fear as well. Some part of me suspect that perhaps a religion like Christianity will always be susceptible to Chivalry, with verses like 1 Peter 3:7 and teachings such as “turn the other cheek” (which means weak men will turn the other cheek when women misbehave). There’s enough evidence in science to prove that gynocentrism is inherent in humanity, but if so why isn’t there some sort of pushback in the Bible? Some sort of structure or a set of rules (example: sharia law) to follow that is stronger than simply “wives, obey your husband”? Especially if chivalry is going to grip the church for almost a millenium? Why is Joseph praised for refusing to slut-shame Mary? (Matthew 1:19) Why did Jesus publicly white knight an adulterous women in John 8? These are all questions any Christian who wish to cast aside the heresy of chivalry should ponder on.

  47. pb says:

    When I saw that post for the reprint I groaned. We all have our blindspots. Hopefully he will come around on this point.

  48. Oscar says:

    @ white

    Some part of me suspect that perhaps a religion like Christianity will always be susceptible to Chivalry, with verses like 1 Peter 3:7 and teachings such as “turn the other cheek” (which means weak men will turn the other cheek when women misbehave). There’s enough evidence in science to prove that gynocentrism is inherent in humanity, but if so why isn’t there some sort of pushback in the Bible?

    Have you actually read the Bible?

    Some sort of structure or a set of rules (example: sharia law) to follow that is stronger than simply “wives, obey your husband”?

    What if Christians actually followed that commandment? What would that look like? And, once again, have you actually read the Bible? Because there’s a whole lot more in the Bible than just “wives obey your husbands”.

    Especially if chivalry is going to grip the church for almost a millenium? Why is Joseph praised for refusing to slut-shame Mary? (Matthew 1:19)

    Because she wasn’t a slut. She was a virgin who miraculously conceived the incarnate God. Again, have you actually read the Bible?

    Why did Jesus publicly white knight an adulterous women in John 8?

    Again, have you actually read the Bible? The whole thing was a set-up by the Pharisees to trap Jesus. That’s why they didn’t bring the man, as the Law commanded. If Jesus said “stone her”, the Pharisees could say He violated the Law by stoning the woman and not the man. If Jesus said “don’t stone her”, they could say He violated the Law by “white knighting for an adulterous woman”.

    Instead, Jesus appealed to the Law – and the consciences of the accusers – by telling the accusers to cast the first stone, as the Law commands. The accusers – knowing they were abusing the Law to trap Jesus – felt guilty and left.

    And Jesus, who knew all along what would happen, told the woman “go and sin no more”.

    That is not “white knighting”.

    Again; have you actually read the Bible?

  49. Oscar says:

    @ pb

    When I saw that post for the reprint I groaned. We all have our blindspots. Hopefully he will come around on this point.

    That would require humility.

  50. Mycroft Jones says:

    @White scholars generally agree that John 8 was added 300 years later. Jesus did NOT white knight for an adulterous woman. As for Joseph refusing to slut shame Mary, that is because she wasn’t a slut. Even in the beginning of the Bible it acknowledges that sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) things do happen to a woman outside her control. And yes, John 8 has been used as a justification for white knighting and other winking at sin ever since it was added, and it has been a mighty hindrance to Christianity.

    The Bible does push back mightily against gynocentrism. But those parts of the Bible have been largely cordoned off and labelled “irrelevant” by the church at large. I speak of course, of the Old Testament. Quote any old Testament verse in support of your position, and people instantly get ready to label you a “Jew” therefore someone to be ignored in matters of Christian doctrine and practice, if not persecuted and driven away entirely. An entire section of Russian Orthodoxy tried to follow the teachings of Jesus a few hundred years ago. They were known as the Subotniks. Today the survivors live in Israel.

    If a body attacks its own white blood cells, wherefore does it have immunity? This sort of thing has happened in Christianity, and it was deliberate, and it was spoken of in the New Testament as the “mystery of iniquity” and the coming of the “man of sin”.

    @SirHamster well done. I’ve argued with you in the past, but much respect for taking this one on.

  51. Mycroft Jones says:

    If you want to find Chivalry, I think it did exist in the 6th century. In Byzantium, and in the former Celtric countries. For Byzantium, look at the reign of Emperor Justinian. He married a whore, who made it illegal to punish a woman for adultery or even to speak ill of her for same. Justianians noblemen were not happy. And over in France, the Franks had the occasional King surnamed “The Bastard”, since adultery among the noblewoman was accepted. Eleanor of Aquitane was probably continuing this form of chivalry 500 years later, or reviving it. Or whoever that Duchess was that forced her lady in waiting to accept a knight as her lover, despite her being married.

    And, in Ireland, some of the oldest stories include a story about Cuchulain, where a major conflict was started when a king and queen argued about who had the finer bull. The queen borrowed a neighboring kings bull to win the contest, with the payment being a nights embrace between her warm and welcoming thighs. And during the war, when a handsome young messenger from the enemy side visited her camp, and her young maid in waiting fancied him, she told the young maid (in her early teens) to go off and enjoy him without delay.

    So… I do think chivalry in the romantic sense did exist, but it was a pagan thing. The Franks were not such Christians as they made themselves out to be; Charlemagne imported Jews as fast as he could to be administrators and to keep the Church in check. Where ever the Normans (a subset of the Franks who intermarried with Vikings) they made sure to have a mix of Jews and Muslims in with the Christians, to keep the Church in check. Even look at the Chivalrous El Cid, greatest knight of Spain…. he didn’t care if his subjects were Jew, Muslim, or Christian.

  52. BillyS says:

    Mycroft Jones,

    Most scholars don’t agree with that foolish assertion. Those are only the idiots that also believe many foolish things.

  53. Mycroft Jones says:

    QUOTE FROM https://danielbwallace.com/2013/06/26/where-is-the-story-of-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-really-from/

    The great majority of scholars hold that the so-called pericope adulterae or “PA” (the story of Jesus and the adulteress found in John 7.53–8.11) is not original to John’s Gospel. The first manuscript of John to include this story is Codex Bezae (D), which dates to the fifth century, and on internal grounds these verses interrupt the narrative of John’s Gospel and feature non-Johannine vocabulary and grammar. But if the PA is not from the hand of the Fourth Evangelist, where did it come from?

    Many scholars have noted that these verses contain distinctively Lukan grammar, vocabulary, and themes, but the lack of early manuscript evidence associating PA with Luke’s Gospel has made this a dead-end. Bart D. Ehrman, however, made a groundbreaking contribution several years ago (“Jesus and the Adulteress,” New Testament Studies 34 [1988]: 24–44) by demonstrating the likelihood that PA as we have it in John’s Gospel is in fact a conflation of two earlier stories, one found in Papias and the Didascalia, and the other found in Didymus and the Gospel of the Hebrews. Erhman noted that all of the Lukan features of PA John are found in the former of these (what I’ve termed “PA East” = John 8.2-7a, 10-11)

    END QUOTE

    Billy, the Bible itself refers to the “lying pen of the scribes” having corrupted the words of God. The Bible has been fairly accurately transmitted, but if you are of the belief the Bible couldn’t be tampered with, then no evidence will convince you. Apart from the various evidence the scholars found, I found a calendric piece of evidence that even the scholars haven’t written about. The Pericope Adulterae messes up the timeline and has events afterward not following the Hebrew calendar. Even in English you can see how the Pericope interrupts the flow of the narrative, once you know to look for it. But in the Greek manuscripts it is much more obvious that it was a cut and paste job. The Pericope has only ever been used to justify evil; all Scripture is meant for instruction and teaching to do good. I have never seen the Pericope used to teach good, but only to nullify the rest of Scripture. By its fruits you will know it.

  54. Mycroft Jones says:

    @BillyS

    Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

    To call many learned scholars and students of the Bible “fools” for examining the evidence, sounds like someone answering a matter before he hears it. Do you have some super duper simple Bible verse up your sleeve that they missed, them being so foolish and all?

    Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Do you fear the penalties for calling someone a fool lightly and without cause?

  55. white says:

    @Oscar @Mycroft Jones

    Joseph didn’t know Mary’s child is the Son of God. He only knew that after God/angel spoke to him in his dream. Before the dream he thought Mary was a slut. That’s why he wanted to divorce her! But he chose to not slut shame her, and he was praised for it (Matthew 1:19). Why?

    @Mycroft Jones

    Agreed with Justinian I being a cuck. I call him “Justinian the First Cuck”. In addition to all the points you raised about him, he also allowed his wife Theodora to participate in politics, so naturally she made feminist laws. Justinian was also the most powerful man on earth in his time, so he alone is proof that strong men can lead to feminism as well.

    Considering that both Justinian the First Cuck and Theodora were made saints by the Eastern Orthodox Church, I guess we can safely that the Orthodox church has been compromised by feminism since at least the 6th century.

    I’m not sure I can consider any argument that introduces doubt about the infallibility of the Bible as a Christian one.

  56. Opus says:

    Spike read Ivanhoe. In Arnold Bennett’s list to which I above referred one of his recommendations is ‘the novels of Walter Scott’ – yet who now reads Scott? In its time they were wildly popular – Mary Shelley so she said on receiving in Lake Como a copy of Ivanhoe consumed it cover-to-cover in less than a day. Scott’s Novels were throughout the Nineteenth century fodder for far too many Italian Operas – yet not since MacCunn’s Jeanie Deans (Heart of Midlothian) and Sullivan’s Ivanhoe in the 1890 has anyone set them to music – Hollywood provided a renewed exposure in the days of Technicolor and Cinemascope but now?

    For what it is worth, I have read six novels by Scott. Three Scottish themed – Redgauntlet, The Antiquary (the best of them even though Scott has the sun in one scene setting in the east) and Heart of Midlothian; The English set Ivanhoe, The Talisman set in Syria and from our lights not a little G-A-Y and the Byzantine Count Robert of Paris, yet they all scream 1810-1830’s Britain.

    I have also read far too much Tolstoy and were there ever to be a local book burning I would be volunteering for the flames both Anna Karennin and Resurrection. Tolstoy may or may not be a representation of Nineteenth Century Russia but he is the bluest of the blue pilled. His daughter Sasha (who kindly wrote to me – amazing to have a letter from someone whose father was born in 1828) became an American!

  57. Mycroft Jones says:

    @white What you call “slut shaming” was actually the death penalty. Being cucked before you even get to enjoy your bride yourself is a shameful thing, and having a teenage bride stoned to death doesn’t remove the shame. And he didn’t have firm evidence she had been a willing participant. He had reasonable doubt. And then also, God didn’t leave Joseph wondering for long.

    As to Orthodox Christianity being cucked since at least the 6th century, I say cucked ever since they stuck the Pericipe Adulterae into the New Testament. But yes, the Orthodox STILL have on the books a gay marriage ceremony. Today they claim it is just a “brotherhood” ceremony, but no, it is a marriage ceremony. Also, dating to the 6th century and slightly before are the Akathist hymns, an important part of Orthodoxy still sung today. They are such feminine-pedestalizing poems, I was gobsmacked when I saw them. I think Orthodox know they are cucked, to which there is no defense. So they are quick to call everyone else “Jews”. While Catholics call Protestants “Jews”, the Orthodox even consider the Catholics to be some form of “Jew”.

    Orthodox anti-Semitism goes back also to St John Chrysostum around that time period. His anti-Semitism was a response to the fact that Christian women were marrying Jews in droves and Christian men were converting to Judaism in droves. There may be a connection in there somewhere… Instead of blaming Jews it would have been better to remove the cuckiness and stop the pagan worship of the Queen of Heaven. The Jews were already forbidden from usury and other obnoxious practices, so the emasculation of Christian men seems like the most likely culprit at that time and place.

  58. Oscar says:

    @ white

    Joseph didn’t know Mary’s child is the Son of God. He only knew that after God/angel spoke to him in his dream. Before the dream he thought Mary was a slut. That’s why he wanted to divorce her! But he chose to not slut shame her, and he was praised for it (Matthew 1:19). Why?

    Again, have you actually read the Bible? The Bible tells you why. In fact, the verse you cited tells you why. Because Joseph was “a righteous man”, and “the steps of a righteous man are ordered by the Lord” (Psalm 37:23), even before that righteous man knows all the facts.

    Again; have you actually read the Bible?

  59. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Opus Interesting about Tolstoy being bluest of the blue pilled, considering he was a big time adulterer and seducer up until middle age, if the accounts I’ve heard are true. I have often seen players and seducers spout blue pill things, but as a way to keep other men out of their way. As an offensive weapon more than as a real belief. And as a mask they present to women. Speak to the forebrain, sub-communicate to the hind-brain. I wonder how much hind-brain subcommunication is in Tolstoy’s writing.

  60. white says:

    @Oscar

    So the question remains: why is he called “righteous” for choosing not to slut shame?

    I appreciate you responding to my questions, but I will not entertain ad hominems.

    @Mycroft Jones

    If it’s simply a matter of Joseph suspecting rape, then all the more Joseph should leave this matter to those in authority to judge such matters. It definitely is no excuse to let Mary go scot free. If adultery really is as evil as the OT says it is, why would Joseph be praised for concealing such matters?

    If I conceal a murderer from the state, knowing full well he is guilty, OR if I conceal him while still having doubts of his guilt, how is this act of mine “righteous”?

  61. Oscar says:

    @ white

    So the question remains: why is he called “righteous” for choosing not to slut shame?

    He isn’t. You have the causation backwards. Stop reading Scripture through a feminist lens.

    I appreciate you responding to my questions, but I will not entertain ad hominems.

    Good thing I haven’t used any.

  62. Mycroft Jones says:

    @white I agree with the commenter that said “Have you even read the Bible”? The angel came and told Joseph the truth of matters while Joseph was still thinking things over. He was inclined toward mercy and benefit of the doubt. This speaks well of him. That he was still thinking things over shows he would have done the right thing regardless of his inclinations, if something harsher was merited.

  63. tteclod says:

    I think, and hope, that Dalrock’s opinion is that the advice of Jesus of Nazareth is preferred.

  64. tteclod says:

    Dalrock, do you recognize that these ten commandments are intended to supplant those other Ten Commandments in the brains of youth who read them?

    Isn’t this surreptitious blasphemy?

    A more clever man would at least change the number to something other than 10, like, say, the BSA did with Baden-Powel’s Scout Law.

  65. Jake says:

    Jsolbakken sounds like what vox would describe as a gamma male. Calling the man Teddy spaghetti is pointlessly disrespectful. If I remember right he tried to be patient with the mgtows for a bit but found them annoying and useless, like vegans.

    MGTOW is surrender. It is also capitulation to a false binary. There are women who want a sane life. If you are so worried about divorce theft, just don’t legally marry. Many states don’t recognize a common law marriage.

    Owen Benjamin is absolutely right about homesteading. Figure out a way to start doing it it will change your life.

    Moon landing was faked, clearly. You are insane if you think otherwise just look into it. Like, it’s not even funny how bad it is. Clear models, scaled pyrotechnics. It’s so bad

  66. Scott says:

    A friend of mine works for JPL and he is part of a project that monitors the moons deteriorating orbit around the earth. They do this by bouncing signals off mirrors that were placed on the moon during the “fake” moon landings.

  67. tteclod says:

    It’s a tumor.

  68. It’s a fairly early development in our Civilization; to develop a cancerous growth so early usually indicates a more innate deficiency. At that point, it’s probably better to jettison Western Civilization as a whole and seek an alternative. I’m not being hyperbolic here or invoking slippery slope, either; I’ve long thought we do ourselves a disservice trying to save the West, though I remain unconvinced that it was rotten from the start, though if the myth of chivalry is cancer, then Faustian man was doubtless brought forth with a serious birth defect.

  69. anonymous coward says:

    Jsolbakken sounds like what vox would describe as a gamma male.

    Let’s be real for a second here. Vox Day sounds like what Vox would describe as a gamma male. In fact, Vox Day is like the metric gold standard of gamma male behavior. Lots of projection going on here.

    They do this by bouncing signals off mirrors that were placed on the moon during the “fake” moon landings.

    Sending astronauts to place mirrors on the moon is insanely impractical and pointless. Surveyor placed all sorts of more interesting equipment on the moon, and human lives were risked.

  70. Oscar says:

    @ anonymous coward

    Sending astronauts to place mirrors on the moon is insanely impractical and pointless.

    Impractical? Yes.

    Pointless? No.

    People do all kinds of things for reasons other than practicality. Most scientific discoveries were impractical, until someone came along later and found practical uses for them.

  71. tteclod says:

    Or perhaps it’s just a genetic susceptibility to a deadly disease against which we must remain vigilant.

    For example, I’m susceptible to acne, so I bathe thoroughly. I could take isotretinoin, but then my glands would be forever altered.

  72. jsolbakken says:

    “Wait, Vox actually thinks the Moon Landing was faked?”
    It’s hard to pin him down because he is a slippery slimy little weasel. It could be he believes the first moon landing was faked, but the other ones were real.

  73. jsolbakken says:

    “Do you fear the penalties for calling someone a fool lightly and without cause?”

    What about calling you a fool in dead earnest with solid cause?

  74. Opus says:

    @Mycroft

    With Tolstoy it is usually a case of say one thing do another. Anna Karennin fell as everyone knows for bad boy Vronsky. Exactly what her boring loyal hard-working husband an older man did that was so wrong I have never discovered yet Tolstoy sheds as do so many Nineteenth century writers (and composers) much ink to empathise with his slutty heroine. Resurrection is even worse: Levin (a self-portrait) one day a juryman recognises in the Defendant a former maid of his with whom he had slept and who is now a prostitute. Reader, he offered to marry her and followed her all the way to her penal colony in Siberia. Notice the complete lack of acknowledgment on Tolstoy’s part that the female whose name I forget might have had any agency of her own. No self-respecting Feminist would regard Levin’s marriage offer as anything other than yet more oppression. My guess is that secretly to escape the unhappy Countess Sonia he fantasised about post-marital hot sex with his fictional harlot. War and Peace is happily pretty free of such breast-beating moralising. At his best of course could he write!: the first eighty pages or so of What Then Must We Do told in the first person as a sort of Down and Out in Petrograd and Moscow is gripping stuff – and then it turns to polemic.

  75. jsolbakken says:

    “Jsolbakken sounds like what vox would describe as a gamma male. Calling the man Teddy spaghetti is pointlessly disrespectful.”

    Isn’t recklessly calling people gammas when gamma is clearly an insult according to any and all definitions of the word “pointlessly disrespectful?”

    Do you vile mindless idiots even hear your selves when you type?

    Seems like you mindless minions can dish it out, but, you cannot take it. Because, perhaps, you are the gammas to beat all gammas?

    “Teddy Spaghetti” is extremely tame compared to “gamma male,” anyway, you pathetic putz.

    [D: Kindly knock off the Teddy Spaghetti nonsense.]

  76. Jfizzy says:

    @Anon

    Teddy Beale’s agreement is more nuanced than that and basically boils down to “I smell a rat”. Too many inconsistencies and convenient coincidences to take the mainstream narrative seriously.

    @Pilgrim of the East

    Anti racism is anti Christ. Fleeing to the tired lie that God didn’t create separate Nations is sad and pathetic

  77. Vox Day sounds like what Vox would describe as a gamma male. In fact, Vox Day is like the metric gold standard of gamma male behavior. Lots of projection going on here.

    He’s an omega. He comes off as blase and looks like he’d rather be doing anything but talk to his audience. It’s like he finds the whole thing unbearably tedious but does it anyway. I don’t get the “Teddy Spaghetti” name (yes, I know that he lives in Italy but so what? Is that supposed to hurt his feelings?). I call him the Blase Schizoid Lord because half the time it’s like he’s physically present but his mind is somewhere else. Watch his “Why I Had to Disavow Owen Benjamin” Darkstream if it’s still on Youtube. The way he tells the joke you’d think someone paid him to tell it, because he clearly didn’t think it was funny.

  78. ys says:

    Chivalry stuff aside, I wouldn’t worry too much, or be too confident, in what Vox Day believes either way. The Junior Classics thing is simply an attempt to make money. Promoting the chivalry part of it is simply a salesman huckstering for his product. It may be deeper than that, but it also may not be.

  79. jsolbakken says:

    ” I don’t get the “Teddy Spaghetti” name (yes, I know that he lives in Italy but so what? Is that supposed to hurt his feelings?).”

    His real name is Theodore, his claim to fame as a game developer was called “Hot Dish,” in which the player runs a restaurant which may possibly have had spaghetti on the menu. I never played it so I wouldn’t know. And, yes, for some reason, mild chiding makes Teddy Spaghetti’s head explode, and it makes the heads of his vile mindless minions explode as well. They can dish it out, but, they cannot take it. It’s rather amusing, actually.

    Check this out if you want to see how mild Teddy’s critics are and how vicious he and his mindless minions are in return. I used to be Alphaeus.

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/06/mailvox-its-only-fair.html

  80. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    If chivalry must involve courtly love, then what do we call Gautier or Roland’s code of chivalry, if it is in fact not chivalry?

    If chivalry is dead in that sense, then there needs to be a word to describe what it used to be. The issue you’ve addressed will be likely impossible to untangle until that happens.

    Right now, courtly love and the warrior ethos are considered linked together and inseparably because the same word is used to describe both without directly referencing the other. This is probably why military servicemen are often the most blue-pilled out there regardless of how fierce they are in combat.

    The only way to separate the concepts is by giving one of them a new identity.

  81. Oscar says:

    @ The Question

    If chivalry must involve courtly love, then what do we call Gautier or Roland’s code of chivalry, if it is in fact not chivalry?

    Call it what it is, a Christian warrior’s creed.

  82. ys says:

    Jsolbakken-
    I read part of that thread just now…I wouldn’t lose sleep over it if I were you. Having someone admit they are wrong, on the internet, is a fool’s errand. Once the name-calling and ridicule of you started, it was never going to stop, and you can’t talk your way out of it, etc. and so forth. Accept it as is and move on.

  83. Damn Crackers says:

    @Mycroft Jones

    “I say cucked ever since they stuck the Pericipe Adulterae into the New Testament.”

    Even before that you should read the “Shephard of Hermas.” The reading was almost included with canon and was written about 100 years after the crucifixion. It is all woman worship and allowing adulterous woman back to their cucked husbands.

  84. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Damn Crackers I agree, Shepherd of Hermas is pretty bad. I think the Pericope Adulterae dates from shortly after the Shepherd of Hermas. My initial statement of 300 years after Christ would more accurately be “second half of the second century AD”. Hermas has a view of marriage that is very Roman and Babylonian, but un-biblical. That was the first thing I picked up on, and I read it way before I was red-pilled! And cuckery was prominent in Rome also, the daughter of Roman emperor Augustus was named Julia. And she was such a cuckolding whore that eventually he had to exile her from the city. But Augustus covered for her for a very long time, even forcing the next emperor Tiberius to divorce the wife he loved, and marry Julia. Tiberius never was the same afterward. The whole Roman influence on Western Civ, is something of which we would be well rid.

  85. Gunner Q says:

    Mycroft Jones @ 1:29 am:
    “Billy, the Bible itself refers to the “lying pen of the scribes” having corrupted the words of God. The Bible has been fairly accurately transmitted, but if you are of the belief the Bible couldn’t be tampered with, then no evidence will convince you.”

    Mycroft, if you’re going to debunk Christianity then please show evidence more convincing than a third party discussing his esoteric research. Also, please be more honest that your goal is debunking Christianity. Let’s have none of this fork-tongued “the Bible has been fairly accurately transmitted”.

    “if you are of the belief the Bible couldn’t be tampered with, then no evidence will convince you.”

    if you are of the belief the Bible was tampered with then no evidence will convince you.

    So many thousands of liars, unbelievers and Gnostics have attacked the Bible’s content over so many centuries with nothing to show for their furious efforts that there’s no reason for the average Christian to hear yet another attempt. Why should we become triple PhD’s in ancient literature just to confirm you’re wrong?

  86. Jake says:

    If we were to list a pro/con list for vox day:

    Pro is he hates sjws. His book, sjws always lie is good practical advice. I personally think running a corporation is stupid but if you are going to go that way I think generally listening to his advice is a smart thing to do. He fights the right people, and calls out false people on “our” side. He dismisses binary thoughts.

    Cons are I think he sees more truth than he preaches and doesn’t talk about it so he can sell more. I appreciate him launching his own movie but it’s a female lead. He is a salesman. He also hurt jsolbakken’s fee fees. His intolerance of weak men can be harsh. He seems like a limp fish on his stream and his sense of humour is alien. Maybe it’s just awkward for him.

    All in all I appreciate much of what he is doing, but some stuff seems like cynical mimicry

  87. Damn Crackers says:

    @Mycroft Jones

    Well, I think Emperor Tiberius enjoyed swimming with his prepubescent “fishes” than being married to any woman.

    But yes, I think all of St. Paul’s sex and marriage talk in his letters warns believers against replicating what the Romans did in those regards. Much of his discussions against revelry, drunkenness, carousing, orgies, fornication, harlotry, etc. mainly derived from pagan/emperor worship at some level.

  88. AnonS says:

    A big month its been with the Joker movie and the groyper wars.

    Some of this could be survivorship bias. Knights could have had a martial code but didn’t write it down (so we just have guesswork), and all we have is the version that court scribes wrote about. This means that “going back to the original documents” means stuff that the actual knights didn’t write themselves.

    There are many smart people that are pattern thinkers such as Vox Day. Pattern thinkers can many times pull out new ideas from a set of facts and be right, or they can project a pattern unto noise and be convinced they are right. All you need is “government lies” as a pattern maker and now tons of history is up for grabs. If any individual fact that you hold up is disproved you just move to the next in line because the pattern most hold.

    Hypothesis thinkers remain neutral as to conclusions, slowly hypothesis test theories, are willing to assign probabilities, and accept they may never know things.

    Entertain ideas from pattern thinkers but stick around and listen to the iterative testing that hypothesis thinkers build.

  89. emery says:

    @jsolbakken cries out as he strikes you. Why does ‘gamma male’ offend you so much, do you identify as one? Did he hit the mark in regards to you? If not, why care at all? “transgender self-mutilating monster who renounced their humanity’ is pretty insulting but no ordinary person would take offense. It’s been asserted that gamma/alpha/etc are empirical observations that can be used to make predictions on behavior, Vox even said life is best when nearly everyone is a Delta and society supports them the most. After all you need to know yourself before you can move against the enemy, many self-identified ‘gammas’ even wear it as a badge of pride.

    Back on topic I believe Dalrock is right here, his homework into Christian history is a lot more convincing than looking back on romantic periods. When I think on the apostles of Jesus Christ I don’t think of anything remotely chivalrous. I think of scared men fighting against the fallen world with the support of the Almighty God, not any sort of code of conduct or knightly anything. The transition from the 12 over to the romantic period chivalry doesn’t make sense as an organic transition as they are too dissimilar, Dalrock’s statement that it was an intentional perversion/combination explains that discrepancy.

  90. vandicus says:

    Side note on the topic of Mary, she was a temple virgin. Her becoming pregnant would’ve been a subject of controversy not only for herself but Joseph as well.

  91. Dry Holes says:

    @Mycroft Jones

    “the Orthodox STILL have on the books a gay marriage ceremony”

    Citation please?

  92. Oscar says:

    @ emery

    When I think on the apostles of Jesus Christ I don’t think of anything remotely chivalrous. I think of scared men fighting against the fallen world with the support of the Almighty God, not any sort of code of conduct or knightly anything.

    Agreed, but when I called the Knight’s Code a Christian warrior’s creed, I meant a literal, physical warrior.

    Warriors from many places, cultures, and times had, and still have, codes, or creeds. They still do. The most famous in the US Army is the Ranger Creed.

    The great thing about the Knight’s Code is that it is specifically, and explicitly Christian, and as far that goes, I think it’s still valid for Christian warriors today. Again, speaking specifically about literal, physical warriors.

    So, for those who want to keep the honorable code, while rejecting the courtly love garbage, just call it a Christian warriors’ creed.

  93. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Dry Holes reference look up Adelphopoiesis. The difference between Wikipedia and Infogalactic is interesting. For the first time I see an Infogalactic page where the Wikipedia page is better. Someone scrubbed the infogalactic page to make it a straw man debunking of adelphpoiesis as homosexual marriage, removing the historical references that show it was often a sexual thing.

  94. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Oscar I remember as a child hearing the phrase “Code of Honour”. Works for me.

  95. vandicus says:

    This association of adelphopoiesis with homosexuality seems largely to be pushed by homosexual groups and organizations, and indeed originates with a homosexual historian’s work.

    Has Mycroft Jones discovered the one instance where a lavender rendition of history is correct?

    Considering the age of the Didache, the claim is that Christianity has bounced back and forth between approving and condemning homosexuality, without anyone besides the modern fabulous making note of this. Somehow, the religion which has had controversy after controversy and indeed schisms over very precise details regarding the nature of Christ, had radical changes to morality back and forth without the slightest peep.

  96. Anon says:

    Scott,

    A friend of mine works for JPL and he is part of a project that monitors the moons deteriorating orbit around the earth. They do this by bouncing signals off mirrors that were placed on the moon during the “fake” moon landings.

    In addition to that and a dozen other factual elements of proof.

    There is another big red flag about anyone who thinks the Moon Landing was faked :

    The conspiracy theorists don’t know anything else about astronomy, if it is not related to the Moon.

    For example, they don’t know what the names of the four big moons of Jupiter are, or the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or some of the names of the nearest stars. Very basic knowledge, but they don’t have it, and are not curious about the subject at all.

    This is yet another indicator of how phony and unintelligent those clods are.

  97. Dry Holes says:

    @Mycroft Jones:

    Your assertion is defamatory and absurd. Only you magic 20th & 21st Cen lefties under stand historic Christianity- right? Every member for 20 cens misunderstood their own church- but you come to enlighten us. What do you think of Global Warming – oh please let me know. Vox Day has less hubris.

  98. Damn Crackers says:

    @Vandicus – The research suggests that most ceremonial uses of Adelphopoiesis was to replace pagan blood-brother ceremonies. The fact that some partners in these bonding ceremonies were accused of sodomy shouldn’t be surprising. It doesn’t mean the ceremony condoned homosexual behavior.

    @Anon – Michael Malice mentioned that one should only take one red pill, not the whole bottle.

  99. anonymous coward says:

    For example, they don’t know what the names of the four big moons of Jupiter are…

    Really? All of them? Citation, as they say, needed.

    Also, since you’re an astronomy expert, riddle me this: what color is the surface of the moon?

  100. Damn Crackers says:

    And before everyone jumps on @Mycroft Jones’s statements, much of what he says lines up with the main stream beliefs of your own churches! For example, most Biblical scholars of many denominations believe that only have the letters attributed to St. Paul in the NT are actually written by him. Others think that the letters of Peter and James were flat out forgeries.

    Now, I don’t know if any of that is certain. But beware that these ideas are already discussed in the seminaries of your version of Christianity now! As I said before, many of the Biblical passages we cite here will be soon tossed aside as “wrong fake Christianity”, as fake as the old Donatio Constantini, by “woke” scholars too.

  101. Anon says:

    anonymous coward (an apt name) wrote :

    Really? All of them?

    Pretty much. Yourself included.

    The ‘Moon Landing is a hoax’ meme is for them what the ‘pay gap’ is for feminists.

  102. jsolbakken says:

    As I’ve said, I used to find Vox Day’s vituperation enjoyable, but when it got stupid, when he started showing contempt for people who were otherwise friends and supports by spewing insulting rhetoric at them instead of respecting them with dialectic, I knew the guy was his own worst enemy, and as such he was an enemy of any cause we may have assumed we shared.
    It’s not personal, Sonny, it’s political business.

  103. American says:

    Stop the presses Vox because you are wrong. Period. EOM.

  104. jsolbakken says:

    “He also hurt jsolbakken’s fee fees. His intolerance of weak men can be harsh. He seems like a limp fish on his stream and his sense of humour is alien.”

    It’s hard to have a discussion of ideas when retards just spew asinine rhetoric and then when the other person gets frustrated and pissed at the stupidity they get told they’re feelings are hurt because they must be weak.
    Would you have the nerve to tell someone that 99% of their facts were accurate and that their logic was basically sound, but, they were wrong anyway because they are a liar, a coward, a sodomite, a Satan worshiper, and worst of all, a gamma? Would you say that to someone when they were close enough to punch your face? Would the problem there be that they were weak for punching your face, or, you were stupid for talking like an @$$-clown?

  105. jsolbakken says:

    Of course Dalrock is right, brilliantly so.

    As for gamma, calling someone gamma is not an argument.

    Is this where I say that Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself?

  106. I used to believe that women civilized men. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve realized that it is more the other way around. Men civilize women, while women incentivize men to pursue civilization.

    Well put! Whom do I cite?

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    jsolbakken
    It’s hard to have a discussion of ideas when retards just spew asinine rhetoric and then when the other person gets frustrated and pissed at the stupidity they get told they’re feelings are hurt because they must be weak.

    Do you have a mirror?

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    J.J. Griffing
    Well put! Whom do I cite?

    “The Manosphere”.

  109. Queen Medb (the Connaught queen in “The Cattle Raid of Cooley”– the Irish legend you refer to) was practically a blonde-haired Jezebel, if the Wikipedia entry on her is anything to go by. Be glad for Ireland’s sake, maybe, that syphilis hadn’t come over from the New World yet, the way she made free.

    As to the Courtly Love being a holdover from pagan pre-Christian Europe, I think you might be onto something. Especially as its rise also corresponded with the rise not just of the Grail lore (noted above: it also has parallels in Celtic myth) but of the Marian cult in Catholicism that still contaminates their church today. In other words, it likely has a taproot in the old bad goddess-cults.

    Good catch!

  110. jsolbakken says:

    Tell your boss Alphaeus says hi.

  111. Which “foolish assertion” are you referring to? Pagan roots? Or that such things were practiced historically at N period in P place? Or something else?

  112. Anonymous Reader says:

    @jsolbakken

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    @J.J. Griffing

    Who are you talking to? Consider including some “to” or “@” information.
    If you are replying to a person, it is easier for everyone to understand your point if we know who you are replying to. Otherwise it’s like some guy on the street talking to the air.

  114. 7817 says:

    J.J. Griffing

    The things I quoted were all from Vox Day’s blog.

  115. I don’t know where you do your research, but that’s flatly impossible. The Jewish temple didn’t have any “temple virgins.” The nearest they came to that was in the days of pagan kings in pre-exilic Judah, when certain of the idol cults they’d bring into the temple (then Solomon’s) included temple whores, but this practice and its associated idolatries were regularly condemned and denounced by the prophets of God.

  116. Mycroft Jones says:

    @7817 I believe J.J.Griffing was replying to BillyS.

  117. SirHamster says:

    @Mycroft

    @SirHamster well done. I’ve argued with you in the past, but much respect for taking this one on.

    Thanks. Cheers.

    @Oscar

    If chivalry must involve courtly love, then what do we call Gautier or Roland’s code of chivalry, if it is in fact not chivalry?

    Call it what it is, a Christian warrior’s creed.

    I am partial to Crusader’s Creed.

  118. emery says:

    @Oscar. I can see the value in a warrior’s creed in general. I also like Christianity, to say the least. The combination is probably good, as you say, and warriors of God in the past have had great works done through them. Thinking on it the people of God rarely went without full military structure or at least actual physical weapons (apostles had swords, wandering jews had armies, etc).

    Now that you’ve mentioned it our generation has really seen the dismantlement of anything remotely like a Christian military organization. The current Pope is a pozzed antipope, the boyscouts are converged, national guard units purposely being split up or rearranged to reduce familial/regional loyalty, muscularity is being shamed, etc. I hear a monastic order of gun toting Christians is starting up somewhere though, on Vox’s blog. Let God protect them from the likes of Lon Horiuchi.

    In regards to the moon landing, people really just want to know why we can’t go back and when asked NASA also says we can’t go back. Is it sheer degeneration of the peoples of America? Are boomers that shitty? Was it because NASA found ‘something’ there that caused them to flee forever? A popular ‘fake moon’ landing hypothesis is that the astronauts actually found intelligence up there that told us to cut it out. Or that the first moon landings were faked for prestige cred but later ones hit the mark. The government is not known for being truthful, after all.

  119. jsolbakken says:

    Who would Yoda consider butt hurt? The one who got banned, or, the one who does the banning? The one who is willing to engage, or, the one who runs away like a candy @$$ pansy?

    Stand up and show your self a man, and maybe you’ll get the respect you crave.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    jsolbutthurten
    Stand up and show your self a man, and maybe you’ll get the respect you crave.

  121. jsolbakken says:

    Star Wars again? OK, Boomer.

  122. Jake says:

    @jsolbakken I feel kinda bad but spun you up on purpose. Note other people are pointing it out. Posturing on the internet is silly. Might as well tell me your dad can beat up my dad. You can be better than this, Godspeed.

    As for those facts, your friends job is to measure the distance between the Earth and the moon? Is that like a full time gig? Definitely went to the moon then.

    Actual quotes from NASA:
    Don petties: I would love to go to the moon, but we don’t have the technology. We had it, then destroyed it.
    NASA heliophysicist: the sun rises in the West
    Don again: as far as I know that telemetry data (from the moon trips) doesn’t exist. Even if we could find it, we couldn’t read it (magnetically stored information I would assume?)
    NASA: van allen belt prevents is from going to the moon?
    Everyone: how did we do it in the sixties?
    NASA: …

    So with that, do you believe the Bible to be the Divine word of God? If so what is the firmament above and below? What are the waters above? What is the new Jerusalem descending as a shining dome? Is only Jerusalem getting to be a new Earth? How do you reconcile God’s stated purpose for the heavens (so man may have a clock) with a big empty stretch of nonsense? Whirling galaxies so far away they can’t be seen except with extremely specialized equipment and computer generated anyways. That’s retarded.

    I’m done dalrock. They called me incurious which rustled my jimmies. I choose to meditate on the law of God and they cast aspersions on me for rejecting a science which engages in the selling of baby body parts, a warming hoax, evolution nonsense, and trannies; all of which is designed to decieve and traumatize you and you all lap it up so no one thinks you are a weirdo. Look into it yourself with an open mind and stop accepting the word of people who hate you. Ok actually done now.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

  124. jsolbakken says:

    Is that from a boomer cartoon?

  125. Rpro says:

    Coincidental that this popped up on the net today about actual chivalry. https://magaimg.net/img/9o4x.jpg

  126. 7817 says:

    It’s a bit creepy, the extent that Vox moving on from a gamma resembles Hannibal Lecter walking away from someone whose brain has been exposed to the world.

    The unconscious self exposure of someone’s id is difficult to watch.

  127. info says:

    @white
    Didnt you realize the pharisees by taking the adulteress to Jesus whilst not bringing the male counterpart makes the death penalty illegal since both the adulteress and adulterer participating were to be executed. Not only according to Mosaic Law but Roman Law forbidded jews from carrying out the death penalty themselves.

    They were seeking to trap Jesus.

  128. Micha Elyi says:

    Courtly Love… is still a fundamental premise of many churches today.
    Anonymous Reader

    Show your evidence for your assertion. Start by defining what you mean by “Courtly Love(sic)”. Give examples of those “many churches”. Show your objectively verifiable evidence for your claim that courtly love is “a fundamental premise” of those churches’ teaching.

    P.S. The phrase ‘courtly love’ is not a proper noun so in English it should not be capitalized.

  129. Micha Elyi says:

    Don’t take Vox seriously. After all, his best friend is Owen Benjamin.
    Lexet Blog

    Your argumentum ad hominem underwhelms with lack of persuasive force.

  130. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster

    I am partial to Crusader’s Creed.

    Per gratiam Dei.

    @ emery

    Now that you’ve mentioned it our generation has really seen the dismantlement of anything remotely like a Christian military organization. The current Pope is a pozzed antipope, the boyscouts are converged, national guard units purposely being split up or rearranged to reduce familial/regional loyalty, muscularity is being shamed, etc. I hear a monastic order of gun toting Christians is starting up somewhere though, on Vox’s blog. Let God protect them from the likes of Lon Horiuchi.

    I’m currently deployed, and I keep an icon of Saint Maurice of the Theban Legion on my wall with the following quote.

    Know, oh Emperor, we are your soldiers but also the soldiers of the true God. We owe you military service and obedience, but we cannot renounce Him who is our Creator and Master, and also yours even though you reject Him. In all things which are not against His law, we most willingly obey you, as we have done hitherto. We readily oppose your enemies whoever they are, but we cannot stain our hands with the blood of innocent people (Christians). We have taken an oath to God before we took one to you, you cannot place any confidence in our second oath if we violate the other (the first). You commanded us to execute Christians, behold we are such. We confess God the Father the creator of all things and His Son Jesus Christ, God. We have seen our comrades slain with the sword, we do not weep for them but rather rejoice at their honour. Neither this, nor any other provocation have tempted us to revolt. Behold, we have arms in our hands, but we do not resist, because we would rather die innocent than live by any sin.

    If anyone ever tells me to take it down, I plan to say, “it’s because he’s black, isn’t it?”

  131. Cane Caldo says:

    I do not understand the desire to attempt to salvage Gautier’s attempted salvage of Chivalry. You will lead others right back to the error just as Gautier did. Throw it all away! Let us repent fully and build new houses.

  132. Cane Caldo says:

    Can you reform servant leader without pointing others back to long-held error of wives ruling husbands? No! Burn it all in your hearts.

  133. vandicus says:

    @ JJ Griffings

    The temple virgins are referenced at multiple points in the Old Testament and in newer works.

    We would not dispute I believe, that there were women serving some sort of liturgical role “at the door of the tabernacle” in exodus and samuel.

    In 2Maccabees 3:19-20(yes I’m aware this is a book Protestants reject, but you cannot claim Catholic authorship as it predates us) we learn of virgins going to the High Priest Onias. One must either conclude that virgins generally have access to the High Priest, or that these were temple women, presumably those who weave the veil of the temple as referenced in the Mishnah.

    It is possible though uncertain that these are the people who lived in the cloisters referenced by Josephus.

    Additionally, at least in the case of Mary, it would seem obvious that she was in a marriage not intended to be consumated. As St. Augustine says

    “Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow”

    https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-were-joseph-and-mary-married

    From a moral perspective this also makes the most sense. Consider how different things look, both in clarity regarding a virgin birth and regarding the obligations placed upon Joseph if Mary was not to be his wife in a conventional sense but instead a ritual one, where he was knowingly taking on an obligation for the glory of God.

  134. Robert says:

    I’m not clued up on chivalry, but Jesus loving us enough to die for us seems like chivalry to the max- and Paul tells husbands to love like that in Ephesians 5!

  135. Mark Stoval says:

    It is obvious that our host is correct and that Vox Day is wrong.

    Good post, enjoyed it very much.

  136. 7817 says:

    Cane

    I do not understand the desire to attempt to salvage Gautier’s attempted salvage of Chivalry. You will lead others right back to the error just as Gautier did. Throw it all away! Let us repent fully and build new houses.

    Can you reform servant leader without pointing others back to long-held error of wives ruling husbands? No! Burn it all in your hearts.

    The reasons why the chivalrous elements were included in this project are not clear to me either. My preference would have been that they were not, however, the rest of the project looks pretty good. If the chivalric elements are to over the top, it would be easy to remove that volume from the bookshelf and leave the rest available to the kids.

    As I said, I don’t understand Vox’s reasoning one this, unless it is just marketing. You have to figure that a decent chunk of his audience considers chivalry to be good. Dalrock’s work has opened my eyes, but this site is not generally accepted even by mainstream conservatism.

    As shown from the quotes I cited above, Vox is clearly not chivalrous, so the answer must lie somewhere else, I don’t know where.

    Finally, the urge to burn chivalry down is understandable, and I am in favor, but when it comes to preserving our knowledge of the past, there is value in preserving things you disagree with. That’s why I recommend pulling that volume off the shelf that the kids have access to. If we are to be consistent about this, there are a lot of other things we will have to restrict access to as well. It may well be better to go through the stories and help the kids understand WHY the chivalry is bad, instead of just restricting access. They’re going to have to grapple with these issues at some point anyway… still working through how best to approach it myself.

  137. SirHamster says:

    The reasons why the chivalrous elements were included in this project are not clear to me either. My preference would have been that they were not, however, the rest of the project looks pretty good. If the chivalric elements are to over the top, it would be easy to remove that volume from the bookshelf and leave the rest available to the kids.

    From a classics/literature perspective, I don’t see why it would be necessary to purge the works, even if we were all to agree and accept that courtly love makes all chivalric literature dangerous to impressionable young men.

    There are pagan philosophers and artistic works that are part of a Western education. Christianized myths are also part of the cultural foundation, even if they need to be contextualized, compartmentalized, or quarantined.

    Is anyone offering a superior collection of works to replace the selection?

  138. BillyS says:

    Mycroft,

    Your “most scholars” claims still lacks proper evidence. Though it still goes back to what “scholar” is. You would likely only include those who focus on the academics and end up going into a big number of ditches. I have heard many trusted Bible teachers find arguments like this utter and complete garbage.

    I have no problem calling you a fool because you are one, wanting to sweep away the Scripture to fit your own views.

    Oscar,

    They don’t really read the Scriptures looking for truth. The read them looking for things to tear apart so they can claim to be among a group of select scholars instead!

    Jake,

    You apparently have not read VD for long, or at least you haven’t paid attention. I can’t recall a single word he said being tolerant for MGTOW or anything else that got into his craw. He has become much harsher recently, but he has had a longstanding problem of not accepting anyone or thing that opposed his views. Perhaps “free trade” is the one exception of this, according to what he claims, but that also may be the exception that proves the rule.

    He fails to realize that someone may disagree strongly with him without being evil. He also fails to back up many points, including the negatives behind things. (“Who makes the rules” being one of them for the controlled traded argument.) It isn’t that he has to unwind his stance because of those arguments, but he will not even respond to those issues being raised. You are evil, stupid or both for raising the concern.

    That is not a productive way to live life, but Vox is on the winning side in so many ways. Ironic that many who have been faithful to the Scriptures and in life got out worse than he has, with his reprobate years, but he is still the authority on all things he thinks about. Somehow I doubt that for anyone. All humans fall short, but he won’t admit that and have a little compassion.

    He did rail against “shooting against your own side” IIRC years ago, but not does so with glee. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: It wasn’t I who left VD, it was VD who left me.

  139. 7817 says:

    From a classics/literature perspective, I don’t see why it would be necessary to purge the works, even if we were all to agree and accept that courtly love makes all chivalric literature dangerous to impressionable young men.

    I agree, but if I understand it right, Vox got rid of some dated literature that would not resonate with kids now, and substituted the chivalric elements for that. Correct me if I’m mistaken

  140. BillyS says:

    Vandicus,

    Your arguments are well outside of Scripture. Quoting Augustine proves nothing. He had many errant views, some springing because he got disgusted from his past hedonistic lifestyle IIRC and reacted well past it the other way.

    Mary was amazed she would have a child because she hadn’t had sex with no plans to do so until she was married, not just engaged, to Joseph. No basis at all to believe that other than your own errant thinking.

    ====

    Not sure why I would be considered to be butthurt. To restate it, I am not banned at VP was far as I know. I just simply stopped reading there as productive commentary got flooded by the outrage he has against so many things now, including MGTOWs.

    He won the wife lottery (as it seems) and demands that others keep playing, even though he bailed from the country (at his own admittance) that most of us have to live in.

    I am a MGTOW only in the sense that my wife of many years bailing from a long term marriage left me alone and I am unlikely to have another for many reasons. I will almost certainly never have any children no matter what I do, but he feels compelled to call even those like me as “your bad name here” because I say that the field is a whole lot more dangerous than he or others acknowledge or consider.

  141. SirHamster says:

    I agree, but if I understand it right, Vox got rid of some dated literature that would not resonate with kids now, and substituted the chivalric elements for that. Correct me if I’m mistaken

    I think you are mistaken.

    “In addition to restoring the missing 1918 elements, we will be adding one (1) new classic of our own selection per volume.”

    I had to look it up, but the stated intention is addition, not substitution. As a restoration, that makes some of the criticism against leaving works in misplaced. A car restoration project has different goals than a car remodeling project.

  142. 7817 says:

    I was wrong. This is the quote I misremembered:

    The 2020 edition is about 85 percent 1918 and 15 percent 1958. This is because the 1918 volumes are generally better, but a) one of the original volumes was half-comprised of Alice in Wonderland whereas the later volume had a better and broader selection of stories, and b) the stories contained in the 1918 Volume 9 Stories of Today are seriously outdated and mediocre in comparison with the relatively timeless stories contained in the 1958 Volume 9, Sport and Adventure.

    It was from this post: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/10/24-hours-300-percent.html?m=1

  143. jsolbakken says:

    BillyS:
    “but he feels compelled to call even those like me as “your bad name here” because I say that the field is a whole lot more dangerous than he or others acknowledge or consider”

    VD had the nerve to agree with 99% of the facts presented, and quibbled only with the percentage of Christian marriages that end in divorce, and then also to agree with the logic of the analysis, but still insisted that MGTOW’s were liars, cowards, sodomites, and Satan worshipers, just because he hates them so much and reason has nothing to do with it. Which is his prerogative, but he ought to be able to use his 150 IQ to figure out that if he gets too carried away with his irrational emotions he might promote animosity.
    No level of IQ is enough to save a man in the throes of an untamed passion.

  144. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    My criticism was directed less at Vox (who is not here) and more at Oscar, The Question, Sir Hamster, and others who want to preserve a Gautier’s code as if it were something meaningful. His code is a revisionist history that would be unknown to anyone who actually lived during the time which he falsely purported to interpret. What’s more: Even if Gautier’s fiction was retained by their (or anyone’s) efforts, then so what? The average man doesn’t know that code. I do because I’m a nerd.

    If we’re going to be weirdo Bible-thumpers and traditionalists then lets do it right. The martial pattern in the Bible is Roman, for starters. And this:

    Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.
    Thou shalt defend the Church.
    Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
    Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
    Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
    Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
    Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
    Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
    Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
    Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

    isn’t even wholly supportable with Scripture.

    It’s not even terribly martial. Though I suppose that is a feature in a culture whose men bemoan the moral failings of a fastfood chain. (If you can’t say “Amen!” then y’all just say “Ouch!”.)

  145. 7817 says:

    Cane

    This discussion has a deja vu quality about it, but I’m going to ask anyway… Is the Bushido code worth preserving in your view? As far as I am aware, it was at least somewhat functional in its day, as opposed to being merely literary.

    And to take it another step further, do you consider any martial codes to have value? I’m aware of the difficulty in extracting a strictly martial code from chivalry as it is bound up with courtly love, this is a different question.

  146. 7817 says:

    I can see value in Gautier’s code, despite flaws.

    Part of the value of history is the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. It’s like digging a foundation for a house only to discover a perfectly servicable one already exists under the soil, albiet with some flaws that need to be dealt with prior to building.

    Starting continually from scratch just seems like a bad idea to me, but I understand the reasoning, as courtly love is cancer.

  147. white says:

    @Cane

    I can only guess these men and Gautier are all deeply comfortable with the idea of not holding men responsible to some sort of man-made rules (that women will be exempt from). Imagine men being free from non-biblical responsibilities for once? Unthinkable!

  148. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo

    My criticism was directed less at Vox (who is not here) and more at Oscar, The Question, Sir Hamster, and others who want to preserve a Gautier’s code as if it were something meaningful.

    I did not suggest that we preserve Gautier’s code. I suggested a name (Christian warrior’s creed) other than “chivalry” for those who want to preserve it, and explained why I suggested that name.

    I do think that warrior creeds are important. Don’t take my word for it. Ask a former Ranger about the Ranger Creed.

    But, again, warrior creeds are for actual warriors. Men who train to fight. The Ranger Creed is for Rangers. It’s not for me, because I’ve never been a Ranger. It would make no sense to hold me to the standard of a creed that begins “Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession”, when I never did any such thing.

    To summarize; I do think Christian warriors would benefit from a Christian warriors creed, but I do not know what that creed should be.

  149. Oscar says:

    @ white

    I can only guess these men and Gautier are all deeply comfortable with the idea of not holding men responsible to some sort of man-made rules (that women will be exempt from). Imagine men being free from non-biblical responsibilities for once? Unthinkable!

    You’re not very good at guessing.

    Warriors, not men in general, need a warriors’ creed. Men who are not warriors do not need a warriors’ creed.

    And no; women should not be held accountable to a warriors’ creed, because women should never be warriors.

  150. Mycroft Jones says:

    @7817 modern scholars say the Bushido code was as recent, and as real, as the Gautier code.

  151. Mycroft Jones says:

    In fact, sounds like the Bushido code was invented by a Japanese who converted (or was raised as) a Baptist Christian.

  152. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    I’m aware of the difficulty in extracting a strictly martial code from chivalry as it is bound up with courtly love, this is a different question.

    Are you aware? Because in your preceding sentences you implied Gautier’s imagined code has parity with Bushido. What I know about Bushido is summarized from American movies starring actors like Wesley Snipes so basically nothing at all, but I do think Bushido was a real code. Has anyone produced here an actual, historical, medieval European martial code to be judged? No. Dalrock highlighted that fact in the OP: Not only is courtly love a perversion of Christianity, but there has never been a living tradition of martial chivalry either. It has always been a (perverted) aspiration.

    And to take it another step further, do you consider any martial codes to have value?

    Sure. The Geneva Conventions seem pretty good. It doesn’t have the romantic flair of chevaliers or samurai, but it does have the benefits of relating to modern warfare, codification, and verifiable existence.

    Starting continually from scratch just seems like a bad idea to me

    The thing is that Bible–specifically the New Testament–already has codified rules of behavior in it. I’m not suggesting we start from scratch. I’m saying we start living by faith and therefore following the directions within. Is anyone in the military? Let him obey his commanders. They will give him his code.

    A church military might be interesting.

  153. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar

    I did not suggest that we preserve Gautier’s code. I suggested a name (Christian warrior’s creed) other than “chivalry” for those who want to preserve it, and explained why I suggested that name.

    My fault; I misunderstood you. I do get the sense that there is hanging in the air a request for a man’s code. That’s perfectly understandable since the phony code of chivalry was democratized downward from nobles to gentry to everyman through the years. It’s our cultural habit. We’re going to need something new.

    I do think that warrior creeds are important. Don’t take my word for it. Ask a former Ranger about the Ranger Creed.

    But, again, warrior creeds are for actual warriors.

    Agreed, and an important point.

  154. Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The secret source edition. – Adam Piggott

  155. 7817 says:

    Cane

    I asked because I wanted to know what you thought.

    Not everything is a fight

  156. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo

    I do get the sense that there is hanging in the air a request for a man’s code. That’s perfectly understandable since the phony code of chivalry was democratized downward from nobles to gentry to everyman through the years. It’s our cultural habit. We’re going to need something new.

    Yeah, that “democratizing downward” seems to be a constant problem in our culture.

  157. 7817 says:

    Yeah, that “democratizing downward” seems to be a constant problem in our culture.

    It’s a feature, not a bug.

    Why does God ask us to pray for our governing authorities

  158. Mycroft Jones says:

    @CaneCaldo I do not understand the desire to attempt to salvage Gautier’s attempted salvage of Chivalry. You will lead others right back to the error just as Gautier did. Throw it all away! Let us repent fully and build new houses.

    Can you reform servant leader without pointing others back to long-held error of wives ruling husbands? No! Burn it all in your hearts.

    Amen and Amen. God really punished Israel for their worship of the Queen of Heaven. Then the Church goes right into the same error!

  159. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    Understood, but the custom of many commenters is to niggle rather than understand what the other guy is saying; or to try with questions to show the other guy ignorant of minutiae which isn’t even pertinent! I write the way I do to discourage the pedants.

  160. Jake says:

    @billys

    I’ve read vox for maybe six years now with religiously reading him for the middle four. You are right. If we call 1 accepting and ten denouncing he was like a seven in aggravated tolerance and moved to an eleven.

    It is because you guys are cringey and annoying with hitting the same note over and over and over and over. Yes it’s a minefield. I don’t believe it’s any different now than it has been in the past because the Bible says nothing new under the sun. There were dangers then as there are now.

    But the only way to have kids and fuck legally under the only law that matters is God’s way. If you are spanking it you are wrong. Do you guys understand that this is kind of like torture? Do you think I don’t know how dangerous it can be? I DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS SO IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING USEFUL TO SAY SHUT THE FUCK UP AND SIT IN THE CORNER.

    I’m sorry your wife left you. That sucks man. Lick your wounds all you want. Take as long as you need to heal. Stop sucking the energy out of the room by coming along like wormtongue and spreading despair. Remember the King looks livened by aragorn’s message of hope and then wormtongue whispers in his ear and the energy just drains out of him? That’s mgtows.

    I don’t hate you but I come here for a specific reason and I go to vox for a specific reason and I listen to Owen Benjamin for a specific reason and none of that is for people to tell me how to give up.

  161. feministhater says:

    I DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS SO IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING USEFUL TO SAY SHUT THE FUCK UP AND SIT IN THE CORNER.

    Why does he have to do anything you say? Who are you? Does anyone here give a fuck what you think or say? Does anything you do matter? No, so why don’t you shut the fuck up and go sit in the corner?

    You fucktards think you own the right to speak.. you don’t. Why does anyone have to listen to you at all?

  162. jsolbakken says:

    ” Do you guys understand that this is kind of like torture?”

    In those cases where I find I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t, I usually choose don’t, but it is very much a personal decision.
    As for giving up, I do not at all in any way find MGTOW’s to be wormtongues whispering despair in to anyone’s ears. When I hear MGTOW’s like Bar Bar and Spetsnaz and huMan and TFM, I hear words of hope and joy; I hear words that tell me I don’t have to settle for a life of being tortured by a harpy who hates me and treats me with contempt except for when she wants something from me.
    I find I’m too busy with important matters and I don’t have time for frivolity anyway. Nice try, though, do spin again.

    btw, do you also think the earth is flat, like Owen Benjamin?

  163. Jake says:

    Are they truly living a celibate life? Are they living a spiritual one? Paul says it’d be better if man did not marry but not all men are as he is. I know I’m not. So telling me not to get married is contrary to Paul’s advice. So don’t place burdens on me that Paul wouldn’t.

    Also since my words affect you so deeply I would imagine you are not as spiritual and enlightened as you proclaim. Probably cuz you spend so much time cranking it. No one is telling you to marry a harpy that would be the act of a retard. It’s a false binary. Stay single and just crank it all the time or marry a harpy. Dalrock has only tried to list the veil on female morality, not claim they are all harpies. I too have a base nature which must be corrected. Just find a female who acknowledges her base nature and sees a man to help her rein it in. Who is as horrified by feminism as any same individual. They do exist. Dalrock is married to a based woman. Owen is. My friend is, one of my brothers, my dad, and many more. All these women have problems, but they try not to be animals. Just like the men they are married to.

    You’ll use this to dismiss my words but no I don’t believe the Earth is flat. I believe it is a realm created by God. That he seperated the waters from the waters with a firmament that he called heaven. That he did not create a spinning ball in an infinite void with a bunch of useless rocks. It is a lie designed to make you feel small. It’s off topic, but you asked again even though I couldn’t have been more clear.

  164. Oscar says:

    @ Jake

    That he did not create a spinning ball in an infinite void

    The universe is finite in both space and time, and it’s far from “void”.

    with a bunch of useless rocks.

    The vast majority of heavenly bodies are not “rocks”, and none are “useless”.

    It is a lie designed to make you feel small.

    You are small. One only has to look up at the heavens in a place with zero artificial light to realize that.

    Psalm 8:3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
    The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
    4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
    And the son of man that You visit him?

  165. jsolbakken says:

    ” I know I’m not. So telling me not to get married is contrary to Paul’s advice.”

    That is only fair, and should work both ways. Nobody should be so overbearing that they insist that anyone get married or not get married. Too bad Teddy Spaghetti berated me for asking him to only be fair in this regard; not fair to me, but fair to the argument, which thing he and his 150IQ were incapable of understanding.

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/06/mailvox-its-only-fair.html

    “That he did not create a spinning ball in an infinite void with a bunch of useless rocks. It is a lie designed to make you feel small.”

    But, we are small. We’re even smaller spiritually than we are physically. IF we have faith in Christ and conform ourselves to His image and take after His likeness, THEN we have the power to become a Son of God like He is, for we shall be like Him, and we shall see Him as really He is.
    Other than that, we’re not only small, we’re dead, flat as a pancake, bereft of life, not even able to join the choir invisible.

  166. jsolbakken says:

    You took the words right out of my mouth, and improved them. Thanks.

  167. Expat Philo says:

    Meh, Mr. Beale legitimately believes that a democracy can actually function for an extended period of time. When the flaws inherent in democracy are pointed out to him, he moves on to more important matters.

    He has his blind spots, as do we all, but lacks the maturity to engage with conflicting perspectives with respect to those blind spots.

    He is a good publisher, an above average author, and a passable observer. Nothing more, nothing less. I could comment on his constant demanding that american men do X and Y from his ivory tower in Tuscany, but that could be considered petty.

  168. Anonymous Reader says:

    jsolbakken
    Too bad Teddy Spaghetti berated

    This is childish, and Dalrock has asked you to stop it.

  169. jsolbakken says:

    “He is a good publisher, an above average author, and a passable observer. Nothing more, nothing less.”

    Teddy Spaghetti is a political disaster because he makes enemies for no good reason. If he really and truly cared about his expressed politics, he would train himself to STFU and not antagonize the fence sitters, such as they are. It’s one thing to goad and chide and cajole, but, it’s never a good idea to start stupid sound and insulting rhetoric.

    It must needs be that offenses come, but, woe to those by whom offenses come.

  170. jsolbakken says:

    “This is childish, and Dalrock has asked you to stop it.”

    What’s so childish about it? Teddy Spaghetti is an evil wicked man who works hard to do immense harm to innocent people, especially young men. You guys think he’s inadvertent in his promotion of the worst kinds of chivalry. I’m betting my dollars to your donuts that his intention is to promote gynocracy. He does indeed have a 150 IQ. His obvious stupidity is a weaponized fabrication. He plays smart when it suits him, he plays dumb when thinks he needs to the way a squid squirts ink.

    I missed where Dalrock asked me to cool it. I wouldn’t blame him, but, my excuse would be that certain comment threads are infested with Teddy’s vile mindless apologists. Who are you, anyway? Are you an official moderator for Dalrock? Or are you a VMM working for Teddy Spaghetti and as such lying to me?

  171. horsemanbombadil says:

    Very interesting idea.

    The real test of a woman is after sex, say an hour after. Your hormones, your lust have calmed down. Your blindness by desire for her has been removed. And her most least effort on her part asset, her physicality has been used.

    Then in the calmness we see what she brings, what effort she makes.

    Basically

    So I have had your sexiness, what else ya got?

    And how many are found wanting?

  172. Oscar says:

    @ jsolbakken

    Who are you, anyway? Are you an official moderator for Dalrock? Or are you a VMM working for Teddy Spaghetti and as such lying to me?

    Anonymous Reader can speak for himself, of course, but allow me to briefly testify on his behalf. Both AR and I have criticized Ted Beale for some things, and praised him for others. Not everyone who acknowledges that Beale is doing good things is his acolyte.

    Additionally, Dalrock is a gracious host. I recommend you not abuse his hospitality.

  173. Jake says:

    @oscar

    God made us specifically for his glory. The Stars are lights designed to be a calendar and clock for us, to tell us the seasons. The moon is a lesser light, not a mirror holder so Scott’s friend can draw a check. The sun is a greater light, to keep us warm. It’s all for us, so we may glorify God. They are wonderful gifts to us, man. God>angels>man>all creation. We are more important than creation. Indeed we were given dominion over it and abdicated to the adversary

    Your verse Oscar has nothing to do with cosmology. Genesis 1, psalm 148:4, and Amos 9:6(?) do. They speak of the waters above, the firmament, a dome. Nothing about a bunch of floating balls whirling around a void plunging into a black hole. And space is a void. Ask a physicist to explain to you the ratio of matter to nothing in space. It’s infitesimal. They had to invent a special kind of matter to explain the phenemenon they made up.

    Astronomical distances are big. If we took the most densely packed bit of space they made up, we’ll say the sun and the the plane of the inner ring of planets, we could teleport to 99.9% without touching anything. There might be more nines on there. It’s a void.

  174. Oscar says:

    @ Jake

    Your verse Oscar has nothing to do with cosmology.

    It’s not my verse. There’s no such thing as my verse. There is only God’s Word. And God’s Word reminds us that God chose us to reflect His image, and gave us authority over all creation (including the moon), not because there’s anything special about us, or because we deserve it, but because of His grace, for His glory, and His name’s sake.

    Psalms 103:13 As a father pities his children,
    So the Lord pities those who fear Him.
    14 For He knows our frame;
    He remembers that we are dust.

    15 As for man, his days are like grass;
    As a flower of the field, so he flourishes.
    16 For the wind passes over it, and it is gone,
    And its place remembers it no more.

    By the way, those mirrors that American astronauts placed on the moon, and Scott’s friend at JPL using them to measure the moon’s decaying orbit, are perfect examples of man exercising his God-given dominion over nature.

  175. Mycroft Jones says:

    Years ago I looked into the moon mirror thing. An intern had to focus the signal on the mirrors. His own words were that it was extremely hard. “So difficult, it was as if they weren’t even there”. As if they weren’t even there. Hmm. So you keep twiddling with your radio beams until you hit a spot where they bounce back, given the moon itself is an extremely reflective surface, and claim “that must mean we’ve hit the mirrors!” To me, if it is “as if they weren’t even there”, well, hey, maybe they aren’t there! Ham radio operators do “moon bounce” communications for fun, and they don’t focus on tiny mirrors. The moon mirror thing sounds like a major fraud. Your “friend at JPL” needs to come up with something better than “we bounce lasers off the mirrors”.

  176. Pingback: You say Jesus, they think Lancelot. | Dalrock

  177. jsolbakken says:

    Specifically I’m concerned that Vox Day is considered sincere when it comes to the subject of this thread, which is chivalry and the Castalia House series that includes it. Considering the reasons why VD hates “MGTOW,” such as he thinks it is, and the way he hates it, the fact that he’s hawking chivalry books has to be alarming to anyone who thinks chivalry is bad for men. He is on record losing his composure when the issue of men’s options regarding their relations with women are concerned. He is smart and influential and important enough to be dangerous and destructive. He needs to be opposed by anyone who does not support this present gynocracy.

  178. Oscar says:

    @ Mycroft Jones

    So, it never occurred to you that hitting an object this small from 252,088 miles away with a laser beam might be difficult?

  179. Oscar says:

    These are some of the reflectors, folded up, with an astronaut for scale.

  180. Jake says:

    Interesting picture Oscar. See those little crosses on there? They were etched into the lens. How come some pictures have objects overlaying those crosses?

    Note the dust he is making boot prints in. Yet, no dust on the lander feet. Odd.

    Nice horizon. Why aren’t there any stars? That’s weird. “Ah ha” you say. “It is in the day light so there would be no stars!” Maybe you don’t say this, because you understand light diffusion and the complete lack of atmosphere on the moon means no diffusion thus visible stars. But let’s have more fun with light.

    See the shadows? Look at the rocks. The shadows are at ninety degrees from camera. Yet the astronaut is at 120ish? How odd. Were there multiple light sources on the moon??? There are better pictures for this too, before you claim each of the three rocks is so shaped it’s throwing me off.

    Back to diffusion. Shadows thrown without diffusion of light are total and the only thing lightening them would be reflection.

    Look at the shadows on the astronauts body. Very very light. There are better pictures for this, like an astronaut standing in the shadow of the lander and remaining perfectly visible rather than a silhouette, but this one evinces the same problem.

    Finally, the heat. That man is standing in direct sunlight on the moon which should be north of 250 degrees. All heat accumulated must be lost. The inbuilt air conditioner in the suits needs to exchange with something. Pull your fridge off the wall and touch the coils or put your hand in front of the fan. To make something cold, you make something else hot.

    For a closed system, the best thing is a well. An endothermic reaction, water, removable plates. They were completely swaddled in insulated gear. Any heat built up would be very hard to lose.

  181. Viisaus says:

    This seductive myth of chivalry is comparable to myth of “original equality and liberty,” or matriarchal, non-patriarchal benevolent anarchy that Leftists believe to have believed before the rise of human civilizations. Rousseau being the greatest representative of this great romantic Lefty political myth.

    The great myth of “Golden Age” – something that contradicts both modern science and the Bible (because it does not acknowledge the Fall and corruption of mankind):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age

    “Although Virgil does not mention the Golden Age by name in the Georgics, he does refer in them to a time of primitive communism before the reign of Jupiter, when:

    Fields knew no taming hand of husbandmen
    To mark the plain or mete with boundary-line.
    Even this was impious; for the common stock
    They gathered, and the earth of her own will
    All things more freely, no man bidding, bore.”

    There is no telling how much power the modern egalitarian mythos has drawn from this vision of primitive utopia.

  182. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Oscar there is difficult, then there is “defies reality”. The mirrors on the moon is in the later category. And the history of Satanic activities surrounding JPL doesn’t help their credibility.

  183. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Oscar actually, man was given dominion over the earth. Not over the moon, not over the stars, not over the firmament. Trying to take such dominion would lead to… interesting side effects.

  184. BillyS says:

    Jake,

    I have plenty of despair in my life now and I am sure some leaks through, but that is not my point. The system is very messed up and I am not a rare example, but rather a common theme. That is what you seem to be completely ignoring.

    Yeah, life sucks for me, but that doesn’t mean marriage is wonderful and it is worth completely ignoring the risks, especially when that approach is proclaimed by those who won the wife lottery (at their own words).

    It is very difficult and God will work with whoever, even if they are not perfect in their walk. He worked with David and called David a man after his own heart. David murdered Uriah to cover his own sin! Yet that not held to him (past the consequences of his own family problems, which we significant enough).

    And you can blow it out your rear if you think only the positive message should be portrayed. Vox’s problem is that he ignores the risks and frequent bad outcomes, waving them away without concern. That is the point of my replies on this topic.

    Dalrock is free to tell me to pipe down and focus more on other things, you are not. Start your own blog if you want to do that, though I doubt I would reply there.

    Go wherever you want but stop demanding everyone act as you wish on someone else’s blog.

    The anger I express is that I had read Vox quite regularly before and he has failed to live up to his own past principles, diving deeply to judge others without reason to support his stance other than what odd motivation he has.

    Western Civilization will not be saved or restored by blindly following what has failed! He admitted that in many ways in the past, but ignores it in this area.

  185. BillyS says:

    Jsolkoban,

    You may have missed Dalrock’s request above you tone the name calling down toward Vox. Look back for it if you don’t know what I am talking about. His blog, his rules after all.

  186. BillyS says:

    The earth is flat? How do you keep going west and return to the same place then? How can you go both east and west (at different times of course) to get to India from Texas, for example?

    Are you all really that foolish? I may try to dig them out later, but plenty of verses indicate a round earth, nothing indicates the earth is flat.

    Interesting to note that Genesis delegates the starts to a minor role, even though a massive number of them are out there, which is clear to see even without a telescope. “He made the starts also” is said almost as an afterthought.

    Earth is the focus and God made the stars to provide beauty to the earth.

  187. Mycroft Jones says:

    And here is BillyS changing the topic. Noone here in this thread said the earth is flat. I feel for you BillyS. I’ve been through what you have. But Vox is right; you have to suck it up because there is NO OTHER WAY. Defeat and defeatism is not an option. When the sergeant tells his men to go over the top and attack, knowing that many of them will be mowed down, does he tell them all about how it might hurt their fee-fees? The business of life is living, and if you don’t live it, what is it worth?

    MGTOW is like Nick Land and Neo-reaction and the rest of the intellectual Dark Web. They have most of the facts right, but they circle around, dance around, and avoid the solutions which are found in Scripture.

    When their women and children were kidnapped, Abraham and King David strapped on swords and went out and got them back. Was it risky? Yes it was. Life and death risky.

  188. Oscar says:

    @ Mycroft Jones

    there is difficult, then there is “defies reality”. The mirrors on the moon is in the later category.

    Aiming a laser beam at a reflector on the moon falls in the category of difficult when you know the coordinates of the mirrors, because astronauts placed them there.

    actually, man was given dominion over the earth. Not over the moon, not over the stars, not over the firmament.

    Psalm 8:3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
    The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
    4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
    And the son of man that You visit him?
    5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
    And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

    6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
    You have put all things under his feet

    Are the moon, stars, and the firmament works of God’s hands?

  189. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Oscar Look at verse 5 again. Man is made a little lower than the angels. Therefore the angels are not “under our feet”. Therefore having dominion over the works of God’s hands does not include ALL the works of His hands, but just the specific works that he has put under our feet. Just as we were given all foods to eat… within the categories that God specified as “food”.

  190. Oscar says:

    @ Mycroft Jones

    Look at verse 5 again. Man is made a little lower than the angels. Therefore the angels are not “under our feet”.

    1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

  191. jsolbakken says:

    “I have plenty of despair in my life now”

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Don’t these vile mindless minions remind you of Job’s friends? Fat lot of good they were to Job.

  192. jsolbakken says:

    “You may have missed Dalrock’s request above you tone the name calling down toward Vox. Look back for it if you don’t know what I am talking about. His blog, his rules after all.”

    I must have missed it, but I’ll take your word for it.

  193. jsolbakken says:

    ” Noone here in this thread said the earth is flat. I feel for you BillyS”

    OK, I’m going to try to respond to this without vituperative execration:

    Vox Day’s best friend, Owen Benjamin, insists the earth is flat, and he insults and berates anyone who questions the idea. It seems reasonable that all of you vile faceless minions (your term) should be made to wear that hat.

    You say you feel for BillyS because you are patronizing and think it’s a clever way to express contempt for him without being too obvious about it. This is your way of telling us you think we are all stupid.

  194. Jake says:

    @billys
    Take the UN symbol and trace your finger around the equator with your fingernail facing the North Pole.

    It’s totally wierd I can just pick a random symbol for that huh! But you quickly see that the east West thing is fine for a non globe Earth. Would love to see these Bible verses and would have no answer for such a thing unless they came from Jude 5 or Mark 26

  195. Paul Murray says:

    Vox’s position on including those stories and that preface is consistent with soemone who agrees with you on the matter of chivalry, but who hasn’t actually read them.

  196. Paul Murray says:

    @7817 ” I won’t attend any church with a female pastor, nor will I attend any church that habitually excoriates men while elevating women. ”

    Add to that “any church that performs marriages for divorced women”. Matt 5:32.

  197. BillyS says:

    Jsolk,

    He is quite obvious in his idiocy. Someone upthread said we weren’t “balls handing in the void” or something close to that.

    Not the forum for a deeper discussion.

    Oscar,

    Few like Jake, Mycroft, etc really want to apply the Scriptures. They just want to twist them to their own desires.

  198. Mycroft Jones says:

    BillyS is lying about me. Also, the fact the earth is not a “ball hurtling in the void” is not the same thing as flat earth. Before the flat earth psy-op started, many people were learning the truth of Bible geocentrism. Just like Jordan Peterson, flat earth was and is a gatekeeping phenomenon to stop people from finding the truth.

  199. Mycroft Jones says:

    @Oscar I’m familiar with 1 Corinthians 6:3. We will judge angels in the future, but that time is not yet. At the moment, they are not under our feet, nor do we have dominion over them. Genesis 1:26 explicitly says man is given dominion over the earth and all the living beings in it. He didn’t give man dominion over sun, moon, stars, or angels. Remember the apostle Paul said that “all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient”. 1 Corinthians 6:12. When he said “all” he wasn’t including the forbidden things, such as murder and adultery. Likewise when it says we are given dominion over “all” things, it is referring to all the things over which God gave us dominion.

  200. SirHamster says:

    @jsolbakken

    I must have missed it, but I’ll take your word for it.

    See note on your comment here.

  201. scientivore says:

    “Vox Day’s best friend, Owen Benjamin, insists the earth is flat, and he insults and berates anyone who questions the idea.”

    That is false. In fact the Big Bear has lost his patience with the flat-earthers in general and Savanye specifically. You are an evil liar.

  202. jsolbakken says:

    OK, then, no funny nicknames. But that doesn’t change the fact that you work for someone who calls himself the supreme dark lord; tell him Alphaeus says hi.
    I was told by the supreme dark lord that he doesn’t care what I think or say or do, so, doesn’t that mean that I and anyone else can call him whatever we feel like calling him and he won’t care?
    I’m confused.
    Why would the supreme dark lord demand respect from pissants so far beneath him?

  203. jsolbakken says:

    “That is false. In fact the Big Bear has lost his patience with the flat-earthers in general and Savanye specifically. You are an evil liar.”

    Are you trying to tell me that Owen Benjamin did NOT tell us many times that the earth is flat? How is it my job to keep up with latest latest changes of his unstable mind? If I had know that he had changed his mind, I would have used the past tense “insisted” rather than insists, but otherwise, it is obviously you who is the evil liar, not me.

  204. Barnie says:

    Unfortunately, Vox cannot be corrected on anything. He’ll ignore all the laboriously referenced work you’ve done on the subject and call you a gamma.

  205. Anonymous Reader says:

    Unfortunately, those who have emotional issues with other bloggers insist on bringing their butthurt here, which brings blogger-fanboys. Then we get these endless midschoolesque comment-fights that add nothing to any thread, jamming up comments with noise and discouraging men who actually have something useful to say.

    It’s a form of trolling for flames plus jamming the real information.

  206. Oscar says:

    @ Mycroft Jones

    Just as we were given all foods to eat… within the categories that God specified as “food”.

    What does that mean?

  207. jsolbakken says:

    “discouraging men who actually have something useful to say”

    That would exclude you, then.

    Vox Day makes himself an issue with his antics. Vox Day is the one who moves the focus away from the subject and onto his rhetorical rude self. Vox Day made the mistake of inserting himself in to this discussion to defend himself from criticism of his editorial judgement in choosing to publish anti-male Chivalric literature.

    Nobody in the world seems to react in irrational butt hurt more than Vox Day.

    Except for you, maybe.

    Tell your boss that Alphaeus says hi.

  208. Anonymous Reader says:

    Vox Day is living in your head. Rent free, too. You have an obsession. In that sense, he is your boss. This is not good for you, and your continual butthurt whining is not good for you or anyone else.

    You are descending to the level of a monotonous troll.

  209. jsolbakken says:

    “You are descending to the level of a monotonous troll”

    If you get to promote him, why can’t I be allowed to attack him?

    Seems to me that while we both make use of rhetoric, it is you and your (dread) ilk who rely on it to prove your points, whilst I use rhetoric merely to spice up my dialectic.

    If the supreme dark lord is living in my head, then, I am also living in your head, or else you would be able to ignore my trolling, but you can’t, because it hurts your butt so much.

  210. jsolbakken says:

    https://jsolbakken.wordpress.com/

    Hey, why don’t you and SirHamster and the rest of the dread ilk who stink up Dalrock’s blog come over to my blog if you want to give me what for?

    I promise to approve every comment that is not downright obscene or blatantly illegal. You can insult me all you like and I’ll take it like a man, because, I’m not a gamma and therefore I love to be insulted.

    https://jsolbakken.wordpress.com/

  211. Barnie says:

    Has Vox actually called Owen Benjamin his best friend? How long has he known Benjamin and doesn’t Benjamin live on a different continent? I’m willing to give Vox more courtesy than he gives others and counter his arguments with argument but since he likes to dodge arguments with psychological ad hominem. I’ve been following him since he was a young man writing for WorldNetDaily. His ego is painfully fragile. I think he was a very lonely young man and that he’s a very lonely adult. As for his IQ (also not an argument), the community of dissident political theory hobbyists is not populated by dunces. People arguing with him are likely to be of similar intelligence but also more open to new data. His IQ posturing is an appeal to authority as well as an “in before”.

  212. Anonymous Reader says:

    jsolbakken
    If you get to promote him,

    Show where i have promoted Vox Day. Point to actual comments.

    why can’t I be allowed to attack him?

    Why can’t you do that on your own blog, instead of here?
    Why must you drag your personal butthurt with another blogger into this site, which is focused on marriage issues?

  213. Anonymous Reader says:

    jsolbakken
    Hey, why don’t you and SirHamster and the rest of the dread ilk who stink up Dalrock’s blog come over to my blog if you want to give me what for?

    Lol. You’re laughably ignorant. But it is great you have your own blog, and I enthusiastically concur that Hamster and others fanboys should go there to contest with you.

  214. white says:

    i for one sure am enjoying the show. With popcorn LOL
    Never bothered with this “Vox” guy but definitely heard of his great admiration for mgtows and his undying godly love for “weak men”. First Dalrock exposes his chivalry, then jsolbakken gets his fans all up and butthurt, just by calling him a few names. Wouldn’t mind if this keeps going lol

  215. jsolbakken says:

    When you get accused of being butthurt, is that an indication that you have inflicted butthurt?

    I must admit that one of my heroes is Alexander Pope, who said this:

    ” Yes, I am proud; I must be proud to see
    Men not afraid of God, afraid of me:
    Safe from the Bar, the Pulpit,
    and the Throne,
    Yet touch’d and sham’d by Ridicule alone.
    O sacred Weapon! left for Truth’s defence,
    Sole Dread of Folly, Vice, and Insolence!”
    Alexander Pope
    circa AD 1738 (Epilogue to the Satires, II, 208–13.)

    He saw satire as a means to defend Truth, and not as a tool to promulgate more lies.

  216. SirHamster says:

    @jsolbakken

    Hey, why don’t you and SirHamster and the rest of the dread ilk who stink up Dalrock’s blog come over to my blog if you want to give me what for?

    I have zero interest in engaging with you.

    Please find a meaningful mission in physical space instead of waging your virtual jihad against someone on the Internet.

  217. jsolbakken says:

    “I have zero interest in engaging with you. ”

    I was being facetious, Mr Hamster. Still, it’s very amusing to see how blind you are to your self-contradiction in responding to me to tell me that you do not wish to engage with me.

    And, The SDL, boss of the VFM and the DI and the ELoE, is not just some dude on the interwebs. He publishes books, and stuff. So, nice try, but nothing intelligent said. Do spin again.

  218. Mycroft Jones says:

    Can’t believe I’m defending SirHamster. Times do change, and a humble spirit turns enemies into friends.

    Hamster wasn’t contradicting himself. He doesn’t WANT to engage you (on your own blog) but has felt a need to engage you somewhat on this blog. You get the distinction between want and need, right? I don’t want to fight you, but if I have to put my dukes up, I will. That sort of thing.

  219. jsolbakken says:

    Why exactly do you feel the need to fight against me? What did I say that makes you want to put up your dukes and have a go at me?

    The only things possible that I can see is, you hate it when I insult the supreme dark lord, leader of the vfm, the ELoE, etc, etc, etc. And, you hate it when somebody speaks sympathetically of MGTOW.

    I brought up VD because he was central to the issue at hand, and it just so happens that I dislike him with the white hot intensity of a zillion supernovae, with every nanofibre of my being, because he has a genius IQ yet he prefers to use it for evil, and he loves to attack people with his weaponized stupidity. When a person does not submit to his view, VD lapses in to the rhetoric that he himself has written about, so, he knows what he’s doing, it’s not an accident.

    I do not hate him because he disagreed with me and insulted me by calling me a gamma. I hate him because he insists on saying blatantly stupid idiotic things instead of arguing logically, with reference to facts.

    Seems like you hate me because I hate wilful stupidity, so, enmity is going to be inevitable.

    If you want to put up your dukes and fight me, why not go over to my blog instead of stinking up Dalrock’s blog?

    https://jsolbakken.wordpress.com/

  220. Analogies of health carry you only so far in realms of culture and the spirit. Disease is universally the result of foreign bodies entering a system. In this case, an apparently native thing – chivalry – is at war with an objectively foreign thing – Christianity, with the latter being the spiritually healthy component. Is chivalry unique to fallen Western man? Is it the goddess cult? Is it inborn to the West or something not of the West? Understanding its origins is essential to understanding what must be jettisoned with it, what we learn from it, what value, if any, we find in the culture of our ancestors who valued it.

  221. tteclod says:

    I dispute that chivalry is native to Europe. It seems more likely an import intended to ruin men. I can’t imagine it would be anything but awful for any civilization from deepest, darkest Africa to the most forsaken island of Micronesia.

    To know native Europe is to know ancient Indo-European myths, and the not coincidental advice Jesus gave to pray to “Heavenly Father.”

  222. What historical origin do you pose as an alternative?

  223. BillyS says:

    jsol,

    Move on. This isn’t a blog about VD. Make a couple of comments where relevant, then move on. I seek to do that myself on many topics. I don’t always move on as quickly as I should, but at least I do see the need for that.

    Mycroft,

    I am not sure what your point is that we are not a ball going through space if not to insist a flat earth or something like that. Maybe you just mean we are going through the ether instead. Who knows and who cares. You never seek to clarify yourself, just call other people names. It is clear who the divisive on is. He won’t take excuses on the day of judgment.

  224. tteclod says:

    One that isn’t native to Europe but has opposed Europeans since before Emperor Titus.

  225. Mycroft Jones says:

    @BillyS I already referenced Bible geocentrism. If you looked it up, it would have clarified everything that you say I omitted. Geocentrism acknowledges the earth is a ball, but also that it is not moving or spinning, whether through space or ether. Speaking of the day of judgement, look well to yourself. As for calling names, I called you a liar when you said that Jake and I were twisting scripture rather than seeking to follow them. Were you intending to say something other than that?

  226. jsolbakken says:

    “Move on. ”

    It seemed to me that most of the time I was responding to the vile mindless lurkers here who defend the supreme dark lord. It’s not like the leader of the ELoE and the DI was not part of the subject matter of the thread to begin with. The guy is no friend of Dalrock’s, that’s for sure, and he’s no friend of any decent honest person who is seeking to increase their wisdom.

  227. Ah, I think I’ve located our point of divergence. Christian Europe is Germanic; Titus doesn’t have a whole lot to do with anything going on in Western civilization proper.

    I’d be interested to know where Dalrock locates the beginning of Western Civilization, since we’re debating his theory here.

  228. tteclod says:

    Speaking for myself, Western Civilization begins no later than the Roman Republic.
    I wouldn’t describe “Christian Europe” as “Germanic” simply because that excludes so much of Christian Europe, especially Rome.
    I could be convinced that Protestant Europe is Germanic, but even that would require exceptions for English and Czechs.

  229. BillyS says:

    Mycroft,

    The sun is whipping through the heavens fast enough to get the behavior we see? Yeah, right.

  230. Mycroft Jones says:

    @BillyS that is less ridiculous than the alternatives, and explains a great deal more. Check out the documentary “The Principle” by Robert Sungenis.

  231. Myopia says:

    Vox suffers from Tucker Max Syndrome, which is, “I’m the smartest person in the room, even when I’m not. When I’m not, it’s because I haven’t yet been exposed to the information the other person has. Once I have it, I can do more with it.” It’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and allows for further advancement than normally expected. Only drawback is it ends with a brick wall, and no further progress is possible.

    I’m smart enough to know I’m pretty stupid.

  232. jsolbakken says:

    “Vox suffers from Tucker Max Syndrome,”

    I’ve been describing Teddy Spaghetti as someone whose 150 IQ gives him animal cunning but does not give him understanding or wisdom or insight. Maybe he’s not human but just a machine with highly advanced AI programming that allows him to crunch massive amounts of data which he can never understand on a human or spiritual level.

  233. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’ve been describing Teddy Spaghetti

    Dalrock asked you to stop that. You are showing contempt for our host when you ignore his request. It is childish behavior on your part.

  234. jsolbakken says:

    Sorry, I thought I was on a different but similar looking blog. It was only 6:20 AM in my time zone. I mean no disrespect for Dalrock, but, my contempt for you know who is beyond measure.

Comments are closed.