28 October 2013

Faux Chivalry & Black Knights

If you spend any time on Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) YouTube channels, or on the A Voice for Men website, it won’t take you long to come across the denigration of chivalry. This is tied to the other popular manosphere pejoratives of traditionalism and male disposability. Explained briefly, all men are obligated to carry out certain traditional expectations, one being chivalry, and these expectations make them disposable (another term for expendable) to the desires of women. There is some truth in this, but then again even Hitler had some things right - demagogues always pervert the truth for their own ends.

Chivalry itself has a long history in cultures across the world, spanning hundreds if not thousands of years if we recognise a broad spectrum of male protector roles. Chivalry is usually described as a code of conduct that stems from the medieval era, often portrayed as the knight in shining armour wiling to lay down his life to uphold certain ideals. Those in the manosphere determined to adapt Marxist class consciousness theory to the MRM will have you believe that chivalry is something based almost entirely around male sacrifice to the female. Again, this is a perversion of the truth.

It’s true that chivalry does involve the protection women, but this is not the entire picture. All individuals considered weaker and incapable of defending themselves from exploitation, were also protected by those advocating medieval chivalry. Children, the old, the infirmed, or anyone else (including men) unable to defend themselves would also be protected by a chivalrous knight, from those who would exploit them. In the medieval era knights were Christian defenders of virtue. They were considered the swords of god, whose role it was to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ, a figure who preferred the meek and the mild over the strong and the powerful, if the biblical interpretation of Christ is to be taken literally. For a while these Christian knights were not expected to fight in wars, but with the encroachment of Islam into Christendom came the emergence of the just war, or what many call Holy War. Thus the infidel became the enemy of the chivalrous knight, who was expected to protect the church and Christendom from all who would threaten it.

Chivalry is a manifestation of the virtue of compassion, and for any culture to flourish this must exist in enough magnitude to ward off exploitation and cruelty. If the strong are unprepared to take an interest in the weak there can be no civilisation – it will not even transcend beyond that of the jungle, where the most brutal prevail. Consider the male scientist, one that has a mighty brain, but perhaps a weak body. Could the fruits of his knowledge flourish if physical strength was the deciding factor for every outcome? Of course not! Such dominance might appeal to some, but this is one setting that few would choose to live in. Those that claim they would, the Nietzschean nihilists that revile weakness, are the closet psychopaths that only practice what they preach when they can exploit a clear advantage. Nietzsche’s popularity is almost exclusively derived from his moral justification of cruelty. There are many examples of this elevation of cruelty in his writing, one being:

“Rather graciously because it delights them and puts them into good spirits; for those who are cruel enjoy the highest gratification of the feeling of power.”

Revellers in the moral justifications of cruelty that Nietzsche was known for are rarely, if ever, individuals that relish in even combat or competition. Did Ted Bundy attack women in the open, or did he ravage them when he knew he could act unhindered? Beware those that believe cruelty against the weak is a virtue, for they are cowards that will stab you in the back at first opportunity, but never in your stomach when you have a chance to defend yourself.

The MRM and MGTOW have become a hotbed for nihilism, and Nietzsche in particular is often idolised by na├»ve groupies who dismiss the flagrant disregard he had for suffering. Or perhaps deep down they gravitate to Nietzsche due to his excusing of cruelty, craving a rationalisation for the projection of anger when dealing with past grievances. Where there are nihilists communists are never far behind, and it’s by dissecting the Marxist interpretation of chivalry that we can truly understand the perversion of chivalrous compassion.

Marxist critique of Western culture (otherwise known as cultural Marxism) is centred on identifying certain victim classes. They do not distinguish between individuals – if you are a woman then you are always a victim. Equally, if you are black then you are also always considered a victim. This perspective is transferred onto other identities of particular races, economic status and sexuality. Victim classes are always portrayed as weak by virtue of the fact that they are of a certain identity. If, for whatever reason, a person not of that identity is harmed by one belonging to a certain victim class this is ignored; so a man beaten up by a woman, who will not defend himself due to fear of being labelled a domestic abuser, who cannot leave the home because he will leave his children in the arms of a violent mother, and who cannot approach the police because the social stigma of female violence against men is not recognised, is never considered a victim by a cultural Marxist. This is a bastardisation of chivalrous compassion. Instead of weakness being defined as those who cannot defend themselves against oppression, whatever identity they might be, chivalry becomes the eradication of personal responsibility for certain identities.

Let’s make something perfectly clear; this is NOT chivalry. True chivalry is about protecting the weak, whatever identity this might be. It is not selectively protecting certain groups, while ignoring anything that doesn’t conform to an ideological bias - or ‘faux chivalry’. The MRM term ‘white knight’ was originally designed to encapsulate faux chivalry. As per usual though the definition of a white knight has been systematically perverted by leftists gradually infiltrating the MRM, to the point where all acts of male compassion by the strong (and yes, males are usually the stronger sex) are referred to as ‘white knighting’.

What would it mean for Western civilisation if true chivalry, where compassion for the weak is denigrated, while faux chivalry, where compassion is solely reserved for certain victim classes shielded from responsibility, is elevated? Let me tell you: no civilisation can last for long without personal responsibility. We should all look out for one another and oppose cruelty wherever we see it. The Christian virtue of compassion is true chivalry, and women also have a responsibility to uphold chivalrous compassion to the genuinely weak, so that we do not live in a world where cruelty reigns. This is not a world that most of us want to live in, and if people prefer such a world then they should be driven out into the jungle where they belong.

But that’s not all; it’s often said in MRM circles that there is no in-group bias for men. This is not true. While it is indeed true that women often flock together, this is no revelation in relation to natural behaviour - a herd of zebra are more protected against a pride of lions. Some female groups are more benevolent than others, but weaker animals often flock together throughout nature. While men are usually the most rugged individualist of the human species, many are not. Men can take protection from groups, and this can be as destructive as any other groupthink ideology. The prevalence of gang culture when young men do not have fathers in their lives exemplifies this. In fact, anywhere the family is weak you will get nihilistic males that create their own hierarchies based on male in-group preference, bros before hoes, and all that. What we have in the MRM is the rise of gang mentality via MGTOW ideology.

It’s a lie that these men are going anywhere their own way. They are going the way of Barbarossaa, Stardusk, and Paul Elam. Elam however has lost control of MGTOW now that his prodigal son Barbarossaa has outgrown him. I ask; who is going his own way? The man that ignores the pressure for a man to be the breadwinner, running his own business from home and looking after his daughter in the day, when his wife works full-time and earns more than him? Or is it the man scarred by personal experiences, compensating by aligning himself to a groupthink ideology that regurgitates Marxist feminist ideology in favour of men? Is it this man, the one that irrationally hates and shames a family man like me for turning his nose up to what they think of him earning less than his wife? I think not.

So what do we get when men are deprived of families with strong fathers? We get damaged individuals banding together as marauders, raping and pillaging civilisation, caring nothing for its preservation, and filling the void of existential crisis with gang culture. These marauders believe in nothing but adherence to the group over the ‘other’. They will rationalise their envy of any form of cultural stability that others possess with utopian ideals, or defend their narcissistic yearning to take whatever they want – if you can’t stop them you are either too weak, or you are obligated to give it to them anyway because they are ‘victims’, and thus deserve compensation.

MGTOW tell men that they need to punish all women for their transgressions as a sex, as though all women are at fault for feminism. They tell men that the family is oppressive, adhering to the very dialectic that Marxist feminists and Friedrich Engels developed, even though the terrible truth of what happens when the nuclear family erodes is all around us. They care nothing for the children of the next generation, destined to suffer the same fate as them because irresponsible adults in the past and present do not stand up and say “No!” to cultural Marxism, thus failing to avert its hegemonic rise.

This moral cowardice breeds another type of male marauder; the masochist that wants to enact cruelty on a whim, in alignment with Nietzsche’s values. They want a dog eat dog world where only strength matters, and gang numbers are certainly going to go a long way in this apocalyptic setting. If these men can’t be happy then Rome must burn - no one can be happy! They will fix nothing, fight for nothing, and they will spread apathy and despondency wherever they go so they cannot be left behind while others achieve happiness in life without them. Yet they feel entitled to rights they will not uphold or value, just like the entitled, moral cowards they are.

As these MGTOW useful idiots wreck Western culture, along with others taken in by nihilistic mass hysteria, crypto-Marxists capitalise by implementing authoritarianism, as they have many times before in the 20th century. MGTOW will tell you not to protect the weak because it’s white knighting, or the act of a mangina, leaving them vulnerable to the cruelty of sociopaths raping and pillaging in the midst of the flames of social collapse. These marauders despise true chivalry, where the virtue of compassion is reserved for those who deserve it. Instead they shame men that understand what true chivalry is; a code of conduct that protects the elderly, the sick, the dying, the young, women OR men, and anyone else that needs someone to stand up for what’s right. MGTOW will call me a white knight for even uttering such a realisation, but this is because they are nothing but marauding black knights perverting the virtue of compassion so they can have ‘their own way’.

See you on the battlefield black knights. Know that a father’s love is the most powerful weapon in the world.


  1. Excellent post. The 'compassion' aspect is crucial.

    The archetypal 'male' story is 'Parzival', the young man who was the essence of a MGTOW.
    He wanted manhood so badly he killed a good man simply to take his armour so that he could 'be' a Knight, as though it were merely the putting on a mask (armour) was sufficient.

    He accidentally found the Holy Grail very quickly but his lack of compassion and inability to formulate the right and Fundamental Questions denied him the Grace it could bring, not only for himself but for me - Amfortas. He had not understood Chivalry.

    It is the curse most young men - and young women - have almost by nature (we have to start somewhere), but in our era it is deliberately encouraged and nurtured. As I point out.....


    Cogito ergo Sum? But do we bother to think at all?

    1. I like the example you gave. I might use it some time.

      I realise that the poison in the veins of the MRM has even been injected through a false definition of chivalry. It's an attempt to spread apathy and selfishness, so that everything is left wide open for an authoritarian takeover.

    2. I don't think MRAs would call you white knighting or mangina.
      You are just completely clueless as to what their position is.
      This is shown by what you write in paragraph 7 "Marxist critique of Western culture..."
      That is the "chivalry" that the MRM is unhappy with, not the overarching definition you develop above. I have never heard an MRM condemn "a code of conduct that protects the elderly, the sick, the dying, the young, ... OR men...".

      The point is that the feminists, by implementing a type of cultural Marxism have broken the social contract of men and women cooperating for mutual benefit. It is women who are "raping and pillaging" the society which is going down in flames as a result of their rampant hatred of men.

      "So what do we get when men are deprived of families with strong fathers?" Yes, that is exactly the point of the MRM, the feminists have criminalized "strong fathers because the feminists don't want fathers to exist, only sperm donors. They can't have it both ways - shit upon strong fathers while expecting strong fathers to go out of their way to take care of them.

      Not all women are rabid feminists, but they are all complicit by reaping the benefits of the climate of female supremacy and not speaking out against the feminists and against the outrageous injustices being perpetrated against men. The only way to reverse this is to let even innocent women fend for themselves so that average women will start to exert social pressure against the destructive feminists.

      Tell me, do you have a better idea of how to reverse the destruction wrought by the Marxist feminists?
      Instead of blasting everyone with clever sounding but seriously fuzzy thinking, how about offering some solutions.

    3. You haven't actually said anything I've disagreed with. so this is a piss poor attempt to mischaracterise my views. What I do disagree with is that the solution to the problems you outline is to allow Rome to burn. Show me one time in history when this worked. Besides, from a great deal of experience, I've realised that a lot of "MRAs/MGTOW" have a lot more issues than what feminism is behind, and need to psychologically project through a groupthink medium, just like many women that jump on the feminist bandwagon. These are the "black knights" I talk about in this article.

      Now if you're going to comment again do not misrepresent me. Otherwise I'll remove your comment.