Chivalry - Truth and Nothingness



by morton_h, the blogger

We live in times where universal human values and concepts able to describe them are vanishing. Often they seem lost or so changed in their core, that they are no longer adequate. In some cases values and concepts are so exposed to scorn, censorship, condemnation or attacked by political correctness, that they barely survive. Other times they are transformed into newspeak.

Using the concept of
truth  today is almost considered a mortal sin. How dare you use that word? You can say say that, you megalomaniac! The truth does not exist! 

[scroll ned for at læse på dansk]  

Contemporary speech is nihilistic. When we all have our private relative version of reality, then all conversation will cease, and so will any coherence or depth. Something rules in a hidden layer, and everyone's consciousness has become an atom. Paradoxically, everyone's homemade construction of reality is amazingly similar to everyone else's. Very few have formed a world view based on actual thinking and proper knowledge. So in a way, people are right when they claim that you can not talk about truth. They are talking about themselves, for they have abandoned any ambition for obtaining truth and have bought a prefabricated pseudo-truth in the nearest supermarket selling that stuff. We live on copy-paste-island.

When the ancients spoke the truth, so they meant a complete
d mindset. Truth is logically consistent. You can not achieve this consistency, if you have not completed your grammar (what-who-where-when), which is what is left out in the media presentation of events, the 2D reality of no purpose and no meaning which is: no thruth.

But the
ancient, and actually our grand parents had something more than just logical consistancy in mind. They sought a correlation between the objective and the subjective, the outer and inner reality, where they had found a place in life and knew the purpose of place and life. I hear background voices saying: Well, in the good old days it was much easier, because the world was not so complicated. I will say to that: It is both right and wrong, and we may miss an important point. In the 'good' old days community supported coherence. Today society's priority is the decrease of coherence.

When nihilist award
his fatwah against the use of the concept of truth, it is because the word is a challenge to the mindset of nothingness. When inability to accept universal values in accordance with an inner truth/coherence and translate this into actions in the exterior, such an undertaking must become a prohibited area, as others may not therefore profess. Truth is deeply disturbing to a nihilistic world view. The nihilistic crusade is a warfare against everything that disturbs meaninglessness.



The Knight's Codex
There is no chivalry in the crusade of nihilism. There were lots of knights, but less chivalry in the real crusades that unfolded in medieval Europe and Middle East in the great Clash of Civilizations, predating what we are witnessing today. Chivalry, the concept of chivalry, is far older than the Crusades. Just like the bogus neo-crusades of our time a hijacking of virtues took place in the middele ages. It was shouted out in recruiting campaigns: You are all sinners, but by making your Mounted skills available to the slaughter of infidels in Palestine, you can atone for all your sins at once.

The Crusades were the return of a much older phenomenon originating in
pre-antique Babylon: the combination of Usura banking and demon cult personified by medieval most influential grouping: Templar Order. This order, this cult never worshipped The Christ but a demon called Baphometh. They had so many fighting men / knights, bankers, ships and accumulated hardcore values that they represented a supranational and unparalleled power factor. The order came after the Crusades under pressure and resurrected/morhed as the Jesuit Order, who again morphed on with an array of tentacles in a global control system: the Illuminated, the Revolutionaries, Masonic Lodges, the Zionists. We find them today in central banking interwoven with the descendants of the Venetians now called the Atlantic Globalists. They became, as Paul Gottfried call them: 'the priesthood of the management class'.

The concept of chivalry was hi-jacket
by crusade philosophy. Honorary concepts were politizised. Virtues were ideologized and pathologized. Today we know just a blunted or romanticized version of it. 


Futuwa
Can we still find the concepts of chivalry and if so, where? I have found it in the Crusader's infidel enemy: Islam. Or rather in the spiritual movement older than Islam, that invented a survival form inside Islamic culture domination: Sufism. The Sufi concept Futuwwa or heroic generosity is both a spiritual concept and the morality of a knight. Chivalry is The Way of the Sufi. For the dervish it means generosity extended to self-sacrifice; to give your life for a friend's sake.

The philosophy comes from a book called
The Book of Sufi Chivalry - Kitab al-Futuwwa, an important text of al-Sulami from the 10th century. It is a guide to the heroism of generosity, compassion, love, friendship, hospitality and right action based on these virtues as a means of spiritual development.

The knight is hard on himself and kind to others. The knight compl
ies with a strict moral codex without insisting that others should adopt this disciplined lifestyle. If you want to assume this lifestyle, then you should do it, but do for God's sake - and for others and your own sake - not boast of it and make others feel small by not assume the same strict self-discipline and set of opinions. Instead, let the people be inspired when they see the consequences and gains thereby. Thus one of the great Islamic theologians and Sufi philosophers al-Ghazali (Abū Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, 1058-1111).

Spiritual chivalry is incompatible with the rule of tyranny. Chivalry shakes supremacy to its foundations. Chivalry and tyranny are diametrically opposed. Tyranny is a negation of chivalry. What is good becomes evil in tyrannical negation / government. What's good for the tyrant is evil for the people.
Good and evil are also universal value-concepts that we should be careful though not afraid to use, because through their inclusiveness and universality they can be corrupted and by the redefinition of tyranny come to mean just the opposite. If tyranny as personified evil, The Evil, the Devil, Satan - we understand that the old created an image to be able ot talk about it – would hide most effectively, it would just be in the form of The Good. Hence the the saying: 'the road to Hell is paved with good intentions'. It is seductive. Without a well-developed moral compass and an equally mature discernment, there is immediate confusion.

We live in times of maximum confusion, where many people have no moral compass and thus willing to be persuaded to think and do things,
that they in a balanced, healthy human environment would never have thought of. We live in times without honor. People put no pride in thinking and acting in certain ways. They have taught themselves - with help from a hidden hand - to live in a state of dissonance and contradiction. The concept of duty has largely disappeared. Instead, we are talking about right, desire and freedom of choice - even when freedom of choice does not exist. The concept of responsibility has become tyranny language synonymous with stooping subservience and blind obedience to authority. Responsibility is then to do what you are being told and then re-spond, when asked: Have you paid taxes in due time, you have done your school work for tomorrow? Young computer gamers play Call of Duty, where they as virtual Black-Ops-US-Military-Clones are shooting down all who disobey the Empire. TV, media, Hollywood and the game industry have all submitted bids for the killing of moral and ethical duty.

When truth is
the missing component of the good, the bad, the honor, the duty and the responsibility is missing the most important, without which all other concepts disintegrate. We become ships and boats without compass.
 

Define truth
Is not it difficult? Not at all. But it will be difficult, if truth does not already live in our world of experience. I can not feel it, ergo it does not exist. Or: It has not been on TV recently, ergo it does not exist.

Truth is brain with heart control.
It is clarity of thought protected by a life-supporting element. The balance of masculine and femine qualities of life, where one set implies the other. Note: we are not talking about men's and women's qualities.

Therefore, it is not really difficult to assess whether there is truth in the outer phenomena
or in human relations. It will be difficult if you leave to others to evaluate and disseminate their assessment, which you then without discernment copy-paste and spit out of your own mouth. It is in general difficult, if a meeting does not take place. In front of the television display, there never was a meeting. Not-Meeting apparently is systematized. TV audence never meets the politicians, the politicians never meet the TV audence (the citizen / the voter), journalists never meet terrorists, terrorist or politician never meet victims of terror. Some politicians meet regularly with terrorists, but that's another story (eg: Senator McCain without scruples meets with the worst scumbags in the world and promise them lots of money and weapons). Pharmaceutical manufacturers never meet medicine wrecks, stock brokers never meet the the broken or the homeless, drone pilot meetings never descendants of the dead in the village, architects never meet the residents of neo-slums, food- and chemistry manufacturers never meet those who became sick and exhibits plenitudes of symptoms of chemical poisoning. 


Removing the Meeting will remove the responsibility- and causality chain. Consider the other hand an event. Ask if it is life-enhancing. Rate the longer-term effects. Do not initially ask those who should be responsible. Just ask for what you see and what other with eyes in their heads seen. Then return to those who should have been responsible. Do not expect answers, and never accept answers that make no sense. Keep on asking, even if answers do not match.

You
may see, on the contrary, people who thrive and people who have a real impact on their lives. Then there will be truth. You are seeing genuine sustainability (a currently loaded words also perverted with newspeak-ability), and congratulations! Knowing that the opposite of truth is a lie, which is never sustainable and self-propelled, but must be maintained every day 24/7/365.

What an enormous waste of resources are not included in the maintenance of a lie? I hardly dare think of it.

But actually, if you have learned to ask: Does this support Human Life and Natural Life? You will eventually find truth. It's that simple! But mind you, simplicity is also under attack these days ...
 

The Nothingness
In Michael Ende's
The Never Ending Story – the author is actually a philosopher who writes children's books - the concept of Nothingness of is the negating principle that destroys The World. The principle is the principle known in physics as Entropy (thermo dynamics), the exploding then self destroying Universe, BigBang-physics, Darwinism and its ideological companion: Eugenics, the oil industrial paradigm, usura banking and eternal indebtedness In Ende's story it is a sort of mythological entropic force that destroys imagination, creativity and fantasy.

The
Never Ending Story has a Jungian, psychoanalytical angle to it. The authors case study is the protagonist of the story, the boy Balthazar Bux, caught in an identity crisis caused by a parent-child complex. He seeks refuge in his imagination, which lasts for a while due to its fabulous richness. But his amazing counter-reality at some point has to re-unite and be accountable to the 'real' reality. The story is a psychological-spiritual road movie.

Ende's genius is that entropy, the destruction of the world called
Nothingness, has a higher purpose. Both the reality and escape into fantasy was prodigal - or necessary. Un-reality necessitated the flight to the imagination, which enabled the Nothingness, which provoked the return to reality and the broken World. Thus the full circle. It is a Jungian-mythical healing model. Balthazars quest is the Knight's quest, the quest of truth, the synchronization project of inner and outer reality. The quest starts in dissonance and ends in consonance. The Knights quest is not supposed to be a tragedy, but a comedy. Or rather: the Knights quest is an open quest. What's it going to be: a tragedy or a comedy? Only if the Knight choses his need before his wants, he will fulfill his quest.

No one has described the
Knights quest better than Joseph Campbell in his classic: 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces'. The Knight is the Hero, the Hero is the Knight. The story is immortal because it is archetypal. We all must go that way if we do not betray our fate. Fate is a variety of creation, you will need to recognize why you created. You may not know that, if you are not familiar with old Norse language. Skæbne and Skabning mean Destity and Creature/Creation. You are created with a destiny, with purpose. Fulfill it and thrive, deny it and suffer.

Ridley Scott puts
the concept of the Knight at play in his monumental movie Kingdom of Heaven. As Balthazar Bux in an adult version he puts his come-to-be-Knight-protagonist into a state of mess torn up with roots from his own land. The peculiarity and beauty of the film is its illumination of the Knight in the era of the Crusades. The opponents, he meets, turn out to be of the highest integrity. Islam maintains the concepts of honor and chivalry, while Christianity has long perverted them. Or rather: Christianity's inner enemies committed treason against the ideals of Christianity and in the First Crusade Christianity became morally and factually the loser of the battle. The Knight, the young blacksmith from the Southern France, in the story does not deviate from his path and the codices of Knighthood, even when the dream of Jerusalem becomes Nothingness. 


Subsequently and returned to his home town he chooses never to return. When the call comes - the start of the second crusade - he stands by his life as a blacksmith. He atoned himself and won his queen, thus he fulfilled his quest. If you have not seen the movie, this will not be a spoiler.


When Ridley Scott is best, he is in powers of incorporating the archetypal heroic narrative of human history. He succeeded in his early masterpiece Blade Runner. He succeeded in strange way in Alien 1. They almost succeeded in Gladiator. And he succeeds completely in the 'Kingdom of Heaven', which unfortunately has become a somehow overlooked film.



Ridderlighed - sandhed og intethed

At bruge begrebet Sandhed regnes i dag for en dødssynd. Hvor vover man at bruge det ord? Det kan du ikke bruge, du lider af storhedsvanvid! Sandheden findes jo ikke!

Vor tids tale er nihilistisk. Når alle kun har deres egen relative version af virkeligheden, ophører al samtale, sammenhæng, dybde. Noget hersker i et skjult lag, og alles bevidsthed er blevet til atomer. Paradoksalt nok er alles hjemmelavede konstruktion forbløffende ens, for meget få har dannet et verdensbillede baseret på egentlig tænkning og egentlig viden. Så på en måde har folk ret, når de påstår, at man ikke kan tale om sandhed, men de taler om dem selv, for de har opgivet enhver sandhed med både stort og lille S og købt en præfabrikeret pseudo-sandhed i nærmeste bevidstheds-supermarked.

Når de gamle talte om Sandhed, mente de et fuldført tankesæt. Sandhed er logisk konsistent. Man kan ikke opnå denne konsistens, hvis man ikke har fuldført sin grammatik (hvad-hvem-hvor-hvornår), altså alt det, der er udeladt i mediernes præsentation af begivenheder, 2D-virkeligheden uden mål og mening.

Men de gamle mente også noget mere end logisk overensstemmelse. De efterstræbte en overensstemmelse mellem det objektive og det subjektive, den ydre og den indre virkelighed, hvor man havde fundet sin placering i livet og kendte det formål, der aldrig kan gives af andre. Jeg hører straks stemmer i baggrunden, der siger: Jamen, i de gode gamle dage var det også meget nemmere, for verden var ikke så kompliceret. Jeg vil sige: Det er både rigtigt og forkert, og vi misser en vigtig pointe. I de 'gode' gamle dage understøttede samfundet overensstemmelse. I dag forsøger samfundet at ødelægge overensstemmelse.

Når nihilisten udsteder sin fatwah mod brug af begrebet sandhed, er det, fordi ordet anfægter vedkommende i sin værdiløshed. Når man ikke evner at fatte universelle værdier i overensstemmelse med en indre sandhed omsat til handlinger i det ydre, bliver et sådant forehavende til forbudt område, som andre derfor ikke må bekende sig til. Sandhed er dybt forstyrrende for et nihilistisk verdensbillede. Det nihilistiske korstog er en krigsførelse mod alt, der forstyrrer meningsløsheden.


Ridderens kodeks
Der er ingen ridderlighed i nihilistens korstog. Der var masser af riddere, men mindre ridderlighed i de egentlige korstog, der udspandt sig i middelalderens Europa og Mellemøsten i det store Clash of Civilisations, der prædaterede, hvad vi er vidne til i dag. Chivalry, konceptet om ridderlighed, er langt ældre end korstogene. Nøjagtig som i vor tids forløjede neo-korstog, fandt der dengang en kapring af dyder (hijacking of virtues) sted. Det hed sig i hvervekampagnerne: I er alle syndere, men ved at stille jeres beredne færdigheder til rådighed for nedslagtningen af vantro i Palæstina, kan I sone alle jeres synder i ét hug - eller rettere: for hvert hug, der skiller en vantros hoved fra dennes krop.

Korstogene var genkomsten af et langt ældre fænomen med oprindelse i præantikkens Babylon: kombinationen af Usura-bankvæsen og dæmonkult personificeret af middelalderens mest indflydelsesrige gruppering: Tempelridderordenen. De havde så mange våbenføre mænd/riddere, bankfolk, skibe og ophobede hardcore-værdier, at de udgjorde en overstatslig magtfaktor uden sidestykke. De morfede efter korstogene under pres og genopstod som jesuitterordenen, der morfede videre som en vifte af fangarme i et globalt kontrolsystem: de illuminerede, de revolutionære, frimurerlogerne, zionisterne. Vi finder dem i dag i centralbankvæsenet sammenvævet med efterkommerne af venetianerne, hos de 'atlantiske globalister' og hos dem, som Paul Gottfried kalder for 'præsteskabet i management-klassen'.

Begrebet ridderlighed blev hi-jacket af korstogs-filosofien. Æresbegreber blev politiseret. Dyder blev ideologiseret og patologiseret. I dag kender vi kun en afstumpet eller romantiseret udgave af det.

Futuwwa
Findes der stadig begreber for ridderlighed og i så fald: hvor? Jeg har fundet det hos korstogenes vantro fjendebillede: Islam. Eller rettere i den spirituelle bevægelse, der er ældre end Islam, men som måtte opfinde en overlevelsesform indenfor islamisk kulturdominans: Sufismen. Det sufistiske begreb Futuwwa eller 'heroisk generøsitet' er både et spirituelt begreb og et moralsæt for en ridder. Ridderlighed er sufiens vej. For dervishen betyder det generøsitet udvidet til selv-opofrelse; at give sit liv for en vens skyld.

Filosofien stammer fra en bog kaldet The Book of Sufi Chivalry - Kitab al-Futuwwa, der er en vigtigt tekst af al-Sulami fra det 10. århundrede. Det er en guide til heroisme hvor generøsitet, medfølelse, kærlighed, venskab, gæstfrihed og ret handling udfra disse dyder, er et middel til spirituel udvikling.

Ridderen er hård ved sig selv og venlig overfor andre. Ridderen overholder et strengt moralsk kodeks, uden at insistere på, at andre skal adoptere denne disciplinerede livsstil. Hvis du ønsker at påtage dig denne livsstil, skal du gøre det, men lad for Guds skyld - og for menneskers og egen skyld - være med at prale af det og få andre til at føle sig små ved ikke at påtage sig samme strenge selvdisciplin og meningssæt. Lad i stedet folk blive inspireret, hvis de ser konsekvenser og gevinster derved. Således en af de helt store islamiske teologer og sufi-filosoffer al-Ghazali (Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, 1058–1111).

Spirituel ridderlighed er uforenlig med tyranni. Ridderlighed ryster overherredømme i sin grundvold. Ridderlighed og tyranni er diametralt modsatte. Tyranni er en negering af ridderlighed. Hvad der er godt bliver til ondt i tyrannisk negering/regering. Hvad der er godt for tyrannen, er ondskab for folket.

Godt og ondt er ligeledes universelle værdi-begreber, som vi bør være forsigtige med, for de kan via deres rummelighed og universalitet korrumperes og omdefineres af tyranniet til at mene just det modsatte. Hvis tyranniet, den personificerede ondskab, den Onde, Djævelen, Satan - vi forstår, at de gamle skabte et billede for at kunne tale om det - skal gemme sig mest effektivt, skal det netop være i form af det Gode. Deraf 'Vejen til helvede er brolagt med gode viljer'. Den er forførerisk. Uden et veludviklet moralsk kompas og en ligeså veludviklet skelneevne, opstår der omgående forvirring.

Vi lever i tider med maksimal forvirring, hvor de mange mennesker er uden moralsk kompas og dermed villige til at lade sig overtale til at mene og gøre ting, som de i et balanceret, sundt menneskeligt miljø ville have forsvoret. Vi lever i tider uden ære. Mennesker sætter ikke en ære i at tænke og handle på bestemte måder. De har lært sig selv - med hjælp fra anden hånd - at leve i en tilstand af dissonans og uoverensstemmelse. Begrebet pligt er stort set forsvundet. I stedet taler vi om ret, lyst og valgfrihed - selv når friheden til valg ikke findes. Begrebet ansvar er i tyranniets sprogbrug synonymt med duknakket følgagtighed og blind autoritetstro. Ansvar er herefter at gøre, hvad der bliver sagt og så 'svare an', når du bliver spurgt: Har du betalt skat til tiden, har du lavet regnestykker til i morgen? Unge computer-gamere spiller 'Call of Duty' (Pligtens Kald), hvor de som virtuelle Black-Ops-US-Military-Clones render rundt og nakker alle, der er ulydige mod Imperiet. Fjernsyn, medier, Hollywood og spil-industri har alle budt ind med aflivning af moral og etisk pligt.

Når sandhed mangler som komponent i det gode, det onde, æren, pligten og ansvaret, mangler det vigtigste, uden hvilket andre begreber går i opløsning.

Definér sandhed
Er det ikke svært? Overhovedet ikke. Men det kan være svært, hvis det ikke allerede bor i ens erfaringsverden. Jeg kan ikke mærke det, ergo findes det ikke. Eller: Det har ikke været i fjernsynet for nylig, ergo findes det ikke.

Sandhed er hjerne med hjertestyring. Det er klarhed i tanken beskyttet af det livsfremmende element. Det er balance i maskuline og feminine livskvaliteter, hvor det ene sæt forudsætter det andet.

Derfor er det egentlig ikke svært at vurdere, om der findes sandhed i ydre fænomener. Det bliver svært, hvis du overlader til andre at vurdere og videreformidle deres vurdering, som du så copy-paster og lukker ud af din egne mund. Det bliver i det hele taget svært, hvis der ikke finder et møde sted. Foran fjernsynsskærmen finder der aldrig et møde sted. Ikke-mødet er sat i system. Fjernsynskiggeren møder aldrig politikeren, politikeren møder aldrig fjernsynskiggeren (synonym for borger/vælger), hverken journalisten, terroristen eller politikeren møder ofrene for terror. Visse politikere mødes jævnligt med terrorister, men det er en anden historie (fx: senator McCain mødes uden at blinke med de værste scumbags i verden og lover dem masser af penge og våben). Medicinalfabrikanten møder aldrig medicinvraget, børsmægleren møder aldrig den konkursramte eller den hjemløse, dronepiloten møder aldrig efterkommerne af de døde i landsbyen, arkitekten møder aldrig beboerne i neo-slummen, landmanden og kemifabrikanten møder aldrig dem, der blev syge og udviser plejader af symptomer på kemisk forgiftning.

Når man fjerner mødet, skærer man årsags- og ansvarskæden over. Betragt derimod en hændelse. Spørg, om den er livsfremmende. Vurder effekten på længere sigt. Lad være med i første omgang at spørge dem, der burde være ansvarlige. Bare spørg til det, du ser, og det, andre med øjne i hovedet har set. Vend derefter tilbage til de, der burde have været ansvarlige. Forvent ikke svar, og godtag aldrig svar, der ikke giver mening. Bliv ved med at spørge, selvom de ikke svarer.

Ser du derimod mennesker, der trives, og mennesker, der har reel indflydelse på deres liv, findes der sandhed. Du er vidne til ægte bæredygtighed (et for tiden belastet ord), og tillykke med det! Vel vidende, at det modsatte af sandhed er løgn, som aldrig er bæredygtig og selvkørende, men skal opretholdes hver dag 24/7/365.

Hvilket umådeligt ressourcespild indgår der ikke i opretholdelsen af løgn? Jeg tør næsten ikke tænke på det.

Intetheden
I Michael Ende's Den Uendelige Historie bruger filosoffen, der skriver børnebøger, begrebet 'intetheden' for det negerende princip, der destruerer verden. Princippet er entropien (termodynamikken), det eksploderende, selvdestruktive Univers, BigBang-fysikken, darwinismen og dens ideologiske følgesvend: eugenikken, olieindustriens paradigme, Usura-bankvæsenet og den evige forgældelse. I Ende's historie er det en slags mytologiseret entropisk kraft, der ødelægger 'Fantasien'.

Ende har en jungiansk, psykoanalystisk vinkel på begrebet. Hans case-study er hovedpersonen i fortællingen, drengen Balthazar Bux, fanget i en identitetskrise, der har med forældre-barn-komplekset at gøre. Han søger tilflugt i sin fantasi, der varer for en stund grundet sin fantastiske rigdom. Men den fantastiske mod-virkelighed er på et tidspunkt nødt til at vende tilbage og stå til ansvar i den forløjede såkaldt 'virkelige' virkelighed.

Ende's genistreg er, at entropien, ødelæggelsen af verden kaldet 'intetheden', har et højere formål. Både virkeligheden og flugten ind i fantasien var forlorne - eller nødvendige. (U)virkeligheden nødvendiggjorde flugten til Fantasien, som aktiverede Intetheden, som fremprovokerede en tilbagevenden til virkeligheden og verden. Ringen sluttes på denne måde. Det er en jungiansk-mytisk healing-model. Balthazars quest er en ridders færd. Ridderens færd er en søgen af sandhed - et synkroniserings-projekt af indre og ydre virkelighed. Færden starter i dissonans og ender i konsonans.

Ingen har beskrevet ridderens færd bedre end Joseph Campbell i sin klassiker: 'Hero with a Thousand Faces'. Ridderen er helten, helten er ridderen. Historien er udødelig, fordi den er arketypisk. Alle må gå den vej, hvis de ikke vil forråde deres skæbne. Skæbne er en afart af 'skabning', du bliver nødt til at erkende, hvorfor du er skabt.

Ridley Scott sætter ridderbegrebet på spil i sin monumentale film Kingdom of Heaven. Som Balthazar Bux i en voksen udgave, sætter ridderen ud i en tilstand af rod, der er revet op af egen jord. Det særlige og fine ved filmen er dens belysning af ridderen i korstogets æra. De opponenter, han møder, viser sig at være af højeste integritet. Islam opretholder æresbegreberne og ridderligheden, mens kristendommen for længst har perverteret dem. Eller rettere: kristendommens indre fjender begik forrædderi mod egne idealer og blev i det første korstog både den moralske og faktuelle taber. Ridderen, den unge smed fra Sydfrankrig, afstår i fortællingen ikke fra sin vej og sit kodeks, men holder ud, også da drømmen om Jerusalem bliver til Intethed. Efterfølgende og hjemvendt, vælger han aldrig mere at vende tilbage. Da kaldet kommer - starten på det 2. korstog - står han ved sit liv som smed. Han har sonet sig selv og vundet sin dronning. Hvis du ikke har set filmen, er dette ikke en spoiler.


Når Ridley Scott er bedst, magter han at indbygge den arketypiske, heroiske fortælling i den menneskelige historie. Det lykkedes for ham i sit tidlige mesterværk Blade Runner. Det lykkedes på en sær måde i Alien 1. Det lykkedes næsten for ham i Gladiator. Og det lykkes fuldstændig i 'Kingdom of Heaven', der desværre er blevet en lidt overset film.

Kommentarer

Populære indlæg