The Incipient Orthodoxy of the Androsphere

I have been spending some time lately reading in the androsphere,[1] and based on what I have learned from scratching the surface of that huge and passionate discourse, I feel rather hopeful about the prospects of the men who participate therein. Most of them, to be sure, seem stuck for the time being in a slough of despond. They are cynical, skeptical, nihilistic. I will not go so far as to say that they are nihilist, as most of them still affirm the existence and value of manly virtues – some go so far as to affirm the value of womanly virtues. Mostly, though, they are angry, or bitter. But that’s no way to live, over the long run. So they won’t, I figure.

My hope for them springs from two sources. The first is that, in their own jargon, they have “taken the red pill.” They have made a conscious decision, that is to say, that they shall no longer partake of Political Correctness, in any of its forms. Their first clue to the Emperor’s nakedness has been delivered to them by a rude awakening to what they take to be the reality of the relations between the sexes.[2] But once one has taken the blinders off in respect to one portion of the PC dogma, the rest of it quickly collapses.

It is not hard to see how this happens. The androsphere is alive to the differences between alpha, beta and gamma males. Androsphereans have dedicated themselves to the arts of manliness; which is to say, of cultivating alpha. It is a short step, a mere sidle, from a conviction that some men are simply better at manhood than others, to the realization that egalitarianism and the universal franchise are silly, if not lethal, and to an embrace of the notion of natural hierarchy and authority. The full panoply of Traditionalism follows logically, and ineluctably. So I view androsphereans as all incipient Traditionalists.

And this brings me to the second source of my hopes for them. That androsphereans are implicitly Traditionalist seems clear. But that is not quite enough, is it? For, there is the Traditionalism of despair, which is to say, the Traditionalism of the unbeliever; and there is the Traditionalism of the believer. The former – call it mundanity – is dead to the transcendental dimension of life, the latter – call it supramundanity – is not.

The supramundane man (called “the sage” in the traditional literature of all cultures) can understand his personal moral struggle as participant to the War in Heaven, and pledge glad fealty to his Lord and Captain in the battle, knowing certainly that he fights on the side of the Good, whose eventual and complete victory is metaphysically assured, so that no sacrifice he might be called upon to make can possibly be vain. He can be happy about the essence of things, no matter how poor, barren or dire his own accidents. He can be serene, and even wise.

The mundane man, by contrast, is pledged to a hopeless, bootless, endless struggle on a darkling plain, where ignorant armies clash by night; where, since the warriors all die without ultimate causal significance, in chaos and dissolution, the whole shooting match is essentially meaningless and stupid.

My basic argument is that life shorn of a transcendental dimension, such as that to which the merely mundane androspherean is doomed, is not worth living.[3] You work hard, and then you die. That’s it. In this context, the androspherean pursuit of the manly virtues amounts in the end only to, you work really hard, and then you die.

Big whup.

A conviction of the ultimate meaninglessness of life, and the ennui implicit therein, cannot form an emotional basis adequate to the pursuit of manly excellence. Should androsphereans conclude to any nihilist metaphysic, their devotion to the manly virtues would be completely sapped. Why take a risk, or invest time or labor, in respect to something that is totally stupid, and also doomed to eventual and total failure?[4]

Androsphereans are committed to an unflinching recognition of the truth of things. If they are honest and careful, then, their raw experience of what it is like to pursue, and to achieve, any manly excellence at all must vitiate the notion that life is ultimately without meaning, for the achievement of excellence is inherently valuable, and pleasant. One cannot be good at something without feeling truly, cleanly good about it. Thus the inarguable goodness of virtue as a brute fact of experience stands in stark contravention to the notion that there is no such thing, really, as goodness.

Mundane Traditionalism, then, must eventually lead either to madness or dissolution on the one hand, or to religious conversion on the other – to supramundanity, and thus to a noble magnanimity. There is no other way out.

Thus I feel confident that, in the long run, most androsphereans will end up supramundane Trads, and as Trads, traditionally supramundane - i.e., orthodox. The alternative, after all, is an absurd death of some sort. And to die meaninglessly is to be pwned, totally.


Update: Here is a moving essay by an orthospherean who made the journey from liberalism to game to Tradition and orthodoxy. His conversion story exemplifies the sort of metanoia to which I suggest the androsphereans may be particularly susceptible. He writes, “Learning about “game” was the first deep and sustained puncturing of my bubble of liberal non-reality, and from there I began to question everything I had believed.”


[1] I refuse to call it the “manosphere,” on account of the dysphony, as for different reasons I refuse to call the Leviathan of Moloch the “Cathedral.”

[2] I find their models inadequate to the reality; but then, this shortcoming is endemic to modeling per se. That a model is inadequate does not mean that it is devoid of all intelligence, or that it fails utterly to deliver any knowledge.

[3] I was not surprised, then, to find that suicide is frankly discussed in the androsphere as a respectable, even honorable option. Ditto for vasectomy, or a rejection of marriage and family, which amount to almost the same thing, from a supramundane perspective.

[4] Is this despair the beginning of the young man’s Fall into addiction to gaming or porn – into, that is to say, a retreat from real, and really consequential, combat and love?

About these ads

75 thoughts on “The Incipient Orthodoxy of the Androsphere

  1. I am glad you show some optimism about all this. There are elements in our movement who seem to think that they should be written off since they have not repented by now. It looks to me that some are in the process of it.

    • I like the post too. I’ve been vocal about the fact that I was into the androsphere stuff until I realized how much it was harming me, and repented.

      • Here is a moving essay by another orthospherean who made the same journey from liberalism to game to Tradition and orthodoxy. His conversion story exemplifies the sort of metanoia to which I suggest the androsphereans may be particularly susceptible. He writes, “Learning about “game” was the first deep and sustained puncturing of my bubble of liberal non-reality, and from there I began to question everything I had believed.”

  2. I wonder which sites and resources you used to read into the androsphere?

    My first impression was of horror at the growing popularity of evolutionary psychology in the androsphere. I started telling conservative friends that they will miss aguing with liberals once these new social darwinists come of age. Now that it’s been a year or two, I see that they are converting to traditional religion. I see that the traditionally religious have a voice in the androsphere which is actually considered and respected.

    • I see it here and there in comments. Such as Jack Heald’s below. If you can’t see it, I can’t make you see it.

    • My best friend was raised in a broken secular home. He was personally wounded by leftist ideology in a potent manner: his mom left his dad for a woman. He discovered the reactionary blogosphere/androsphere several years ago and has since been baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Church for many of the reasons Kristor outlines.

      That said, he struggles with actually living the Christian life in a way that I, as one raised in a traditional home with traditional belief, do not. He does not go to church very often–he’s only been to confession and communed maybe three times since his baptism in 2009. We are very close, and I see his sins, sins that I believe are fueled by the secular right blogosphere/androsphere.
      (To be clear, he sees my sins, but they are of a different kind. I also see his virtues.)

      My friend’s commitment to Our Lord may be indicative of the kinds of conversions we’ll see from the secular right. It will be heavily influenced by anti-leftist ideology.

  3. A couple of encouraging signs are the popularity of the website The Art of Manliness, as well as a surprisingly large number of aficionados of classic men’s clothes (and the attendant blogs). An increased awareness of traditional concepts, like the consideration that inheres to acts such as dressing for others or for an occasion, can only be a good thing.

  4. A fascinating analysis. I am an ex-believer who is new to the androsphere. Actually, I describe myself as “my head is an atheist and my heart is a believer”, so I am conflicted about this. I hope that the end result is in fact traditional orthodoxy. That’s my heart talking. But I fear it is an empty hope. (Head)

    Thanks for writing.

  5. Aside from your idiosyncratic refusal to call things by the names they happen to have, Kristor, I couldn’t agree more with what you say here. This was, in large part, the topic of our last NYC Orthosphere meetup, wherein I wish I could say my view, i.e., that the so-called Secular Right has very much to offer the cause of traditionalism—that indeed the very act of defiance against PC shibboleths is per se a virtue, indicative of a path toward, not away from, the traditionalist view—had met with perhaps less indignation.

    • I really liked your post where you catalogued a number of quotes from Mangan, Jim, et al. If I were in a room with all of them, I’d pull out a torch and jump up on the table and bellow, “Tonight we rally the masses with a torchlight parade!” Meaning you will have to hide me away because I’m a hothead, in general. But really, I’d eagerly swill beer and plot reaction with those guys.

      • “Most of them, to be sure, seem stuck for the time being in a slough of despond.”

        That’s a periodic cyclical thing. You must be new(ish) to these parts. You should have seen them around 2001-2002. “Oh, it’s hopeless! People are too brainwashed! We’re never going anywhere!” The despondency was part of the reason for their characteristically raw and in your face attitude; we figured we had nothing to lose. Now somebody’s going to make a documentary film about the MRM.

        Those of us who stay, I think, get a taste for the battle. We go through the same emotional rollercoaster that a junkie does. We reach amazing highs only to crash back down again the same amount of distance that our high brought us. We mainline rabbit tears for kicks.

        I don’t feel the same despair as my brothers in arms, however, because I take the long view. So much progress in such a short time. We no longer have to spend most of our time beating feminists back from our encampment as we once did, and now spend most of our time planning military skirmishes against theirs. Like Sun Tzu’s troops, we forage on the enemy, we fight on auspicious ground, and we only go into combat when our war has already been won. So far, so fast.

        Long story short, if you tire of hearing “The Manosphere is doomed. DOOMED!“,just wait about a month or so.

        We are unstoppable now. For better or worse, society will accommodate us and our demands shortly.

        By “shortly,” I may be talking about 5 or 10 years here, so don’t look for the announcement next week, but seeing as how we’ve been at this for 30 years now, that is a blink of an eye.

        I’ve read the end of this saga we call the “MRM”. We win.

      • “Well, we’ll assign you to the shock troops then… where you can be useful!”

        Forgot to add to my original comment that I’ll take that post if he won’t.

        I have a relative who was a door-gunner in Nam. The life expectancy for someone in that MOS was 10 minutes. He did two tours and came home without a scratch.

        Let’s just say that I feel lucky.

        God and/or Nature’s God be with you all.

    • I’ve deliberately embraced a “No Enemies to the Right!” attitude. I have gotten tired of making sure Mangan is pure enough for me to agree with him on things. It’s exhausting and fruitless.

      • Who exactly do you have in mind? I think that in the right-wing, libertarians are our worse enemies, mostly because of the deep hate that they feel towards us, and because they are in significant numbers.

      • I would hardly characterize the libertarians as being part of “the right”. They are certainly not to my right. I think that smarter libertarians may very well be pre-reactionary… and to that extent I’d leave the Reactionary Tent Flap open for them… as they move substantially rightward…

        But no, I didn’t really have anyone in particular in mind… which is why I sad we have “few” enemies to the right. I can imagine some, e.g., budding totalitarian eugenicists, for example, but I’m not currently engaging with anyone to my own right whom I consider an enemy.

        I don’t know who you think “us” is… but if there’s any hope of turning back The Revolution, the only “us” worth talking about is going to have to be a pretty expansive version of it. That being said, it will certainly not happen by the occult power of the ballot box. To seize that ring, as history has amply shown, is to become its slave.

  6. I think there is a pelagian tendancy within the traditionalist right that handicaps our thinking on matters of cooperation. It looks only at positions on certain sacred issues, and refuses to recognize rates of change, especially the sign of rates of change. So you look at Focus on the Family’s current position on things and you think, “Hey, they’re pretty close to us”. But if you look at the derivative of position, i.e., dO/dt (where O≡Orthodoxy), then you see it is negative and therefore they’re on the wrong course. Come back in 100 years and they’ll be unrecognizable. But if you look at a guy like Thumotic, you’ll see that even tho’ his position is rather far away (e.g., 1st and 2nd date “bang”), his dO/dt is strongly positive.

  7. I read Roissy in DC for about three weeks a couple of years ago. Does he still like to talk about having sex with other mens’ wives?

    • I think there is a pelagian tendancy within the traditionalist right that handicaps our thinking on matters of cooperation. It looks only at positions on certain sacred issues, and refuses to recognize rates of change, especially the sign of rates of change. So you look at Focus on the Family’s current position on things and you think, “Hey, they’re pretty close to us”. But if you look at the derivative of position, i.e., dO/dt (where O≡Orthodoxy), then you see it is negative and therefore they’re on the wrong course. Come back in 100 years and they’ll be unrecognizable. But if you look at a guy like Heartiste, you’ll see that even tho’ his position is rather far away (e.g., having sex with other men’s wives), his dO/dt is strongly positive.

      • That’s a pretty interesting and new insight! I think it is true that we often ignore the rate of change … liberals on the other hand are very good at this, and are usually happy if things are simply on the “right track”, and time has shown that their approach is more functional in the long run.

  8. @Kristor – I wonder if you would agree that the comments which follow it, demonstrate pretty conclusively that your post was a profoundly mistaken bit of Polyanna thinking!

    I must say that I find the idea of ‘Orthosphere Christians’ (seeking tactical allies) on the one hand building a socio-political-moral alliance with strategic seducers and systematic hedonists; while on the other hand regarding Mormons as beyond-the-pale and outwith the ‘orthodox’ (small o) Christian brotherhood, is a pretty damning state of affairs for Orthosphere Christians to place themselves in.

    My own views are, of course, precisely the opposite.

    • +1 not to mention that the “androsphere” is a tiny and largely irrelevant group … nearly no one except us even know that they exist. Mormons on the other hand are numerous enough to be valuable as allies. They also usually want to be conservative allies. I at least was against the anti-Mormon proposition from the beginning…

      • I estimate “our” (pure reaction) numbers at 10% of the global human population, based on the results of comprehensive surveys wherein certain statements with reactionary or proto-reactionary import were agreed with.

        That’s a small percentage, but not a small number. Especially when the “us” I’m counting is only the “us” that is prepared to fight for our beliefs. Add in the purely intellectual reactionaries and we might be as many as 20-25% of all people on the planet.

        Certain thinkers in this part of the sphere are contemplating joining forces with our relief in Greece, Britain, Norway, France, Italy, etc., in a cooperative effort to assert our interests as a people with shared culture. This is much to be desired, as long as everybody limits their actions to only that which will establish nationalist policies and parties desired by the patriots of each country. Basically, should this come to pass, we should limit ourselves to merely fighting anti-particularity leftist forces as reserve troops for one another, not making policy prescriptions to those of different nationalities.

    • Bruce: No. In the first place, the comments are not dispositive one way or another. They do not arrive from the androsphere, so far as I can tell, so they amount only to further conjectures from among orthosphereans.

      In the second, any orthodoxy of the androsphere is going to develop over a long time. I did not suggest that it was around the corner, only that it was likely, eventually. Even then, I suggested that the alternative was for the androspherean seekers of truth to end up at nihilism and dissolution. Some of them surely will; but since nihilism and dissolution don’t comport either with a healthy, enjoyable life, or with the androspherean nisus toward the cultivation of the manly virtues, that seems less likely for most of them than an eventual turn toward orthodoxy.

      Finally, I said nothing about any alliances, or about Mormons. I regard the Mormons as allies in the culture wars, despite the fact that on account of their polytheism they are heterodox by definition. If Arius or Aurelius were writing today, I would regard them as allies, too, despite our disagreements, and no doubt they would reciprocate. Our staunch and valued commenter Nilakantha is Buddhist.

      The post may nevertheless be too optimistic by far. Perhaps all the androsphereans are hell bound, and we should just write them off. But that’s an uncomfortable notion, considering how many orthosphereans are former communists, atheists, and liberals. It makes more sense to me to think of androsphereans, and for that matter the secular alternative right, as a mission field.

  9. @Kristor said “Perhaps all the androsphereans are hell bound, and we should just write them off. But that’s an uncomfortable notion, considering how many orthosphereans are former communists, atheists, and liberals. It makes more sense to me to think of androsphereans, and for that matter the secular alternative right, as a mission field.”

    Write-off as Hell-bound? – Obviously not.

    Mission field? – fine, if you have a calling to the work.

    But allies as is? – no.

    • Agreed re “allies as is.” But as I said, the post wasn’t about that, nor do I suggest it. Nor for that matter can I think what form such an alliance might take, or what it would do.

      If androsphereans are indeed a mission field, then it makes sense to keep talking to them. See the essay I linked in the update to the post for an example of what can happen.

  10. Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  11. Pingback: Teach wisdom (It’s not palagarism, it’s sharing). | Dark Brightness

  12. How to view the androsphere or the MRAs is an interesting question. Are they ripe for revelation and repentance or are they hard-core anti-social narcissists and manipulators? When I was at The Thinking Housewife I put a great deal of effort at preventing the MRAs from “taking over.” The MRAs were “invading” and they had to be “fought off.” I took the approach of insisting on unconditional Chivalry as a fundamental moral principle knowing and intending that that would exclude the MRAs; that no MRA would agree to that and through that mechanism the MRAs would be excluded.

    As an orthospherean I think it is fine to see the androsphere as a recruiting ground or a mission field but the MRA must convert and repent first and join you; you must not debase yourself and sink to the MRA’s level for the purpose of making cheap friends and deluding yourself that you are winning “allies.” In other words no middle ground or compromise; the MRA must convert to an orthospherean and in effect become an orthosphearan in order to be an ally. The MRA as an MRA is not an ally. My own “litmus test” of true repentance is that the person who wants to be your ally accept and embrace unconditional Chivalry. You may judge things according to another criterion, but the “Chivalry test,” as I call it, is my tool for separating friend from foe.

    Are androsphereans “all incipient Traditionalists” as you put it? That is the big question. I think they are; I think they are on the path to Traditionalism. However on a more philosophical level I would say that all liberals and feminists are on the path to Traditionalism (when I say “Traditionalism” here I mean patriarchy or traditional gender roles or support for traditional cultural practices). There are only two paths for everyone; either repentance or self-destruction. First you accept mainstream culture without question and are a liberal / feminist, then you revolt against the mainstream and become an MRA, then after you are an MRA you revolt against the meaninglessness of the MRA position and become a Traditionalist. In this schema being an MRA is stage one revolt and being a Traditionalist is stage two revolt. The primary revolt (becoming an MRA) is an escape from being abused by the feminist establishment but by itself no positive identity is present. The secondary revolt (becoming a Traditionalist) then allows for a positive self-identity separate from and in opposition to the feminist establishment. It’s easier to move someone already in stage one revolt to stage two revolt; this is why the androsphere makes for a good mission field. At the same time the MRA as is will fight against the positive identity you offer him because before repentance he simply sees the responsibility you seek to impose on him as more service to women, more feminist style abuse.

    In support of the thesis that androsphereans are all incipient Traditionalists look at what is called the Christian MRA blogosphere (Dalrock being the biggest such blog). Christian MRAs are a new species; I’d say 5 years ago Christian MRAs were essentially non-existent. The rise of the Christian MRA phenomenon is strong evidence that Christianity based global moral principles are starting to infiltrate and become more popular among MRAs.

    My own political focus recently has been on the atheist community. Interestingly enough the topic of feminism is a source of endless debate and infighting in the atheist community. There is a well established “opposition camp” in the atheist community against feminism; but while they are MRA sympathetic or mild MRA in nature, they are far from being supporters of traditional gender roles. The MRA phenomenon is big in the atheist community as a whole; being MRA sympathetic is not a fringe phenomenon in atheism. Being a supporter of traditional gender roles is fringe within atheism but being opposed to conventional feminism MRA style is not.

  13. I think that sometimes too much emphasis is given to non-moral social states like having a natural hierarchy and patriarchy. They are important, but not the most important. The Aztecs had both and were still the greatest monsters the world has ever seen. If I had to choose between them and a more primitive, less rigidly hierarchical, and matrilineal tribe, I’d choose the latter. The Aztecs even had a somewhat traditional religion. Just because someone accepts natural hierarchy, patriarchy, and even some form of traditional religion does not mean they will be of any use in the mission to revitalize our culture in a normative civilized way.

    If your cause for hope is merely in that they can be convinced into a better way of thinking, then I say that you’re giving up on liberals far too easily. Though it requires different tactics, I have gotten a female, pro-gay, pro-choice art student to describe my views as noble, and gotten my utopian Marxist brother to be pro-British Empire, mitigate his pro-abortion stance, and stop arguing against my anti-divorce and pro-death penalty for adultery beliefs.

    • Incorrect. Big misconception about Aztec-like Amerindians from Mexico. Trust me, they aren’t patriarchal. If they were, they wouldn’t have been overrun by Europeans. And they wouldn’t be so impulsively violent and sacrificial.

      Today in the Southern USA these Amerindians are overrunning the US border and they’re frankly quite lethal and dangerous. The happy, peaceful Amerindian is a myth. Just like the whole “noble savage” is a lie.

      Or are you mixing up the Mestizo Spanish-speakers with Amerindians?

    • Don’t ever, ever confuse an Aztec Indian for a Mestizo Hispanic, and don’t confuse the Mestizo Hispanic for a Spaniard (the original and true Hispanics). Mexican Indians have been isolated from the Spanish for centuries, don’t have Spanish blood (or any other type of European blood) and don’t speak Spanish, nor are they culturally European.

      They’re not the same casta. The USA just lumps pure Aztec-like Amerindians from Mexico into the “Hispanic” category. That’s why the “Hispanic family breakdown” in the USA is quite confusing. The Mexican Amerindian women are driving that category to full-blown collapse and are starting to match the rates of African-American women (or even, African women from Africa).

      Hispanics are Spaniards, but it has also come to mean Mestizo Spanish-speaker.

      Since language is dead and broken, terms can be deceiving. The USA is not importing quasi-patriarchal Mestizo Hispanics. Their Mexican illegals, and even others, are just pure Amerindians.

      Miscegenation with Europeans in Central-South America usually happened through the paternal line (European men such as colonizers, conquistadores or immigrants). But there are holdouts still in existence.

      Mexico is perhaps the strongest holdout of Amerindians left in the Central-South American continent. I’ve seen Central-South American countries and Mexico stands out as having the most purebred Aztec-like Amerindians left. A Central American country like Mexico has more pure Amerindians left.

      That would explain why Mexico is quite disordered.

      In Mexico it’s around 10-15% or 16,845,000 (16 million and 854,000 thousand) out of 112.3 million, whereas in South America it’s on average around 1-4% per country (more admixture). Miscegenation was slightly stronger in South America, but still quite vast in Central America.

      • I was referring to the pre-columbian Aztecs that had an all male priesthood and to my knowledge always had a male monarch. I know that supposedly they were the first to have universal education for both males and females but in every other area they were patriarchal. Furthermore the Chinese of the Shang and early Zhou dynasty were both patriarchal and violent and sacrificial. As can be said of many African tribes, the Igbo for example, or the pre-Buddhist Turks. Although the Aztecs were worse than all of these other examples. As for the argument that the Aztecs weren’t patriarchal because they lost to the Europeans, I would point out that so did the rest of the world. I have a hard time believing that this makes the rest of the world including sati practicing Hindus and Muslim Arabs matriarchal.

    • As can be said of many African tribes, the Igbo for example, or the pre-buddhist Turks.

      The “big man” dynamic in African societies is distinctly matriarchal and soft egalitarian (as opposed to the “hard equality” of MRAs). This includes various stripes of average women supporting themselves and cocooning around a high value man (or rather, what women think the best men are). It also includes good natural resources and a good environment, but even matriarchies tend to ruin the best habitats and then it goes down the drain from there on. Leading to violence, chaos, corruption, family breakdown and tribal primitive religions.

      From my limited experience, Arabs have had a bit of exposure to the African matriarchy in East Africa (for example the countries of Ethiopia and Kenya), therefore I would say that the Arab penchant for polygamy can be traced back to the black African woman and her influence.

      • As I understand it, and in this area my knowledge is sorely lacking, most traditional African tribes had arranged marriages by the males and a husband had complete authority over his wife and all of their children including the power over life and death. I fail to see how this can be considered matriarchal. If it is just because women had certain powers amongst certain tribes, then I have to say that everywhere is potentially a matriarchy because women cannot be prevented from taking some amount of power. Even slaves can sometimes gain influence over their masters, and women should be and are given more respect and better treatment than slaves, except women that also happen to be slaves of course.

    • Skeggy Thorson, I have lived and travelled across the African continent ever since I was a child.

      In the USA I noticed that the biggest “racists” are those who have actually lived amongst and been around the African-American community up-close and seen their dysfunction and their matriarchal dynamics.

      I suggest you travel the African continent, from North Africa to East Africa to Western Africa to South Africa, and then come and tell me just how “patriarchal” black Africans truly are.

  14. Pingback: Open Thread: the Sufficient Conditions of Justice | The Orthosphere

  15. Skeggy Thorson, perhaps you have been reading literature at a distance from the African-American woman, or the African woman, way too much. They continually blame their chaos, their violence, their family breakdown and dysfunction on “evil black males”.

    Sexual abuse and false rape allegations? Patriarchy. African-American women having all of the “good jobs”, affirmative action and racial quotas, in addition to black females possessing the back of the state government welfare? Misogyny. Most black women having voted for Barack Hussein Obama (exercising political power), and most working-class black men being almost extinct and under attack from the black woman? Sexism. And so on…

    While I tend to agree that African black men have problems, it is flatly untrue that they’re patriarchal. Nice try, but it wouldn’t work on me. Too much exposure to the African community at various stages in life I would guess has shattered that myth for me.

    • Most of my sources on African culture come from 18th century records from colonists and 19th and early 20th century anthropologists. their findings may no longer be true or they may have been wrong to begin with but one cannot demonstrate their falseness simply because it is no longer the case. also I do not see the relevance of mentioning the state of affairs amongst African-Americans, unless you are arguing that matriarchy is genetically hard wired into them.

      • Yes. I can’t explain it succinctly but I would definitely say that the matriarchal aspect is strongly imprinted in the African race. They’re quite a matriarchal people.

    • Furthermore societies tend to become more matriarchal after they have collapsed or are going through a rough patch. this can certainly be said of modern Africa, so I don’t think their current trends towards matriarchy are indicative of past state of affairs.

      • Furthermore societies tend to become more matriarchal after they have collapsed or are going through a rough patch. this can certainly be said of modern Africa, so I don’t think their current trends towards matriarchy are indicative of past state of affairs.

        It’s indicative of past state affairs. Africans aren’t like former Communist Chinese people, who went through a rough patch.

        I would say that China is a good example of a patriarchal society which went matriarchal under modern revolutionary communism and then is returning slowly but surely to patriarchy, although China is being attacked from all corners with feminism with Capitalism, consumerism and Big corporations, so it makes their return to patriarchy a bit tough but it’s happening little by little.

      • Sorry alcestiseshtemoa, my last comment was posted before seeing your last comment. considering the content of your last post my remark seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. As for your assertion it is beyond my abilities to judge whether it is correct or not. So shall we live it as it is?

      • The African continent as a whole (and without foreign influence like Arabs or European explorers), has been matriarchal for quite long. It isn’t like a civilization which died (think China or Russia) but is living again little by little and is surviving the rough patch.

      • But African society did collapse just before European colonization, which shored it up for a bit but after we left they collapsed again, even with out communists every where. And my overall point stands because China could be insanely brutal and sacrificial even before Mao.

  16. Pingback: The Incipient Pelagianism of the Orthosphere | The Reactivity Place

  17. The seventh commandment forbids adultery, not fornication, which fits with very great emphasis against coveting what belongs to someone else.

    Elsewhere in the bible, the rule seems to be that a woman should only sleep with one man in her life, unless widowed, but a man can sleep with as many women as he can. The intent is obviously to ensure that fatherhood can be known with certainty, and that the children of one mother have only one father, so that children will be raised by their father and their mother, rather than only by their mother, so that civilization and religion will be propagated through the generations.

    • I do not see where this is true. God expects every man to be with one woman or no woman at all. Monogamy has its benefits and there is a thing called love and all.

    • The standard Christian exposition upon the 6th (by Catholic counting) commandment, by the NT and 2000 yrs of Christian tradition, is that it forbids all forms of unchastity (adultery, fornication, masturbation, homosex, sodomitic sex, etc.). And besides, who are the boys gonna fornicate with anyway?

    • Tho’ I wouldn’t deny that polygyny is at least well tolerated in the OT. That of course is not fornication, but a deformed (in the Christian view) form of marriage. So the certainty of paternity meme holds throughout. It Christ suggests a higher form of marriage: 1 to 1 (sacramental), which too has obvious and even greater benefits: structural alpha not being least among them, which encourages men below say the top 20% to strive really hard, which is, at least, very good for business (as well as being very good for them).

  18. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/26 | Free Northerner

  19. The problem with the secular right is action. What actions do they take? Do they lead Christian lives? Are they willing to sacrifice for the cause?

    If the answer is no, what sort of “allies” are they? The kind that don’t show up for a battle and then stab you in the back when it’s to their advantage.

    What exactly is the secular right doing except making blog posts (unless of course their employer or someone found out and then they would immediately renounce it all)?

    I’m too old to think bitching on the internet matters. People with real world responsibility need to make real world decisions about how to live. It’s action that matters, not words. What motivation does secularism provide except selfishness and hedonism by metaphysical definition? We don’t need more people spouting the same old ideas in a circle jerk. We need action.

    • Asdf asks:

      The problem with the secular right is action. What actions do they take? Do they lead Christian lives? Are they willing to sacrifice for the cause?

      I dunno what actions they take. Maybe they don’t sound the trumpet about their IRL actions. Do they lead Christian lives? At least as Christian as the Christians, as near as I can tell.

      Asdf asks:

      What exactly is the secular right doing except making blog posts (unless of course their employer or someone found out and then they would immediately renounce it all)?

      Who knows? Again, maybe they’re not the sort to brag about their good deeds.

      Asdf asks:

      What motivation does secularism provide except selfishness and hedonism by metaphysical definition? We don’t need more people spouting the same old ideas in a circle jerk.

      Secularism is a particular (sadly dominant) branch of Christianity. Do not confuse the “secular” in “Secular Right” with “Secularism”… which is a core sect of the Cathedral. A better name would be the Agnostic Right.

      We don’t need more people spouting the same old ideas in a circle jerk.

      Neither do we need people complaining about more people spouting the same old ideas in a circle jerk in a circle jerk.

      We need action.

      Who’s “we”?

    • Any Christian who does not like the secular right, also prefers to hide Paul down in the basement behind the water heater, and thinks that the correct way to restore true Christianity is to avoid mentioning Paul to the new recruits at all costs.

      Heartiste, minion of Satan, has done more to restore pre 1950 Christianity than all the Christians put together.

    • Reviewing asdf’s comments on my blog, he argues that the government creates value while the private sector steals it, that the mortgage crisis was caused by derivatives, rather than by affirmative action loans and general lowering of standards in part motivated to legitimize affirmative action loans, that government employees are underpaid and have insufficient power, and that resource limits create limits to growth.

  20. A general comment for the thread (I view the androsphere as a mixed bag. I don’t know which blogs Kristor read which led to the OP. I’m commenting based on my knowledge of the more well known, more virulently secular sources):

    I’d like to know just how Game or the Androsphere is going to help this man who wrote into VFR a few years ago:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015513.html

    Here is a traditionally minded man who has no problems connecting with women but can’t find suitable candidates for marriage because the playa’s got there first, among other reasons. (And if you’re going to reply with the obvious and inadequate response that it takes two to fornicate I say two things, 1) we’re not, in this thread, debating the merits of making loose women our new bff’s and 2) men initiate sex.) Calls to tame a woman are meaningless to this man since the women he encounters have had their biology changed by past lover(s) and their virtue ruined by the experiences, beliefs are irrelevant; in short, they’re unmarriageable and the gamers will tell you the same thing. If you say things are not that bad I challenge you to spend some time in the trenches. I have and can vouch for this man’s observations.

    I find it obvious that explaining and promoting the dynamics of human pair mating divorced from the restrictions of traditional religion will, in the current context of the society in which we actually live, lead inevitably and quickly to an increase in the sexual and social dysfunction that characterizes modernity. Knowing that, when someone tells me that Game is a neutral tool that can be used for good or bad, I’m calling b.s. Not in our present world it isn’t. What it sets up, to borrow Mark Richardson’s phrase, is a landscape of “selfish hedonism that pits man against man”. See our friend from VFR above for Exhibit A and there are undoubtedly many others. Anyone who’s actually read Roissy, Roosh or Ferdinand in depth knows that the overriding action item/takeaway is that things are hopelessly rigged against you so get while the gettin’s good, and here’s how.

    This is some kind of basis for cooperation among men? Gamers are, by their own choices and actions, enemies of these men who don’t need game, don’t need lessons on the evils of feminism and the virtues of patriarchy. The secular androsphere makes it harder, even painful, for un-married traditional men to live traditional lives.

    • The problem is not that players are screwing Christian virgins. The problem is that Christian virgins are screwing players.

      Women are the uncontrollably lustful sex, and traditional society, which is to say the world before 1820, knew they had to be kept under control to restrain them from screwing up everyone’s life, particularly their own by screwing around.

    • Gamers are, by their own choices and actions, enemies of these men who don’t need game, don’t need lessons on the evils of feminism and the virtues of patriarchy. The secular androsphere makes it harder, even painful, for un-married traditional men to live traditional lives.

      No man does not need game. Period. A celibate priest needs it more than any of us! Game is the application of psychological principles to influence people. Period. You can use that skill for great and mighty good. And you can use that skill for despicable evil. Some men are born (or raised) with that skill… others have to learn it. But you need that skill. You need it first to be manly among other men. And, of course, you need it to be (and remain) attractive to women… yes, over and abundantly and especially, to remain attractive to your wife… should you find and/or choose one.

      An unmarried traditional man who wishes to live a traditional life needs “game” first and foremost to do that… you need “game” to do anything worthwhile in life… yes, even to become a (celibate) priest.

    • Nick,

      They don’t need to acquire Game because they already have it and have had it all along only they wouldn’t call it that and rightly so. What they need is a pool of suitable women from which to find a wife and here the gamers are doing their part, with every pick up attempt and every neg they hope leads to sex, to shrink, dilute or fragment that pool. And worse, unlike the garden variety cad, they are doing this with full knowledge since they claim a true understanding of the macro situation.

      James,

      Nice try.

      • What they need is a pool of suitable women from which to find a wife

        That pool has never existed. The eighteenth century view of women is correct. You have to deal with women as they actually are, as they always have been. Before there were players, there were cads.

        I married young. I have a traditional marriage. I am the boss of my family. I did this long before the ideas of game became became known, but I knew intuitively that no male who shows the slightest indication of willingness to marry young, or willingness to marry at all, is ever going to get married. I knew intuitively that I had to treat women badly.

  21. They don’t need to acquire Game because they already have it and have had it all along only they wouldn’t call it that and rightly so.

    If that were true, then “they” wouldn’t need to complain about “gamers”.

    Jim is right that the emancipation of women has gone rather poorly… for just about everyone (except cads… they’re the only “winners” in any of this… and even then it’s only short term). I agree that the marriagable pool has been greatly diminished because of emancipation, but only because Christian fathers don’t seem to care who’s banging their daughters and when. We just need meaner Christian fathers. Go where the fathers are really, really mean and you’ll find Christian women preserved intact for you. But the younger the better.

    • Do you encounter legions of unmarried traditional-minded men whimpering about their prospects and blaming others? I don’t. That’s for the Spearhead crowd. Obviously there is a calculus to the search for a wife with many forces pushing in different directions. This thread was about just one of those forces and I am making an argument as to the direction it is pushing with respect to a cohort I care to see succeed. Perhaps it’s not an interesting argument since gamers can be overcome by this cohort, whereas other negative forces are more powerful (eg. lack of Christian fathers), but it deserves to go in the record.

      • What is game? In large part it is pretending to be high status, as women perceive status. Would you prefer that Christian virgins banged thugs, musicians, and sportsmen instead?

      • What is game? In large part it is pretending to be high status, as women perceive status…so that you can fornicate with them.

      • Do you encounter legions of unmarried traditional-minded men whimpering about their prospects and blaming others? I don’t.

        Well I don’t encounter legions of such men. I happen to know that the traditionally minded man is finding slim pickings on the marriage market. (High demand, low supply.) I fully concur with Jim’s advice to marry young and younger. I am absolutely convinced based on logic, as well as personal experience, that the application of general psychological principles to manipulate others (i.e., force one’s own will upon others) is an essential manly trait that will help anyone in the search for a wife, in the keeping of a wife, and in virtually every other aspect of life. That “application” is game. You can call it “42″ if you’d like.

        But it was you who said:

        “Gamers are, by their own choices and actions, enemies of these men who don’t need game, don’t need lessons on the evils of feminism and the virtues of patriarchy. The secular androsphere makes it harder, even painful, for un-married traditional men to live traditional lives.”

        I’m not sure I’d call that whimpering… in fact I didn’t.

  22. Hi Kristor, good article. Just thought I would drop in and say hello. I followed the link here from Nick Steves’ blog. Reading back over what I wrote to Lawrence Auster a few years ago, most of it still holds true. In that mini-essay I claimed I couldn’t stomach the Roissy-style blogs anymore. In the interim, there have blossomed many more nuanced and interesting blogs that are half “Androsphere” blogs, half something else. Whether or not “game” blogs can lead one eventually to the Truth, I don’t know. But I can certainly attest that they can lead one far beyond “game” itself in salutary ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s