Monthly Archives: December 2013

Male Friendship

I came across these two discussions of the lack of friendship among males, particularly white, heterosexual males. The dearth of male friendship is a serious problem in our modern world. The average American has only 2 close friends. While, as per the Salon article above, white, heterosexual males have the fewest friends.

This lack of friendship comes from a variety of factors, but there are three specific to men. The first is the confluence of both philia and eros under the word love, and the resultant conquering of love by eros. Due to this, in our present language “manly love” might as well mean queer. Related to this is the rise of the homosexual lifestyle in popular culture.

The Slate article almost gets this:

Chalk this heart-squeezing shift up to our limiting ideals of masculinity, which define themselves in opposition to all things feminine. Friends are empathetic, affectionate, not afraid to leave their tower of self-reliance for occasional support. You know who else is like that? Women. “Being a good friend…as well as needing a good friend, is the equivalent of being girly,” Wade writes, so the boys end up opting out.

Wade doesn’t mention the rainbow elephant in the room, but I wonder whether men are less afraid of girliness here than homosexuality. In many ways, it’s a distinction without a difference, since homophobes tend to imagine gay men as effete. But if a man ever is allowed to relax his stone face, it’s around his romantic partner. Being open, communicative, vulnerable—all of these behaviors evoke love relationships. It makes a sad kind of sense that boys trying to assert their masculinity would steer clear of playing the “boyfriend” around other guys.

But as usual, they miss the mark, and make a demonstration of the third reason:

Friends are empathetic, affectionate, not afraid to leave their tower of self-reliance for occasional support. You know who else is like that? Women. “Being a good friend…as well as needing a good friend, is the equivalent of being girly,

Affectionate and empathetic? It just sounds queer.

The reason this sounds queer is these are not masculine friendships, these are feminine friendships.  (Not that the feminine mode of friendship is wrong; it’s good, but for women).

The third reason for the decline is male friendship is the colonization of the language of friendship by the feminine. The words used to describe friendships in the above articles are good examples of this: empathy, affection, intimacy, emotional support, etc. are all womanly or would be reserved for your lover; to apply these to a masculine relationship sounds gay.

If this is what friendship is painted as, of course men are going not going to have friendships. Who the hell wants to gather around in a sob circle with their male friends?

But by defining friendship as the feminine, the modern world is pushing out (has pushed out?) the ability to express male friendship through the English language.

To reestablish male friendship, we need to reestablish masculine relationships. We need to retake friendship, retake philia, retake manly love.

(Bro is a decent attempt at this, but bromance just sounds retarded and queer).


For the theoretical framework of masculine friendship we can go back to Jack Donovan’s Way of Man. Male social bonds were formed as a part of the gang. Men bonded through hunting and war parties. They bonded not through faggy emoting, but through shared action, shared virtue, shared goals, shared suffering, and shared victory. They built each other up to work together against the common foe.

Obviously, we can’t go back to the old warband model. There’s no opposing tribes to make war against anymore outside of the ghetto (at least not until the happening), and if you tried to do so, you’d go to jail. But men can attempt to rebuild the same pattern through the creation of a gang. Read the Way of Man for more on this.

We can rebuild the male friendship without the need to go murdering our neighbours. Aristotle outlined the virtuous male friendship many centuries ago:

Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are good themselves. Now those who wish well to their friends for their sake are most truly friends; for they do this by reason of own nature and not incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are good-and goodness is an enduring thing. And each is good without qualification and to his friend, for the good are both good without qualification and useful to each other. So too they are pleasant; for the good are pleasant both without qualification and to each other, since to each his own activities and others like them are pleasurable, and the actions of the good are the same or like. And such a friendship is as might be expected permanent, since there meet in it all the qualities that friends should have. For all friendship is for the sake of good or of pleasure-good or pleasure either in the abstract or such as will be enjoyed by him who has the friendly feeling-and is based on a certain resemblance; and to a friendship of good men all the qualities we have named belong in virtue of the nature of the friends themselves; for in the case of this kind of friendship the other qualities also are alike in both friends, and that which is good without qualification is also without qualification pleasant, and these are the most lovable qualities. Love and friendship therefore are found most and in their best form between such men.

But it is natural that such friendships should be infrequent; for such men are rare. Further, such friendship requires time and familiarity; as the proverb says, men cannot know each other till they have ‘eaten salt together’; nor can they admit each other to friendship or be friends till each has been found lovable and been trusted by each. Those who quickly show the marks of friendship to each other wish to be friends, but are not friends unless they both are lovable and know the fact; for a wish for friendship may arise quickly, but friendship does not.

The friendship of the good too and this alone is proof against slander; for it is not easy to trust any one talk about a man who has long been tested by oneself; and it is among good men that trust and the feeling that ‘he would never wrong me’ and all the other things that are demanded in true friendship are found. In the other kinds of friendship, however, there is nothing to prevent these evils arising. For men apply the name of friends even to those whose motive is utility, in which sense states are said to be friendly (for the alliances of states seem to aim at advantage), and to those who love each other for the sake of pleasure, in which sense children are called friends. Therefore we too ought perhaps to call such people friends, and say that there are several kinds of friendship-firstly and in the proper sense that of good men qua good, and by analogy the other kinds; for it is in virtue of something good and something akin to what is found in true friendship that they are friends, since even the pleasant is good for the lovers of pleasure. But these two kinds of friendship are not often united, nor do the same people become friends for the sake of utility and of pleasure; for things that are only incidentally connected are not often coupled together.

Barring the fact that love in this case indicates philia, but likely comes across sounding closer to eros due to our fallen language in this modern age, does this sound gay? Does it sounds womanly?

No. These are not friendships of men getting together to whine about their woes. These are friendships of men testing each other for shared virtue and working towards the mutual good.

This is manly friendship. This is what we men need to return to: a masculine view of friendship based around shared virtue and goals, rather than emotionalizing.

We need to start speaking of friendship in words that don’t sound faggy. We need to move the language of male friendship from that of a romance or an AA support-group to that of a warband. ‘Bonds of brotherhood’ and ‘shared virtue’ rather than ‘affection’ and ‘intimacy’ and ‘test’ and ‘shared suffering’ rather than ’emotional support’ and ’empathy’.


Now the question becomes, how do we retake male friendship?

We can’t on the cultural level, other than using masculine language for male friendship to reclaim manly love and friendship from homosexuals and women.

But you can do some things on a personal level. Start a gang.

First, you need to find some good men. If you’ve got some good, reliable friends already, that’s excellent. If you don’t, look through your church, your activities, your social groups, and find men of good character and virtue with whom to bond.

Try to avoid half-men, scalzified weiners, psychological eunuchs, pc nutjobs, those lacking virtue, emos,the easily offended, and the like.

Second, start some specifically manly activities together; exclude women from these activities. Some good ones are hunting, fishing, camping, shooting, poker, gaming, etc.

Third, when at these activities talk, but not just of girls, video games, and beer; talk of deeper things. Don’t get all emotional about it, but talk of philosophy, religion, metaphysics, goals, ambitions, virtue, politics,

Once you’ve gotten close to some men, you can talk of emotional things. Again, don’t get all sobby and faggy about it, but there’s nothing out of place with a matter-of-fact discussion of emotions that may be afflicting you once a close enough bond has been formed.

The goal is to build a solid group of men who have your back and whose back you have.


As for myself, some of us our in a book club; when my choice of book comes it will be the Way of Man, to help put the idea of forming a gang in explicit turns in my social circles. I already have a couple solid guys I’ve been friends with for over a decade and whom I’m close to. This will form the core of the gang and there’re others whom could be a part. Over the summer I tried to arrange days in the woods shooting to move some of my friends towards a more warband-esque grouping; it never turned out, but one of the core is planning to buy a gun and the other really wants to but hasn’t been able to on the planned days; others have expressed interest in shooting as well. So come spring, I should be able to get some days in the woods going, and maybe even convince a few to hunt with me next fall. But beside that, we’ve started fishing over summer, we go camping once a year, and we game regularly. So things look well in that respect.


So, go an do likewise. Read the Way of Man to develop an idea of masculine friendship, make some solid male friendships, and try to make those male friendships you do have into a stronger, deeper bond. Form your own gang, your own warband.

For friendship is important, and every man needs his comrades-in-arms.

Lightning Round – 2013/12/11

Are you thinking of taking up hunting? Tim finishes his book. I plan to read and review it here.

Path to Legionnaire: Health and the Physical.

Great post: The institutionalization of children.
Related: Outlaws.

You are your own worst enemy.

Leadership and dominance.

Exercising your weak virtues and gaining balance.

Conquering your fear of success.

The canary in the coal mine.

From fear to greed in the marriage market.

Prepare for death; be ready to burn it to the ground.

Family and mission.

Adulthood is accepting that the world is not perfect.

Marriage doesn’t make sense.

Society is conditioning you to think: “I am so fucking lucky. I got married to a whore, that fucks like a prude.”

10 ways women can destroy a man.

Roissy makes some amusing posters.

Accidental alpha.

The feminine virtues.

When women stop loving betas.

Feminism is hate.
Related: The barbarians at the gates.
Related: The eternal rebellion of the left.
Related: The evil of pro-abortion feminism on display.

Laidnyc has a gooder: ‘The trouble with progressivism is eventually you run out of other people’s civilization to plunder.”
Related: Feminism and the progressive principle.
Related: Leftism, the feminine, and devolution.
Related: Turning women into miserable sluts in mud huts.

Frost on the two games and the coming player invasion of the church.

The destructiveness of the single mother.

A few good comments: “We live in awkward times… too late to vote and too early to start shooting.”

The selection effects of the pill.

Eros, lust, and double-think.

Saving SF from strong female characters, part 6.
Related: Pink vs. blue SF.
Related: The fatal conceit of SF: how can maladjusted nerds understand the banality of the mass-man?

Another guide on avoiding a false rape charge.

The creeping horror of the neoreactionary mind virus.
Related: Cipher ideology.
Related: Neoreaction in the news.
Related: The reaction ruckus, links.

The dark enlightenment is the new right lite; how the new right sees us.
Related: If you don’t like Nazis, you should be a neoreactionary.

How many people are you willing to impale for equal opportunity?

Entryism and the tyranny of nice.

Victimhood and neoreactionary theory.

Cargo cult education.

The US needs state-level border laws.

The high level entitlement trap.

We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.”

The monks of progressivism.

As mass-murdering marxist terrorists go, Mandela wasn’t that horrible.
Related: The essence of Mandela was his passivity.
Related: Mandela in perspective.

The new democratic coalition culture war.

Democracy devolves to self-interested child sports.

The heart of progressivism is change for change’s sake.
Related: The heart of conservatism is opposition to change.

Tirado and the defeatist leftist worldview.

Speculation on the future.

“Can you think of something? If so, God exists.”

The distinction between human nature and sinful nature.

On coarse language and Christian discussion.

The pope destroying the church.

Could father absence permanently rewire the brain?
Related: Working the night shift and weekends harms your kids.

Who shows up wins; who doesn’t loses.
Related: The minimum number of children any  (married) Christian should have is 3.
From the comments: A great solution.

Family is the reason for the Fast and the Furious’ success.

Don’t use the word “gender”.

Save Capitalism checks out.

The economic leftist singularity intensifies in Detroit. Businesses are being destroyed solely for the joy of destruction.
Related: Why Detroit will remain 3rd-world.

Are the vaisyas starting to revolt in Britain?

A graph of 2012 PISA scores which makes the obvious plain.

Humour: Leftist campaigns back-firing? Never.
Related: Anti-bullying campaigns encourage bullying. Surprising.
Humour: Laws having the exact opposite of their intended effect.

Criticizing Obama is racism.
Related: The hate crime hoax epidemic.

The Cult of Fish.
Related: WHYouth now exists. Not even trying to hide it.

Top 40% of earners paid 106% of income tax.

Seems the Greek HIV story I linked last week wasn’t true. It was an editing error by the UN.

The wages of socialism, Cuba Edition, coming soon to a country near you.

How to get blogging groupies.

Kipling in the NYT. A lesser man scorns his better.

Newspaper prints false letter by non-existent engineer.

Why not to trust sexual studies.

Fudging the climate data.

Peter Higgs and the self-destruction of publish or perish.

Men kept from daughter for 12 years through a £100k court case.

Men increasingly using uptalk.

Remember, standard advice is for women to lie about cheating on their future husbands.
Remember, being a “romantic” beta is creepy.

Man sued for not-marrying in breach of contract case.

Jane Austin MMO for women. A good solution to women in gaming.

Gun freedom support on the rise.

The anti-gun sticker at an establishment may be a lie of the left.

Sometimes, the best revenge is to give people what they want.

NYPD accuracy: 2 out 3 bullets hit (innocent bystanders).

More idiocy of Matt Ygglesias.
Related: He’s also a bad writer.
Related: Matt is defended.

US organization manufacturing dissent in Canada.

The Last Psychiatrist on the Hunger Games.

Diabetics responsible for 25% of NYC hospital admissions.

(H/T: SDA, vulture)

Neoreaction and Subsidarity

One of the themes of neoreaction is that different groups of people will naturally evolve different forms of government and a government that is optimal for one group may fail when applied to another.

For example, anarcho-monarchism may be right for the anglosphere, but would likely fail outside of the natural institutions and culture that have evolved within the anglosphere.

As Bryce puts it:

The insight of neoreaction, contrasting this, is that the differences between groups do significantly determine the optimal form of governance. To different groups, different political doctrines. Insofar as different treatment of groups is institutionalized, it tends to be institutionalized in respect of the differences those groups. A different group of people calls for a difference in evaluation. This will not and in most cases should not be simplistic, but again, the most optimal forms of evaluation are not going to be able to be wielded by every society.

If national groups require differing forms of government would not regional, or local groups require the same. Two different counties, towns, or even neighbourhoods may have different optimal forms of government.

Because of this the principle of subsidiarity fits naturally within neoreaction:

One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

Subsidiarity is often a basic and explicit principle of reaction, particularly Catholic reaction, but in neoreaction it tends to be implicitly accepted but not formally acknowledged. For example, Moldbug’s patchwork is inherently subsidiaritist in nature, but I do not remember coming across him explicitly promoting the principle. Searching google for neoreaction and subsidiarity, bring up mostly Nick Steves‘ comments and a bit of Bryce’s work, as would be expected.

The primary purpose of this post is to make more  encourage neoreactionaries to pay more explicit attention to, what I believe to be, an underlying principle of neoreaction, subsidiarity.


From this, a reactionary basis for libertarianism or anarchism can be reached. Rather than basing libertarian thought around such things as non-existent human rights, libertarian thought can be derived from the subsidiarity principle.

The individual is the smallest and simplest human organization possible. If everything is to be governed by the smallest and simplest organization capable and an individual is capable of governing itself, it stands to reason that libertarianism is the optimal form of governance.

The problem with this formulation is that not all individuals are capable of governing themselves. Natural slaves, those constitutionally incapable of governing themselves, present a challenge to this form of organization.

Thus we come back to the original theme, different groups of people will have differing optimal forms of governance.

In a society with few, if any, natural slaves, anarcho-monarchism would be the optimal form of government. Most people could govern themselves, the presence of a king would ensure his citizenry refrained from trying to govern each other, and the few natural slaves could easily be cared for through private, charitable organizations.

Thus, for Englishmen, a self-reliant people used to freedom and self-organization with strong natural social institutions, anarcho-monarchism is the optimal form of governance.

For other peoples, with a higher proportion of natural slaves, other more restrictive forms of governance may be necessary.


From this we can also discern a factor in why the size and power of government has increased while the non-English population has increased.

As non-English populations have been imported into English countries, the proportion of natural slaves have increased. More natural slaves necessitates more governance.

Thus, immigration from countries where the populations lack English virtues of self-reliance, spontaneous self-organization, and freedom will necessarily lead to more governance.

This is but one reason why immigration, particularly from incompatible cultures, should be severely restricted.


We now come to the post that inspired this post, a Town without Big Corporations:

There is no question in my mind that this town has saved itself from eventual decline. Not only is it much less ugly and depressing than nearby towns with chain stores but one has the sense that the people who live there identify with it as a community and feel some loyalty and pride. I say that based on my experiences simply talking and listening to the people who live there. So even if it allowed chains, but restricted their garish signs, the town would be worse off.

Instead of a Pizza Hut, there are individually-owned pizza restaurants and a couple of young entrepreneurs take a traveling wood-burning oven to the farmer’s market. People raise goats, sheep and chickens and sell the meat. There are a number of cheese makers who seem to do reasonably well and who sell things immeasurably superior to corporate cheese.

According to free market radicals, this town is engaging in practices that are fundamentally wrong. It is engaging in explicit protectionism in favor of small businesses. Or free market radicals will say that it’s okay to do this kind of thing here and there on a small scale, but the underlying principle of restricting commerce is immoral and tyrannical.

First, Laura is simply incorrect, but incorrect in an understandable way that almost every person is incorrect today.

The free market and large corporations are not one and the same. In fact, corporations, particularly limited liability joint-stock corporations, are a government-manufactured and -enabled institution that distorts the free market. The corporate takeover of the Anglosphere is not a product of free markets, but rather another government intrusion into the private lives of English citizens.

While I can’t say with utmost certainty, but removing the government-created, limited liability, joint-stock corporations from the free market would most likely halt the corporate takeover of the Anglosphere. How many would be willing to become involved in a world-spanning enterprise and be held responsible for the entirity of what the organization does?

Neoreactionaries should oppose the corporate system, as they are another failing of modernism.

Aside from that though, as a free market reactionary, the free market is the most efficient method of wealth-production in almost all cases; this is historically unarguable.

But wealth-creation efficiency is not the end of society; different peoples may have differing goals for society.

In societies without the basic levels of common trust, neutral courts, and non-corrupt government found within the Anglosphere, the free market may not function at all and/or what may be called a “free market” may be nothing of the sort and may actively harm people.

In the Anglosphere, I would not oppose economic regulation by the king, but I would oppose any regulation by our current democratic, national governments. Almost all economic regulation in our national democracies is created for the good of the state-created corporations, and almost all work against the independent entrepreneur.

Not to mention national regulation thoroughly violates the principle of subsidiarity.

On the local level though, local communities should be free to regulate commerce as they wish. Our social institutions have been annihilated by modern progressivism; some local regulations over commerce should be fine until the English people reassert their historical freedoms under the king.

Liberal Holiday Troubles

I was reading this post on maladjusted feminist killjoys at the holidays, where SSM links to a guide for feminists for surviving the holidays.

In this guide they link to the Democrat’s guide to talking politics with your republican uncle. They link to another on how to argue for abortion and free birth control.

I noticed a similar, “bi-partisan”, article on Slate a couple of days back. I assumed it was tongue-in-cheek.

Doing a quick google search, I find a similar article from Salon, and one from 2012 as well. Here’s one from HuffPo on Obamacare. Ace of Spades finds a couple more, while Human Events received an Obama campaign letter on how to indoctrinate your family on the greatness of Obamacare over the holidays.

Rather than the tongue-in-cheek fun I thought it was when I read the Slate article, it seems this is an actual left-wing campaign.

It seems liberals literally have a campaign going to try to turn holidays into a political indoctrination session. What kind of Orwellian nonsense is this?

Not a single article in the first four pages of the google search was a right-wing guide, although, there were a fwe right-wing sites pointing and deriding the left-wing guides.

Are liberals really so alienated from their loved ones that they have to plan in advance how to debate them on the holidays? Is arguing the greatness of Obamacare really their reason for the season? Are they so intellectually vacuous and uninformed that they need a guide to hold their own in a political debate?

You always here liberals whine about the right-wing relatives picking fights at the holidays, but it seems that is mostly just projection.

No wonder they’re liberal. If I was so alienated from everything good in life, that my thoughts of the holidays were about winning political arguments and surviving the holidays rather than enjoying time with my family, I’d probably choose a self-destroying ideology like progressivism. At least if I became a new socialist man, my life wouldn’t be this pathetically empty.

Sometimes I wonder if liberals should be pitied more than anything. What a dreadful and empty life they must lead.

Post-script: I should note that I do enjoy a good political debate if it comes up, but I don’t really think about, look forward to it, or try to start one and I certainly don’t plan one in advance.

Lightning Round – 2013/12/04

The importance of faith and hope for men.
Related: The burdens of leadership.
Related: The difference between thug and alpha is the environment.

Leadership, submission, and the neoreactionary social order.
Related: The value of feminine virtue, part 1.
Related: Against backleading.
Science: Women controlling their emotions makes a marriage happier.

Feminism is dead.

Aurini resurrects a classic from the Solomon blog.

The road to greatness begins now.

When did it become acceptable to shame being a man?
Related: Heterophobia.
Related: Is humanity becoming androgynous?
Related: The rise of the mangina.

On male competition.
Related: Life isn’t personal.
Related: Women controlling their insecurities.
Related: Embracing rejection.

How Roosh stood up to the mob and won.
Related: How Victor make $10k/month blogging.

Martel on the difficulty of following your own advice.
Related: Only take advice from those who have done what you want to do.

A good essay on the history of divorce in the US. No fault divorce might not have been as drastic a change as previously thought. Has a little bit on the puritans, the enlightenment, and the interaction of elites and the masses for the reactionaries as well.

Waiting for sex and waiting for marriage: the evangelical dilemma.

Christians teaching wives to collect their 30 pieces of silver.
Related: Focus on the family advising women on how to divorce rape their husbands.
Related: Someone dislikes the manosphere a lot. The comments are rather amusing.
Related: Empath responds.

Divorcee complains that open marriages are threatening serial marriage.
Related: The trap of the “pro-marriage” professional divorcee writer.
Related: Almost a third of married women haven’t found Mr. Right.

Single motherhood is hazardous to children.

Danny answers “where have all the good men gone?”

A great read: The cult of political correctness.
Related: Saving SF from strong female characters, part 5.

Leap examines leftist thinking.

The case for vulgarity.

Porn use is due to the feminization of men.
Related: Women, Jesse Stone, and porn.

Kathleen Hannah: Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do feminist.
Related: Why feminists are ugly.

Rhetoric: Ben Franklin and the Socratic method.

Gift game.

Alternatives to marriage.

People can accurately perceive men’s intelligence, but not women’s.
Related: Sex differences are hardwired. Related.

New Moldbug: He absolutely shreds the TechCunch article and other anti-reactionary talk.
Related: Another article on the neoreaction; we’re creepy. A&G respond.
Related: Amos & Gromar respond to a criticism of neoreaction.
Related: It looks like North Korea is going to be the Cathedral’s meme.

Thinkinglike a neoreactionary: part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7.

Moldbug e-books.

The path to Legionnairre: series introduction. A neoraectionary bootcamp. Looking forward to this series.

Conquest’s second law; why do organizations become leftist?
Related: Default liberalism and the liberal advance.

Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: war and democide.

Conscription, unity, and immigration.

The need for neologisms in conservatism.
Related: Polymaths and monopaths.

Trust in the US is declining.
Related: A little more boomer hate.

The pretense of powerlessness.
The true colour of liberalism.

8 reasons democracy doesn’t work.

The cult of neoreaction.
Related: Working with disinformation in our map.

The microscopic differences between socialist and liberal in Seattle.

The Cathedral in action: CNN edition.
Related: CNN turns from news to reality TV.

Personality goes beyond the soul.

Traditionalism is also for protestants.

Schism against heresy.

7 things Roosh learned from his viral article.

Manosphere wisdom about texting your ONS’ goes mainstream.
Related: Men confident in their relationships text less; women text more.

A woman experiences equality; doesn’t like it.

A story of women and degeneration.

Maladjusted feminist killjoys at the holidays.

RAF women gets £100000 for being forced to march like men. Yes, women really do belong in the military.

The case against female education.

Obesity is more dangerous than anorexia.

Science: Casual sex and negative mental health outcomes.
Related: Women regret past sexual encounters; men wish they had more of them.

Naomi Wolf is quotes the Bible and advocates hair coverings while decrying porn.

Slut-shaming: sure to make a girl psychotic.

EW on Goldie Blox.
Related: It seems I’m not the only one criticizing Goldie Blox.

The states as girls.

British racist totalitarianism has reached new heights. (The principal’s e-mail).
Related: Normal vaisyas are beginning to gain racial consciousness. This will not end well.
Related: Just another hate crime hoax.
Related: GLP with a decent quote from Chomsky.

Iceland and Shanghai do well the PISA; the US does not. Slate ignores the obvious.

Your kids won’t make you happy.

A town without big corporations.

By ceding the spiritual to women, we allow it to be feminized.
Related: The church’s overemphasis of joy.

The misinterpretation of Matthew 5:27-28.

How the spirit of inquiry is being suppressed in the West.
Related: Science fraud.

A decent life for decent people and the purpose of public schooling.

Personal responsibility, passive voice, and the lower classes.

“Antarctic sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking in a warming world.”

It might be time to start hanging IRS agents.
Related: American taxpayers are fools.

A tactic that works against liberals.

The decline in jobs and make-work.

News editors regarding Obama: “We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers.”
Related: Obama describes himself as “not a particularly ideological person.”

SC to hear case on Obamacare persecution of religious.

Obamacare as an Orwellian information collection system.
Related: The Chinese may be controlling your Obamacare data.

The Chinese rich are fleeing. Big news on the horizon?

Sweden, immigration, and rape.

Ukraine turns to Russia and China.

On Syria.

Our declining rate of technological progress.

Pilgrim socialism and the thanksgiving story.
Related: Thanksgiving, then and now.

Is it any wonder the American empire has been declining when this is how they treat their allies.

On historically-illiterate atheists.

The treason of unions during WW2.

In a mathematically literate world

Amazon charts vs. stock price.

Banghazi: Krugman’s best-case scenario.

I never noticed this before, but Slate actually publishes the time it takes to read an article on the side bar. Most are in the 1-2M range. You can tell the level of intellectual quality they’re shooting for.

I regret not cheating on my boyfriend. Cosmo really is trash.

The scam of black Friday “deals”.

(H/T: SDA, GLP, Vulture, HBD Chick, RamzPaul, Borepatch)

Disordered Eating

The Return of Kings has had one of their recent articles, 5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder,  blow up: so much so, even the Daily Mail has written a piece on it.

I think the arguments in the post is rather stupid. Aurini outlines why you should not date a girl with a dating order. Essentially, she is a disordered, self-destructive person who will destroy everything around her, including your relationship with her.

This is not a defence of the article, rather it is a short analysis of the response to this article and the response to a previous RoK intitiative, #FatShamingWeek.

Both obesity and anorexia are disordered; both are unhealthy, self-destructive lifestyles.

Yet, when RoK shames the former self-destructive lifestyle, RoK is decried as evil, but when RoK preaches acceptance of the latter, RoK is also decried as evil. As usual, Jezebel best exemplifies this lack of logical thinking

How can both acceptance of self-destructive eating habits and shaming of it be evil?

Or, to turn it around on the social justice types, why is it acceptable for people to body-shame anorexics?

This is perplexing to me: how can being unhealthily skinny be worthy of shame, while being unhealthily fat is not?

The best answer I can find comes partially from here:

Easy: change is hard.

It is a lot easier to come to accept (and possibly overcome) your self-loathing mentally than it is to overcome the pain of diet and exercise. Self-loathing is vague and amorphous, pain is immediate and direct.

Self-loathing can be reasoned at, self-justified, denied, and overcome by other emotions. There is no reasoning with, denying, or ignoring pain: pain is.

Instead of facing the pain, it is easier to accept the self-loathing.

Being obese is easy, being anorexic takes willpower and self-control.

The social justice war for fat acceptance and against anorexia has nothing to do with health, nothing to do with proper eating, nothing do do with a balanced life; it has everything to do with self-control and responsibility.

What the modern social justice warriors hate more than anything is personal responsibility. They do not want to be held responsible for their choices, they do not want to have to accept the consequences of their actions, they do not want to have to change, and, above all that, they do not want to feel shame or have anyone to judge them for their failings.

But how can they avoid shame when they are fat, which is shameful?

They can try to make obesity seem good, which they try but fail at because nobody can deny the disgust they feel at seeing a morbidly obese landwhale and the landwhale can’t help but notice the poorly-hidden looks of disgust often directed her way.

The second method is to deny people, themselves, agency; they have to deny that people are capable of controlling themselves and their destinies. How can they be responsible, how can they feel shame, when they have no control over their situation?

But, the anorexics show this for the lie it is: the anorexic takes complete personal responsibility for her weight, to a disgustingly unhealthy degree.

The anorexic shows extreme, unhealthy levels of self-control and self-discipline.

So, for the social justice warriors to maintain the lie that people become fat (or poor, or unsuccessful, or failures in other manners) for reasons beyond their control they have to pathologize the anorexic.

They can’t pathologize normal levels of self-control, because most would see through that, but they can pathologize unhealthy extremes of it.

To the social justice warrior, the fight against anorexia is a fight against the concept of self-control.

The health aspects of it are only secondary.

This is the only reasonable explanation I can think of as to why being morbidly skinny is somehow much worse than being morbidly obese.