Christopher Jolliffe examines male-female relations, virtue, and the concept of war, tracing historical instances from ancient Rome to the modern era, to argue against the dilution of traditional gender roles and the consequences of a society losing touch with its martial spirit.
There have actually been accounts of women taking vengeance on captors when they lost male loved ones. Muhammad was supposedly killed in such a manner.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Jews have a track record of women taking vengeance for their men so it is not outside of a set pattern of behavior though the method of poison is not common. Muhammad being killed by a Jewish princess is not only hilarious but also goes right in hand with their history. Jael, Deborah and I’m sure others. It’s one trait that is fairly aryan of them.
The widowed Scythian queen Tomyris warred with Cyrus and took vengeance for her son. The widowed Briton queen Boudicca lead a war against Rome for vengeance of those she loved and the army had more than 50% women in it because their men had been likely killed and enslaved at great numbers. They fought to the death and it was honorable. The widowed queen of Illyria also lead a campaign against Rome.
It’s not ideal for women to fight but neither is it ideal for them to be subsumed into other groups… and it is honorable for them not to when their loved ones were killed. Rome was unique in that they were stollen without conquest that caused harm. The reason men fight is because they have to or they die and lose their own people. Patriarchy can’t become a simulacrum away from the roots of a people. Giving someone the patriarchy of another group doesn’t actually help them and is a stealth form of ethnocide. You constantly promoting Islam to Europeans because it’s “patriarchy” is promoting the complete ethnocide of Europeans. There’s a reason why it’s growing in numbers among primitives.
In reading this I recall Scott Ritter's comments on the state of the hitherto vaunted Israeli army. It really hasn't fought a general war in 2 generations and combat has now become remote with drones and video screens and AI driven machineguns; with on the ground action mostly confined to a policing role of total dominance over a weakened adversary. Apparently they are having a very tough time when coming face to face with the Palestinian warriors who are screaming for their blood. Upwards of 3000 have needed psychiatric help so far. Just saying....
There is also a really good book where many of the studies were based on Israelis before technological distance of killing. It’s called On Killing. Even with men, most can’t kill without psychological issues and that’s why they had firing squads. More men were willing to die than to kill in close combat. Technology creates distance that allows less psychological harm.
Not to argue anything here but add that the woman soldier may be only one indication that war has become obsolete in a a multi-polar world of rising economies and awareness given the material damage as well as the cost of high tech weapons and how relatively ineffective they are in political decisions.
For al lthe saber rattling, the major powers resort to proxy wars that never end and everyone is catching on.
The Cold War provided a universal catecsim for wars and "readiness" but never explained "thre Napalm Girl" photo in Veit Nam:why bombing Viet Nam children was necessary to "protect freedom".
With the "Evil Ejpires" gone, these proxy wars continue but cannot stand on their own merit becasue there isn't any. The 'politcs" is actaully worse than anything Marx accused the bougeosie of .
America manufactures % 42 of the worlds weapons. This buys polticians. The latest political fad provides the "cause" , CAIR or the Israel Lobby. The media thrives on campaign ads and jinoism. The latest social fad becomes recruiting gimmick.
The Cold War monster just goes on atuo-pilot which never had a cause other than preventing a nuclear war which was to not decide anything and neither do today's proxy wars. They just go on forever and become political staple.
"If you kill Amerifan service poeple, we will hunt you down and take you out!"
As if, we hadn't been doing that for over 70 years now,,,
This may appeal to Feminists trying to prove they can out do men but here, the enemy isn't Hamas or Houghtis. It's men! Their own men! No kidding, men aren't going to fight to prove women fight better. Whtie men aren't going to fight to prove other races are better.
You win, and you just get taken down another notch while corportae greed heads cash in and Thots pass the laurels and someone else deamnds reparations for slavery.
No surprise, Israel owns the U.S. gov't-kcik back on foreign aid plus Israel has a cause of sorts, right out of 19th Cnetury colonialism. Pols in WDC are so anemic they don't even realize that what they're pushing in Gaza is the exact opposite of what they puch at home and wonder why both political parties are fraturing right along with the states over the border imbroglio which they also can't solve.
Why would anyone fight for this? Of course, there'd have to be some gimmick, alterior motive.
I agree on a lot of this… however, it presupposes that death is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. Women without maternal instinct and with modern fetishes don’t represent some underlying impulse to be conquered. Death is over fast, people who live on after loss of someone they love or are very attached to can be much harder. Men die in war, but if their mother actually had maternal instinct they also have to carry on with that loss. Even if the mothers come from a masculine culture where they want their men to fight and are proud of a son, it’s worse than death to lose a beloved child. Andromache suffered the longest… no matter what a meme says, being taken as a slave by those who killed your baby would be insufferable. Women taken before children might acclimate after because they love the product of the union, as was the case with the princess of the Sabine’s. People in an actual bonded society have maternal instinct and bonds/love prompts sacrifice.
Behavioral sink and over domestication are what has killed this civilization. You don’t even have one outside of oil trade with the corpse of mine… dysgenic breeding patterns have killed your civilization.
No where do I call for matriarchy. I simply disagree that women don’t suffer greatly when they lose their sons since he used the example of Astyanax. The same underlying essence that makes women moldable to a new tribe is that they are invested in the children that come from it… this is also why they suffer the longest when their babies are killed. Same underlying reason, different circumstances. This is basically dehumanizing women and the sacrifice of mothers in warrior societies. It also presupposes that people are not capable of loving their children more than themselves.
There have actually been accounts of women taking vengeance on captors when they lost male loved ones. Muhammad was supposedly killed in such a manner.
Muhammad died a natural death.
Many sources claim he was poisoned.
I suppose it would be from sources that wish he had been poisoned and were glad that he was poisoned.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Jews have a track record of women taking vengeance for their men so it is not outside of a set pattern of behavior though the method of poison is not common. Muhammad being killed by a Jewish princess is not only hilarious but also goes right in hand with their history. Jael, Deborah and I’m sure others. It’s one trait that is fairly aryan of them.
The widowed Scythian queen Tomyris warred with Cyrus and took vengeance for her son. The widowed Briton queen Boudicca lead a war against Rome for vengeance of those she loved and the army had more than 50% women in it because their men had been likely killed and enslaved at great numbers. They fought to the death and it was honorable. The widowed queen of Illyria also lead a campaign against Rome.
It’s not ideal for women to fight but neither is it ideal for them to be subsumed into other groups… and it is honorable for them not to when their loved ones were killed. Rome was unique in that they were stollen without conquest that caused harm. The reason men fight is because they have to or they die and lose their own people. Patriarchy can’t become a simulacrum away from the roots of a people. Giving someone the patriarchy of another group doesn’t actually help them and is a stealth form of ethnocide. You constantly promoting Islam to Europeans because it’s “patriarchy” is promoting the complete ethnocide of Europeans. There’s a reason why it’s growing in numbers among primitives.
In reading this I recall Scott Ritter's comments on the state of the hitherto vaunted Israeli army. It really hasn't fought a general war in 2 generations and combat has now become remote with drones and video screens and AI driven machineguns; with on the ground action mostly confined to a policing role of total dominance over a weakened adversary. Apparently they are having a very tough time when coming face to face with the Palestinian warriors who are screaming for their blood. Upwards of 3000 have needed psychiatric help so far. Just saying....
There is also a really good book where many of the studies were based on Israelis before technological distance of killing. It’s called On Killing. Even with men, most can’t kill without psychological issues and that’s why they had firing squads. More men were willing to die than to kill in close combat. Technology creates distance that allows less psychological harm.
Does Ritter acknowledge America needs an official moral system that cannot be Christianity?
He has touched on that subject that I know of in his interviews.
Not to argue anything here but add that the woman soldier may be only one indication that war has become obsolete in a a multi-polar world of rising economies and awareness given the material damage as well as the cost of high tech weapons and how relatively ineffective they are in political decisions.
For al lthe saber rattling, the major powers resort to proxy wars that never end and everyone is catching on.
The Cold War provided a universal catecsim for wars and "readiness" but never explained "thre Napalm Girl" photo in Veit Nam:why bombing Viet Nam children was necessary to "protect freedom".
With the "Evil Ejpires" gone, these proxy wars continue but cannot stand on their own merit becasue there isn't any. The 'politcs" is actaully worse than anything Marx accused the bougeosie of .
America manufactures % 42 of the worlds weapons. This buys polticians. The latest political fad provides the "cause" , CAIR or the Israel Lobby. The media thrives on campaign ads and jinoism. The latest social fad becomes recruiting gimmick.
The Cold War monster just goes on atuo-pilot which never had a cause other than preventing a nuclear war which was to not decide anything and neither do today's proxy wars. They just go on forever and become political staple.
"If you kill Amerifan service poeple, we will hunt you down and take you out!"
As if, we hadn't been doing that for over 70 years now,,,
This may appeal to Feminists trying to prove they can out do men but here, the enemy isn't Hamas or Houghtis. It's men! Their own men! No kidding, men aren't going to fight to prove women fight better. Whtie men aren't going to fight to prove other races are better.
You win, and you just get taken down another notch while corportae greed heads cash in and Thots pass the laurels and someone else deamnds reparations for slavery.
No surprise, Israel owns the U.S. gov't-kcik back on foreign aid plus Israel has a cause of sorts, right out of 19th Cnetury colonialism. Pols in WDC are so anemic they don't even realize that what they're pushing in Gaza is the exact opposite of what they puch at home and wonder why both political parties are fraturing right along with the states over the border imbroglio which they also can't solve.
Why would anyone fight for this? Of course, there'd have to be some gimmick, alterior motive.
So are you proposing a new religion for the West? Quran.com/49/13
Thank you for an excellent essay. I enjoyed its erudition and its thought provoking conclusions.
Do you agree that the problem of matriarchy can only be solved by patriarchy?
I agree on a lot of this… however, it presupposes that death is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. Women without maternal instinct and with modern fetishes don’t represent some underlying impulse to be conquered. Death is over fast, people who live on after loss of someone they love or are very attached to can be much harder. Men die in war, but if their mother actually had maternal instinct they also have to carry on with that loss. Even if the mothers come from a masculine culture where they want their men to fight and are proud of a son, it’s worse than death to lose a beloved child. Andromache suffered the longest… no matter what a meme says, being taken as a slave by those who killed your baby would be insufferable. Women taken before children might acclimate after because they love the product of the union, as was the case with the princess of the Sabine’s. People in an actual bonded society have maternal instinct and bonds/love prompts sacrifice.
Being a degenerate matriarchy means the death of your civilisation.
Behavioral sink and over domestication are what has killed this civilization. You don’t even have one outside of oil trade with the corpse of mine… dysgenic breeding patterns have killed your civilization.
No where do I call for matriarchy. I simply disagree that women don’t suffer greatly when they lose their sons since he used the example of Astyanax. The same underlying essence that makes women moldable to a new tribe is that they are invested in the children that come from it… this is also why they suffer the longest when their babies are killed. Same underlying reason, different circumstances. This is basically dehumanizing women and the sacrifice of mothers in warrior societies. It also presupposes that people are not capable of loving their children more than themselves.