*
Most secular Right blogs make frequent use of graphic sexual slang and analogies - and often they take this to considerable extremes of inventiveness and explicitness.
(The exceptions are among the sR bloggers I like best; such as Steve Sailer, Dennis Mangan and Foseti - who maintain good manners and gentlemanly standards in their posting; although I wish they would censor comments more ruthlessly.)
I presume that they swear and cuss in order to advertise their 'Red Pill' credentials and appear as someone who sees-though hypocrisy and sham, knows all-about sin and corruption, and is unafraid-of the seamy side of life...
But to me it shows that these people are radicals not reactionaries, nihilists not traditionalists, on the side of evil against Good.
It is quite simple: strategic use of sexual slang by a blogger demonstrates that they have not rejected the sexual revolution.
And if you have not rejected the sexual revolution, then you are a progressive at heart, a Leftist; however you may choose to self identify.
*
15 comments:
Agreed. This bothers me, too.
I imagine, though, that above all, such language is the domain of immature men-wannabees.
There are precious few role-models to emulate, and so whatever a man actually is remains a mystery to those who are not men.
Yes, yes, yes and yes, as usual. This is part and parcel of what I meant on the other thread when I said that for most men on most of the sites, "discovering" the "red pill" hasn't seemed to have made any substantive difference to the quality of person they had become. It hadn't helped them overcome the sexual revolution - clearly not, if one understands that words flow, often unconsciously, from underlying feelings and beliefs.
I'm afraid it's not a problem limited to the secular alt-right, though. After several years of reading them, it's become clear to me, by way of the material that they write directly as well as the comments that flourish at their sites, that even most of the "Christian" "red pill" blogs just have not rejected the sexual revolution, no matter how emphatically they claim to hew to "biblical morality".
I agree with your list: Steve Sailer, Mr. Mangan, and Mr. Foseti are my favourite secular rightists for the same reason: they strike one as gentlemen who would not be out of place in a bygone era.
They don't screen their comments because they actually want to engage in debate on contested and difficult topics and they aren't afraid. You censor comments like crazy anytime it touches a sensitive subject you don't like.
Kind of ironic given your history. Keep preaching to the converted.
Free speech does not necessarily lead to useful debate. Filters, of various types, were invented by humans, to address an obvious need. If a desired result is to be obtained, random detritus needs to be removed.
@Crow - Indeed. It is strange that this still needs pointing out, when the results of 'uncensored' discourse are so obvious.
So many people still seem to think that if only there were *more* freedom for them to say, write or do whatever pops into their little heads (or, is inserted into their little heads by the mass media) then the world would, somehow, be a better place...
People who, unlike you and me, write their blogs and comments behind a pseudonym* or anonymously are - I notice - especially keen on this idea of unmoderated 'debate'.
*I regard 'Crow' as more of a nickname or alter-ego than a pseudonym; since your real name and address are just a few clicks away.
Another factor in the use of swearing and cussing on the secular Right is that this is a covert recognition that the secular Right has only ever gotten power by creating and channeling hatred.
The secular Right can, in theory, be patriotic and loving of the race or nation or culture - or of comfort, peace and prosperity; but in practice the only way for secularism to become powerful seems to be to create and deploy resentment and hatred (as does the Left).
For example Irish nationalism had its positive elements of love of language, country and culture; but it got power when spearheaded by the negative and anti-English aspects.
There are many other examples. In using shock and obscenity, the secular Right are sometimes more-or-less-covertly encouraging a negative and 'anti' frame of mind towards their enemies - a strategy which on the one hand gives them the best chance of grabbing power, while on the other hand ensuring that the results of the successful power grab are very likely to be bad (as with the Left).
I have a great deal of sympathy for this view, and it does appear to me that many of those on our side do go out of their way to use such language.
However, I respectfully disagree. I think by speaking of the consequences of the sexual portion of the Liberal Revolution of the 1960's, and doing so in stark, unromantic, offensive terms, demonstrates one's contempt for the world this revolution ushered in.
Take for example Roissy. Roissy is, beyond a doubt, one of the best writers in the reactionary camp by far. Yet his blog and almost everything he writes is clearly about sex, how to obtain sex, how best to get girls in bed, etc.
How to explain this?
By pointing out this: By laying bare the unromantic, and thus unWestern and unChristian, reality the modern sexual marketplace has ushered in, and demonstrating how it can be reduced to a mere set of rational rules, attached to an ever-degrading culture, Roissy's writing is the equivilent of the shocking Punk music that interrupted the self-indulgent rock opera world of the late 1970's.
In that music, it blew a whole in the radio when it hadn't sounded good all week, and *offensively* attacked a corrupt status quo.
In Roissy's writing, we see the same.
And far from accepting in his heart the Liberal Revolution, it is beyond clear in his best writing that he would trade all of Game and what he speaks of for a return to a traditional society.
@KevinV - This post is addressed to you (I mean people with your set of views) - SNAP OUT OF IT!
You suppose that you have rejected the evils of modernity, yet you cling to them.
You must *stop* arguing in favour of, stop defending, what is plainly purposive evil on the basis that it is not as deluded as mainstream discourse.
You are in the position of speaking-out in favour of fascism on the basis that it is not as bad nor as false as communism - which is true; but meanwhile there is Christianity - which is both good and true - and which you are ignoring.
"...the secular Right has only ever gotten power by creating and channeling hatred."
Is there any other way to get power? Is there a solution other than renouncing the seeking of power?
@Barnabas - Are you saying that there is nothing to choose between Alfred the Great and Stalin?
Mr. Charlton -
Two points, quickly, in response to your reply:
First, your reply does not address the issue at hand; it simply snaps in anger.
Second, this Christianity you speak of and highly recommend reminds me a very great deal of the Communism that Trotskyites used to always recommend to me: in theory it was pure, worked wonderfully and was the answer to everything; in reality, it was nowhere to be found and Real Existing Socialism, like Real Existing Christianity, bore little resemblance to the cause your recommend.
It's lack of existance in observable reality means a very, great deal. In both cases.
@KevinV - No, I am not angry at all - how could I be angry with a pseudonym about whom I know nothing?
I am simply stating the truth that you are exactly the kind of person I am writing for, and clarifying the perilous state you are in, in hope that I can jolt you out of any complacency.
If you look around this blog you will see that nobody could justly accuse me of complacency about the current state of Christianity and its trends.
However, if you have no objection to Mormonism and agree with me that Mormons are Christians (indeed among the very best Christians) - then matters are *very* much better in the LDS church (I say this although I am not a member and as of this moment have no plans to become a member - although I might become a member at some point).
So, I submit the CJCLDS as an admirable (although not, *of course*, perfect) instance of Real Existing Christianity.
I don't know what to say to this. I can see your point, but at the same time the ordinary conversation of men has always been full of the "objectionable". Coarseness in language is evil?
It isn't in contention that many bloggers on the right have completely internalized the sexual revolution despite their external battle against it, I accept that completely, but not the symptom or diagnosis.
Mr. Charlton, sometimes you seem to be completely divorced from normal human interaction.
I grew up in a part of the U.S. that has the largest concentration of Mormons outside of the Utah-Southern Idaho homeland and am very familiar with the LDS church. I'm not remotely qualified to debate the age-old question of whether or not they are Christians, (though my gut instinct tells me they are not) but I do agree that they have managed to live as one would wish Christians would.
I do appreciate your efforts at convincing persons to your view, and recognize that you do realize what a perilous state much of modern Christianity is in, and will read more before coming to any conclusions.
I've used KevinV on the Internet for so long that I forget that it may be viewed as a pseudonym. My full name is Kevin Vaillancourt, I am a U.S.-UK dual national and work for the U.S. Department of State.
Sorry I missed this some time ago:
Kind of ironic given your history. Keep preaching to the converted.
I would say not "ironic", but quite the opposite: experience with all this stuff has taught me just how harmful it can be, and has led me to growth and repentance, something I'd like to see others reach as well.
-SJ
Post a Comment