Why would anyone join the army?

An interesting report from the BBC reveals that the army is currently suffering from serious problems relating to desertion. The question I find myself asking is that why would anyone want to join a modern army in the first place? in the old days, recruitment of paid troops was simple. If obligation didnot provide all of the necessary troops for an army, there were always large partsof society who were too restless, too dangerous, too violent and too unscrupulous to exist even within the confines of a medieval society. Such people made useless farmers and townsfolk, but when given a wage, excellent mercenaries. Indeed, in many ways, it was the perfect deal. The mercenaries had a relatively free hand to rape, pillage and plunder until they had sated even the most brutal of their desires, society got to remove some of its most troublesome elements to elsewhere and inevitably had people to call upon when utterly despicable acts, such as the brutal destruction of the Italian town of Cesena, needed to be committed.

In contrast, the modern army appears to be an anachronism. The country needs to be defended, but  as a society we abhor violence.  A patriotic urge to fight for your country is all well and good, but how does that help  when one has to commit the violent acts of killing which are inevitably a part of fighting for one's country?  Certainly, such a question isn't, answered by the army's recruitment programme. You would be hard pressed,  looking at the glossy Army advertising, to gain any understanding of the dark side of soldiery - The advertisements make soldiering seem like an adventure holiday or some sort of  'xtreme' sporting excursion. The fact is, It shouldn't be "The British Army: Be the Best", it should be "The British Army: Kill lots of people".  If you don't advertise one of the most important parts of the job, is it any wonder that people begin to fall apart when they realise that it isn't all abseiling and team building exercises? As the news has shown us time and time again recently, there are certainly individuals who are callous enough to have no problems with killing people, even innocents. Why do we waste time paying to lock such individuals up when we could have them killing on our behalf? Oh, thats right, we've taken away all of the things that make soldiering fun - Crap pay, No looting, no pillaging, no ability to change sides etc.  As a consequence  we appear to be in a bit of a no-man's land. Too much order and discipline to attract societies most vile bastards, to much blood, guts and horror to be a long term career for more sensitive souls.

Mind you, you can't really blame the soldiers for suffering from stress. They are seriously let down by those in authority and by the fundamentally broken nature of modern warfare. If Mercenaries of the old world were untrustworthy, it was generally because the leaders of mercenary bands would not allow their employer to place them in situations where they would face  certain death. Nowadays, the army is not led by a commander on the battlefield, but by a politician in Whitehall. The objectives the soldiers have to meet are political, not military. Thus, thanks to the wonders of the modern world, we have a modern, state-of-the-art sheafing its weapons, giving away its absolute advantage so that its men can be picked off one-by-one by the enemy. Our soldiers lives are sacrificed for the shortest of short-term political gain.

technorati tags:army, mercenaries, bbc, panorama, military, medieval, gang, killings

What does the History Channel do when it isn't discussing 'Toenail Clipping Collections of the Nazis'? It lies about the Middle Ages, that's what it does.

So, not content with urinating over the last 50 years of Crusade scholarship, the history channel have turned their attentions to a new period: 'The Dark Ages'. Unfortunately, at the moment i only have the trailer at my disposal to guage just how terrible this show obviously is. Fortunately, the 'making of' trailer contains enough abominations to keep me fuming for...all... a good 5 hours at least.

Indeed, it would appear that all director Christopher Cassel has to do in order to feel my wrath is open his stupid flappy mouth. 'like, dude, Some people say there were no Dark Ages' says Chris,sounding like some kind of heinous Bill and Ted reject. Yes Chris. In fact, this view is shared by most people who've actually bothered to read any decent academic text produced after about 1950. Silly humanists aside, the term Dark Ages was used for describing the Early Middle ages in Northern Europe because, quite literally, it was shrouded in darkness.  Historians did not have access to the large volume of Latin Texts which were produced in other places/periods, and archaeologists had not found and fully exploited many key discoveries, such as Sutton Hoo, which have since helped to shape our understanding of the Early Middle Ages. Indeed, for the last forty years, history and archeology have been able to pull their resources with fascinating results - far from a 'backwards' age of violence, it is clear that, in Northern Europe at least, important improvements were made in areas such as agriculture. Even if there was a period which could be classified as the 'Dark Ages', it was also certainly long over by the eleventh century ( Carolingian Renaissance, yeah.)

Who knows, perhaps your author is being rash and the programme is in fact  a medieval jewel in a vast vat of World War 2 related shit. If this is the case, these people really need to sort out their promotional material.

technorati tags:Carolingian, renaissance, history, channel, early, middle, ages, sutton, hoo, dark, ages

Could someone explain this 'Democracy' to me?

The government of this fair isle have recently gained much publicity from their recent attempts to reconnect with the British public through the medium of petition. On the surface, this initiative appears to be an open and unmoderated way of expressing one's views - the government have recently been embarrassed by mere trifles such as the million-strong petition against their road charging schemes - however it would appear that, when presented with true, actual, dissent, the tyranny of  the foolish mob returns with force.

Indeed, I myself put forward a sane and reasonable petition. My plan was quite straightforward. Considering that this country had been governed by nincompoops for hundreds of years, the only reasonble way to progress would be to reset our laws and customs back to a time when we were governed by a righteous and able monarch. After all, if the Charter of Liberties of Henry I was good enough to be the foundation of Magna Carta and various other Medieval Challenges to tyranny, what better way to fight the tyrannical laws of Blair and Brown? Indeed I fear they know this already which is why, though they right my petition off as 'humerous', they well know the harm which could be done to them from the universal truth it contains.

Where is my representation in this representative democracy?

technorati tags:e-petition, government, Blair, Brown, Magna, Carta

A Brief History Of Taxation

People of England, whatever happened to you? Debates on taxation are tedious at the best of times,  but It sickens me that we should even be having debates on issues such as this and this. After all, when looked at in any reasonable state of mind, such forms of taxation seem tyrranical and absurd. Inheritance tax, for example, is simply immoral.  Although an argument could be made that the effectiveness  of government could improve if a small tax is placed on the purchase of goods, once that tax has been paid it is immoral to tax the same goods again - especially if it means obstructing a person's attempt to gain their rightful inheritance. No further argument can be made. There is no sane rebuttal to this point. Indeed, for much the same reason, road charges cannot be stomached. I have already paid for my use of the roads through road tax. I already pay for my 'emissions' through exorbitant petrol duties. If anything, these taxes should be reduced - they should not be expanded into further areas which reduce our rights through the introduction of bad customs.

What really sickens me, however,  is not the nature of the proposed taxes themselves, but the nature of the opposition to them. We should not be politely asking these smug civil servants if they will consider not introducing such taxes, we should be telling them that they will not be, and that if they do the taxes will not be collected and that their very lives may be at risk. This is the way it should be and, indeed, is the way  it has been before.  The modern concept of taxation is a recent innovation, mostly linked with the Napoleonic wars. Taxation was far more infrequent before that, and, though some taxes were relatively successfull, many often went unpaid.  Indeed to see the power of taxation we need to look no further than the example of the poll tax, which has thus far played an important role in instigating two incidents of civil disorder in England. It would appear that the politicians have forgotten the power of taxation. It is the duty of all of us to remind them. When the rebels stormed the Tower of London in 1381, one of their first victims was the King's Chancellor. This is something Gordon Brown should not be allowed to forget.

technorati tags:Tax, road, charging, guardian, inheritance, tax, peasants, revolt, 1381, medieval, gordon, brown

Israel, Israel, Israel...

If there's one topic which is even more wearisome than global warming, it is the subject of Israel. What will we do with Israel? The Saracens do not want to be governed by the Jews, the Jews do not want to be governed by the Saracens. My initial solution to this problem was quite simple: Both should convert to the Catholic faith and submit themselves to the judgment of Rome. Then I thought to myself 'No Andronicus! This will never work'. Observing that the problem was more serious than I had in first anticipated, I meditated on it for a while longer. Then, in a stroke of inspiration, i was struck with the only solution to the issue which could ever actually work.

If the Jews will not live under the Saracens and the Saracens the Jews, it is obvious a third party is needed. Thus, to solve this issue we need to reintroduce the states of the Latin East. After all, if descendants from the Kings of Jerusalem could be tracked down and the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Country of Tripoli were reborn, we could nullify the problems of Israel, Palestine and Lebanon in one fell swoop. Now, I know what you're thinking. As you have doubtlessly been misled by the evils of the education system you probably believe the crusaders to be nothing more than violent butchers. This of course relatively untrue. Though the military enterprises fought by the Latins inevitably ended in bloodbaths, the Latins often made a point of massacring the occupants of settlements which who failed to surrender to them, much of the period between 1100 and 1291 was marked by toleration. Though inevitably society was governed by a Frankish aristocracy, the political system which developed was not overly different from the Islamic system so widely praised today (under Islam, Christians and Jews paid a special Tax, under the Latins it was it was Jews and Muslims). Indeed, though we are taught that the crusades produced nothing more than violent intolerance, in reality the Hospital in Jerusalem treated anyone regardless of race or Faith and Muslim noble Usamah ibn-Munqidh even tells us of how he was assisted by some friendly Templars, the same Templars who are so often the bogey-men of modern dramatic works.

Yes, it is true that the last time the West tried to occupy the Palestinian coast it all went horribly wrong, but what is there left to lose? Christendom certainly deserves a second crack of the whip - between the suicide bombs and the helicopter strikes it can hardly be said that our history makes us seem any worse.

technorati tags:Israel, palestine, Jerusalem, Lebanon, conflict

Carbon Neutral = Flagellation for the 21st Century

So today's, and indeed it would appear every other day's, hot topic is Global Warming. Apparently we should all be trying to be 'Carbon Neutral' to 'save' the 'Environment'.
 When it gets hot, it is apparently due to global warming. When it gets cold, it is apparently due to global warming. If it's too dry, it's down to global warming. If it's too wet, global warming is to blame. They even have the inconclusive and somewhat variable science to prove it!

Of course, this is all nonsense. As proved to be the case with the Millennium bug (which, sadly, didn't send the world back to the 1200s), and is currently proving to be the case with the SARS/Bird Flu viruses  (which have failed, as of yet, to carve through the population in same the manner as the Black Death.) We have convinced ourselves these are threats when really they are not - they are simply  the manifestation of a basic social instinct, Millenarianism. It would appear that, though we laugh at the obsessive medieval preoccupation with the identification of Antichrist and with the writings of Joachim of Fiore, once again we find ourselves in a similar mindset. The only real difference seems to be that, while medieval man looked to religion to find an explanation of how and when the world would end, modern man simply invents secular harbingers of his destruction. It is crucial for us to remember, then, that It was not so long ago that we were warned of the dangers of global 'cooling', and we should certainly make note of the fact that in the 'damning' report that supposedly proves man's contribution to 'Global Warming', the scientists themselves cannot bring themselves to use more precise terms than 'Very likely'. George Bush is not Antichrist. Al Gore is not Joachim of Fiore. 'Global Warming' should be seen in the context of these non-threats and treated accordingly - it is nothing more than medieval millenarianism given a fresh lick of paint.

technorati tags:global, Warming, Antichrist, George, Bush, Al, Gore, Medieval, Joachim, of, fiore, carbon, neutral, IPCC

Andronicus Is Still Here

Do not fear, my dear readership. Although I am sorry for neglecting this noble cause as of late, my mind has been detained by various pressing matters. If fortuna aidds me, I shall be back with an abundance of new thoughts soon. Until then, may i present you with my comment on a  blog published on that abominable Guardian website that riles me so much. The original post was here, and represented a generic modern attack on religious institutions which the author clearly failed to understand:

"Professor Grayling, it saddens me to see a man as evidently eloquent and educated as yourself resorting to such desperate and base argumentation. You appeal to us to tell you what "Christianity qua a body of doctrine and belief" has done for science, but surely you should know that the question itself is in fact false. The doctrines of a religion are utterly powerless - they are merely words on a page. The only powers these doctrines have is to influence people to act. Naturally, if you ignore the work of the people who are influenced by those doctrines and the work of the institutions they go on to create, it is inevitable that the answer to your question will be that the doctrines have produced nothing of note - after all, the same could be said for science. If you ignore the work of all scientists and scientific institutions, what great advances has the concept of experimental science (as advocated by 13th century English monk Roger Bacon) made on its own? Very little. In terms of creating progress, both religious and scientific doctrines have to be translated into actions before they can deliver results. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that I have to point out something so elementary to a professor of Philosophy.

Following on from this, I fear that your of knowledge of history is possibly both deficient and too heavily influenced by works of modern-centric popular history. The thing people in general seem to forget when discussing history is that, until they were made known, the Church was as ignorant as the next man of its scientifc errors. Thus, for centuries, religion and science were able to live hapily hand in hand. Let us not forget, after all, that science needs to develop to a certain level before it can challenge the authority of the clergy. The Medieval Church had no problem promoting science as the word of medieval science often corroborated their views. Indeed, even when individuals came into conflict with the Church, it was not always for the reasons popular history would have us believe. Roger Bacon, for example, fell foul not because of his unorthodox scientific experimentation, but because of internal church politics (he was too closely allied with the extreme spiritual faction of the Franciscans.) The same can also be said for Galileo, whose downfall was chiefly linked to his characterisation of the Pope in the figure of 'Simplicus' rather than to his ideas of heliocintricity (ideas the Pope had asked him to write down). Such distortions and ugly characatures of the past are common these days, and I myself try to combat them with my own personal blog (http://www.everythingsgonewrong.blogspot.com). If you wish to have more profound thoughts on this subject, I strongly reccomend you consult witho historians who specialise in the periods in question. However, next time, i would also advise you to ponder the historical background of the institution in which you work before attacking the Church's contribution to science and learning."

technorati tags:A.C., Grayling, Science, church, History, Guardian, comment, is, free

Britain has always been multicultural? Tell that to Hereward the Wake.

Once again the media deals with history in the way it knows best: using lies and ignorance. This week, they report that the fact that 7 Yorkshiremen have possible genetic links to North Africa clearly shows 'People of African origin have lived in Britain for centuries'. Of course, the article goes on to debunk itself, explaining that the scientific study in question found that all of the individuals shared a single ancestor. Nontheless, it does mark the latest incident in a heretical trend.

Indeed, in this historically-ignorant age, such sentiments are commonly expressed. It is accepted knowledge that Britain has always been multi cultural - after all 'wot about the Romans an' stuff'. Such sentiments are, however, the territory of imbeciles. Along with the Romans, people often cite the Norman conquest as an example of 'multiculturalism'. But which part are they citing? The part where the peasentry of England remain stable while only the aristocracy are dispossed, perhaps? Or do they prefer to look at the arbitrary forest law, a law which was wielded like a club against the common man? Maybe they'd prefer to discuss the slaughter of hhousands of innocents and the depopulation of chunks of the country?

To anyone who knows a thing about historical truth, The Norman Conquest was horrendous for the English. This is why, for centuries afterwards, the deeds of (spirited but ultimately doomed) English Rebel Hereward the Wake were recited in the taverns, and, even into the fourteenth century, preachers commonly used the conquest as a prime example of divine punishment. If the Norman conquest is an example of multiculturalism, than so too must the British Empire and the Nazi concentration camps. After all, did the British Empire not intoduce Caucasians to parts of Africa and Asia? did the Nazi camps not contain large numbers of Jews, Slavs and Roma?

Of course, this is not to say that multiculturalism is automatically a bad thing (although its lack of medieval precedent would make it seem a little unnatural). However, what it does show is that the flowers of history are too precious to be abused for cheap gain by petty tax collectors and office clerks who disguise themselves as noble leaders. In truth, there is no precedent for what is going on in this strange kingdom today, and it is a great wrong to try and make one. One of the greatest ills of the Middle Ages, an ill from which the mentality of the medieval man was slowly escaping, was the fear of innovation and the rabid desire to create false precedent. It saddens me that we are so ready to repeat the wrongs of the Middle Ages, yet so slow to emulate its virtues.

technorati tags:Medieval, Hereward, the, Wake, multiculturalism, BBC, Nazis, British, empire, England, Normans

Conspiracy!

Alas, yesterday I beheld a sight which was most soothing to my weary eyes. It was the work of an unknown kindred spirit , whose love for the Middle Ages evidently led them to anarchically refuse to follow the fascistic rules of modern grammar and spelling. This work, this post-modern thesis of Lutheran proportions, was cunningly disguised as a rather illiterate attempt at producing a lost-property notice and, rather than pinned to a cathedral door, was stuck to the side of a bus stop.  When i returned to this ticking time-bomb  today, with the stout hauberk of my camera ready to receive the notice's piercing arrows of light in order to record it for posterity, it had been torn down.

Was this the work of the mindless yobbos created by the national 'curriculum'? or was this the work of the minions of the powers that be, knowing that their own world view would share the fate of that of the Middle Ages if the post-modern 95 Theses remained posted up? For once, this is a conspiracy theory worth investigating. It's just a shame that the conspiracy theorists are too busy discussing whether the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Elvis-loving intergalactic Mossad agents from Mars in order to care.

technorati tags:Conspiracy, martin, luther, 9/11, mossad, elvis

See! Charlie Brooker Agrees with me!

Over at the Guardian today, Charlie Brooker discusses the inherent problems with allowing the heaving masses to have access to the media tools needed for them to sow the seeds of their ignorance into the ripe soil of other, equally uneducated, minds. Naturally, he has received a stern rebuke from the publication's foolish readership. However, their rabid mouth-frothing has only proved his point further, as can further be seen by the desperate attempts made by the heretics to extract themselves from the hypocritical position of defending bigots under the banner of liberalism.

Though correct, Mr Brooker, is evidently too connected to the modern world to see the true extent of the problem. The vortex of stupidity that is the BBC's 'Have Your Say' section is but the mere tip of the Iceberg. The real problem here is, of course, the invention of paper and the printing press. In man's golden age, literacy was a commodity. You were privileged if you were able to read, and even more privileged if you were able to write. Thus, though conventional wisdom would have you believe that mass literacy is a good thing, realistically it's a catastrophe. The old system was self-policing. After all, the scarcity of both training and parchment meant that only intelligent minds would have access to the materials needed to write original works, and the laboriousness of the copying process meant that only brilliant minds would have their works recreated in sufficient numbers to ensure any long-term survival. The removal of these safeguards dooms us to slowly drown in a colossal pool of our own verbal excrement. Medieval man knew the opinions of St Thomas and St Augustine were worth more than those of a simple rustic and because we have ignored their sage advice not only are we are eternally doomed to listening to the opinions of 'Dave' from 'Dagenham' but also to knowing that, far from Roger Bacon or Chaucer, the legacy we will leave to future generations is a million unsold copies of 'The Amber Spy Glass', the 'Halo' novelizations and the works of Jeremy Clarkson.

technorati tags:Charlie, Brooker, Medieval, History, paper, printing, Jeremy, clarkson, Amber, Spyglass, Guardian, BBC

Architecture

Not so long ago, I made a most enjoyable journey to Rochester Castle:

It is, indeed, a breathtaking sight. It is hard to believe that it has stood in its current location for hundreds of years and, though now nothing more than a ruin, its walls have nontheless withstood all attempts by both man and Mother Nature to send them tumbling to the ground. "If they could build such awe-inspiring constructions all those years ago, what marvels must they be capable of building today, fully equipped with the trappings of contemporary training and technology?" I hear you ask. The newspaper cuttings below say it all. To avoid my protests against the 20th century becoming repatative, I will make no further comment on the incompetenticies of the modern age:

technorati tags:Castles, architecture, history, incompetence, clissold, park, leisure, centre, rochester

A Note On Honour and Honourable Conduct

Current events are somewhat tiresome at present. Fortunately however my own experiences in the wider world are providing me with the stimuli i need in order to write.

Just a few nights ago, for example, this most unworthy of authors decided to nourish his weary soul by engaging in some honorable combat, courtesy of his fancy Xbox CCCLX computerbox. I soon found myself a group of fellow warriors who (despite their later behavior) seemed a meritorious group, and, dividing into two squadrons, we soon set about the noble business of fighting. Alas, though your author undertook many manly acts that day - bravely charging into the enemy ranks, meeting the enemy blow for blow and missile for missile - nonetheless the conclusion of the affair is something which would be better forgotten rather than recorded for posterity. No sooner had my comrades and I gained the better of the fighting had three of our enemies taken to ignoble flight. Rather than having the opportunity than to run them through, they simply faded out of reach as they disconnected from the network. Our sole remaining adversary proved to be a stout fellow, however. Despite facing impossible odds, he chose to fight on - refusing to give an inch. I took heart at this. " It would seem", i said to my comrades "that we should use the weakest of arms against this fellow. It only seems fair, after all, that we give this noble soul a fair chance since he has opted not to deprive us of our quarry". My allies, however, proved to be far less praise-worthy than either myself or our opponent. "Why would we do that?" one of them sneered, "Would you do that in a real war?"

In answer, sir, of course I would. Such a noble warrior deserves the chance to do battle on even ground, and, alongside this, I would hope that after seeing such a display of compassion and chivalry my opponent would do the same if the tables were turned in some future encounter. This simple concept, of listening to one's conscience and treating people in the way you wish to be treated, is one which was present in Medieval thought and underpins the ideals of honor and chivalry, as we can see from the words Froissart puts into the mouth of Sir Walter Manny at the Siege of Calais. On hearing that King Edward wished to avenge himself against the inhabitants of the town, for example, Froissart writes "My Lord, you may well be mistaken, and you are setting a bad example for us. Suppose one day you sent us to defend one of your fortresses, we should go less cheerfully if you have these people put to death, for then they would do the same to us if they had a chance" (Jean Froissart, Chronicles, trans. G Brereton (London, 1978), p. 106.) Quite frankly, though a resurgence in honorable conduct would certainly help on the shameful field of modern combat, it would also do endless good if practiced in the rest of society as so much of modern life appears to be ruled by selfish, but self-defeating, idiocy. On the London Underground, for example, many people chose to force themselves on the occupants of the nearest train carriage as soon as the train doors have opened. This, of course, is certainly folly - for aside from the fact they need people to alight the train to produce the space needed for them to embark, when it comes to their own turn to alight they find ther path blocked by a crush of self-important ignoramuses. My dear readers, treat your fellow men with the same degree of patience and respect that you would wish to receive yourself. Such selfless behavior may seem onerous to begin with, but, in the long run, it would be of great personal benefit to us all.

technorati tags:Gears, of, war, honour, honor, Froissart, medieval, modern, life

Hierarchical Society Is Probably A Good Thing

Today's top news story appears to be centered on the poor treatment received by famous Indian actress Shilpa Shetty in that most modern of abominations, 'Celebrity Big Brother'. To the author of this humble work, it would appear the only newsworthy item here is the question of why anyone would expect anything different. The commons are, after all, quite a repugnant bunch - and it would appear that the Goody woman in particular is obviously useful for nothing more taxing than milking cows (or possible Ale brewing). Forcing our foreign guest, whose noble words and features show her to be of a far higher rank of person, to reside with such a squawking monstrosity is a most evil act. She would, after all, be shown no respect even if she was an envoy from Prester John himself.

Quite how a society can ban a trifle like cock fighting yet let such a crime against nature continue is quite beyond me.

Tyranical End For Tyrant's Lackies

In the early hours of this morning, more of Saddam Hussein's lackies met their ends at the hands of Iraqi authorities, ungraciously strung up like commoners (and how else should they die? It would appear that, like the West, the Saracens have sadly also chosen to be ruled by plebs in business suits rather than by individuals of noble descent.) Criticism of these events is more muted than it was in the case of the big man himself, but nonetheless it is still present.

Quite how anyone could support or show remorse for the passing Saddam and his cronies is beyond both myself and presumably anyone else who is versed in the proper relationships between ruler and ruled. Saddam Hussein chose to follow a tyrannical path, ruling through savage fits of violence. In the end, he was unable to chart a course through the perilous storms which had gathered against him and in his weakness those he had wronged in turn wronged him. Had he set out on a more merciful route to begin with, he may have escaped with both his authority and his life intact.

Indeed, while his supporters may be tempted to blame the USA for their troubles, in reality blame for Iraq's present state must surely be placed on a neglectful leader. Had Saddam acted as a wise and realistic leader, appearing bare-foot in the snow before those who opposed him, like Emperor Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII, the flames of war would have been prematurely snuffed out. Instead, like a bad captain, he steered his ship into rocky waters, and now the people of Iraq lay shipwrecked amid a sea of parasitic foreign interests.

Saddam Hussein was a leader who brutalised those whom it was his duty to rule and who let his arrogance lead him to place his land on a path of destruction. By anyone's standards, he was a bad ruler who met a fitting end. He deserves no tears. While the critera of 'Good intent' is up in the air, it is clear from the work of Anselm of Lucca and the ruling of Pope Zachary (on the importance of de facto power) that the coalition quite clearly possessed a just cause the appropriate authority to carry out their campaign.

American Student Victimised Because of Public Display of Taste and Decency

Today my attention has been drawn to a story of incredible importance. An American school, obviously jealous of how much more manly and noble their students look when dressed in medieval armour, have banned a student from appearing kitted-out in mail in the school's year book.

Officially, the reason for this is something to do with a "zero tolerance policy" for weapons, but this is obviously a case of thinly disguised racism. Look at the gentlemen in question:


True, he may have the kind of peculiar features one could expect to belong to a serial killer and/or rapist, but once he has donned his armour his figure is obviously transformed into one of distinguished gentility. It would appear that the authorities at "Portsmouth High School" realised that, if we medievalists were to throw aside our modern garb and to take up the noble dress of a superior era, we would outshine our contemporaries dressed in dull modern fashions and thus the tissues of lies they tell about the Middle Ages would be unraveled and thus destroyed.

Patrick Agin, we salute you and your family for standing up to such harsh oppression by taking those involved thorough the King's court - and we salute all members of the Society for Creative Anachronism for preaching such a noble way of life in a land which is the bastard-child of the diabolical modern age.

Well-Respected Scholar Attacked by Police

It has come to my attention that, over there in the land which probably should have been left undiscovered, a number of law enforcement officials took it upon themselves to batter an (apparently highly intimidating ) university lecturer who had accidentally broken important local customs relating to the crossing of public roads.

Now this attack is not something that I am automatically opposed to per se, it does seem quite unnatural that university staff in general have grown too accustomed to the security which comes from not being regularly molested and attacked by an angered student body, but I am perplexed by popular reaction to the incident. Just look at the commentary inspired by this relatively placid editiorial by the man in question, Professor Fernandez-Armesto. It would appear that (quite predictably) the majority of great unwashed hate anyone who has half a brain or a hint of education. I wonder, however, why if they all hate "wimp professors" who "think [their] brain is superior, and exempt from any courtesy", they defer the authority to attack such academics to the mindless drones of law enforcement. The university of Cambridge, for example, was only formed because the townspeople of Oxford grew weary of the presence of the university in their town and took it upon themselves to drive the students out. It perplexes me that, in an age where even the most foolish common man has a degree of political freedom, people are less willing to contemplate decisive action than they were in an age where they were supposedly crushed beneath the giant boot of 'Feudalism'. Why allow your rights to be usurped by tiresome and incompetent government departments?

Everything's gone Wrong.

In general, the 'Renaissance' and the 'Enlightenment' have been characterised as movements which were beneficial to mankind. As our society desperately thrashes around in the new century, clumsily clawing away at the pit of mediocrity into which we have fallen, I feel compelled to disagree. People are quick to criticise the Middle Ages (Indeed, the term 'medieval' itself is constantly used as a derogatory one,) yet the 'Middle Ages' they attack is often a strawman - a composite of lies created by ignorant Victorian buffoons who were so absorbed in their sense of superiority that they could not comprehend the beauty and genius of the period they defiled. If people only studied the real past so much of the imbecility of the modern world could be avoided. The concept of democracy was, for example, well known in the Middle Ages. The reason it was not put into place was because it was regarded as a terrible form of government, and one only needs to watch the tedious weekly pantomime which masquerades as 'Prime Minister's Questions' to realise that Chaucer's measure of the system was indeed correct and that government would probably be better off in the hands of ' a few folk who are wise and full of reason, rather than a great multitude of people in which every man shouts and prattles on about what-ever he wants'.

But I digress too far. The point of this post was to introduce my blog, a blog which is based on my belief that the time-line has been corrupted and that everything has, in fact, gone wrong. It is my intention to juxtapose current affairs with the beliefs and actions of a superior era to illustrate why everything is so weedy and why so much has gone rubbish.