“Isn’t ISIS proof that your theory is wrong? What about the first Islamic armies that beat everybody, didn’t they have women behind veils without a voice?”

-Mescaline Franklyn

“Really, doesn’t the success of Islam—as much as I disagree with the religion—argue against your point that “a Maternal Voice for War” is significant, militarily, across the ages?”

-Columbine Joe

First, Islam has an extensive history of military glory, even if not up to Western military standards of success. To the extent that Islam has been a military force, I do not credit the veiling of their women. On the other hand, Western militaries have dominated the world except for the period of Mongol hegemony. The Western world, and Genghis Khan's mongol horde, have held uniquely tolerant views of the female political voice. This extended essay is an exercise in my trying better to understand if this is a causal element, or simply a corollary note. In the mean time, you woman haters will get served with heaping helpings of examples that men with freer women beat more foes than men who only tolerate slave girls.

Expect debate by burial.

These objections concerning Islamic martial history posed by Joe and Mescaline are at the crux of one of the midpoint chapters in this essay. However, since these same points drove me to wrote the essay, I do think the men that inspired me deserve a preliminary brief on this Islamic aspect of the theory I am proposing.

Is a boy whose mother is a cowering slave girl, and whose father is an uncompromising inward-looking tyrant more likely, or just as likely, to grow into an effective warrior as a boy whose mother was strong for, obedient to, and supportive of, her strong, outward-looking husband?

More importantly, whose dad beats who in a fight?

The man that inspires the loyalty of his woman, or the man that requires other men to keep his wife obedient?

Imagine Robert E. Howard's Conan character, requiring a vicious aunt, a priest and a castrated black giant to keep his woman in line, when he could accomplish it with a swat on the rump and a wink of the eye?

ISIS is doing well because there are hardly any men left in the Western World—such decadence among more accomplished folk being the perennial boon of the desert peoples.

The first Arab armies ran into Charles Martel in France and turned tail on the left flank of the Islamic Crescent and got scythed down by Chinese arrows on the extreme right. From that point on the Arabs lost ground steadily for over 1,000 years, against all comers except against African tribesmen.

In antiquity, before Islam, Arab martial prowess was a joke, their men rarely getting hired to do more than raid or guard caravans. Readers ought to check out some ancient table top games and look at the unit values. Their cavalry sucked and their infantry couldn’t even die well. Early on, Arabic Islam faced two decadent nations exhausted from 300 years of continuous apocalyptic levels of warfare. Imagine if the U.S and the Soviets had fought a 30 year long conventional war to a draw—not low intensity, but WWII levels of battling. Persia and Byzantium were that spent when the Islamic storm broke on their flanks.

The modern Western view of Islam and of the Arab peoples—which are not one in the same though one comes from the other—is hopelessly skewed and vested in liberal materialism.

A suggested reading list would include: the Old Testament, the Koran, Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, Durant’s Story of Civilization and O’Connell’s Of Arms and Men [27 substantial books just to get started] which is the reason for this extended essay. Read any of these sources and hundreds of others and you will see a lot that the current information stream misses or obscures. That is the point of me taking on this project, to give young internet jockeys some real history from the period perspective, not as filtered through our own ϲunt matrix.

The overall case of With This Shield or On It, is that across ages and cultures, societies in which women have “a voice,” as opposed to “no voice,” [Did you read “feminism?” Did you read “a controlling voice?” Did you read “a dominant voice?” No. You read “a voice,” with Snori the Shield-Splitter having all the latitude in the Halls of the Nords to roar, “Shut up and serve some ale, bitch!” because the Shield-Splitter is a real man who can backhand his own wench and doesn’t need some woman-hating, holy-roller, boy-rapist doing it for him! You read “a voice” as opposed to “no voice.”] in the affairs of men, have produced consistently better fighting men. The nations that have dominated the battlefield since antiquity have all fit this mold, including the armies of Mohamed and his immediate successors and the recent upstarts who fight for their right to have eternal sex with 74 virgin women, abide be a lunar [feminine] calendar, abide by the words of a prophet whose benefactor, guiding hand and chief advisor was a woman [a catholic woman at that]…

No people have had a worse military record, or produced weaker athletes, then Islamic peoples of Arab descent [as opposed to Turks, Persians, Afghans and Berbers, with their rich martial pedigrees.] Other people continue to fight over their nations for them! Men from other non-Arabic nations are needed to provide backbone in their fighting formations, etc. These weak Arab men come from the same nations where women are respected the least—where women are indeed feared, where a man does not have to be strong to dominate his vagina, but relies on laws to insure her obedience!

Manlius Man-Butcher would cringe at the thought that he couldn’t assure his wife’s obedience unless the old men of the village picked on her while he was out slaughtering Gauls! Why, his woman was obedient because he was coming back and she Mars-damned well knew it!

Only a weakling fears a creature as weak and malleable as a woman, something you can conquer with a kiss or a promise, like some modern voter. That a man would need an entire village to keep his woman in line is pathetic, let alone an entire faith complete with behavior police like they have in Saudi Arabia, who keep your wife in line, because you’re not man enough to.

There are many places where Islamic societies give examples of a community building better men when the mother is more than a slave, such as the lingering Arab respect for the mother of the eldest son, which is present in all pastoral societies, and is—as with the Mongols—based on livestock management.

I will clean this presentation up in its proper chapter, God is Great, but in the meantime the reader should be mindful that throughout history, over the past 1,400 bloody years, Islamic military success has been based on four things and four things only:

1. Jihad [an exceptional, not constant, state, with some feminine aspects to the motivation]

2. Military genius, as likely to spring from Jewish, Mongol, Turkic or Christian minds [Yes, the caliphs have depended on all of these, and Saladin, the greatest “Arab” general was a Kurd!] in service to Islam

3. Proxy fighters: the mercenaries of Khwarzim and Baghdad, The Mamlukes of Egypt, the Christian Janissaries and feudal levies of the Turks, the Frankish knights like El Cid who served the princes of the Moors as well as Christian lords, the Berber Tuaregs [considered the best indigenous North African fighters] whose wives pick their own husbands and who were once ruled by a queen, the Foreign Fighters in the 2004 battle of Fallujah who were often non-Arab…

4. Weakened and decadent enemies. The Arab peoples have rarely defeated a strong foe [and this study is looking only at warrior peoples who consistently defeated strong enemies over generations], because winners and world beaters do not live in the desert. The desert is where the lost and beaten retreat to. Any reading of the First Crusade paints a pathetic picture of Arab Arms. Alexander’s Aggrianians and Hypasts with one squadron of Companion cavalry [5,000 men] could have stopped the Crusaders in an afternoon without medieval weapon upgrades.

It is a fact that the best militaries in history have been either Western or Mongol and that both of these traditions trace their lineage back 4,000 years to the Steppes of Eurasia where Epic poetry, boxing and mechanized warfare were uniquely born together, and that these militaries have grown from cultures with a stronger than normal [for their place and time] female voice. The commitment to mobility, tolerance of the female perspective, and a belief in closing with the enemy and settling the issue, are aspects of Indo-European martial culture that were also reflected in dominant primitive societies like the Crow, Zulu, Iroquois and Polynesian, and also in the regionally anomalous cases of the Ancient Isrаelites and medieval Mongols.

I do not think that this “Maternal Voice of War” is a universal good, and do think that feminism has corrupted it into a thirst for global warmongering at the very same time that materialism is weakening our men to the point that they might no longer be fit for war. This point will be the subject of the final chapter, which is essentially an argument that Hilarch Clit-on might be the closest thing I can imagine to the biblical Antichrist, if it gets elected in 2016.

In the mean time, all you masculinity advocates do yourself a favor, and realize that a family whose mother is a cloistered slave girl, doesn’t last ten minutes under duress when you are out there cut off from the homestead fighting the State-sponsored Mud hordes. So grow a third nut, find a strong woman that can haul water, chop wood, shoot and not breakdown in tears when the jabbering shit hits the fan, then be a whole hell of a lot stronger than her, tell her how it’s going to be, and then your son will have the right foundation to be better than the multitudes of lesser men who clutter the world.