Effeminate reaction

October 5, 2015 § 88 Comments

Game, I’ve argued, is just the male equivalent of slutty behavior.  The reason ‘male sluttiness’ is relatively new, at least as a mass phenomenon, is because of the modern feminization of men.  Instead of evaluating themselves in masculine terms modern men submit themselves to evaluation by women.  Thus the Game gurus measure supposed “alpha” maleness based on the approval of women, as expressed concretely in the number of sluts with which a given man fornicates.

The ‘game’ perspective, then, is not actually a rejection of feminism: it is explicit subjection of men to the judgment of, not just women in general, but the worst of the lot.  This is followed, with no small amount of irony, by copious quantities of self-congratulatory chest-thumping about how game is a great rediscovery of masculinity.

A similar thing frequently takes place in reactionary politics.  Rather than evaluating moral and political questions on their own terms, many reactionaries see how liberalism evaluates particular questions and adopt what they think are the opposite positions.

But when you look at your face in the mirror, the thing you see is still your face.

§ 88 Responses to Effeminate reaction

  • Aethelfrith says:

    >many reactionaries see how liberalism evaluates particular questions and adopt what they think are the opposite positions.

    True. I refer to that as unprincipled contrarianism.

    However, there’s also the phenomenon of “agree and amplify” or “black knighting” which is to take a liberal’s principle to it’s logical (destructive) extreme in hope of showing how ridiculous it is. Whoever employs this tactic apparently doesn’t take two minutes to think about why it may be a bad idea.

  • dpmonahan says:

    I 95% agree, but it isn’t bad to remind good Christian guys looking for good Christian girls that they can help their odds by hitting the gym, earning some economic independence, and developing themselves intellectually and socially. If you want to get the girl you still have to be the kind of guy that gets the girl, even if you don’t habitually judge yourself by their standards.

  • Scott W. says:

    Rather than evaluating moral and political questions on their own terms, many reactionaries see how liberalism evaluates particular questions and adopt what they think are the opposite positions

    So that’s my Blue Oyster Cult 45’s never had, say, The Moody Blues “Gemini Dream” on the B-side. 🙂

  • Mike T says:

    If you want to get the girl you still have to be the kind of guy that gets the girl, even if you don’t habitually judge yourself by their standards.

    And that’s what guys like VD and Athol Kay focus on, though apparently they don’t count or are secretly trying to get men to bang sluts.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    And feminism is just the belief that women are human beings too. /sarc

  • August says:

    I recently watched Samurai 1 again, and I was struck how the character’s popularity with the ladies was completely unrelated to how he treated the ladies. In the game stuff, the women end up being the measure.

  • Vox Day’s game stuff lost me when he started a post on game with “Apart from the moral issue, I don’t see why you can’t go on a trip with a girl you just met.”

    Apart from the moral issues indeed – Now that’s the sort of advice that men need to hear! Right?

    Right?

  • (And my cynicism with Vox Day’s recent “fight back against the SJW’s” approach comes from a comment where he responded to somebody who quoted the “turn the other cheek” with “I tried that, for seven years. It didn’t work.”)

    I still like Vox Day (also, I do need to be careful as to what I say as I’m collaborating with him currently on an anthology that, hopefully, will be published relatively soon), but I take what he says with a grain of salt.

  • Peter Blood says:

    This could be part of a Jeopardy category: “Things That Are Two Sides of the Same Coin”. These are things that appear opposed, but pick either one and you are still fundamentally committed to a liberal principle.

    For example:

    Communism / Capitalism. Money and Goods is the measure of all things.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    A good note to crib from Zippy is that he rarely talks about specific people. Zippy talks about ideas. If you want to uphold “turn the other cheek”, then uphold it.

    Hold on…I’m making a mental note to follow my own advice…

    Conversely, if someone says something good then make it a point to uphold that person.

  • Svar says:

    “This could be part of a Jeopardy category: “Things That Are Two Sides of the Same Coin”. These are things that appear opposed, but pick either one and you are still fundamentally committed to a liberal principle.

    For example:

    Communism / Capitalism. Money and Goods is the measure of all things.”

    False. That is a Marxist lie that there are only two economic systems when capitalism actually was predated by feudalism. Marxists like to take things out of context to push their agenda (not calling you a Marxist just explaining how you fell into their trap regarding economics).

  • Svar says:

    “A similar thing frequently takes place in reactionary politics. Rather than evaluating moral and political questions on their own terms, many reactionaries see how liberalism evaluates particular questions and adopt what they think are the opposite positions.”

    That sounds like you are describing Republicans/Movement Conservatives. The sort of folk who are against social programs (even though the Old Right of the Interwar era were some of the biggest supporters of Huey Long) or against preserving the environment (even though God said to steward the land and the Old Right has always been pro-conservation in stark opposition to the Capitalist).

    If you are applying this to non-mainstream right-wingers, you are committing the strawman fallacy.

  • Svar says:

    Another thing. Game is focusing on one thing (getting women) while reactionarism is focused on saving the West which is a whole number of things.

    Conflating the two doesn’t make any sense. And calling the latter effeminate is just a ridiculous proposition. We don’t care what girls think, because what women think isn’t going to save the West.

  • hosswire says:

    Game is nothing more than a set of techniques that men can use to impress women and give them vaginal tingles.

    A man can use those techniques in moral or immoral ways, or can give the use of those techniques greater or lesser importance in his life.

  • Zippy says:

    hosswire:

    Game is nothing more …

    You must be new around here, hombre.

    If I have to accept that Game is nothing but a set of techniques with no moral implications (begging the question that such a thing is possible) then I also have to accept that feminism is nothing but the recognition that women are people too.

    But I’m not a nominalist, so I don’t have to accept either.

  • Svar says:

    “Game is nothing more than a set of techniques that men can use to impress women and give them vaginal tingles.”

    That last little bit is why we don’t respect guys like you and why we don’t want to be conflated with the likes of you. “Vagina tingles”? Come on bro, show some class. I mean, yeah, that’s bro talk but this is an intellectual forum, we’re talking about ideas and concepts not shit-talking at a bar or in a locker room.

    Secondly, techniques and routines are spergy. Getting a girl is simple:

    1. Take care of yourself physically
    2. Don’t be extremely socially awkward.
    3. Act like a man.

    Women aren’t that complicated and acting like a man doesn’t involve techniques, it’s a way of being.

  • Svar says:

    Feminism is complicated. 1st Wave is a female WASP reaction to the cultural destruction caused by the Industrial Revolution. It was a typical WASPy progressive (in the old sense of the term) movement meant to mitigate the harmful affects of the IR on women and children. Men were poorly affected by the IR and were reacting in ways that made women lose their sense of security and when that happens women go crazy. Women need a structured order to thrive, a structured order that only men can provide. When that goes away women go insane.

    Unfortunately, 1st Wave feminism only managed to fix some of the symptoms while completely ignoring the underlying causes.

    2nd and 3rd wave feminism are just typical examples of Jewish perfidy that the pre-V2 Catholic Church used to warn us about. Both are Cultural Marxist (that toxic Jewish brew of Marxism and Freudianism) and the latter is ultra-capitalistic and designed to take advantage of women sexually and monetarily. The former was an obscure radical movement highlighted by the media and the academics during the 60’s, which by that time, Jewish involvement in those two sphere had become firmly entrenched.

  • Hrodgar says:

    Svar, if you’ll look at Peter Blood’s comment again, I’m pretty sure he WAS saying that Communism/Capitalism is a false dichotomy. I don’t think you two are disagreeing, here.

    And you should read the OP again, too. If Zippy said reactionaries worry too much about what women think, I missed it. I did see something like a claim that reactionaries worry too much about what liberals think, though.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    That sounds like you are describing Republicans/Movement Conservatives.

    Yes, but we also frequently see this in alt-right, neoreaction, etc.

    For example, liberals insist that race is an anti-concept and reactionaries respond by turning race into the most important thing ever. Conversely liberals insist that racism is the worst possible sin ever, so reactionaries insist that racism is an anti-concept.

  • […] Source: Zippy Catholic […]

  • Svar says:

    “For example, liberals insist that race is an anti-concept and reactionaries respond by turning race into the most important thing ever. Conversely liberals insist that racism is the worst possible sin ever, so reactionaries insist that racism is an anti-concept.”

    Some on the non-mainstream Right are obsessed with race. In fact it was G.K. Chesterton who said something along the lines of how the Nazis, in trying to be anti-Jewish and focus on the perfect German Man, actually started showing a mindset similar to the Jews on questions of race i.e. absolute racial obsession. Irony of ironies.

    Race isn’t everything, but it isn’t nothing either. In fact, race wouldn’t be a focus if we didn’t live in such a multi-culti society. I mean, we don’t have a homogeneous society, we don’t have a religious consensus nor do we have a moral or cultural one, and we don’t even speak the same language.

    We are basically just a landmass with random people throw in. That system can’t work, I mean multi-culti can work in some cases if we had a religious, moral, and cultural consensus within the majority but even then, this amount of multi-culti is pushing it.

  • Svar says:

    “Svar, if you’ll look at Peter Blood’s comment again, I’m pretty sure he WAS saying that Communism/Capitalism is a false dichotomy. I don’t think you two are disagreeing, here.”

    Thank you for pointing that out. Apologies to Mr. Blood from my end,

    “And you should read the OP again, too. If Zippy said reactionaries worry too much about what women think, I missed it. I did see something like a claim that reactionaries worry too much about what liberals think, though.”

    That’s the thing, I feel the conflation is wrong. I don’t care about what liberals think, I care what they do and the fact that they have too much power. These people should be thrown into asylums and be allowed to think whatever they want, just away from society so they can’t screw us over.

    I mean I actually agree with liberals on many things and some people who hear my views on Israel and Palestine, the environment, and economics think I’m some sort of arch-liberal. Imagine the shock they get when they hear my other views.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Some on the non-mainstream Right are obsessed with race.

    Yes, and many are insistent that racism is an anti-concept. Don’t forget that part.

    Same with anti-semitism, for that matter.

  • Mike T says:

    (And my cynicism with Vox Day’s recent “fight back against the SJW’s” approach comes from a comment where he responded to somebody who quoted the “turn the other cheek” with “I tried that, for seven years. It didn’t work.”)

    To be fair, turning the other cheek is a response to a mere insult (being slapped by someone who is or merely thinks they’re your superior). Much of what SJWs do is actually beyond a mere insult. It’s aimed at pushing people out of public life, including the ability to have friends and hold down a job. That’s where the response needs to be proportional.

    FWIW, my response to people when they throw the golden rule at me is often “if that’s how I treated someone, then that’s precisely how I’d want to be treated.”

  • Zippy says:

    Not to get cheeky, but there is also Matthew 5:40.

  • Mike T says:

    There’s also a time for peace and a time for war. Our duty to is respond the way God would expect us to respond to the particular evil we encounter in our own lives. Sometimes that may mean handing over your cloak. Sometimes that means standing up to them because you know they’re rapacious and their next target may be someone too poor and vulnerable to do without.

  • Svar says:

    “Yes, and many are insistent that racism is an anti-concept. Don’t forget that part.

    Same with anti-semitism, for that matter.”

    Anti-semitism is interesting. It traditionally meant anti-Jewish sentiment based upon the racial aspects of the Jews (because I don’t hear charges of anti-semitism when some Jewish bigot or some American knucklehead politician supports genocidal policies against the Semitic Palestinians) but now I agree that it means what Sobran once witty remarked: “anything the Jews don’t like”.

    I don’t even know what those words mean anymore, I just ignore them and say “so?” when I am charged with them.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    There’s also a time for peace and a time for war.

    The time for war is when a specific proposal passes the just war criteria.

  • @MtC

    A good note to crib from Zippy is that he rarely talks about specific people. Zippy talks about ideas. If you want to uphold “turn the other cheek”, then uphold it.

    *Shrugs*

    A lot of these ideas are coming from a specific person, who just wrote a book about these ideas. I think there’s actually a lot of good stuff in what he writes. But it’s hardly unfair to mention him by name either in criticism or praise, considering how tied up he is in a lot of what we’re talking about.

    Anyway, I don’t think I’ve been bashing Vox by any stretch, and in fact have defended him recently.

  • …Actually, on reflection, you’re right. However much his thinking has influenced me and others here, the important part is not him personally. I shall refrain from mentioning him by name from now on unless there is a very good reason.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MtC

    I am a Vox Day reader from way back, and still am. My point isn’t to say you should attack him only leaving out his name. My point was he’s like the rest of us: A mixed bag of ideas, but always interesting.

  • Saving the West when we can’t even save ourselves seems a pretty prideful viewpoint.

  • Svar says:

    “Saving the West when we can’t even save ourselves seems a pretty prideful viewpoint.”

    And? It’s too late to do anything but act.

  • Mike T says:

    Saving the West when we can’t even save ourselves seems a pretty prideful viewpoint.

    We can’t save ourselves from Hell, but we have the power to save our countries from being destroyed. The continued existence of nations like Greece, Armenia, China, Japan, Korea and Ethiopa show it is possible for nations to survive thousands of years without being destroyed.

  • Mike T says:

    Heck, if the 4th crusade hadn’t hit the Byzantines the way it did, and the Byzantines had had enough time to outfit an army with gunpowder weapons, it’s entirely possible that the remnant of the Roman Empire would still exist today.

  • hosswire says:

    @svar The next time I drop the “v-bomb” I will be sure to give a trigger warning to protect your delicate sensibilities.

    And don’t worry about anyone conflating you guys here with anyone else. You are definitely your own very special group here, busily spinning your metaphysical & theological ruminations & tut-tutting everyone outside your little religious club.

  • Svar says:

    “@svar The next time I drop the “v-bomb” I will be sure to give a trigger warning to protect your delicate sensibilities.”

    I don’t have delicate sensibilities, I just know when to say things.

    “And don’t worry about anyone conflating you guys here with anyone else. You are definitely your own very special group here, busily spinning your metaphysical & theological ruminations & tut-tutting everyone outside your little religious club.”

    Go back to vying for the scraps of attention that you have to work your ass for from women.

    Your type is of no interest to us nor to the paleocons or the nationalists. Go read your thumb-headed hero Forney’s articles on how this one herb is going to make your micro grow another centimeter and might even get a girl to talk you.

  • Svar says:

    “Saving the West when we can’t even save ourselves seems a pretty prideful viewpoint.

    We can’t save ourselves from Hell, but we have the power to save our countries from being destroyed. The continued existence of nations like Greece, Armenia, China, Japan, Korea and Ethiopa show it is possible for nations to survive thousands of years without being destroyed.”

    I had no clue that she meant it like that. This is the sort of silly rhetoric that “intellectual” anti-nationalists use to try to defuse nationalist rhetoric. Yeah we can’t save ourselves, only Christ can, but we can mostly definitely save our nations and our civilization.

  • The West isn’t a nation, it’s an abstraction. I’m a regionalist. The silly rhetoric lies in the idea that, say, online classes will “save the West”. Or that closing the borders today will reverse decades of cultural replacement and dissolution. Should still close them, but not get all caught up with florid notions that it’s going to restore what was only a dream in the first place.

  • Svar says:

    “The West isn’t a nation, it’s an abstraction.”

    The West is a civilization, not a nation and no, it is not an abstraction. It is a living breathing civilization, read some Spengler.

    “The silly rhetoric lies in the idea that, say, online classes will “save the West”.”

    What are you even talking about? No one said anything about “online classes”.

    “Or that closing the borders today will reverse decades of cultural replacement and dissolution. Should still close them, but not get all caught up with florid notions that it’s going to restore what was only a dream in the first place.”

    We’ll see what happens after we close them. But lets start with closing them first.

    And looking at both the Reconquista and Operation Wetback, yeah it is completely possible to reverse a long-established invasion if need be.

  • Mike T says:

    Ah Forney. I remember when the dude was known as Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide. That site was kinda like 4chan, only less anonymous.

  • King Richard says:

    Svar,
    Based upon my experience with reaction/neoreaction they are focused on talking about what they think the West might be, and little else. They certainly do not grasp the core concepts of Christendom very firmly.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    A similar thing frequently takes place in reactionary politics. Rather than evaluating moral and political questions on their own terms, many reactionaries see how liberalism evaluates particular questions and adopt what they think are the opposite positions.

    But when you look at your face in the mirror, the thing you see is still your face.

    Most of the Reactionary/Neo-Reactionary bloggers are monarchists. Is it your opinion that monarchies are liberal reflections?

    (If it matters: I’m generally not in favor of monarchies. I know everyone is surprised.)

  • King Richard says:

    CC,
    I hope that you do not mind me interjecting.
    You rote,
    “Most of the Reactionary/Neo-Reactionary bloggers are monarchists.”

    In my experience, neo-reactionaries are ‘Monarchists’ in the same way that Anarcho-Capitalists are ‘Conservative’.
    Do they critique and reject Socialism, Communism, and Democracy?
    Yes.
    Do they believe, in the abstract, that Monarchy is ‘stable’?
    Yes.
    That is typically the extent of their monarchist thought.
    I would be quite pleased to be pointed to exceptions.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    They are kinda-sorta monarchists. See “patchwork” and “exit or voice”: what looks like advocacy for monarchy frequently is in fact advocacy for liberalism expressed through a different structure.

    I’m not actually a monarchist (nor an anti-monarchist) myself. Monarchy and democracy are at the end of the day just structures or civic rituals. The structures and rituals people favor do tend to reflect their metaphysics — I’ve written about this before. But someone can go to Mass without believing what the Church believes; and one can believe what the Church believes while materially denied the opportunity to go to Mass.

    I am however unequivocally in favor of the social kingship of Christ.

  • Zippy says:

    Same with “patriarchy“, for that matter.

  • Kidd Cudi says:

    Like Deng Xiaoping, I don’t care if the cat is black or white.

    What matters is how a government performs, not so much what structure it uses to achieve it’s performance. And I think the most influential aspect of society on the effectiveness of the government is the underlying morality of the society as a whole. Lawless people need many laws and many laws provide many opportunities for corruption and crime. Angels need no king but God himself.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @KR

    I don’t mind the interjection at all.

    Are they really monarchists, or is there an extent to their monarchism… Well, I take the Reactionary/NRx writers at their word when they say they are monarchists. NRx blogs aren’t on my regular reading list, so you may very well be correct in your estimation of them.

    @Zippy

    They are kinda-sorta monarchists. See “patchwork” and “exit or voice”: what looks like advocacy for monarchy frequently is in fact advocacy for liberalism expressed through a different structure.

    My impression has been that those are what they see as options within governments that are not monarchies; that the structure of democracy makes “patchwork” and “exit or voice” a legitimate strategy to prepare for some future monarchy. That’s a bit different than looking in a mirror.

    I am however unequivocally in favor of the social kingship of Christ.

    Amen!

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Zippy

    People say interesting things, and then I forget to respond to the main issue.

    I’m not actually a monarchist (nor an anti-monarchist) myself. Monarchy and democracy are at the end of the day just structures or civic rituals.

    So in your opinion it is possible to have non-liberal democracies, and monarchies are no bar to liberalism?

  • King Richard says:

    Prince Jonathan has engaged a number of neo-reactionaries on a personal level and has a sort of broad opinion of them that can be summed up as,
    “They like the idea of Monarchy because they understand Democracy is unsustainable. But they seem to have no real interest or desire in being subject to a monarch.”
    I think of it almost like a career woman with a lot of bridal magazines – there is a dream there, but it is never committed to.

  • Svar says:

    CC, most definitely. One example of a pozzed monarchy is that traitor Juan Carlos and an example of an illiberal democracy would be the early Roman and American Republics.

  • King Richard says:

    Svar,
    You wrote,
    “…an example of an illiberal democracy would be the early… …American [Republic]”.
    This is simply false. The American experiment in Democracy has always been Liberal by definition.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @KR

    “They like the idea of Monarchy because they understand Democracy is unsustainable. But they seem to have no real interest or desire in being subject to a monarch.”

    I’ve looked through the brochure, and–while it looks nice–I wasn’t tempted to visit. Monarchism, to me, is like Mexico. You picture Cancun and Cabo San Lucas, but most people end up in Mexico City and Juarez.

    “They like the idea of Monarchy because they understand Democracy is unsustainable. But they seem to have no real interest or desire in being subject to a monarch.”
    I think of it almost like a career woman with a lot of bridal magazines – there is a dream there, but it is never committed to.

    Interesting comparison. Unlike career girls, there’s no choice for an American monarchist except moving very far from what little patronage is left…which strikes me as self-defeating in other important ways.

  • Svar says:

    “This is simply false. The American experiment in Democracy has always been Liberal by definition.”

    It started out that way, but things morph into new things regardless of the original intent. There is much to learn from the nativism, isolationism, and agrarianism of Jefferson and of the hardcore nationalisms of Hamilton and Jackson.

    But that’s besides the point, I’ll cede the argument. The Roman Republic was still an example of illiberal democracy.

    Ultimately it doesn’t matter, what Kid Cudi said makes the most sense. Whether we have a monarchy (unlikely), illiberal democratic republic (very likely), or military rule (likely), or dictatorship (likely) what matters is that the current elites are tossed out and a new American Imperium is built upon the ashes of the 3rd American Republic.

  • King Richard says:

    Cane,
    A surprising number of people come to me for advice on finding a spouse; why is another story. One of these young women, let us call her Beth, insisted that she wanted, *needed*, a husband. Now, Beth has a PhD in a STEM field, a ton of student debt, and was 28 when she first asked for assistance.
    I pointed out three or four very likely men about her age; she was not interested in doing much more than meeting them, with me and the queen, in the social hall. She tried Catholic Match, but quit soon. I insisted she actually meet for coffee with a few very good men, all of whom wanted a spouse.
    Never more than 2 dates.
    Finally I met someone. A highly-educated professional, owned his own firm, successful, funny, smart, devout, etc. I will call him Bob. Beth dated Bob 5 times, then broke it off. She would never tell me why. Shortly thereafter she moved to top city and found a job.
    I have a number of friends in in that city. One in particular made me think – a businessman; early 30’s, well-educated, devout, widowed with 4 kids, all of whom were wonderful, wanted a Catholic wife, wealthy. I set them up on a date.
    She dated him for a few months then broke it off.
    She called me about a year later, in tears, about to turn 35 and still unmarried. I listened then asked, very bluntly, why she had broken it off with my friend.
    “I was afraid his children would resent me taking over for their mother”.
    She then opened up about all the men I had introduced her too and more besides. One was ‘only’ an electrician (who owned his own company), another did not care for blues, a third wasn’t tall enough, etc.
    I finally asked about Bob. She told me,
    “Bob was balding and I couldn’t imagine marrying a bald man.”
    Bob had married within a year of her leaving and their second child was on the way when I spoke with Beth.
    .
    It is very interesting how sometimes people claim devotion to an important concept but find excuses why they will never participate, isn’t it?

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @KR

    It is very interesting how sometimes people claim devotion to an important concept but find excuses why they will never participate, isn’t it?

    Definitely.

    I understand how this relates to the career-gal with wedding magazines but no husband. I do not understand how this relates to American monarchists living in a democracy. Which monarchies are they passing up?

  • King Richard says:

    Everything from supporting the House of Savoy (I can put you in touch with Prince Alexander, if you are curious) to emigration ot Liechtenstein, to many others. It is particularly interesting to me when I am asked that question by people who meet me first through this:
    http://kingdomofedan.com/

  • Scott W. says:

    I am however unequivocally in favor of the social kingship of Christ.

    Aye. When world powers crumble on His arrival, don’t be Admiral Dönitz asking for a policy meeting: https://youtu.be/FHnyQXyuTGY

  • Mike T says:

    It is very interesting how sometimes people claim devotion to an important concept but find excuses why they will never participate, isn’t it?

    I often see women my age acting like they’re hot stuff when any reasonable evaluation would suggest that they range from barely dateable, to slightly above average. Much of that I blame on the sexual revolution giving them temporary sexual access to men who would have once never considered them under stricter social norms. Women often make the mistake of assuming that because a “hot guy” had sex with them, that that means something about their objective desirability and marriage material.

    I know a woman who is desperate to get married now and can’t in part because she’s avoided any introspection on how desirable she really is and had acted too much like she was host stuff (in her mind) around men who were her matches. She’s not come to grips with the fact that men find it detestable when a 5.5 to 6/10 acts like she’s an 8 on a bad day. Men can put up with more garbage from a very attractive woman, but not from one who is their match or a little below them.

  • Svar says:

    “Men can put up with more garbage from a very attractive woman, but not from one who is their match or a little below them.”

    Hah, they say the best marriages are ones in which the woman is a little bit more attractive than the man. I guess the reason why is that all women, regardless of their looks are going to give you a lot of bullshit to deal with, might as well deal with bullshit from a pretty one.

  • Mark Citadel says:

    The dichotomy I have always drawn is never between Liberalism and its opposite, but rather Modernity and Tradition. If we did everything to the opposite of Liberalism then we’d find ourselves in a very dark place, because as satanic as Liberalism is, it still incorporates many positive virtues particularly in its earliest form, those it appropriated.

  • Svar says:

    I think I do the opposite. Modernity is basically the entirety of the world after the Industrial Revolution and the goal is to mitigate the negative effects of the IR while being able to keep most of the benefits.

  • Mike T says:

    One of the side effects of the IR is that it helped enable men to rise according to their abilities and opportunities. The down side of that is that you can’t really expect a self-made man who built a small commercial empire to take seriously an aristocrat whose only claim to their position is birth and not competence.

    It also played a role in weakening our democratic traditions (for the better). We used to elect our military officers in many cases. As the IR and warfare collided, it became obvious that the appointment of aristocrats or the election of popular men could not work anywhere near as well as the system developed nations came up with to draw more proven leaders from within the ranks of the military.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @Mark, Svar & MikeT

    The dichotomy I have always drawn is never between Liberalism and its opposite, but rather Modernity and Tradition.

    I like this, and I think that it ties well into Zippy’s post “Optimization is Wickedness”. That post is an underline of what modernity is; what it means to live and make decisions according to only what is just now in front of you; for desired effects that you can observe just now; according to a metric where what constitutes as a “desired effect” is presumed to be accounted just now.

    Modernity is like choosing to explore the world through touch alone; without the benefit of the light of tradition. It’s like using a language without grammar.

    So, perhaps even though it feels like the removal of aristocracies is beneficial to trade and armies, it is not at all clear to sight that such an optimization is good. Perhaps the efficiency of the smart commoner leads to “better war” (more death) and “better business” (wealth disparity). Perhaps because it feels like the Industrial Revolution is part-n-parcel with modernity, if we had seen it in the light we would understand that mechanization and wicked optimization were actually two different objects, and put the former in service without the latter.

  • Mike T says:

    Cane,

    So, perhaps even though it feels like the removal of aristocracies is beneficial to trade and armies, it is not at all clear to sight that such an optimization is good.

    In the case of an army, this is not that cut and dry. If an aristocrat can lead well, then he should be in command. If not, he has no business leading the army. None. Men should not be sent into battle under a leader who is there because he was born to the right family, not because the ruling class recognizes him as the best military leader to entrust with the lives of possibly vast numbers of ordinary men.

  • Svar says:

    Well, regarding the military, we could have a hybridized system like that of Germany but America doesn’t have a deep martial tradition like Germany.

    Aristocracy means the Rule of the Best. I could care less what the birth scenarios of the Best are, as long as they are the Best.

    “. We used to elect our military officers in many cases. As the IR and warfare collided, it became obvious that the appointment of aristocrats or the election of popular men could not work anywhere near as well as the system developed nations came up with to draw more proven leaders from within the ranks of the military.”

    Well, we have to do what happened when Iron replaced Bronze; adapt. What we have been doing for the last 300 years is maladapt.

  • Anymouse says:

    I admit I lean strongly towards seeing the industrial revolution as strongly tied into modernity. After all, the potential for optimization was dramatically enhanced by technological advancement and urbanization.

    It is no coincidence that many modern tendencies are most limited in areas that are sufficiently rural and isolated as to be limited in their modernization opportunities, i.e. Tibet or even the Faroe Islands.

  • Mike T says:

    Well there is one limiting factor built into modernity and technology: IQ. We are simply not breeding in a way that is distributing high IQ genes throughout the population. I expect that if the trend continues, eventually our society will hit a wall on how far we can push our development because the mental demands won’t be able to be distributed through society.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    One of the side effects of the IR is that it helped enable men to rise according to their abilities and opportunities.

    At least superficially the very opposite seems to be the case. There is good reason that an industrial product like the Colt 45 was nicknamed “the Equalizer”; and it isn’t as if only the supremely competent can travel across continents, post IR.

  • Anymouse says:

    The skills emphasized are different.

    The sword required years of training, leading many countries to a hereditary military nobility. In the modern era, it was organizational skill that prevailed, requiring man to lead masses of roughly equal soldiers.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    @MikeT

    You might be right. I’m not settled on the matter. What I know is that now it seems reasonable to many people for women to be put in combat because–according to just-nowism–if we can’t find the metric that forbids it, then we should allow it because it at least “achieves progress”.

    Nor am I convinced that short wars with casualties in the millions are preferable to longer, tiring, wars with a few hundred thousands dead.

  • Svar says:

    “I admit I lean strongly towards seeing the industrial revolution as strongly tied into modernity. After all, the potential for optimization was dramatically enhanced by technological advancement and urbanization.

    It is no coincidence that many modern tendencies are most limited in areas that are sufficiently rural and isolated as to be limited in their modernization opportunities, i.e. Tibet or even the Faroe Islands.”

    Exactly. The only way to truly be against Modernity is to act like an Amish or a Hasid.

    Let’s be honest, we all like our modern appliances and our laptops and phones. I don’t see anyone here volunteering to get rid of them anytime soon.

    That’s why we need a new ideology that mitigates the ill-effects of modernity. The basic approach would be a three point platform of nativism, isolationism and protectionism steeped not in Classical Liberalism nor in Nrx LARPy Traditionalism (I see a distinction between upper case Traditionalism and lower case traditionalism) but in Romanticism rooted in a base of realism and pragmatism.

  • King Richard says:

    On the military.
    One of the first conscript armies, certain the first to mean a lot, was Napoleon’s. The emperor was also very meritocratic with senior officers and marshals being drawn from only men who had proven themselves.
    The various Germanic armies were traditionally aristocratic – officers were born to it.
    The British army had an interesting system combining noble birth and the ability to purchase officer rank.
    The best cavalry of the war was almost certainly German and British & German officers of noble birth who bought their rank defeated Napoleon’s meritocratic officers.

    The explanation of thee time, and from before, was that the aristocrats had been raised from birth to be leaders.

  • King Richard says:

    Svar,
    The phrase “Nrx LARPy Traditionalism ” is too good not to repeat.

  • Scott W. says:

    The phrase “Nrx LARPy Traditionalism ” is too good not to repeat.

    Seconded. Tom at his Disputations blog noticed that he occasionaly gets mail from traditional Catholic groups that have images of crusader knights on them and realized that crusader knights are to traditional Catholics what butterflies on burlap banners are to loopy Leftist “modern” (circa 1974) Catholics. LARPing is right on the nose. Well done.

  • King Richard says:

    Scott,
    I was thinking more of the NRx habit of mimicking Traditionalism without seeming to understand what it really *is*.

  • Mike T says:

    Slumlord made a good observation about Game, which is that for modern men it often amounts to training wheels on the path to breaking out of the modern worldview on women and sex.

    The Lord does use strange things as training wheels to get people where they need to be. In my case, I went from an agnostic to a Gnostic in college (the kind that believes in Sophia, the Demiurge, etc.) Over the course of a year, I was molded into a proper trinitarian Christian.

    Some people stay with the training wheels, others don’t. I remember seeing the first flickers of belief in a girl who rejected Christianity when I read the Gospel of Thomas to her. She chose to pursue no route that could have lead to faith, but that was ultimately her choice to not even get on the bike.

  • Zippy says:

    Slutting it up as “training wheels” for women.

  • Svar says:

    Thanks for the props, gentlemen. KR hit it on the head with this comment: “I was thinking more of the NRx habit of mimicking Traditionalism without seeming to understand what it really *is*.”

    Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote regarding Traditionalists. To paraphrase, he said that a true traditionalist doesn’t think about “Tradition” but just lives it.

    That is why I will never refer to myself as a Traditionalist. Adhere to the Perennials or the First Principles (as Weaver calls them) while moving forward and adapting to the changing circumstances of the world.

    Anything we tailor to meet changing circumstances will look similar to the “fascisms” of the last century and unfortunately, we will have to reactive for a while before we can be revolutionary.

    Reaction is the wrong mindset. We have to be proactive.

  • Svar says:

    “Seconded. Tom at his Disputations blog noticed that he occasionaly gets mail from traditional Catholic groups that have images of crusader knights on them and realized that crusader knights are to traditional Catholics what butterflies on burlap banners are to loopy Leftist “modern” (circa 1974) Catholics. LARPing is right on the nose. Well done.”

    I mean, nothing wrong with admiring crusaders, the Church would do better taking up the sort of militancy it had in previous centuries, anything better than the gelded Church we have now. A strong Church that truly and uncompromisingly believes it’s message will attract a better quality of converts.

    Too many Trad Caths are stuck in Medieval LARPing and it’s embarrassing. There is nothing wrong with nostalgia but it doesn’t need to get to that level. Look at the good traditional (small-t) Catholics over at Chronicles like Fleming, Piatak, and Richert, just straight realtalk, no LARPing.

    Explain the connection between butterflies on burlap banners and modern Catholics, I don’t get it.

  • Mike T says:

    Slutting it up as “training wheels” for women.

    And once again, I’ll point out that sluttiness is intrinsically about sexual immorality, whereas Game is about getting women attracted to you. That most men use that for immorality is a separate issue.

    Game is for men, what being taught how to take care of one’s figure, wear flattering, even sexy clothes, makeup, etc. and flirt with men is for women.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    You aren’t pointing out that Game is not the male equivalent of slutty behavior; you are simply contending it, nominalistically and contrary to reality. You are like a feminist who claims that feminism is just the recognition that women are people too.

  • The problem is that we’re trying to divorce what game is from its major proponents and the circumstances from which it arose – pick-up artists teaching men how to get laid easily.

    To act as if game can be separated from that still-active culture just doesn’t work.

  • Svar says:

    Why are we still talking about Game? It seems to always come up at such random moments.

    I’m not even sure what it is, is it a set of techniques?

  • Zippy says:

    Game is just feminist-style sexual empowerment for men. It keeps coming up because folks are always trying to imitate their putative enemies and call that victory.

  • Micha Elyi says:

    Zippy:
    You aren’t arguing that Game is the male equivalent of slutty behavior; you are simply contending it.

    I followed the link, no argument there either.

    Perhaps if you defined what you mean by “slutty behavior” you could form an argument. Bear in mind that Game is active, its practitioner must express overt interest in a female and risks overt rejection by her. Please take care to describe the female equivalents of these when you define what you mean by “slutty behavior”.

  • Zippy says:

    Micha Elyi:
    Arguments don’t establish the essence of a thing. The thing itself establishes its essence. This is as true of feminism and slutty behavior as it is of game (‘male sluttiness’). The same nominalist games can be played with anything once you’ve accepted that frame.

    But I’m not a nominalist: I am a metaphysical realist. So I reject the attempt to reframe in nominalist terms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Effeminate reaction at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: