Occasionally, the “manosphere” and some of the other parties on the alt-Right have a dust-up. (Sometimes hilarity ensues.) The critiques that the reactionary and the traditionalist rightists register against the manosphere during these dust-ups are generally valid ones. There is, for instance, no real defense of “pick-up artistry” from the standpoint of someone who takes the idea of community, much less the idea of morality, seriously. Trawling bars and nightclubs, plying young women with “cold openers” and drinks, securing one night stands and upping your “notch count”—these are empty and hedonistic pursuits. They’re disfiguring to the souls of everyone involved: the male on the hunt, the females he succeeds in catching, the bartenders and bouncers who have to watch these sad antics night after night after night. This sort of behavior, in Dante’s scheme, doesn’t land you in the lowest circles of Hell. But it does land you in Hell regardless.
Of course picking on the PUAs is picking on the lowest-common-denominator of manosphere thought. The movement as a whole is bigger than snake oil e-books and midget mestizo game coaches. It produces more serious thinkers, more sophisticated critiques as well. Jack Donovan comes to mind. There’s a lot of meat in The Way of Men. One of his central insights is, of course, not a particularly new one but an important one nonetheless and one effectively presented. It’s that the contemporary world is too safe, too stable, too rubberized really to suit men. And it’s hard to argue against that one. Most American boys spend their formative years logging in long hours of docile desk-sitting in school. They graduate to office jobs where it’s more docile desk-sitting, punctuated now by the occasional HR seminar on sexual harassment or racial sensitivity. Food is readily available. Physical conflict is a rarity, mortal danger even more so. And it’s not even that all these conditions are necessarily bad, just that they present few challenges that require any masculinity of men. Men get soft, bored, even depressed. They seek increasingly artificial outlets for their basic drives: video games, spectator sports, porn. (Donovan’s phrase “Bonobo Masturbation Society” alone is worth the price of the book.) In many senses, modernity offers very little to them.
Donovan is also eloquent on those basic drives. Perhaps the cleverest part of his scheme is how he posits masculinity as a sort of technology for survival in the uncertain, dangerous conditions that obtained for much of human history. He talks about the “tactical virtues” of masculinity. This move is profoundly anti-feminist (unlike one of those other misshapen scions of the manosphere, the MRAs, who are anti-feminist in only the thinnest and most trivial of senses). He’s arguing that masculine virtues like strength and courage are not just good but necessary, that they’re the means by which human tribes stake and maintain “perimeters” against the chaos beyond. (Another landmark work of his, “Violence is Golden,” outlines how stable Western societies still bank on the masculine ability to do violence and to do violence well, even though they require only a small portion of their overall male population to participate in it, which harmonizes his critique of a too-safe society and his insistence on the necessity of masculinity.) This is, of course, a more rhetorically effective and a more philosophically coherent rebuttal to the Hannah Rosins of the world than one can manage by whining about unfair feminism is or how it’s gone “too far” these days. It’s a legitimately reactionary stance.
Now one of the common criticisms of this kind of thinking is that it’s obvious. That any normal young man who was raised in a household with a respectable father understands both the real compromises that civilized life demands of men, as well as the enduring value of manhood. And that’s true. A lot of men raised under those circumstances do understand these ideas to one extent or another. But it’s somewhat fanciful to think that early twenty-first century America is producing an abundance of normal upbringings in two-parent homes for its sons in the first place. So you either leave those thousands, maybe millions, of mis-raised boys to their anomie, their disatisfactions, their constant bombardment by the lies that our schools and media tell about masculinity, or you give them some message not unlike Donovan’s: “There is a reason you feel out-of-place and underutilized. You were designed for more demanding pursuits. Your people have need of the sort of man you can become.”
This is all just to say, really, that there are babies in the manospherian bathwater. And that goes for many others beyond just Mr. Donovan. Even in the crassest forums of the PUAs you can occasionally see glimpses of impulses worth salvaging, worth encouraging even. There are people attracted to “game” simply because they are tired of being sadsack losers who have no control over their own fortunes, romantic or otherwise. You have young men groping for some sense of personal agency, of personal efficacy. That’s not an unworthy gesture. In fact, you could make the argument it’s a superior mentality to the lowest common denominators of other facets of the alt-Right, who produce a lot of lofty theorizing and loftier LARPing but very little personal exertion at all. It’s a good start.
Of course I believe that the West, that Christianity, that America has produced any number of masculine ideals that excel in every way the primeval man, that strong, brave, competent savage on the hunt for suitable mate. But that doesn’t mean the red-blooded primeval man ceases to exist in those more perfected models, only that his inclinations have been chastened or channeled or honed as necessary to cooperate with the greater project of civilization building. But a wan, etiolated Millennial is unsuitable for either of these things, for survival or for contributing to the health of his nation. Right now we are awash with specimens like that, and, despite some of its excesses and its embarrassments, the manosphere is interested in producing of these Millennials a crop of red-blooded men. I’d humbly suggest we focus more on graduating those post-process men to yet higher callings, rather than laboriously cataloging all the shortcomings of that process itself.
I heard a decent interview by Michael Smerconish on Satellite radio the other day, he had the author of the “Dangerous Book For Boys” , I think it is two brothers that wrote this book about essential boyhood skills necessary for developing into a real man later in life. The author and Smerconish get into a dialog about the diminishment of boys and how they are essentially raised the same as girls these days. Both men agree by the end of the interview that some of this feminist indoctrination about boys is starting to lose its effectiveness and that people are coming around to the basic truths about the fundamental differences between male and female. Every parent with children of different sexes knows there are big differences, but for too long we have been conditioned to ignore it. I do see the fog lifting and I hope it continues. In the meantime I have ordered the “Dangerous Book For Boys” and Donovan’s “The Way of Men” with eager anticipation.
Bravo, Mr. Glanton.
Of the entire Reactosphere, the loosely connected outpost of the Manosphere is perhaps the one that receives the highest number of recruits through its doors every day. In spite of the fact that it obviously receives men deeply damaged by the society they have lived in and have come to reject, and so perversions and usurpations of true manhood are going to be commonplace, it is nonetheless a fertile pool of men who can be recruited to further more radical Reactionary aims when the need arises. One of the first steps in crafting such soldiers not for intellectual work, but rather for brute force is to awaken the vestiges of manhood within not yet destroyed by Modernity, the unreachable fruits of masculinity. They are allies to be aided, not with derision, but with constructive dialog.
In the NATO proxy war in Ukraine, platoons of essentially rightist militiamen from mostly Central and Eastern Europe have entered the fray on the side of the Russians, including the Ernst Thälmann Battalion, Serb Chetniks, the Legion of St. Stephen, and the Falanga organization from Poland under Bartosz Bekier.
This is the kind of role that the average Manospheren can fulfill with great success given the proper application and guidance.
When you buy a guard dog, it may shit in the house for a few weeks, but even during that time it can be a tenacious defense system.
You also get this problem where the media has pushed this myth that women love “sensitive men” and it’s “the sensitive guy” – not the jock, who gets the girl. There are many men who believe they will have better luck with women if they truly try to “relate” to them and it couldn’t be further from the truth.
This is why we see what amounts to an epidemic of women seeking men from other races and other cultures who have retained more masculinity and aggression than many men in the West. Women want to be protected and hence will always go for the “big man” who shows courage.
One brief critique… or perhaps more like a comment. Be very careful about your use of phrases like “the primeval man, that strong, brave, competent savage” and “red-blooded primeval man,” because theses are anti-civilizational tropes with origins in leftist thought, particularly those inspired by Rousseau. The concept of the “noble savage” or the idea that pre-civilizational man had some kind of pristine insight which has been lost by civilization is the ideological origin of Rousseau’s and Marx’s mission to demolish Western Civilization. The uncivilized man has strength, but no honor; violence, but no courage. Plato recognizes as early as the Republic the distinction between the uncivilized Celt, who substituted recklessness for courage, the over-civilized Persian who was a coward, and the middle position of the Greek whose courage was distinguished by participation in the hoplite phalanx, neither running ahead nor falling behind but standing shoulder-to-shoulder with his brothers in arms.
I think the better archetype of manliness from a Reactionary point of view (the best, in fact) must always be the founding generation of one’s people, especially in so far as they’ve been mythologized into a more appropriate example for future generations. The pioneer, the militia soldier, and the frontier minister (especially since these three fit the trifunctional hypothesis of a healthy Indo-European culture: worker, fighter, priest) are far better examples, as they possess the hardy masculine virtues without the vices of the savage.
”The uncivilized man has strength, but no honor; violence, but no courage. ”
Pray tell. How can a man uncivilized in his ways succeed against other men if he has not courage. How is the group to maintain its cohesion and strength without honor?
Uncivilized man has masculinity but it is a masculinity that is undisciplined and spent on ill. Of course Civilization is to tame masculinity, discipline, it channel it and even enhance it as a result of that discipline rather than diminish or destroy it and that I agree with. But to say they have no courage or honor is simply incorrect given how it plays out.
Read Aristotle’s Ethics, especially the section on courage. No better statement can be made. Remember, the Greeks and Romans defeated the Celts in the long run, not the other way around.
The Manosphere is a bunch of shallow midwits who think they’re the first men to ever lift weights and talk to girls. The Dark Enlightenment is a bunch of autistic wimps masturbating to thesauri in their parents’ basement. Both statements are basically true, but each group has a few personalities that rise above. The best leaders will be those who combine the curiousity and rigour of the DE with the practicality and IRL self-empowerment of the Manosphere. The future belongs to bros who read Hoppe essays in between 405lb deadlifts.
Hey, you leave our thesauri out of this!
You hit on an important point, though. Oftentimes people compare the very best that their side has to offer against the worst that the opposing side does, and then they feel justified in writing that side off totally. But in reality every internet “movement” produces a bunch of shit-tier thought. Much better policy to look at the best thought that the other guys produce and see if there is anything worthwhile in *that* before consigning them to the trash heap.
Amen. I’m one of those recruits who came to the Dark (Enlightenment) Side through the manosphere. And PUA sites specifically.
Basically, they confirmed that all the things I had always noticed about women were true. And all the lies that I had been told about women were false.
Once I realized I had been lied to about women, the logical next step was to see how I had been lied to about everything else.
Loved this post. The manosphere was my gateway into the whole neoreactionary/dark enlightenment sphere. I am a huge fan of the manosphere. The manosphere is successful because it is actually working in the real world. The manosphere really did empower me in a lot of ways. It forced me to look at myself and and realize that I can become a stronger, better, more masculine version of myself; to become a better man. So you won’t find me bashing the manosphere guys because their blogs/forums helped me begin down a pathway towards becoming who I am today. Donovan’s book is a fantastic read that should literally be mandatory reading for all men. As Frost stated above, “The future belongs to bros who read Hoppe essays in between 405lb deadlifts.” Being some pencil-necked LARPy philoso-blogger means you are not living up to your expectations as a man. Being confident, physically fit, and successful with women are all important as well as being well-read.
Post didn’t turn out how I expected it. Thought the angle would be that conflict between two male dominated groups such as The Manosphere and the Reactosphere are examples of when things get forged, and salient points made, and that intellectual conflict is important as is real conflict.
I broadly agree with what you say but think there is plenty of chaf to sort out and honest criticism and dispute is necessary between the two groups. Certain Manosphere types seem very invested in pretty lies that they want to believe because of a misguided male egalitarianism.
It’s worth mentioning an awful lot of the Manosphere are actively selling a product or products, this in itself creates different end goals and is something to keep in mind. This isn’t an indictment of people having the right to do so, just it will breed something different.
I don’t see how the romantic glorification of manliness as some sort of Conan the Barbarian noble savage is even useful. If anything, that’s a cartoon that is as superficial as the header image you used for this article. Is masculinity being a badass in the woods? Or is it being Leonardo da Vinci? Why is unadulterated masculinity as a good thing? Maybe masculinity is not having to pretend that you’re some goofy caricature.
This is why I am as skeptical of the “manosphere” as I am of feminism (though feminism obviously has cultural power where MRA’s obviously do not). You were born into a demographic that is 50% of the population. Why is unremarkable part of you worth celebrating?
Masculinity itself is not so important, as it is almost entirely informed by the biological makeup of the male sex and the hormones therein. What is of more consequence is true manhood, which is of a metaphysical rather than biological nature and is acquired through ways of being that must be consciously pursued rather than such things that are almost entirely innate apart from outside interference.
The nature of true manhood concerns two forms of pure virility, heroism and asceticism. Your dichotomy between hunter and artist is rather apt. In short, a true man will embody the traits of both, though typically one trait will dominate the other in the life of the man depending on his circumstances and vocation. There is a great difference between a priest and a soldier for example.
One notion fundamental to the Reactionary critique of Modernity is its complete disregard and subjugation of humanity’s ‘Solar’ character, indicative of manhood. Reed Perry discusses how important this is in his article ‘A Patriarchal Restoration Theory’ and others including myself have tackled the subject on our own blogs. Without the revival of true manhood, no Reaction can ever succeed.
Whether you call it the Solar principle, the Legionary spirit, or simply true manhood, retrieving this metaphysical character which grants men the potency needed to overcome and conquer in both the physical and spiritual planes is absolutely essential. The Manosphere is not ideal, it is not coherent in many cases, and in others it is blatant commercial opportunism, yet it is a door into higher Reaction, and not one that we should wish to close.
“Why is unremarkable part of you worth celebrating?”
Because right now, it’s being actively denigrated, and for no good reason. Having a dong and a pair of testicles is perhaps no reason to celebrate (although I’m pretty amped about it) but it is certainly no cause for shame, as is currently being taught to our younger generation. Being a badass in the woods is fine. Being Leonardo is even better. But both these male types are currently being denigrated by an emasculated, feminized order that has no use for either. No, don’t be a “goofy caricature”, but be a man. Was Robert E. Lee a “goofy caricature”? Was Pasteur? Was Patton? Was Cervantes? Was St. Paul? Very different men, to be sure, but all men, not psychological eunuchs.
The problem I have with the neomasculinity movement is that is makes masculinity into the highest possible value for men.
A narcissistic football player with an inch between his brow and his hairline wouldn’t have as much success wooing Ashkenazi Jewish women as he would gentile women. That’s why Ashkenazi Jews have an IQ that is one SD above the white gentile mean. The clever rule over the strong, and always will.
The most masculine men may not be the smartest men; women choosing to breed with hyper-masculine men might be dysgenic. In my experience, men with hyper-masculine traits are not very bright. There seems to be a tradeoff between left-brained thinking and traits like mesomorphy.
That’s the problem I have with guys like Jack Donovan. Does he want a society where women breed with dumb football players and tattooed morons in wifebeaters?
No. Obviously that’s not the society he wants.
In fact, that’s the most strawmanny strawman I’ve come across in quite a while. From a guy singing the praises of high IQ no less.
It was a question. A strawman is an argument composed of statements.
The Jewish population rewards intelligence, not masculinity. That’s why they figure so prominently in the sciences, humanities, law and finance. If their culture put a high premium on masculinity, they wouldn’t be as intelligent as they are.
Jews bred scholars, not warriors. That’s why they’re so rich and successful. If there’s a tradeoff (I haven’t studied this, only observed) then.
Most of the traits valued by the neomasculinity writers (physical strength, courage, assertiveness) are good, but they not ends in themselves. They are valuable to the extent that they have utility in warfare. They are traits that make men good cannon fodder. Why doesn’t he value conscientiousness and rationality?
We need good men to lead us, not musclebound men with tattoos who aren’t afraid to die.
Got no clue where you’re getting this idea that it’s Jews or “tattooed” strongmen.
If you want to argue about one of my assertions, feel free.
If you want to argue about one of Donovan’s assertions, read him.
“Psychological Eunuchs”
Almost as insulting, and definitely more obviously an insult, than when you call someone Last Man. I like it.
Agree entirely. I started off as a manosphere blogger myself, before achieving some form of self-actualisation through the pursuits of self-improvement I’d originally adopted for the sole purpose of getting more women to like me. In fact, I was only seeking the means to like myself, and once I did, it was only natural to turn my mind to loftier considerations, such as political philosophy and the ills of society at large, which is what lead me to find and start reading Neoreaction.
I can’t stress enough though of what benefit the practices I adopted during this period remain – lifting weights especially is something I believe any self-respecting man should do. The confidence and dominance that come from being physically large and strong can’t be underestimated.
The biggest problem I have with the denizens of the manosphere is that too many see it as a destination, rather than the stepping stone that it really is. But those that are most able of doing so naturally come out the other side of that particular stage of their journey.
The manosphere causes tens of thousands of young men to start to question the narrative they are being spoon-fed by society. They might not know how to structure the world, their lives, or even their relationships with women, but they definitely realize that “something” is deeply, deeply wrong. Some of them will then go on to the dark side of EvoBio, HBD, and other naughty disciplines. Then one day they find themselves doing deadlifts, reading Hoppe, and writing for Social Matter.
Bjørn
Just found this site from a web search leading me to the article about “The War for the Soul of the Internet”. Needless to say it’s a refreshing change from the condescending, progressive, pandering on major media sites by limp-wristed ninnies in horn rimmed glasses, or alternative niche blogs that although offer a reprieve from the relentless social justice poison, are always infested with pimpley teenage Limeys who masturbate to Dawkins.
I’m definitely curious to learn about the culture and community of this blog. Right away I have some questions, I see sharp criticism of PUAs but not for the reasons I’d expect (that it’s shallow, boring, and philosophically bankrupt), but not a peep about the female nature of which it’s such a biting indictment?
Also I see a lot of “society for the sake of society” attitudes or at least that’s what it seems like at first glance? I realize this is a conservative blog but give me a nation worth sacrificing for and I would entertain the idea of there being merit in that, but these men OWE NOTHING to the drain circling society that gave us a 14 trillion dollar debt and this god awful bellowing about “privuhlige” from every talking head, pampered princess, and career academic encountered. For all their personal shortcomings, the men of the Manosphere are being VERY rational when they talk of rethinking lifestyle altogether and demand a justification for corporate grind and family life. Besides, if this crop of failure-to-launches turns into a permanent trend like Japan with their “grass-eaters”, we found the surest way to dismantle a century’s worth of New Deals, Great Societies, and a military-industrial complex that sends a WWII sized army after 2-bit despots in the desert and loses to goat herders.
Welcome to the site. I’d encourage you to stick around, if you’re so inclined, and see for yourself what to make of the culture of this blog. It’s difficult to give an official answer to that sort of inquiry because the writers here aren’t exactly a monolithic bunch. Hadley is a crazy youngling of a crazy political theory bent. Dampier is an erudite and savvy man of the world. I’m a dime-store Jeremiah. And to boot there are some newer guys on the site that even I haven’t had the time to hash out yet. Frankly I don’t know how we all ended up here in the first place.