Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Dark, edgy, and rebellious is no way to go through life son

PUAs and other corners of the manosphere nigh drip with contempt for married men. I think that many of them are correct about the bias against men in the divorce-industrial complex. Civil marriage isn't even really a contract if any party can unilaterally withdraw at any time for any reason. Their jeering derision of men who choose to marry is what keeps me from formally allying myself with them. Sex outside of marriage is not an option for anyone who considers himself a serious Christian.

The contempt for the so-called beta - the nice guy who follows the rules - spills over into popular culture with the prevalence of anti-heroes. It's important to distinguish between the many different flavors of anti-hero. Batman, for example, is not an anti-hero. He chooses the right thing, he operates under strict principles such as never killing the bad guys, and he's willing to sacrifice his life if necessary for the good of his fellow man. Batman only seems like an anti-hero in comparison to Superman. Superman is the archetypical superhero, nicknamed "the big blue boy scout" in universe. He's serious but he's always kind, generous, and chivalrous. Superman is the Knight in Shining Armor while Batman is the (Dark) Knight in Sour Armor. Gotham City is a darker and more cynical setting than Metropolis, and Batman is a darker and more withdrawn personality than Superman. That's one reason why Batman appealed to me more as a child, even before the DC Animated Universe turned him into the Memetic Badass we all know and love. I'm more of a withdrawn personality in real life.

The classical anti-hero was usually a weakling in some major area: he was stupid, or clumsy, or cowardly. The modern anti-hero is exemplified by the Punisher. One time, after he had slaughtered a bunch of criminals, somebody asked the Punisher what made him any different from them. He replied, "I'm right and they're dead." A modern anti-hero is more of an "ends justify the means" type who is willing to fight evil with evil. Jack Bauer resorts to torture within the first two minutes of meeting a prisoner. Boromir was the voice of anti-heroism when he suggested using the One Ring against Sauron. In real life, choosing to do evil makes you more like the kind of person who routinely chooses evil.

PUAs and their beta followers could be the anti-heroes of reaction. They rightly lament the evils of feminism and the destruction of traditional marriage. Some of their insights on those matters can be rather keen. But they advocate using evil to fight evil. PUAs and wannabe players can see that civilization has crumbled around them so they seek to get the most personal enjoyment out of it that they can by remaining unmarried and bedding nubile young sluts. Older tradcons retain memories of a better world. Younger tradcons don't even have that much. We still fight wherever and whenever we can. The world is no longer a fine place, but it's worth fighting for. It's not our final destination, but we still have to live here for our biblical three score and ten.

(this post inspired by a conversation at Zippy's blog)


  1. "Older tradcons retain memories of a better world. Younger tradcons don't even have that much. We still fight wherever and whenever we can. The world is no longer a fine place, but it's worth fighting for. It's not our final destination, but we still have to live here for our biblical three score and ten."

    Of course. I presume your one of the younger tradcons like me

    I was actually talking to a friend about Batman and this is what I said to her:

    "Well, it was another bad boy thread
    Was asking if the fact that my generation loves batman over superman is men loving bad boys
    He said "maybe"
    But I personally do not think Batman is a bad boy
    He's edgy but he is not a bad boy
    I think that is probably the innate thing that women like in bad boys, they like edginess but most men nowadays who are edgy are bad
    I seriously doubt that mentally and emotionally sound women truly like bad boys/jerks/assholes/socios
    They like strong men
    It's just alot of them don't know how to figure out if a man is strong or abusive
    And more importantly the choices they have is bland, soft, nice guys and attractive assholes
    Very few truly good men"

  2. Superman is just not relatable to as a man. All men are forged through the struggles of life and you can see this in Bruce Wayne. This is not so much the case with Superman.

    Also, I would dissent with you on one point: you say Superman is chivalrous while implying Batman is not. Batman is also chivalrous in the sense that he protects the weak from the oppression of the wicked, he's just the Dark Knight and a modern update of the old medieval knight covered in totenkopfs.

    But there are many lessons we, as modern reactionaries can take away from Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is a man amongst the ruins, a man against time fighting on both the level of concrete loyalties(for his city, his neighbor, and ultimately his civilization) and on the level of higher moral abstractions. On top of that, he is basically portraying our situation: a reactionary in the midst of modernity and all of the gritty decay and decadence that comes with it.

    In the terms of the Nolanverse, Ras Al Ghul and Bane are also reactionary forces as well, but they are more Evolan/Spenglerian in nature and they desire to destroy the decadent, depraved Gotham(an allegory for the modern West and probably even the modern World) so they can rebuild a new society upon the ashes.

    I personally wouldn't compare the PUAs or the other sex-starved and sex-obsessed types with either side.

    I personally do not know what side is right even though I believe both have the right intentions: Fix Gotham's decline. Whether that means that Gotham can be saved and the decline reversed or whether that means that Gotham must be destroyed so we can build a new civilization, I do not know.