I’ve never been terribly comfortable with the nearness that some women bloggers and frequent commentators have maintained with the manosphere. Too many men cannot themselves stay out of tawdry and adolescent drama; a temptation made even more difficult with women present either participating or taking sides. Now there has been apparently a campaign of gossip and poorly or not-at-all substantiated facts going on for some time about Sunshine Mary originating with LG Robbins and some commentator known (inter alia) as Lena S.
Disclosure: I link both SSM and LGR over there on the blogroll and have, as yet, no actual reason not to. I consider both of them among the most capable anti-feminist spokeswomen out there. What they had, if anything, to catfight about or who started it are immaterial to me.
Had I known of this campaign, and set of accusations and counter-accusations, I would have averted my eyes and pretended to ignore it. I am not their husband, nor am I their father. It was, and is, none of my business. How then legendary amygdala hijacker, Matt Forney managed to make it his business is entirely beyond comprehension. Forney not only “doxxes” SSM, but throws Danny from 504 under the bus for good measure and proclaims, in comically hysterical terms, the “death of the manosphere”.
SSM has set up a temporary blog in which she, convincingly in my opinion, answers these allegations. But the damage appears to have been done.
As for Matt: Dude? You convinced the world for months that you were a woman who liked Christian Domestic Discipline just a little bit too much to be taken seriously. Good show! But now are you trying to convince us that you are a thirteen year old chick who wants to hang out at the mean girls’ table? Who’s amygdala got hijacked here? Matt’s seems rather exorcised. One thing’s for sure: Anyone who’d ever want to meet the “Real Matt Forney” in real life is going to think at least twice about it.
The Manosphere is dead, you say? Long live the Manosphere! (Whatever.)
In other news… Continue reading
Somebody on The Ask asked: “How does one stay sexually attracted to one’s wife after many years, especially if she has given birth to many kids?”
I didn’t love the way the question was phrased, as it seemed to have some underlying false assumptions behind it, but I considered it a fair question to a man of my seasoning. So I answered in parts one, two, and three. I’m copying that answer here because:
- some people might want to read it forwards rather than backwards;
- somebody might want to have an interactive discussion about it; and
- I don’t want to spend that much time on an answer and not generate some blog hits (duh “sex”) for my humble blog.
So without further ado, and a few minor edits…
Over on The Ask, someone asked me: “Is a graduate degree required to leave a mark on human history?”. I responded:
Heaven’s no. But I don’t think leaving marks on human history is any sort of great goal either.
In an apparent follow-up, the same person (I presume) asked: “What if one’s mark on human history is to the Glory of God?” To this I responded:
Dennis Mangan highlights the need for evolutionary theory of sacred national honor. (More here.) If not biology, then perhaps game theory has some answers. If, as appears to be the case, certain forms “irrationality” are adaptive, then what’s so “irrational” about them? (“I donna tink that word means what you tink it means…”) My own guess is that traditional culture itself is a kind of cybernetic optimization for a given people in a given time and locale. And that we haven’t learned but a tiny fraction of what it is prepared to teach us.
Speaking of which… Continue reading
The essence of nominalism is to not agree with Zippy’s description of a thing’s essence.
Needless to say, I disagree, which in turn makes me (by Zippy’s defintion) a nominalist, with which if I were to yet disagree further, would in turn make me, all the more so (you guessed it) a nominalist.
Needless to say, as a Catholic who believes all that Church authentically teaches, I am not a nominalist. Nominalism has an essence independent of what Zippy seems to say it is, and to which I do not conform. Moreover, there is no evidence that I am a nominalist except in Zippy’s mind and perhaps in the minds of his many adoring, if uncritical, fans.
So it is I have been personally calumnized in this post. I have sought redress both privately and publicly to no avail. Ordinarily, as I have many enemies, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. In fact, I would be disposed to agree and amplify! But I have known Zippy for a very long time on the internet and I consider him not only a fellow reactionary traveler and prophetic voice against various pathologies of modernity, but a personal friend, from whom I thought I could expect at least good faith. Who is this monster I have become? I do not recognize the person he makes me out to be.
So, tho’ it is impossible to prove a negative, I will here outline my case and then shut up about it… Continue reading
I have little to add to what my august colleagues within and without the Reactosphere have already said about Eich’s purge from Mozilla. Vox Day had some excellent advice for the then-beleaguered CEO that was, of course, ignored. Handle did a cracker-jack job of getting in behind the issues. It is, of course, great fun and marginally useful, if only for the purposes of instruction, to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the liberal leftoids and lavender mafiosi. But I wanted to point out that the difference between us and them is not, strictly speaking, that we are true believers in free speech whereas they fall short.
Unrestricted speech is inherently destabilizing to any regime. To a regime—a demotic one—based upon Very Large (and Growing) Lies, unrestricted speech is useful in that the truth might yet be said. But to a regime based upon long established truths regarding the social order, unrestricted speech may be pernicious. A good ruler would take some care about what ideas are allowed free circulation.
A healthy, stable society with a secure government and constitution would tend to resort to this sort of purging behavior less than a demotic one. On the other hand, since order is so much harder to create than disorder, a secure government would have to remain quite vigilant. My guess is that the secret police of a right-wing state would employ far fewer people than the current demotic state employs #hashtag warrior volunteers.
I am, of course, happy to see classical liberals living up to their principles, but these are not, in the end, principles I share. Demonstrably wrong ideas, dangerous ideas, foolish ideas, ideas that promote base and disordering instincts do not deserve to be aired. Censorship is altogether prudent, even necessary in some circumstances. You can bet that a Reactionary government will have no principles when it comes to purging ideas considered dangerous to it. But it will be substantially less shrill and dramatic when it does so.
White Nationalism is in the news. Here is Jim’s magisterial1 take on it. Briefly, “National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist.” See also, Neovictorian’s worthy view on the matter.
Gromar announces a new Continue reading
I shared with Briggs earlier how, tho’ we reactionaries often rail against the Consent Manufacture Industrial Complex (big education, big journo, big media), the regime’s real power lies in the manufacture of legitimacy, and that is accomplished only through voter turnout.
So don’t give it to them. What if they had a war and no one came? Here’s your chance to find out.
#DontVote2014 Don’t you remember TARP?
#DontVote2014 Because this charade has gone on long enough.
#DontVote2014 Because they want you to compete for scraps from the table of power.
#DontVote2014 Voting:Power :: Porn:Sex
#DontVote2014 Because they really haven’t made much technological progress on the Feelies.
#DontVote2014 Just imagine what your candidate’s going to look like the next morning.
#DontVote2014 Because voting only seems harmless.
#DontVote2014 Do you really thing they’d let you if it could affect anything?
#DontVote2014 Or if you must, please at least have the decency to be ashamed of it.
#DontVote2014 [... add yours ...]
Okay. Let me back up. Is there really a Jewish Question at all? It seems there exist a range of possibilities on the JQ, starting with the null hypothesis:
The Jews are as destabilizing as their representation in the Smart Fraction (itself a minority) would suggest.
Put simply: Continue reading
Teh Interwebz’s foremost expert on all things “game”-related has uttered:
Cialdini’s theories about the nature of human psychology and his influence on the American elite are evidence of the triumph of Game. Game has infused every facet of the body politic, not just the sexual organs. As CH has said many times already, if you can game a woman into bed you can game a boss into handing you a raise or a nation’s voters into electing you President.
That is the awesomely dark power of Game. And dark it is, because what is essentially remote control of another person’s executive brain function is the kind of power that irresistibly pulls one to malevolent ends.
And I dunno, Zippy, but it sure seems like he’s talking about something more than just bedding sluts.
It remains debatable, I think, whether such power draws its user necessarily toward malevolent ends; but there is no question that, in a society where pathologies (i.e., sins) are turned into positive virtues, and the natural symptoms (e.g., guilt, anxiety) corresponding to those pathologies are treated as pathology itself, the power of influence over others plays an out-weighted role. I’d like to see more of it used for Our Side; the Enemy has been able to play with incentives, unopposed, for long enough.
I have no idea what this means but… This blog just passed 100,000 views. Thank you robots!
As you were!
Saddam Hussein’s Whirling Aluminum Tubes puts a particularly perspicacious spin on what two corners of the Reactionary Trichotomy® have always known. If you do not have or cannot afford a Thede, one will be appointed for you. The comment section there is exceptionally exeptional. This is what spawned the intemperate outburst which led to my post yesterday. The natural (and preternatural) cleavages of reaction have been noted from before day one, and none of this is a surprise. Holding these disattractive forces together is what makes us strong (as well as entertaining).
SoBL has been on bit of a roll lately digesting the wider Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox story so you don’t have to:
I threw a rock at a hornets nest last night with this:
Picked a bad time to do it too, because I’m “off of twitter at work” (variously defined) for Lent, and I don’t really have much remaining time to answer the ample feedback which this engendered. So I hope to put out some of the fire here. (Because I haven’t given up blogging from work, which I probably should have.)
In human populations, culture derives from biology (genes and environment). Culture is a way of promoting group adaptive fitness— i.e., for a particular people in a particular set of environmental circumstances. Culture evolves along with people. I’m not sure what (if anything) anthropologists believe today, but it was a common back assumption through the 19th century for them, as well as everyone else, to believe: A particular people will develop a particular culture.
Today is quite common, mandated orthodoxy really, to believe that culture is completely separate from (orthogonal to) biology, and absolutely separated from genetics, because… Hitler. Of course, in the limit, this view doesn’t even pass the Laugh Test, but it remains piously held by most respectable folks nowadays (because… Hitler).
Needless to say, Continue reading
Working on a couple things here in the background but this struck me as one of the smarter things I’ve said recently and strikes very near the heart of this humble blog.
The West is dying, Christianity is being destroyed in a vortex of apostate churches, apathy, and toxic egalitarianism. White people are going to be the minority in their own homelands in my lifetime (I’m 26). So why have children? There would be no hope for them anyhow.
I answered and said unto him:
What do these Jews:
Have in common with these Jews? Continue reading
Briggs beat me to the punch with this one. Guinness, Heineken, and Sam Adams Brewing pulled their sponsorship from the NYC St. Patrick’s Day Parade for the Ancient Order of Hibernians’ refusal to allow sexual preferences to be worn on the marchers’ shirt sleeves. And here you thought those companies just sold beer. What they mean to sell is cultural change. I prefer my beer straight, thank you very much. Boycott Sam Adams, Heineken, and Guinness… and any other company that isn’t greedy enough to just sell us their damn products!
For those who don’t know, I do have an Ask.fm account. So get on the stick and ask me something. I am, after all, an unliscensed, informally trained, “low cost marriage counselor” with nearly 25 years of experience.
Had this thought last night as I was walking out of work, and since this blog exists so that no thought of mine, however stupid or trivial, shall ever go unpublished again1, I thought I’d share it:
It is one thing to fail, by reasons of human frailty, to live up to the standards of traditional chastity2. It is a far more harmful disorder to pretend that your failures are somehow virtues.
There is no moral or ethical system, worth caring about at any rate, where being ruled by one’s dick is considered an admirable virtue.
1This used to be Mark Shea’s line, but he no longer ever says stupid things. Apparently.
2“Chastity” is the proper use of one’s sexuality in any state of life, whether married, single, or in a religious vocation. It therefore does not mean merely: “Not having sex”.
An improved, expanded version of a reactionary oath is now up as a permanent page of my site. Comments welcome. Keep on Reactin’!
[PS. Make that substantive comments welcome]