www.militaar.net

Kood: Vali kõik

Italian philosopher Julius Evola describes a distinct difference between Soldiers and Warriors, and it is more than semantics. The difference is fundamentally spiritual and deeply grounded in a person’s convictions and lifestyle.

“… the term ‘soldier’ originally referred to a man who engaged in the armed profession for pay.  It is a term that referred to the mercenary troops a town hired and supported tin order to defend itself or to attack its enemies, since citizens did not engage in war, preferring instead to take care of their private business.  Opposite to the ‘soldier’ was the type of the warrior and the member of the feudal aristocracy; the caste to which this type belonged was the central nucleus in a corresponding social organization.  This caste was not at the service of the bourgeois class but rather ruled over it, since the class that was protected depended on those who had the right to bear arms.”

What this means is that Soldiers don’t fight for our freedom, it is our Warriors who do so.  The bourgeois members of our society who are more concerned about their white picket fence house, large screen televisions and other material comforts need Soldiers to make it all possible.

Soldiers don’t fight for freedom, they’re mercenaries paid to fight for the comfort, quality of life and consumer interests of those who have no compulsion or desire to fight for themselves.
The problem which we face today is that we have too many Soldiers, and not enough Warriors.

The Warrior is not a hyper-masculine brute, nor is he one who makes war as a means to prove himself.  The Warrior, as Evola describes, is something else entirely: “We may add that this view does not uphold the ‘barracks as an ideal,’ nor does it seek a strict regimentation of daily life (one of the traits of totalitarianism), which is synonymous with a stiffening and with a mechanical and obtuse discipline.  Love for hierarchy; relationship of obedience and command; courage; feelings of honor and loyalty; specific forms of active impersonality capable of producing anonymous sacrifice; frank and open relationships from man to man, from one comrade to another, from leader to follower — all these are the characteristic living values that are predominant in the aforementioned view.”

Kood: Vali kõik

Militant -  adjective: favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause - orgin: late Middle English (in the sense 'engaged in warfare'): from Old French, or from Latin militant - 'serving as a soldier', from the verb militare (see militate). The current sense dates from the early 20th century
militate - (of a fact or circumstance) be a powerful or conclusive factor in preventing; orgin: late 16th century: from Latin militat- 'served as a soldier', from the verb militare, from miles, milit- 'soldier'
warrior - (especially in former times) a brave or experienced soldier or fighter; orgin: Middle English: from Old Northern French werreior, variant of Old French guerreior, from guerreier 'make war', from guerre 'war'
fighter - a person or animal that fights
soldier - a person who serves in an army; orgin: Middle English: from Old French soldier, from soulde '(soldier's) pay', from Latin solidus. The verb dates from the early 17th century