Pointing the Guns

I generally try to stay out of reactosphere drama. I hate drama; I just want to read interesting socio-political theory, write some of my own, chat and joke about RW politics, and hope that my writing might help a better man understand what is happening so he can reverse the decline or rebuild after it. But somebody asked me about the recent drama surrounding Mike, and so I’m going to wade in.

First, the obvious, Mike was absolutely wrong to try to dox SoBL, and while I enjoy trolling as much as the next alt-righter, his trolling goes past the point of sanity, and doesn’t even seem to have a point, or even humour. His claims to leadership are overblown, as at this point NBS is the closest thing to a leader we have. But despite this, and even if he is not trustworthy, I’ll continue reading his output on More Right, as he does put out some really good stuff, but beyond that NBS had the right of it.

But onward from Mike, to others. First, the thing that set this off was SoBL making a joke implying Mike was gay. Mike definitely overreacted, but he had a legitimate point. Gay jokes at Mike’s expense have been floating around for a long while and the snark directed at him is never-ending. I respect that counter-signalling and friendly ball-busting has its place in male relationships, but Mike obviously didn’t think they were close enough to counter-signal and my impression is that most of this is not in good fun.

The passive-aggressive snarking aimed at Mike needs to stop. If you don’t like the guy or his behaviour, fine. Tell him openly, like NBS did, then block him, and ignore him. If you must respond to something, then openly dispute what he says or object to his actions like a rational man. But the constant passive-aggressive snark, insinuations, and back-biting needs to stop. It is unbecoming of reactionaries; we are not teenage girls or SJW’s.

This goes for not just attacks on Mike, but for attacks on everyone. Thankfully, other than the targeting of Anissimov, this kind of sniping is mostly contained to 8chan and MPC, but still, blue-on-blue is not helpful to reaction, point your guns at the enemy. If you don’t like anime, write about how it is poison and ignore Anti-Dem instead of snarking about him and making insinuations about his sexuality. Think someone “writes like a fag”, don’t read him instead of dredging up years-old blogposts to mock him for the temptations he is burdened with. If you think someone is too pro-Jew or too anti-Jew, fine, write about how how they are wrong, and how others should hate/love Jews as much as you do instead of going into massive shit-throwing fests on /aristoi/. And so on.

I’m simply calling for pointing our guns in the right (left!) direction. We have enough enemies without turning on each other. If you disagree with someone in the alt-right, then write a rational argument to start an honest debate. If you personally dislike someone, publicly and openly denounce/disown (or just quietly block them), then ignore them. If you really despise someone, set up a physical fight and beat hostilities out of each other.

Reasoned debate, even heated debate, is good but everybody should avoid drama and personal attacks. Save the trolling, insulting, snarking, doxxing, attacks, history-dredging, etc. for the left. Turn your guns on the enemy, not on the allies you dislike.

Lightning Round – 2015/05/20

Intermittent fasting.

The temptation of MGTOW.
Related: What MGTOW is.

Evaluating a potential wife.
Related: Understanding population models.

Courtly love as proto-homosexuality.
Related: Abnormal sexuality in ****.
Related: Homosexuality in 300.

Mike tries to dox SoBL and does other weird things. Post coming on Friday on issue.
Related: Building a network of trust.
Related: A storify of Mike’s meltdown.

Mike’s not a leader, but this shows why Mike should still be read: Neoreactionary accomplishments.

The modern world in a nutshell.

Ethnic cleansing in the US.
Related: Ethnic cleansing in American cities.
Related: Gentrification methods in New York.
Related: On self-hating gentrifiers.

The need for secession.
Related: States are larger than people realize.

Sailer rips apart Chetty’s analysis. Related chart.
Related: Sailer examines more and more info.

Progressive situational dominance.

Baselines for vice and virtue.

Sacrifice manufactures society.

Proposal: Social Matter for the sciences.

When did the US give up on itself?

An article on eugenics making the rounds.

Musings on sex and selection.

 Stopping people smuggling.

Austria-Hungary and identity politics.

SWPL imperialism.

A response to Rationalwiki on race.
Related: Wikipedia in action, SJW control.
Related: White-washing history at Wikipedia.
Related: Twitter’s racial hypocrisy.

HBD: know thyself.

The making of a communist.

Pope Francis’ coziness with commies.

Falling dominoes.

Atheism and nihilism.

A tale of modern courtship.
Related: The bitter harvest of feminism.

Congressmen protecting themselves from harassment charges is discrimination.

University student accused of harassment for waiting for an appointment.

University of Virginia sues Rolling Stone for false rape story. Related.

Emma Sulkowiscz, alleged false rape accuser, carried her mattress to graduation.

Vice on Aaron Clarey’s “boycott”, which is going big. Some unintentional amusement.

The difference between SJW’s and Puppies.
Related: A history of the Sad Puppies.
Related: The conflict underlying the SF ideological wars.
Related: SJW’s turn on GRRM.
Related: Conservatives more excluded than women in Hugos.
Related: Where it started.

Officer punished for anime reaction pic.
Related: Anime is racist.

High IQ exclusion.

Pre-modern life expectancy.

When lefty businesses meet taxes.

The Greek canary.

Why streetcars died.

White privilege in the National Post.

Just in case you forgot: the media lies.

H/T: CC, Wright, TRP, SDA

Women are Achieving

The Guardian has an article on how boys are a mess (h/t: TRP), there’s nothing all that new there other than its the Guardian acknowledging the problem and its somewhat RP’d. But it has this little bit that comes up with all these articles:

“Men are opting out and women are opting in. Women are working harder at jobs, they’re working harder in school, and they are achieving – last year women had more of every single category of degree, even engineering. This is data from around the world. Now in many colleges there’s a big gap as boys are dropping out of school and college.”

Zimbardo estimates that there are, in Britain and the US, 5-10% more women than men at many colleges and universities. “So they’re going to have to have affirmative action for guys because obviously one reason you go to college is to find a guy.”

Everytime the crisis of boys/men comes to the fore, there’s always the section on how women are achieving. The triumphalism varies, this one tones it down quite a bit compared to, for example, this but there’s always this note of woman are doing better.

Except, are they?

Women are going to school more, getting more education, and outnumber men in the workforce. So, they are achieving more, at least for the mediocre positions, men still dominate the elite positions.

But are they really better off? What exactly are they achieving?

To most men, work is/has been something they had to do so to obtain a wife, then provide for the resulting family. Most men probably took pride in a job well done or in creating, but the purpose of going in to work was to earn to provide for his family. He could have gotten the pride of creation elsewhere, not to mention in today’s white-collar, paperwork world, satisfaction from creating something tangible is rapidly disappearing. Likewise, since the growth of mass post-secondary education, getting a degree for men has primarily been about avoiding a job doing physical labour, getting a better job to hopefully attract a prettier wife, and provide a more materially rich life for his family. The main purpose of post-secondary education was to get a family and provide for it, while making provision easier.

Men did this work, not for its intrinsic own sake, but for the extrinsic good of the family.

To repeat, as an aggregate woman are achieving more, but what are they achieving?

Women are now doing the work men did to support their families, without having families to support, barring (the usually poor) single mothers, who are not the kinds of women-in-the-workplace these articles are happily pointing to as signs of success. In fact, statistically speaking, these women are less likely to have families and when they do these families are smaller.

So, what are they achieving?

The only thing they seem to be achieving is more consumption and more money to be spent on the consumptive treadmill. Is that something we should be proud of? Is that kind of achievement really something we as a society should be pursuing and pushing our boys and girls to pursue?

The other question then becomes, are men really being left behind?

If a young man has no need to support a family, because he doesn’t have a wife, he might not get a wife, and when he does his wife will work and IF they have children, there will only be one, maybe two, why does he need to work?

Is he really falling behind if his part-time McD’s gig pays for his quarter of the bachelor pad’s rent, beer, and the new XBox?

Is a man really worse off spending his hours playing video games and chilling with his bros rather than spending them working hard to get a bigger (but still empty) house and a (nominally) better car?

Why is empty, high-work, high-stress consumerism somehow assumed to be better than empty, low-work, low-stress consumerism?

Either way it’s empty, but the latter is a lot easier and more enjoyable.

Maybe this ‘high achievement‘ is not some victory for women, maybe it’s simply that men know the score: Work sucks, but is (was) necessary to get a wife, regular sex, and a family. Now that men can get sex without a wife and aren’t getting a wife or family anyway, why work?

On the other hand, women seem to have been tricked into thinking that grinding away at a white-collar job is its own reward. They’re doing the shit men were forced to do and mostly disliked, while not even having the reward of a wife having supper ready for them when they get home.

Is it just the boys that are mess? Are the women really achieving?

Beauty, Function, and Reproduction

Here’s my final piece to cap off my Aesthetics Week contributions.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

(Genesis 1:26-28 ESV)

Women are beautiful, they are the most beautiful thing in the world. Why? Because Woman’s intrinsic biological purpose is the highest aim of mankind: to reproduce. Woman brings forth and nurtures life; her intrinsic purpose is to create the Imago Dei anew, again and again.

The function of Woman is to create new life, an intrinsically transcendent task. Her form signals her reproductive capabilities. Her beauty is a product of where her form and function points to this purpose.

Man is not beautiful, he can not be beautiful except through warped physical feminization, for his intrinsic biological purpose is not transcendent. Man’s intrinsic biological aim is to subdue the earth, an intrinsically material task.

Man may be attractive, handsome even, when his form signals high capabilities for subduing the earth or quality genetic material for helping Woman make life, but beauty is not his to have.

****

This is why attractiveness in women is prized by men. An attractive woman is signalling fertility, that she will be successful in this most transcendent of purposes.

This is where here becomes a difference between the beautiful and the hot. The beautiful woman signals that not only is she fertile, but she has the inner qualities which would make a good wife and mother to raise the resulting children. She signals that she would have high capabilities to the transcendent task of making a home. The hot woman signals fertility, but she does not signal motherly qualities. Hence, the the difference between hos and housewives. Men use hos, but make homes with housewives.

****

This is also why to most men think their particular wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, even though she is likely not the most attractive, she is probably only average. He may even recognize, on an objective level, that she is not the most attractive. Yet, despite this, she is beautiful, the most beautiful, because she is particularly transcendent to him.

As defunct blogger Solomon II wrote (Proverb 28) of the musings of an older man:

Listen to me. A good woman ages beautifully. When I look at my wife, I see the most gorgeous woman in the universe. Her wrinkled hands got that way by keeping up with my two boys and working hard for them while I was on the road. The lines under her eyes are from years of shedding tears for me when I was at war, and those wrinkles on her brow are from decades of worry for me and my two sons. It was her legs they held on to when they were learning to walk, her lap was where they learned to read, and her breasts were their first nourishment. The first kiss those boys ever received was from her lips, and God willing, my last kiss will be from her lips.

You two don’t know what you’re missing – or maybe you do. But all I know is that she’s as beautiful, desirable, and lovely today as the day I met her, and I wouldn’t trade one second with her for a lifetime of rowdiness with one of those harlots you guys have waiting for you back home.

You two don’t know what beauty is. In a way, I feel sorry for both of you.

A man’s wife’s form might not particularly signal transcendent functionality to most men, but to him she is the one that brought forth his children, that made life not just in the image of God, but in his own image as well. She is the one that nurtured and raised his own particular instantiations of God’s image. No mere objective attraction, objective beauty, can possibly match that beauty such as that.

Lightning Round – 2015/05/13

Boundaries and saying no.

Aesthetics week closes out: Function and beauty.
Related: Banksy and the generational decay of modern art.
Related: From where art springs.
Related: Beauty and subversion.

Dark enlightenment, theory and practice.
Related: Focus on the demoralizing the progressive bourgeoisie.
Related: The Benedict option.

Mere reaction.

The weak Galt hypothesis.

The intelligence industry has been privatized.

Realism and ritual.

On the UK election. More.

Setting the frame.

Jacobin dreams.

Whole Foods and the decline.

Vox accidentally prints the truth on Russo-American relations.
Related: A Russian understands America.
Related: A summary can’t do this justice: read this.
Related: Putin is America’s creation.

The new antiquarianism tries to explain Baltimore. Related.
Related: A conversation with a Nigerian cabbie.
Related: Study finds black mayors hand out government spoils to other blacks.

A time for men.
Related: Cultural room to destroy.

Free vs hate speech is a who/whom question.

Egalitarianism: Functional families create unfair advantages.
Related: Egalitarianism ruins everything.

Freedom and the family crisis.
Related: Divorce and the pressures on men and women.
Related: If we care about poverty we should encourage marriage.

In defence of marriage.
Related: On marital consent.

Trust, leadership, and submission.
Related: How servant leadership is twisted.

Most Christians just don’t get it.
Related: A conversation with a blue-pilled churchian.

Why Paul wrote about women not speaking in church.

Feminism: The alphas won, everybody else lost.

What is neomasculinity?
Related: The Guardian: Boys are a mess.
Related: 10 harmful things mothers do to ruin their sons.

The faith militant.

Praying against temptation.

Is non-nihilist atheism possible? Response.
Related: The atheist morality debate continues. More. Even more.
Related: Lewis’ take.
Related: The need for the divine commander, but not divine command.

Why kids hate nerds and how school is a prison.

You can’t offer a truce to SJWs. Nope.
Related: What the Rabid Puppies are fighting for.
Related: A quick history of the Hugos and the Puppy campaigns.

SJW’s invading open source software.

Vox Day outlines his views on women, violence, and Malala Yousafzai for the particularly stupid.

Remember what I’ve said before: to liberals such as Yglesias, good regulation are those that increase government power at no personal cost, bad regulations are those that personally inconvenience a liberal.

The case for natural stupidity.

Kentucky CPS kidnaps 10 children.

Wind farm company sued for breaking into and destroying someone’s house.

Student failed for not affirming anti-Christian humanism.

Solving the California water crisis.

California failing to make all students above average.

Science: Only 39% of psychology’s studies are reproducible.

Some skeletons from Arthur Chu’s internet past.

H/T: SDA, SSC, Isegoria

The All-Pervading Ugliness of Modernity

Last post, as part of NRx’s aesthetics week, I looked at from where beauty came. I ended by comparing churches, where I noted the ugliness of modern churches. This ugliness is not just confined to modern churches, ugliness pervades modern life, from architecture to the arts to women, ugliness is inescapable. The astounding thing is that this ugliness is all self-inflicted; we are more shielded from the ugly aspects of the natural world than we have ever been, yet we choose to fill our lives with ugliness.

Why do we inflict this on ourselves?

As I said, beauty comes from where form and function meet and point to a higher truth. Yet we as a society reject truth, so mere attractiveness, form and function without transcendent value, is the most we can hope to aspire to. If the reality of the age is truth is subjective, there can be no truth and no beauty.

Yet we can we can not even chase attractiveness, for we reject that there is an objective reality against which objects can be measured. If there is no objective essence to the objects we arrange our society around, there can be no objective form nor function by which to judge the attractiveness of an object.

Beyond this, our collective desire for equality destroys beauty. Beauty is better than ugliness, I’ve heard none who dispute this, but this means the beautiful is better than the ugly, which would be inequality. So, to create equality our society glorifies the ugly and denigrates the beautiful. By calling the ugly beautiful (or vice versa) we can have equality while not being able to deny the undeniable.

By refusing to judge, or even being able to judge, the ugly for being ugly and being unable to praise the beautiful for being beautiful, we allow the ugly to conquer the public sphere.

I should note that, as I’ve mentioned before, the rejection of truth and objectiveness is not something most people actually believe on a gut level, most people love the truth, love beauty, and believe in an objective reality in their day-to-day lives and when a discussion is not specifically concerning these topics. These are not even things they will explicitly reject. They just unthinkingly issue forth the approved social truths when they should. The problem comes with the fact that these social truths make it impossible for them to fight the everyday ugliness and deceit in our society.

These modern concepts of equality and relativism made themselves felt in design. In modernist design, form follows function became the maxim. Rather than this being descriptive, where form naturally flows from function, it became prescriptive, where form was reduced to functionality alone. Natural and traditional processes for having form and function meet were destroyed in the name of efficiency.

The human became inhuman.

These inhumanly functional forms, culminating in the aptly named brutalism, are unnatural and oppressive. These enforced sameness, but not by elevation, for how could piles of concrete that would look better as rubble elevate anyone? Rather they enforce sameness by bringing the public square down to the lowest level possible. Is it any wonder the inhuman totalitarian communists, government agencies, and utopian socialists glommed to these modernist styles?

As I’ve said before, it is all related. The ugly inhuman aesthetics of the public square are part an parcel of the leftist march through culture. The modern ugliness of our cities is due to egalitarian ideology. The purpose for which an object is created or used, flows from the ideological principles of the one creating or using the object.

Form flows from function, but function flows from ideology.

When inhuman egalitarian, liberal, and socialist ideology reign, so to does ugliness. Ugliness flows from the soul, and the soul of our society is a black pit of poison. The reason for the all-pervading ugliness of society is you. Your desire to be equal, your rage against the truth, and your denial of God and objective reality. If you ever look around your city and wonder why its so inhumanly ugly, its because this is what you chose. If you’ve ever went to a modern art gallery and wondered how anybody could praise a toilet, its because this is what you chose.

Form, Function, and Beauty

It is aesthetics week here in the NRx-sphere. Here’s my contribution.

Beauty is objective in the main, subjective in the margins. Some broken relativists, for whatever reason, despise beauty and truth, seeing only the margins. They argue that all beauty is subjective. Yet, we all know how they would answer if given the choice of whether to have their faces shoved in Christina Hendrick’s bosom or in pig shit.

Objective attractiveness comes from where form and function meet. An object is attractive if its form signals the appearence of the object meeting its function. Beauty is something more than simple attractiveness, it has a a transcendence to it. Beauty is where form and function combine to illustrate truth.

To illustrate:

Local book shops are often attractive. The colouring, facade, and architecture of these shops is aligned to show that this is where quality books can be purchased from people who love books as much as you do. Yet local bookshops are rarely described as beautiful, because selling quality books is not transcendent in itself. It does not point to a higher truth.

On the other hand, houses are often described as beautiful, even if they are no more architectural pleasing than then the local book shop. This is because a house intrinsically points towards the higher truths of family, love, and home. Houses are beautiful because they embody transcendental truths beyond the mere materials and plans they are created from.

Functionality is in its own way its own form of truth. So, an object pointing to no other higher truths may still be beautiful if it embodies fully its own function, if it approaches its own platonic form in form. If form and function synchronize perfectly, beauty will appear. For example, a grandfather clock or Swiss watch may be beautiful even if it points to no higher truths, simply because the craftsmanship of the timepiece embodies the inherent truth of timepieces itself.

Ugliness is the opposite of beauty, it occurs when an object’s form signals that the object is either failing in its function, is otherwise unhealthy, or does not embody the higher truths it should embody. To be attractive is to signal functionality, to be beautiful is to signal functionality and truth, to be ugly is to signal neither.

To illustrate:

Some houses are ugly because they are signalling an inability to perform the basic functions of a house, such as keeping rain and cold air out.

On the other hand, some functional houses may still be ugly because they do not embody the higher truths they should. Due to a lack of care or upkeep, they do not point towards the transcendent ideals of home, love, and neighbourliness which they should.

To be beautiful is signal healthiness, ugliness signals sickness, yet we have to be careful, beauty and ugliness are signals, and signals can be faked. Something may signalling functionality and truth but have neither, and signals of sickness or dysfunction may not always be accurate.

Despite this, beauty and ugliness are not only signals. Beauty and ugliness are objective truths in themselves. Beauty is true, healthy, and functioning and ugliness is falsehood, unhealthy, and dysfunctional. Beauty can be faked and ugliness may be an accident, but both generally flow from an object’s essence. Beauty flows naturally from health, truth, and function, ugliness from dysfunction and falsehood.

Besides beauty appearing from the transcendent merger of form and function, form itself naturally flows from function. An object will naturally take on the form of its intended function.

To illustrate:

Local bookstores come in many types. Some bookstores have a function of discovery. They are mess, yet still have their own attractiveness, the sheer volume of books hastily assembled signals a store where books are loved. Digging through the piles of books looking for that perfect find is the function.

Other bookstores are more carefully organized. The function is to find what you’re looking for from a curated selection of books.

Despite the different forms and functions of local bookstores, when compare the big box store to the local book store we can instantly tell which is which. The big box store’s function is apparent in its form, flows naturally from its form. It is attractive, in some ways even more so than the messy bookshop above, but in other ways less attractive. Its function is an easily searchable, impersonal warehouse for books, and it function shows in the form. It is large, sterile, wide open, and efficient but it lacks the charm of the local stores which flow from functions that are more personal.

Finally, we will look at an example where everything comes together.

A Cathedral is beautiful, I have yet to see one that is not; they are always beautiful. They were created to promote the awe of God, which they do. You can’t help but feel awe and reverence as stone arches tower above you. Cathedrals point to the truths of God’ glory and greatness, hence we they are always so beautiful.

We can compare this to old-fashioned country churches, which were designed as humble places for country-folk to gather to worship. Their function is pedestrian, give people a warm, dry place to worship. They are attractive in their own way as they fill their function, but you can’t really call them beautiful as the function and the form which follows from it lack any transcendent value.

Next we have the megachurch. It has a function of gathering many people together, which it fulfills. It’s kind of attractive, in its own way, yet it feels off. There’s a slight hint of ugliness to it. It’s a bit too impersonal.

Finally, there’s modern churches. They all look different, but they all are unattractive, sometimes they even just plain ugly. Why? Because their function and form don’t align. They are not awe-inspiring, time-defying buildings like a cathedral designed to humble you before God, yet they are not simple gathering places like the country church; they don’t even have the strict functionality of the business-like megachurch.

It’s obvious from their design that their function was not decided upon, they were just built. They were built too plain and with too much modern ugliness to impress God’s greatness upon others, yet they are far more ostentatious then is necessary for a meeting place. They were built luke-warm and we spit them out.

The function informs the form, so by correctly analyzing an object’s form you can determine its function. It’s attractiveness and beauty can tell you how well it is functioning.