The Chivalry of Edgar Rice Burroughs

"Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them." - C.S. Lewis

Probably the first science-fiction novel I read was Edgar Rice Burroughs' A Fighting Man of Mars. I'm not completely sure. It might have been The Time Machine (woo hoo!) and it might have been Dwellers in the Mirage (woo hoo!). But to the best of my memory it was A Fighting Man of Mars.

Even though I didn't realize at the time, being that I was 12 years old (barely) ERB was writing about the code of chivalry in his novels. Since he was born in 1875, it makes sense. The code existed a lot more back than than it does now.

Burroughs main character in his Mars novels (he called Mars Barsoom) was the Earthman John Carter. Carter was a former Confederate officer. I find that significant.

The Southern officers during the War Between the States were a lot more chivalrous than most of the Northern ones. Compare Robert L. Lee to the psychotic mass-murdering drunk Sherman, who burned everything in his path and wanted to exterminate the Indians. In fact, the War Between the States, as wars go, was pretty chivalrous.

It would have been better if the South had won - and by win I don't mean just sucede but take over the North. Perhaps then the Northern mercantilists destroying this country today wouldn't be in power. And does anyone believe those financial lowlifes with their stealing and lying are honorable, chivalrous men, ones who believe in noblesse oblige?

Most people don't even know what chivalry is today. What they believe is really more of a pseudo-chivalry. It's been so twisted today by feminists and clueless men the concept is almost unrecognizable. Think of the way the concepts of oppression, misogyny, patriarchy, choice, rape, Dead White Males, etc. have been perverted.

Chivalry was originally based on the better warrior virtues - to deal out justice, to protect the weak and helpless, to be noble and honorable, to not lie and steal, to be brave. When I say the "better warrior virtues" I mean not murdering innocent men, women and children and rationalizing it as "collateral damage."

Chivalry evolved from Christianity, which is pretty much on life support today. I can't imagine chivalrous atheists or pagans, not in the long run.

In fact, the Knight's Code of Chivalry is entirely due to Christianity and was originally an aristocratic warrior code.

If you want to think about chivalry, think of knights, such as King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Knights were originally armed men. They could have killed many people but did not because of their code of chivalry. They protected them instead.

This can be considered graciousness and not an obligation. Men are not obliged to be chivalrous. It is something they choose. Otherwise, many women will claim that men have obligations (duties and responsibilities) toward them while they have none in return. Making it an obligation and duty removes the noblesse oblige part.

"Knights" existed in other cultures, such as the samurai in Japan, although they didn't particularly protect people and instead had the right to kill someone and walk away. Although, to be fair, you can see the samurai code of chivalry in such movies as The Seven Samurai, which was remade in the West as The Magnificent Seven (I am especially fond of Yohimbo).

Burroughs wrote about the Western code of chivalry in almost all his novels. All of his heroes were knights and all of his villains embodied the exact opposite of the code.

All of his heroes were warriors, all of them attempted to be just, and all of them attempted to protect the weak and helpless, all of them were brave.

None of his heroes were perfect. The hero in A Fighting Man of Mars was Tan Hadron, who in the beginning became infatuated with a haughty gold-digger by the name of Sanoma Tora. When she's kidnapped he goes all white-knight goofy and sets out to save her.

(Parenthetically, three of the most ominous characteristics of Sanoma Tora are that she is unpleasant, a gold-digger, and no man is good enough for her. In some ways this is a retelling of the Brothers Grimm story "King Roughbeard.")

Fortunately he encounters an escaped slave girl - Tavia - who turns out to be a bit of a warrior girl herself. He ends up falling in love with her, rescues Sanoma Tora, and when Sanoma professes her undying love (meaning about for two weeks) for Tan Hadron, he tells her that he prefers the escaped slave girl. She goes all female-hysterical on him, which he ignores.

In other words, because Sanoma Tora showed herself to be an unworthy woman Tan Hadron withdrew from her his chivalrous behavior, just as so many men today have withdrawn chivalrous behavior from unworthy women. As I said, chivalry is freely chosen and is not an obligation or duty.

The code of chivalry in my opinion is based on European men's instinctive desire to protect women. Think of how it's supposed to be "women and children first" on lifeboats. In fact a man who saves himself over women and children (such as Cal the Cad in Titanic) is considered a villain.

I don't read much fiction anymore but I did read the first two Harry Potter novels. I liked the first but not the second. As I was reading the first I knew that "J.K. Rowling" was a woman.

Harry isn't masculine but effeminate. And he allowed the Dursleys to terribly abuse him and did nothing about it. Harry would not have even made a good Cub Scout. There is very little about him that is chivalrous and he's certainly no Tarzan (the most famous creation of ERB).

Chivalry only comes from a position of strength. In other words, being armed and willing to do violence to the Bad Guys, including killing them. To the degree that society become anti-gun chivalry will decline.

In other words, liberalism is anti-chivalrous! For one thing it's based on the idea that human nature is plastic and there are no differences between men and women. This is not only nonsense; it's dangerous nonsense.

The best definition of a liberal that I've encountered is someone who'd rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than defend herself with a handgun. Then you get some really bizarre beliefs, such as people who think they can legislate away violence by not allowing boys to draw war scenes on the backs of their school papers (which is what all of us did as children). "Zero tolerance" means "zero brains."

These days, a chivalrous man would would own and know how to use several firearms, and be willing to do violence to protect the weak and helpless. If cartoon heroes can do this (and aren't all of them armed?) why men should do it, too.

Feminism, which is leftist/lesbian, has been busy for the past 40 years destroying chivalry. This has made men confused and women probably more so, since they expect to be the equal of men except when they don't want to be equal and expect men to be chivalrous. That would be amusing if it wasn't pathetic.

Leftism has done great harm to the world. Leftist feminism has done great harm to men and women.

The fact that so many men are lost and confused is why the Manosphere exists. It is in many ways a needed corrective to the destructive influence of feminism. In other way it's pretty damned retarded, such as in the cases of men who memorize every definition of an Alpha, a Beta, a Gamma, a Delta and an Omega, and really think these categories exist and try to apply them to their lives.

People learn by imitation (hence the memorization I just mentioned). If I had my way ERB would be taught in the schools to six-year-old boys. And King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. And the Greek myths.

The answers to most of our problems were figured out thousands of years ago. A lot of them are in the Bible, which I consider not so much religion but good practical wisdom about human nature. Of course you don't get Bible stories taught in school anymore, either.

I'd settle for Edgar Rice Burroughs. I think almost all six-year-old boys would too.