American Clarity Add us on facebook:

23. February 2013

A tyranny effeminate

Filed under: history,natural law and rights,philosophy — admin @ 16:38

Forget the present era with all its corrosion and absurdities, dear reader, and hearken back to days of revolution — not our own, but another; across the Atlantic, where tumult and hope birthed misery and disaster, and French patriots instead of alienating their king took him prisoner.

Witness Carlyle’s masterful account of the revolution: how French men, harassed and subdued by military patrols and martial law, sat cowering in their homes until food stores ran dry — a time of great famine — and their children began to starve. No food in sight!  Children wailing in the streets!  Something must be done!  And yet, nothing could be done; for broken spirited and famished, poorly armed — if armed at all — and permeated by a sentiment of inefficacy, what could man do but wait and weep?

Yes, man could wait and weep.  But amidst the desperation a single voice was raised at the Cafe de Foy; feminine, a shock to all, a woman!  Her husband had been silenced by the authorities, incapable of stirring the public to action — and action was to be had.  For amidst Parisian starvation two irrefutable facts were made known: that the king and court feasted in luxury only a short march away at Versailles, and that the men could not — would not — rise to action.

Like wildfire her message spread, housewives suddenly turned patriots, clamoring in the streets with clubs and desperate manners, shrill shrieks and war drums piercing the streets of Paris and driving every avenue into a frenzy.  The men would not take Versailles; they would be cut down by grapeshot.  But as Carlyle wisely remarked, militaries may be armed with steel and lead, but the ranks are filled with men — men with hearts of flesh.  And, as France’s daughters were willing to gamble, the guards would not fire on women.

The rest, as it is said, is history.  Off they stormed, first toward the armory — correct in their assumption: for the guards had laid down their weapons, and femininity marched armed toward Versailles, to meet a very similar fate.  But what concerns us here is not so much the French or their revolution, but the understanding that men, knowing well (despite efforts to claim the contrary) that man’s relationship to women is that of protector, are naturally predisposed to woman’s defense.

This predisposition, present in all healthy men, is not a social construct: it is an instinct, undeniable, oftentimes quiet, yet foundational to man’s very identity — to be a champion for women, to be rescuer of women, to provide for and be held in esteem by beautiful women — to be a man!  To look around oneself for any chance — be it ever so small — to pursue the heroic!  Man has dreams of dying for country and faith, but how these differ from his sacrifices for women!  How many songs, how many poems, how many public pledges and private professions acknowledge that across all cultures, save the abominably backward, man must protect women, or forfeit his claim to manhood!

Across every spectrum of action and circumstance the same pattern holds firm: even somewhat civilized nations do not send their women to be torn apart by barbarian bombs and bayonets, to suffer the indignities of war prisoners — altogether a different type of indignity for women. Civilized men do not require women to do their dirty work; to do their heavy lifting; to give up their jackets in cold weather for men; to take bullets in self-sacrifice; to suffer name-calling and coarse-jesting; to defend men with their fists.  No, for a man to require publicly — even in our increasingly barbaric age — that woman provide these services as duty would beckon the scorn and hatred of even the majority of feminists.  And yet, to say that the above duties should be distributed equally, to be shared entirely, is exactly the same (in many cases) as saying they should not exist at all — for both cannot take bullets for the other.  One must give, and the other receive; they cannot both give.  And in the circumstances in which they could both give, what romance would be lost!

How natural it is, my brethren, to protect women: how difficult it is — if one can be called a good man –, to oppose them, to hurt them, sometimes to even hold them accountable for their wrongdoings!  Who would wish to drop a beautiful woman from the gallows — even supposing she were a murderer?  Who can resist woman’s tearful pleading?  Who can stand to a woman’s face, and call her a fool, a thief, a murderer, though it be necessary?  There is perhaps no better way to paint a man a scoundrel and a villain, than forcing him to turn a deaf ear to a grieving mother, daughter, or sister.

Unpleasant is the duty of man — to establish law and order, when beauty stands in the way!  But yet, if man refuses reason, and becomes a servant not of goodness, but of natural protective sentiment, what do we find but unalienable rights trampled, and civilization corroded?  The execution of the most voiceless, most innocent of children — permitted not for universal mankind, but for woman alone.   The robbing of honest businessmen to provide corporate positions to the unworthy woman — in the name of female empowerment.  The disarmament of good men — in the irrational extension of motherly instinct.  The almost absolute dismantlement of honest marriage — in protection of woman’s “liberty.”  Murder, robbery, unLawful coercion, dishonesty, disarmament!  These are the price of cowardice, the wages of unmanly timidity: tyranny with beautiful blonde hair and a soft voice, irrationality softened by aesthetics, the march toward despotism disguised in sweet perfumes and gentle skin.  And yet so deeply does our love for women affect us, we are oftentimes willing to lose our very honor — no, our very sanity — in the process, a nation of Samsons waltzing into death with Delilahs in arm.

Yet from where does our honor come?  From women?  No, what men must realize about our relations with women, is that women do not dictate the proper relations between the sexes.  She claims that she has a right over her own body, and not him; but how much more is he held accountable by God for the protection of innocents, whether property owners, patriots, or the unborn?  Her reaction may be consequential to his comfort, but certainly never to his duty, to his manhood, to his eternal struggle in the quest for righteousness, honor, and immortality.  Whatever instincts are found within man, we must acknowledge that they are intended by God for good, and perverted by man for evil — and we must with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths pursue their true expression: not seeking modernity — since there is no such thing as modern truth –, but eternity, or we risk great wickedness under the guises of love and progression.

Let the reader know that the above French mob almost lynched an innocent and beautiful 17-year-old girl — until military order was reestablished by men, realizing that when femininity alone is master, subject neither to God nor law nor reason, beauty gives way quickly to ugliness.  Do what is right, my brothers, whatever women say — over every slanderous epithet they spew and every tantrum they throw — against tyrannical claims disguised as women’s rights — or there will come a day when you will not be able to defend women against tyranny, and you will alone be to blame.

Unalienable rights —  this is our cry!  And let all honorable women — however many do remain — stand alongside us!

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress