Monthly Archives: May 2015

Broken Identity

At this point you’re probably aware of the alphabet soup that sexual identity has become. LGBT has been replaced by LGBTQIA, while others are rolling in even deeper distinction, such as the unintentionally hilarious acronym, LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM being used by Wesleyan University. Facebook has 56 different gender identity options, but even FB’s heroic attempts at inclusivity doesn’t include an array of other identities covering every possible combination of sexuality possible and ignores that special magic known as otherkin. Then of course there’s an slew of other identities that aren’t even sexual, (I think), such transable, transfat, and the hilarious transnigger.

And you thought I was joking.

 

Certain segments of young people tend to take these identities and run with them for all they are worth. Most of us have come across an insane Tumblr profile of someone listing off a half-dozen different identities to which they hold and demanding people address them by the ‘proper’ pronouns. Here’s a sample list of some of them, and, if the rabbit-hole really interests you, here’s a guide to creating your own personalized pronoun.

https://twitter.com/FoolishReporter/status/602933607875780608

It is easy to laugh at all this craziness, but this trend of extreme self-identification points to something much deeper than a few troubled individuals. This letter to Ask Amy illustrates nicely:

However, I was never very open about my sexual orientation. I felt like I always knew, but at the same time I didn’t know how to figure it out.

When I was 17 I went to a party; there was a girl there I liked, but she came with a guy. At some point, she came over and just started kissing me and it was like magic. Then the guy came over. It turns out she wasn’t interested in me, but was doing something he had talked her into.

That was my only experience with another woman — but I know I’m bisexual. I came out at school to some friends, but no one took it seriously. I even came out to my family — but my mom is the only one that took it seriously.

I have been in a relationship now with a man for a year and a half. I love him, but I feel like a part of me is missing. Turning 20 is a wake-up for me. I’m figuring out what I want to do in my life (and friends are getting married). The guy I’m with takes my confession of being bi as, “You’re just bi-curious.”

I’m thinking about asking if we could take a break so that I can try and find myself, but I’m terrified that if I do the door will close entirely. Should I “come out” again and hope I’ll be taken seriously and that he’ll support me?

Here’s a girl whose sole lesbian experience is a single meaningless kiss at a party and who’s in a serious relationship with a man, but still feels compelled to identify as bisexual, even to the point of destroying her relationship to experiment. The key to the whole issue is that she feels a part of her is missing and she wants her identity taken seriously.

A key need of man is identity. His identity informs him as to who he is, but man is a social animal, so who he is almost entirely a function of his social relations. He cannot create his identity in isolation. Once developed, his identity exists as a spiritual sense of place telling him where he belongs in the world and how he relates with the people around them.

A key part of growing up is developing this identity, finding out who you are. A mature adult has discovered and established his identity; he might further develop, refine, or even alter his identity, but he has a secure sense of his place in the world.  (There is a reason listening to 40-year-olds talk about finding themselves is disgusting, it is an aberrant and unhealthy infantalization of themselves).

The proper time for developing this identity is early adulthood, what we now call adolescence. A child’s identity, his spiritual sense of place, is not something that really exists as independent of his parents, he is basically a cypher of his parents. It is early adulthood where his he really begins to form his own independent identity.

In a healthy society, identity formation is a relatively straightforward process. You belong to you family, you adopt the faith, ideology, and history of your thede, to a greater or lesser extent, you become economically productive and contribute to society, you find a spouse get married and have children, you make a few friends, involve yourself in the community, and adopt a leisure activity or two along the way. Your particular quirks, skills, and deficiencies naturally grow out of this process.

It is fairly easy to have a sense of place when you can tell yourself “I am John Yeoman, son of Jack Yeoman, an Englishman of the County of Smallshire. We Yeoman’s have been Anglicans attending Smallshire Church for 5 generations. I am a farmer who works the land my fathers have for more generations than can be counted. I am husband of Jane Yeoman and father of 4 children. At the pub on Fridays, where I am known for losing at cards, I play the fiddle and retell stories about our childhood pranks on Mr. Cooper with my childhood friends.”

That sort of identity writes itself and grows naturally. When you are part of a culture, do things for others, and are socially connected to the community around you, your identity forms on its own and you learn who you are organically. A spiritual sense of place just happens.

In our modern society though, this process doesn’t happen. Think of your average “adolescent”. At the time when a person should be developing his identity, he is stuck in a public school doing nothing productive to anyone else, while learning multiculturalism, how evil his country and people have been to oppressed minorities. He lives with his family in a neighbourhood he moved to just a few years ago when his parents upgraded their house. His family, if he is lucky, consists of an intact nuclear family, maybe a cousin or two, and the occasional visit from his grandparents, if he is not, he lives in a broken home with a single mother, maybe a step-father. He probably has some friends, most of which he will never see again after high school. He probably doesn’t go to church or participate in any social activities with anybody who is not also an adolescent. He is definitely not married and any relations with the opposite sex he has had has assuredly been temporary and known to be so beforehand. Maybe he has a hobby or a sport or two, maybe he doesn’t.

So what is he supposed to base his identity upon? His disconnected family? His Christmas-evening only religion? His oppressive country? His lack of culture (called multiculturalism)? His grades? His sport? It’s all kind of lacking isn’t it?

Look a the letter writer above? She’s 20, she’s been a biological adult for 6-8 years now and she’s just now thinking of “finding herself” possibly by destroying the one thing she has that will let her actually find an identity. What has she accomplished that she can base her identity? What place has she found in her community? Has she been economically productive? Maybe a few part-time jobs. Does she have a family of her own? Just a boyfriend she’s considering leaving. She needs an identity, something that defines her in relation to the world around her, and will make the world take her seriously (ie. will give her a spiritual sense of place). Yet she doesn’t have anything, and it’s not really through any fault of her own.

This is the allure of these weird identities young people have taken too adopting. They do not have the experiences, productivity, community, or social relations to create true identities, so they have to start making up their own. Creating identities usually requires hard work though; you can not become a violinist without practicing or a volunteer without volunteering.

But if you take and magnify a personal quirk, you can easily create a new identity. Like to emotionally bond to people before having sex? You’re a demisexual. Have a low libido? You’re asexual. Like White Fang and think wolves are cool? You’re a wolfkin.

This extend beyond just the weird sexual deviancies though. How many young moderns base their sense of identity on other hedonic pleasures? How many young people have their music consumption as their main identity? How many young people have gamer as one of their main identities? How many young people are identified through their drug use? Their fashion sense? Their sexual conquests? Their television tastes?

Doing these activities may or may not be particularly wrong, but using such as a primary identity indicates something is broken somewhere. Something is missing in their development when a young adult’s primary identity come through shallow pleasures rather than through something true and real.

But this goes beyond just young adults, even our adults are constantly “finding themselves.” Stable social relations, productive economic work, community involvement, friendships, family, all are declining. People are becoming more isolated from each other and more alienated from their work. They need to find something to fill this gap.

This is why a homosexual can’t just be a guy who privately sodomizes other men, he must be out of the closet displaying his pride. He has no other identities to hold onto, for he has no deep social relationships and no spiritual sense of place, so he has to make an identity out of where he enjoys sticking his penis. This is the true horror of the homosexual movement, the abolition of the self until only your identity is your penis.

This is the modern world, a place where people are so empty, their identities so broken, that it has become mainstream for people to base their identities on, to relate to the world through, their hedonic tastes. A healthy society is one where identity creation is a natural process that flows organically from the process of growing up. A person should be able to naturally find and fill productive and healthy social roles, so he can find a spiritual sense of place, so he can belong.

Just War and Breivik

A couple of Ask.fm questions and a Twitter convo with Mandrake have prompted me to post on just war and Brievik.

Just war has two aspects jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum governs whether a particular military conflict is justified, while jus in bello regulates proper action in war. I should note that I reject the concept international law, as it violates subsidiarity, as international organization aren’t sovereign and therefore can’t make law, and as law is and should be made by a government of a people for that particular people, making one set of laws applicable to differing peoples is harmful. So I am talking about moral law here, not ‘legal’ law.

Before we even get to just war, we must define war. War is conflict between nations, for a war to be a war it must be waged by a people against another people, not by a person; if a person is waging war on their own, they are simply committing murder, not committing war.

For a war to be just a state of war must be entered by the people. To do this a legitimate authority over a people must declare the war on behalf of the people he represents. Someone who is not an authority for his people can not declare a war. This declaration need not necessarily be a formal declaration of war. A surprise or pre-emptive attack may be just declaration of war depending on the circumstance. (I am unsure on the question of whether an illegitimate authority can justly declare war on the people he has authority over; it will require more pondering).

For a declaration of war to be just, it must meet three conditions:

First, it must be defensive, either in defense of your own nation, in defence of another nation, or in defence of justice. Defence is not used in its strictest sense, and goes beyond simply warding off an invasion. For example, an invasion to rescue a national citizen kidnapped while visiting a foreign nation would be a valid defence of the nation, while an invasion to stop mass murder or to punish the guilty may be a valid defence of justice.

Second, the war must have some real chance of success. If a war would have no realistic chance of success, then the war is unnecessary, and would therefore be unjust. A small chance of success is still a real chance.

Finally, war must be proportional. The expected benefits of a war must be greater than the expected evils of war.

Once in war jus in bello should be followed:

First two principles are necessity and proportionality, unnecessary violence is to be avoided and violence enacted should not be disproportionate to the goals.

The third is the avoidance of deliberately targeting non-combatants. Violence should only be enacted upon legitimate military targets.

Finally, there is the proper treatment of POW’s. It should be noted here, that spies, saboteurs, and the like are not POW’s and can be dealt with harshly.

Those are the basics of just war.

So, now we get to Breivik. I think Breivik did have a just cause for war; the rapes, violence, and slow genocide of his people by foreigners and hostile elites are just causes for war, but he was not carrying out a just war.

The first reason was that he was not engaging in war. He acted alone, not as a part of a people; there was no war, simply murder. As well, he was not a legitimate authority, so his act of ‘war’ could not be a legitimate declaration of war to begin a war.

Secondly, his actions had no real chance of success. Given that propaganda outlets are almost entirely in the hands of his enemies, the most realistic outcome was that his actions would actively hinder his cause.

He also failed to meet jus in bello principles. The targets of his attacks were not legitimate military targets. Given the nature of the conflict in Norway, I think a legitimate case could be made that the ruling elite and politicians are legitimate military targets, but the spawn of the ruling elites were not. He should have targeted the politicians, media, and bureaucrats, not their children.

A just war in Norway, would require the Norwegian people, or at least a significant minority of them, to have (or appoint) a legitimate authority to declare war on behalf of their community in order to expel (not genocide) the foreign invaders and remove the internal traitors supporting them from positions of power.

If this community can not be found, no amount of lone wolf attacks will matter. The Norwegian people will, sadly, have chosen their own subjugation and extinction.

Lightning Round – 2015/05/27

Circumstance follows virtue.
Related: Why we even lift. I need to get back to this.

Towards a sustainable life culture.

Retreating from complexity.

Rationalism, the Allais Paradox, and scam vulnerability.

Some ruminations on Kipling.

Monarchy and existential risk.
Related: AI researchers on AI risk.

The great decoupling.

Why mass surveillance?

Why the right must out-radicalize the left.

After economic leftism.

Understanding the Balkans in 60 seconds. Macedonia.
Related: What’s happening in the Ukraine.

Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia capitulate to illegals.

Millennials aren’t going to make it.

A story of divorce to illustrate modern family problems.

Irish LARPing.

Reading the classics without trigger warnings.

Waco was exactly like Ferguson until it wasn’t.

A review of the rise of the Benedict Option.

Contemporary liberalism is a suicide cult not a religion.
Related: Social justice as a sacrament.

I think some Anglican priests are in need of a hanging.

Seems Roosh and r/TRP are fighting. Some comments.
Related: Rollo comments.

The friendzone.
Related: The  consolation prize.
Related: Useless friendships.

Men don’t matter to SJW’s.

The Atlantic on jerkboy charisma.

An analysis of the thirst.

Anti-feminist culture-jamming.

Bitter feminist professor decries that her colleagues chase co-eds rather than her. Some amusement to be had.

Sweden: 15-year-old man falsely accused of rape gets fined for slander for proving his innocence.

Science: Most traits are 49% genetic and 51% environmental.

SJW delenda est.
Related: There can be no peace with the anti-Puppies.
Related: The Streissand effect and the Puppies.
Related: The inability to comprehend of the SJW’s.
Related: The three options for the rival slates.
Related: Anti-puppies start gaming Amazon reviews.
Related: More silliness from the anti-Puppies.
Related: Just another SJW lie about the Puppies for the pile. More.
Related: SJW’s are losing the war on nerds.

Who Jewish billionaires are backing for 2016.

Racial segregation in liberal NYC private school.

On Hillary Clinton.

Asians suing Harvard for discrimination. Diversity camp crumbles.

Giving up on civilized standards in Californian schools.

Pro-gay “marriage” study retracted for using fake data.

Ferguson protestors protesting for not getting their cash for protesting.

Derbyshire on Bill Nye.

Reddit CEO wants to start cracking down on “harassment”.

More on California’s water crisis.

H/T: SSC, TRS, SDA

Authority

Legitimate authority, as the name suggests, requires both authority and legitimacy. Authority is the ability to carry out your will, particularly through the use of others, while legitimacy is the general acceptance that your should be able to enact your authority. Authority without legitimacy is tyranny and will only hold as long as the threat of violence holds, which admittedly can be a long time.

Legitimate authority flows naturally from healthy hierarchical structures. The ur-example of legitimate authority is fatherhood which flows naturally from healthy family structures and collapses in unhealthy structures. Other forms of natural legitimate authority are generally forms of fatherhood: monarchs are the political fathers of their nations, elders are simply fathers who have unofficially adopted a tribe, while ecclesiastical authorities are spiritual fathers of their flocks. Some domain-specific authorities arise naturally from ability or knowledge and adopt many aspects of fatherhood to their specific domain: warband leaders, gangs, teachers, mentors, etc. These natural authorities flow from basic human social and hierarchical instincts and are the building blocks of civilization.

Healthy authority is generally these forms of natural authority.

There are also unnatural forms of legitimate authority. Modern democracy is the greatest example of this. It is an unnatural system derived from numerous artificial and unnatural social constructs, yet is accepted as legitimate by most of the citizens within the democracies. Democracies also tend to be unhealthy precisely because it is unnatural.

Unnatural authority is not necessarily bad, per se, but because it is unnatural, it has higher bar to clear when it comes to legitimacy and it is more likely to be dysfunctional. Legitimacy flows from God and from the people; it is not the will of the people, but the people ruled by an authority must recognize the legitimacy of an authority. Natural authority by default confers legitimacy: children do not question the right of the father to rule them until these child naturally grows to an age to rule themselves, and even then, children still accept their father’s advice and guidance. The biggest threat to natural authority is the abuse or neglect by the authority. In cases where a natural authority is abusing or neglecting his duties, legitimacy breaks down and the ruled will rebel to be replaced by either anarchy or a new legitimate authority.

Unnatural authority does not automatically confer legitimacy. Legitimacy comes through either earned merit or persuasion. Intellectual leaders and recognized experts generally gain their legitimacy as authorities in their domains through the demonstration of knowledge and skill related to their specific domains. Business leaders and the rich earn their authority through performance in the free market. Democratic leaders gain their legitimacy through persuasion, using the methods propaganda and bribery, hence the omnipresent state and state instruments in any democracy constantly trumping the virtues of democracy and providing bread and circuses. The main problem with unnatural authority is that it is much easier to persuade than it is to earn. A bribe or a piece of propaganda is easier than decades of labour excelling at an area of expertise. So, unnatural authorities will tend to drift towards manipulation over merit to obtain legitimacy.

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. 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 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, 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.