In my previous dispatch, I attempted to connect the dots between the sexual revolution, rampant feminist-based societal misandry (that is, man-hatred), and the PUA “Game” culture. In such circumstances, I argued, the only self-respecting choice is to opt for celibacy, or at the very least, for defiant chastity. The nature of the human male is now commonly understood to be naught but low, base, and oversexed; men are regarded as piggish and bestial when it comes to carnal matters, and while this perception admittedly often corresponds with reality, I wonder how much of it is due to the fact that we have been trained to be just such pigs, that we have been willfully debased by the overseers who rule the gynocentric dystopia we currently inhabit.
In short, if the male libido is so easily exploited that men will do anything for sex, it follows that men are easily controlled. Is it therefore so hard to conceive of the notion that male sexualization and debasement could be an instrument of domination by our so-called betters?
Our identity, after all, is tied up in what we’re told about ourselves. People become extraordinarily compliant when confronted with the sternly-worded dictates of authority figures and distressingly susceptible to all manner of trendy mantras and shibboleths. Tell a man enough times that he wants, needs, and can’t do without sex, and he’ll be hard-put to disagree. Keep banging home the message: “You can’t help yourself; it’s just the essence of who you are, part and parcel of being a testosterone-afflicted beast wallowing in filth,” and eventually he’ll nod his assent and behave accordingly, even if he objected to the message at some point in the past.
Thus, notions of restraint and self-control are dismissed, and practitioners and purveyors of traditional sexual morality are attacked as prudes or hypocrites, or prudish hypocrites, or hypocritical prudes. The Catholic faith, which affirms celibacy as a high and exalted vocation necessary for leadership (“It is better not to marry”), is routinely ridiculed by these smug, smarmy hyper-enlightened experts, for whom promiscuity is perfectly “natural” (and that which is “natural,”, through some slippery rhetorical sleight of hand, is dubiously rendered as “good”). But the real reason why the Church is reviled is because of the very real danger it represents to the control of the current ruling elite, encapsulated in the fact that it won’t bend to accommodate the dictates of the Zeitgeist on sexual matters.
Men like the Gamers who promote “Alpha”-hood think that they are exploiting the current sexual mores and raking up the benefits through sexual conquests are duly deceiving themselves; one isn’t “winning” just because one is “scoring.” In truth, the only man to “win” is he who has been able to cultivate a contemptuous indifference to the attentions and approval of the fairer sex, who has managed to quell his lusts and to dismiss his pitiful desire to be seen as a “cool” lady-killing stud by his fellow men… who has, in essence, refused to submit to control.
Consider, as exhibit A, this story out of Fresno, California. At a minor league baseball game, between innings, the “kiss cam” makes its ubiquitous appearance on the jumbotron screen. The “kiss cam” ritual is an instructive one to consider, as its very enforcement of vulgar conformism is symptomatic of a great many objectionable aspects of our post-sexual revolution cultural mores. It runs as follows: with the help of mounted video cameras at different locations throughout the ballpark, a series of couples sitting in different sections are displayed. As each couple is broadcast they are expected to kiss for the crowd’s delight and enjoyment. If they don’t want to kiss at the demand of the mob, they are hooted and hollered at until they finally submit. If they refuse to submit even then, they are booed.
On this particular night, one man was talking on his cell phone when he and his girlfriend found their mugs featured on the “kiss cam.” The girl ardently wanted to lock lips, but the guy put up his hand; he was talking on the phone, damnit! Twice he declined her wishes, after which she threw a beer in his lap and stormed away. The crowd, of course, roared with delight at the girl’s tantrum, and the team’s mascot even slapped her a high-five.
The next day, I hear about this incident on a sports-talk show, and the hosts—all men—emphatically took the side of the put-upon girl and couldn’t stop carrying on about what a douchebag the guy was for not bending to the demands of the crowd and puckering up for the righteously enraged, beer-tossing shrew by his side. Given that the sports-talk demographic skews heavily male, the lack of sympathy shown for the fellow in this case demonstrates the extraordinary degree to which knee-jerk misandric notions have permeated even into deep bastions of masculinity. Making a woman mad for any reason whatsoever is a cardinal sin, apparently. And defying the rapacious whims of a screaming crowd only adds to the aura of ignominy.
I do not mean to overstate the significance of this incident, or to give short shrift to the theory, espoused by some, that it was all in fact a staged affair. (Note from 2014: turns out the beer-crotch incident was indeed a "false flag" event.) Still, the overall takeaway is instructive indeed. To subvert the dominant paradigm—a consummation devoutly to be wished!—one must be willing to deny oneself the rich pleasure of basking in the approval of a crowd, or to have one’s ego stroked by contemplating the notion of one’s popularity with the opposite sex. Instead, a hearty insistence upon self-denial and a healthy contempt for public opinion in general is essential. He who would be a man must be steadfast and defiant at all times, in matters both great and small.
In short, if the male libido is so easily exploited that men will do anything for sex, it follows that men are easily controlled. Is it therefore so hard to conceive of the notion that male sexualization and debasement could be an instrument of domination by our so-called betters?
Our identity, after all, is tied up in what we’re told about ourselves. People become extraordinarily compliant when confronted with the sternly-worded dictates of authority figures and distressingly susceptible to all manner of trendy mantras and shibboleths. Tell a man enough times that he wants, needs, and can’t do without sex, and he’ll be hard-put to disagree. Keep banging home the message: “You can’t help yourself; it’s just the essence of who you are, part and parcel of being a testosterone-afflicted beast wallowing in filth,” and eventually he’ll nod his assent and behave accordingly, even if he objected to the message at some point in the past.
Thus, notions of restraint and self-control are dismissed, and practitioners and purveyors of traditional sexual morality are attacked as prudes or hypocrites, or prudish hypocrites, or hypocritical prudes. The Catholic faith, which affirms celibacy as a high and exalted vocation necessary for leadership (“It is better not to marry”), is routinely ridiculed by these smug, smarmy hyper-enlightened experts, for whom promiscuity is perfectly “natural” (and that which is “natural,”, through some slippery rhetorical sleight of hand, is dubiously rendered as “good”). But the real reason why the Church is reviled is because of the very real danger it represents to the control of the current ruling elite, encapsulated in the fact that it won’t bend to accommodate the dictates of the Zeitgeist on sexual matters.
**********************************
Men like the Gamers who promote “Alpha”-hood think that they are exploiting the current sexual mores and raking up the benefits through sexual conquests are duly deceiving themselves; one isn’t “winning” just because one is “scoring.” In truth, the only man to “win” is he who has been able to cultivate a contemptuous indifference to the attentions and approval of the fairer sex, who has managed to quell his lusts and to dismiss his pitiful desire to be seen as a “cool” lady-killing stud by his fellow men… who has, in essence, refused to submit to control.
Consider, as exhibit A, this story out of Fresno, California. At a minor league baseball game, between innings, the “kiss cam” makes its ubiquitous appearance on the jumbotron screen. The “kiss cam” ritual is an instructive one to consider, as its very enforcement of vulgar conformism is symptomatic of a great many objectionable aspects of our post-sexual revolution cultural mores. It runs as follows: with the help of mounted video cameras at different locations throughout the ballpark, a series of couples sitting in different sections are displayed. As each couple is broadcast they are expected to kiss for the crowd’s delight and enjoyment. If they don’t want to kiss at the demand of the mob, they are hooted and hollered at until they finally submit. If they refuse to submit even then, they are booed.
On this particular night, one man was talking on his cell phone when he and his girlfriend found their mugs featured on the “kiss cam.” The girl ardently wanted to lock lips, but the guy put up his hand; he was talking on the phone, damnit! Twice he declined her wishes, after which she threw a beer in his lap and stormed away. The crowd, of course, roared with delight at the girl’s tantrum, and the team’s mascot even slapped her a high-five.
The next day, I hear about this incident on a sports-talk show, and the hosts—all men—emphatically took the side of the put-upon girl and couldn’t stop carrying on about what a douchebag the guy was for not bending to the demands of the crowd and puckering up for the righteously enraged, beer-tossing shrew by his side. Given that the sports-talk demographic skews heavily male, the lack of sympathy shown for the fellow in this case demonstrates the extraordinary degree to which knee-jerk misandric notions have permeated even into deep bastions of masculinity. Making a woman mad for any reason whatsoever is a cardinal sin, apparently. And defying the rapacious whims of a screaming crowd only adds to the aura of ignominy.
I do not mean to overstate the significance of this incident, or to give short shrift to the theory, espoused by some, that it was all in fact a staged affair. (Note from 2014: turns out the beer-crotch incident was indeed a "false flag" event.) Still, the overall takeaway is instructive indeed. To subvert the dominant paradigm—a consummation devoutly to be wished!—one must be willing to deny oneself the rich pleasure of basking in the approval of a crowd, or to have one’s ego stroked by contemplating the notion of one’s popularity with the opposite sex. Instead, a hearty insistence upon self-denial and a healthy contempt for public opinion in general is essential. He who would be a man must be steadfast and defiant at all times, in matters both great and small.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.