Last posts on virilisme2024-03-29T16:22:12+01:00All Rights Reserved blogSpirithttps://www.hautetfort.com/https://www.hautetfort.com/explore/posts/tag/virilisme/atom.xmlCreseveurhttp://creseveur.hautetfort.com/about.htmlMusk et Zuckerberg se défienttag:creseveur.hautetfort.com,2023-07-13:64520902023-07-13T13:51:27+02:002023-07-13T13:51:27+02:00
<p style="text-align: center;"><img id="media-6461531" style="margin: 0.7em 0;" title="" src="http://creseveur.hautetfort.com/media/01/00/2957678953.JPG" alt="Musk et Zuck se mesurent .JPG" /></p>
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlRévolution culturelle 2.0 : la lutte de la Chine contre la féminisation des hommestag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2021-11-25:63513142021-11-25T10:10:15+01:002021-11-25T10:10:15+01:00 Révolution culturelle 2.0 : la lutte de la Chine contre la...
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;"><img id="media-6313529" style="margin: 0.7em 0;" title="" src="http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/00/00/348944719.jpg" alt="000_8_TN_78_C_b9ae34334c.jpg" /></span></strong></p><p><span style="font-size: 24pt; font-family: 'arial black', sans-serif; color: #ff6600;"><strong>Révolution culturelle 2.0 : la lutte de la Chine contre la féminisation des hommes</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 18pt; font-family: 'arial black', sans-serif;"><strong><span style="color: #999999;">Alexander Markovics</span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;">Si l'on observe la jeunesse allemande et européenne, on constate de nombreux développements inquiétants: la féminisation de l'homme est omniprésente, les soi-disant "pop stars" deviennent des modèles individuels pour les adolescents. De plus en plus de jeunes se perdent dans les mondes virtuels des jeux vidéo, animés par le rêve de devenir une star du "sport électronique" ou un youtubeur connu et de gagner ainsi beaucoup d'argent. Ce style de vie matérialiste est la réalité d'un nombre croissant de jeunes - si l'on en croit les médias et les politiques occidentaux, il n'y a même pas d'alternative et fait partie d'un "développement individuel sain". Mais la Chine prouve qu'il existe aussi une alternative. </span></strong></p><p style="text-align: center;"><img id="media-6313531" style="margin: 0.7em 0;" title="" src="http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/02/00/726957670.jpg" alt="alibaba_100919.jpg" /></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;">Après que le parti communiste local a tenu en laisse le géant de la technologie Ali Baba (dont l'importance en République populaire est comparable à celle de Google en Occident), voici la prochaine étape de la révolution culturelle 2.0 : le président Xi Jinping appelle au rajeunissement national. Les influences d'une culture pop dégénérée venue du Japon et de la Corée du Sud, qui propage surtout des hommes dégingandés et efféminés comme modèles, sont une épine dans le pied des dirigeants communistes. Ceux-ci doivent désormais être bannis de la télévision, tout comme le culte des "célébrités vulgaires d'Internet" (comparable au blogueur allemand Rezo). </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;">Parallèlement, le parti met un terme à l'industrie des jeux vidéo et n'autorise les moins de 18 ans à ne jouer que trois heures par semaine. Outre la censure des contenus non patriotiques, le gouvernement tente ainsi de lutter contre le phénomène croissant de la dépendance aux jeux vidéo. Face à la menace croissante de l'Occident, récemment renforcée par la création de l'alliance militaire AUKUS entre les États-Unis, l'Australie et la Grande-Bretagne, Pékin mise sur le renforcement de sa propre culture dans cette guerre hybride, qui passe aussi de plus en plus par Internet et la culture pop. </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;">Au lieu de la folie décadente du gendérisme, il faut promouvoir "la culture traditionnelle chinoise, révolutionnaire et progressiste-socialiste". Pékin a donc compris l'avertissement de la Russie, où l'analyste Leonid Savin, entre autres, a attiré l'attention sur ce phénomène, à savoir que la guerre contre les peuples libres de ce monde est également menée par le biais des médias, dont font partie Internet et les jeux vidéo. Par conséquent, la Chine veut protéger sa jeunesse des influences néfastes de l'Occident, non pas parce qu'elle veut asservir ses peuples, mais parce que l'Empire du Milieu a compris que sa souveraineté ne peut pas être défendue par des mauviettes efféminées, des matérialistes uniquement préoccupés par leur solde bancaire, des narcissiques en quête de gloire et des homosexuels. </span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999999;">Pour cela, il est indispensable de combattre la "culture pop" occidentale partout où cela est possible, et ce de préférence par la promotion et la redécouverte de sa propre culture et de ses propres traditions. Celui qui se réfère à sa propre tradition dans la lutte contre le mondialisme peut l'emporter. Mais ceux qui misent sur la culture de la mondialisation ne peuvent que périr.</span></strong></p>
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlThe Rites of Manhood: Man’s Need for Ritualtag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2013-12-22:52498462013-12-22T00:05:00+01:002013-12-22T00:05:00+01:00 The Rites of Manhood: Man’s Need for Ritual by Brett & Kate...
<div class="headline_area"><span style="font-size: xx-large; color: #ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;">The Rites of Manhood: Man’s Need for Ritual </span></strong></span><p class="headline_meta" style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #c0c0c0;">by <span class="author vcard"><span class="fn">Brett & Kate McKay</span></span> </span></strong></p><p class="headline_meta" style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #c0c0c0;">Ex: http://www.artofmanliness.com</span></strong></p><p class="headline_meta" style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #c0c0c0;">in <a title="View all posts in A Man's Life" href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/category/a-mans-life/" rel="category tag"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">A Man's Life</span></a>, <a title="View all posts in On Manhood" href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/category/a-mans-life/manhood/" rel="category tag"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">On Manhood</span></a></span></strong></p></div><p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-37484" style="display: block;" src="http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/12/na22.jpg" alt="na2" width="500" height="327" data-lazy-loaded="true" /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Does modern life ever feel excruciatingly <em>flat</em> to you? A bleak landscape devoid of layers, rhythm, interest, <em>texture</em>?</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Are you ever haunted by the question <em>“Is this all there is?”</em></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Have you ever looked at an old photo and felt that the scene held such an inexplicable richness that it seemed you could practically step right into it?</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The barren flatness of modern life is rooted in many things, including mindless consumerism, the absence of significant challenges, and the lack of shared values and norms, or even shared taboos to rebel against. But what is the solution?</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Many would be quick to say faith, or philosophy, or relationships. All good answers.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">But what is it that vivifies beliefs to the extent they can transform your perspective not simply for an hour on Sunday, but also in the mundane moments throughout your week? What can move an understanding of abstract truths from your mind into your very sinews? What can transform superficial ties with others into deep and meaningful bonds?</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The answer I would suggest is <em>ritual</em>.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Our modern world is nearly devoid of rituals – at least in the way we traditionally think of them. Those that remain – such as ones that revolve around the holidays – have largely lost their transformative power and are often endured more than enjoyed, participated in as an obligatory going through of the motions. Ritual has today become associated with that which is rote, empty, meaningless.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Yet every culture, in every part of the world, in every era has engaged in rituals, suggesting they are a fundamental part of the human condition. Rituals have even been called our most basic form of technology – they are a mechanism that can change things, solve problems, perform certain functions, and accomplish tangible results. Necessity is the mother of invention, and rituals were born out of the clear-eyed perspective that life is inherently difficult and that unadulterated reality can paradoxically feel incredibly unreal. Rituals have for eons been the tools humans have used to release and express emotion, build their personal identity and the identity of their tribe, bring order to chaos, orient themselves in time and space, effect real transformations, and bring layers of meaning and texture to their lives. When rituals are stripped from our existence, and this fundamental human longing goes unsatisfied, restlessness, apathy, alienation, boredom, rootlessness, and <a href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/03/21/the-bucket-list-generation-in-the-age-of-anomie/"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">anomie</span></a> are the result.</span></strong></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">The Rites of Manhood</span></strong></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-37486" style="display: block;" src="http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/12/tr.jpg" alt="tr" width="414" height="510" data-lazy-loaded="true" /></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In the coming year we plan to do in-depth posts on some of the rituals that have been most central to the meaning and making of manhood, such as rites of passage, initiations, and oaths. This week we will be laying the foundation for these posts in two articles; the first will set up a definition of ritual, and the second will explore the many ways rituals are so vital for a full and meaningful life.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Today we’ll provide a little context as to the nature of ritual and why it has largely disappeared from modern societies.</span></strong></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">What Is Ritual?</span></strong></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><img class="aligncenter" style="display: block;" src="http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/12/greek.jpg" alt="greek" width="388" height="450" data-lazy-loaded="true" /></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">According to Catherine Bell, professor of ritual studies and author of the preeminent textbook on the subject, ritual has been traditionally defined as an action that lacks a “practical relationship between the means one chooses to achieve certain ends.” For example, shaking hands when you meet someone can be considered a ritual as there is no real reason why grabbing another’s hand and shaking for a second or two should lead to acquaintanceship. It is a culturally-relative gesture; we might very well greet each other with a pat on the shoulder or even no physical contact at all. As another example, washing your hands to clean them is not a ritual since there exists a clear practical relationship between your action and the desired result. But if a priest splashes water on his hands to “purify” them, that’s a ritual, since the water is largely symbolic and not really meant to rid the hands of bacteria.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Bell lists six attributes of rituals:</span></strong></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Formalism: This is a quality rooted in contrast and how restrictive or expressive the accepted code of behavior is for a given event/situation. For example a backyard picnic is very casual and will not feel like a ritual because there are few guidelines for how one may express oneself. A very formal dinner, on the other hand, has a more limited range of accepted behaviors and thus can feel quite ritual-like. Bell argues that while we sometimes see formality as stuffy, since it curbs more spontaneous expression, formalized activities are not “necessarily empty or trivial” and “can be aesthetically as well as politically compelling, invoking what one analyst describes as ‘a metaphoric range of considerable power, a simplicity and directness, a vitality and rhythm.’ The restriction of gestures and phrases to a small number that are practiced, perfected, and soon quite evocatively familiar can endow these formalized activities with great beauty and grace.”</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Traditionalism. Rituals are often framed as activities that carry on values and behaviors that have been in place since an institution’s creation. This link to the past gives the ritual power and authority and provides the participant with a sense of continuity. The ritual may simply harken to those who came before, as when university graduates don the gowns that were once typical everyday classroom wear for scholars, or it may actually seek to recreate a founding event – as in the American celebration of Thanksgiving.</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Disciplined invariance. Often seen as one of the most defining features of ritual, this attribute involves “a disciplined set of actions marked by precise repetition and physical control.” Think of soldiers marching in drill step or the sit/stand/kneel pattern followed by Catholics during the course of a Mass. Disciplined invariance suppresses “the significance of the personal and particular moment in favor of the timeless authority of the group, its doctrines, or its practices,” and “subordinates the individual and the contingent to a sense of the encompassing and the enduring.”</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Rule-governance. Rituals are often governed by a set of rules. Both war and athletics are examples of activities that can be quite ritual-like when their rules regulate what is and is not acceptable. Rules can both check and channel certain tensions; for example, the game of football channels masculine aggression into a form of ritualized and controlled violence. On occasion the rules fail to sufficiently check the tension that is always bubbling right at the surface, as when a chaotic brawl breaks out amongst players. That the game reflects a similar submerged tension within society at large is part of why the audience finds the ritual so compelling.</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Sacral symbolism. Ritual is able to take ordinary or “profane” objects, places, parts of the body, or images, and transform them into something special or sacred. “Their sacrality,” Bell writes, “is the way in which the object is more than the mere sum of its parts and points to something beyond itself, thereby evoking and expressing values and attitudes associated with larger, more abstract, and relatively transcendent ideas.” Thus something like incense can be a mere mixture of plants and oils designed to perfume a room, or, when swung from a censer, can represent the prayer of the faithful ascending into heaven.</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Performance. Performance is a particular kind of action – one that is done for an audience. A ritual always has an intended audience, even if that audience is God or oneself. Tom F. Driver, a professor of theology, argues that “performance…means both doing and showing.” It is not a matter of “show-and-tell, but do-and-show.” Human are inherently actors, who <a href="http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/07/11/heros-journey/"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">wish to see themselves as characters in a larger narrative</span></a>, and desire the kind of drama inherent in every timeless tale. Rituals function as narrative dramas and can satisfy and release this need. In the absence of ritual, people resort to doing their “showing” on social media and creating their own drama – often through toxic relationships or substances.</span></strong></li></ul><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The more of these attributes a behavior/event/situation invokes, the more different from everyday life and ritual-like it will seem. The fewer of these attributes present, the more casual and ordinary it will feel.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">For a more simple definition of ritual, here’s one that works: thought + action. A ritual consists of doing something in your mind (and often feeling something in your heart), while simultaneously connecting it to doing something with your body.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><img class="aligncenter" style="display: block;" src="http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/12/sacrifice.jpg" alt="sacrifice" width="424" height="281" data-lazy-loaded="true" /></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Rituals fall into a wide variety of categories. Theorist Ronald Grimes lists 16 of them:</span></strong></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Rites of passage</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Marriage rites</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Funerary rites</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Festivals</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Pilgrimage</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Purification</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Civil ceremonies</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Rituals of exchange (as in worshipers making sacrifices to the gods in hope of receiving blessings from the divine)</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Worship</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Magic</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Healing rites</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Interaction rites</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Meditation rites</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Rites of inversion (rituals of reversal, where violating cultural norms is temporarily allowed, as in men dressing like women)</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Sacrifice</span></strong></li><li><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Ritual drama</span></strong></li></ul><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The important thing to understand about rituals is that they are not limited to very big, very formal events. Rituals can in fact be large or small, private or public, personal or social, religious or secular, uniting or dividing, conformist or rebellious. Funerals, weddings, presidential inaugurations, church services, baptisms, fraternal initiations, and tribal rites of passage are all rituals. Handshakes, dates, greetings and goodbyes, tattoos, table manners, your morning jog, and even singing the Happy Birthday song can be rituals as well.</span></strong></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Whither Ritual?</span></strong></span></h3><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In many traditional societies, almost every aspect of life was ritualized. So why is there such a dearth of rituals in modern culture?</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The embrace of ritual in the Western World was first weakened by two things: the Protestant Reformation’s movement against icons and ceremonialism and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationalism.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><img class="aligncenter" style="display: block;" src="http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/12/mass.jpg" alt="mass" width="490" height="354" data-lazy-loaded="true" /></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Historian Peter Burke, argues “the Reformation was, among other things, a great debate, unparalleled in scale and intensity, about the meaning of ritual, its functions and its proper forms.” Many Protestants concluded that the kind of rituals the Catholic Church practiced gave too much emphasis to empty, outward forms, rather than one’s internal state of grace. They rejected the “magical efficacy” of rites to be able to do things like change bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The magical efficacy of ritual was attacked from the other side by Enlightenment thinkers. As disc
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlThe Origins of Manlinesstag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2012-05-12:47076222012-05-12T00:05:00+02:002012-05-12T00:05:00+02:00 The Origins of Manliness By F. Roger Devlin Ex:...
<div class="itemIntroText"><div><p style="text-align: center;"><img id="media-3571844" style="margin: 0.7em 0;" title="" src="http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/00/01/3682616053.jpg" alt="Horseman.jpg" /></p><h1 class="itemTitle" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: xx-large; font-family: arial black,avant garde; color: #ff6600;">The Origins of Manliness</span></h1></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><span class="itemAuthor" style="color: #c0c0c0;"> By <a title="F. Roger Devlin" href="http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/f.-roger-devlin/"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">F. Roger Devlin</span></a></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><span class="itemAuthor" style="color: #c0c0c0;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><span class="itemAuthor" style="color: #c0c0c0;">Ex: http://www.alternativeright.com/<br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><em><br /></em></span></strong></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; font-size: medium; color: #99cc00;"><strong><em><a href="http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #99cc00;">The Way of Men</span></a></em></strong></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">by Jack Donovan</span></strong></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde; font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">Milwaukee, OR: Dissonant Hum, 2012</span></strong></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Manliness rated high on ancient lists of the virtues; indeed, for the Romans, <em>virtus</em> designated both the general concept of virtue and manliness in particular. Today, as author Jack Donovan remarks, if manliness gets mentioned at all, it is usually made a vehicle for selling us on something else: “real men love Jesus” or “a real man would never hit a woman.”</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">How might we arrive at an objective understanding of manliness? <em>The Way of Men</em> looks to <em>Homo sapiens</em>’ environment of evolutionary adaptation, viz. life in small hunter-gatherer bands struggling for survival both with nature and with other similar bands. Civilization has not lasted long enough yet for us to become fully adapted to it.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The state of nature is not a world of individuals, as the early philosophers of liberalism imagined, but of cooperation in small groups or bands. The first aim of such cooperation is to establish and maintain possession of a territory for your band. Then you must guard the perimeter and acquire the means of sustenance—either by killing animals in the wild or by successfully raiding other bands.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Manliness, in the first instance, consists of whatever traits make for success at these tasks. Donovan calls them “tactical virtues,” and lists them as <em>strength</em>, <em>courage</em>, <em>mastery</em>, and <em>honor</em>. Strength and courage are more or less self-explanatory; mastery refers to competence in whatever skills are useful to one’s band: building, setting traps, making blades or arrows, and so on.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Honor in its most basic sense means “the primitive desire to hit back when hit, to show that you will stand up for yourself.” In a lawless situation, a man’s life may depend on his ability to make others afraid to harm or even show contempt for him, i.e., on avoiding any appearance of weakness or submissiveness. This raw form of honor can still be observed in prisons or amid Sicily’s <em>onorevole società</em>—i.e., among men who respect only force. With civilization, young men learn to honor their elders in spite of being physically able to beat them up. Gradually honor may come to be associated with such intangibles as knowledge or moral authority, but it never entirely escapes its origin in violence.</span></strong></p></div><div class="itemFullText"><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Donovan believes that the human male’s environment of evolutionary adaptation explains the modern man’s visceral disgust at flamboyant effeminacy in other men, something which several decades of homosexualist propaganda have not been able to alter. The explanation is that in a lawless situation, a man who rejects the male honor code brings shame upon his group and thereby weakens it. A man might rationalize this aversion or disgust by appealing, e.g., to the biblical condemnation of homosexuality, but his behavior has a much more visceral origin.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The author insists on the distinction between manliness and moral “goodness” in general:</span></strong></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In Shakespeare’s <em>Henry the Fifth</em>, the King promises his enemies that unless they surrendered, his men would rape their shrieking daughters, dash the heads of their old men, and impale their naked babies on pikes. [Yet] I can’t call Henry an unmanly character with a straight face.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">Hollywood is also well aware of men’s abiding fascination with amoral “tough guys.”</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">As civilization develops, combat is replaced by the safer, ritualized combat of athletic contests. Many men come to experience masculinity vicariously, for the most part. An increasing number turn their masculine instincts inward, and focus on “self-mastery, impulse control, disciplined behavior and perseverance.” Raw masculinity is tempered into manliness and assigned a place beside justice, temperance and other virtues not specific to the male sex.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">It is hard to deny that much of this represents a gain: the Victorian gentleman is surely an improvement over the Paleolithic hunter, not to mention MS-13. But something of masculinity does get sacrificed along the way, and the transition is difficult for many men to make. Donovan cites the <em>Epic of Gilgamesh</em>, composed back in the days when urban life was something new: “Here in the city man dies oppressed at heart, man perishes with despair in his heart.” Another character complains of growing weak and being oppressed by idleness.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">As Cochran and Harpending have shown (see <em>The Ten Thousand Year Explosion</em>, pp. 65<em>ff</em>), human beings have adapted to settled civilization to some degree in the ages since Gilgamesh—but few have adapted enough to feel at their ease amid the unprecedented effeminacy of the present age.</span></strong></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In the future that globalists and feminists have imagined, only a few people will do anything worth doing. For most of us there will only be more apologizing, more submission, more asking for permission, more examinations, more certifications, background checks, video safety presentations, counseling and sensitivity training.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In short, we are becoming the society William James predicted “of clerks and teachers, of co-education and zoophily, of consumers’ leagues and associated charities, of industrialism unlimited and feminism unabashed.”</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In one of the most interesting sections of his book, Donovan discusses two species of great ape: the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. These were formerly considered varieties of a single species: they look very similar, are interfertile, and their territories are contiguous. Yet closer examination revealed that they differ radically in their behavior.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">The gist of the difference is that Chimp society is organized along male lines while Bonobos behave like proto-feminists. Male Chimps form alliances, females don’t. Among Bonobos, it is females that maintain social networks, while males don’t. Male Chimps batter their mates; male Bonobos don’t. Female Chimps acknowledge male dominance; female Bonobos don’t. Male Chimps patrol the border of their territory and make raids on other groups; male Bonobos do neither.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><img id="media-3571847" style="margin: 0.7em 0;" title="" src="http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/01/02/746868477.jpg" alt="tumblr_lkr1rmpts81qbmmkpo1_500.jpg" /></span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">What causes these differences? It turns out that Chimps <em>must hunt to survive</em>; Gorillas and other rivals take most of the vegetable nourishment in their territory. Bonobos have no such rivals, so they simply live off the abundant vegetable food available to them. Female Bonobos can provide for themselves, so males are less valuable to them and less respected by them. While Chimps mate to produce offspring, Bonobos are “sexually liberated,” mating for pleasure and socialization. (The female great ape is no more “naturally monogamous” than the female human.) Homosexual behavior is also common among them.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;">In short, the “Bonobo masturbation society,” as Donovan terms it, is the natural end-product of feminism, which is a natural response to a long run of abundance and safety. A lot of effort is being put into selling men on a vision of the future as more of what we have today: more food and drink, more security, more labor-saving devices, more vicarious sex, more vicarious masculinity, more real effeminacy.</span></strong></p><p style="text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #c0c0c0;"><em>The Way of Men</em> closes with some recommendations for men who are not thrilled by this prospect. The author believes that the future mapped out for us is “based on unsustainable illusions and lies about human nature.” It is already falling, and only needs a push. Men will <em>not</em> be able to challenge the system directly, but they can encourage fission around the edges. As central authority loses the loyalty of an increasing number of men, we are likely to witness a kind of social atavism, as men begin forming small groups—gangs, in fact—to protect their interests. Eventually nature will triumph, as it always does, and men will “follow their own way into a future that belongs to men.”</span></strong></p></div>
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlThe Art of Manlinesstag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2011-03-17:31446012011-03-17T00:10:00+01:002011-03-17T00:10:00+01:00 The Art of Manliness Jef COSTELLO ...
<div id="container"><div id="content"><div id="nav-above" class="navigation"><span style="font-size: xx-large; color: #ff6600; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong>The Art of Manliness</strong></span></div><div class="navigation"><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"> </span></strong></span></div><div class="navigation"><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">Jef COSTELLO</span></strong></span></div><div class="navigation"><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"> </span></strong></span></div><div class="navigation"><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong><span style="color: #c0c0c0;">Ex: <a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/">http://www.counter-currents.com/</a></span></strong></span></div><div id="post-10383" class="hentry p1 post publish author-jef-costello category-nanr tag-book-reviews tag-brett-and-kate-mckay tag-emasculation tag-feminism tag-homosexuality tag-jef-costello tag-manliness tag-modernity tag-north-american-new-right tag-originals tag-the-art-of-manliness comments-open pings-open y2011 m03 d06 h01 slug-the-art-of-manliness"><!-- .entry-meta --><div class="entry-content"><p><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0;"><a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Art-of-Manliness.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-10384" style="float: left;" title="Art-of-Manliness" src="http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Art-of-Manliness-200x300.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="300" /></a></span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Brett and Kate McKay</span></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ff6600;"><strong><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><em><a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','www.amazon.com']);" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1600614620?ie=UTF8&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1600614620">The Art of Manliness: Classic Skills and Manners for the Modern Man</a><img style="margin: 0px; border-style: none! important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=countecurrenp-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1600614620" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></em></span></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium; color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Cincinnati: How Books, 2009</span></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">It’s hard not to like this book. However, it’s really the <em>idea</em> of the book that I like, rather than the book itself. In fact, I almost hesitate to write this review (which will not be wholly positive) because I think the authors have their hearts in the right place, and because I like their website <a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','artofmanliness.com']);" href="http://artofmanliness.com/" target="_blank">http://artofmanliness.com/</a></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">When I showed this book to a young friend of mine he was incredulous: “Do we really need a manual on being a man?” he asked. Well, yes it appears we do. As the authors say in their introduction “something happened in the last fifty years to cause . . . positive manly virtues and skills to disappear from the current generations of men.” They don’t really tell us what they think that something is, but two paragraphs later they remark: “Many people have argued that we need to reinvent what manliness means in the twenty-first century. Usually this means stripping manliness of its masculinity and replacing it with more sensitive feminine qualities. We argue that masculinity doesn’t need to be reinvented.”</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">I wanted to let out a cheer at this point, but I was sitting in the American Film Academy Café in Greenwich Village, surrounded by young white male geldings and their Asian girlfriends. So I kept my mouth shut and noted to myself that the McKays are clearly not PC, though there are minor nods to political correctness here are there. One gets the feeling that they know more than they are letting on in this book. And one gets the feeling they are employing a simple and sound strategy: to seduce male readers with the natural appeal of traditional manliness – while revealing just-so-much of their political incorrectness so as not to completely alienate their over-socialized readers.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Still, the McKays are pretty socialized themselves, and one sees this immediately on opening the book and finding that it is dedicated to two members of “the greatest generation.” Ugh. Yes, I do think there’s much to admire about my grandfather’s generation, but I long ago came to detest the conventional-minded romanticism about America’s great crusade in WWII. And the very use of the phrase “greatest generation” has become a cliché.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">However, the real trouble begins after the introduction, when one finds that the first section of the book is devoted to how to get fitted for a suit. Then we are instructed in how to tie a tie. For some unaccountable reason the tying of the Windsor knot is included here. (Like Ian Fleming, I have always regarded the Windsor knot as a mark of a vain and unserious man.) This is followed by sections on how to select a hat, how to iron a shirt, how to shave, and how not to be a slob at the dinner table. So far so good: I know all this stuff, so I guess I’m pretty manly. Of course, the problem here is that this is all in the realm of appearance. To be fair, the McKays do go on to include much in their book about character, but one must wade through a lot of inessential stuff to get there.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">At one point we are instructed in how to deliver a baby. The McKays’ core piece of advice here is “get professional help!” Curiously, this is also the central tenet of their brief lectures on dealing with a snakebite and landing a plane. The baby having been delivered, the reader will find further instructions on how to change a diaper and how to braid your daughter’s hair. (This is what happens when you co-author a book with your wife.) The McKays’ advice on raising children is sound. They advise us not to try and be our child’s best friend.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Once you have tended to your daughter’s snakebite and braided her hair (in that order, please), you can turn to manlier things like how to win a fight, how to break down a door, how to change a flat tire, how to jump start a car, how to go camping, how to navigate by the stars, and how to tie knots. Then it will be Miller time, and you will want some manly friends to hang out with.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">The section on male friendship, in fact, is one of the best parts of the book. The McKays remind us that in ancient times “men viewed male friendship as the most fulfilling relationship a person [i.e., a man] could have.” They attribute this, however, to the fact that men saw women as inferior. This is at best a half-truth. The real reason men saw male friendship as more fulfilling than relations with women is because it is. There are vast differences between men and women, and while they may be able to have close, loving relationships they never really understand each other, and their values clash.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Women are primarily concerned with the perpetuation of the species. They are the peacemakers, who just want us all to get along, because their main concern is what Bill Clinton called “the children.” By contrast, men find their greatest fulfillment in achieving something outside the home: they are only fully alive when they are fighting for some kind of value. A man can only be truly understood by another man.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Thus was born what the McKays refer to as “the heroic friendship”: “The heroic friendship was a friendship between two men that was intense on an emotional and intellectual level. Heroic friends felt bound to protect one another from danger.” The McKays devote some discussion to the decline of close male friendships, and they have a lot to say about the disappearance of affection among male friends.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">A while back I found myself in a bookstore flipping through a book of photographs from WWII. Many of them depicted soldiers, sailors, and marines relaxing or goofing around. What was remarkable about many of these pictures was the affection the men displayed for one another. There was one photo, for example, of a sailor asleep with his head in another sailor’s lap. This is the sort of thing that would be impossible today, because of fear of being thought “gay.” The McKays mention this problem. As George Will once said, the love that dare not speak its name just can’t seem to shut up lately. And it has ruined male bonding. Thus was born the “man hug” with the three slaps on the back that say I’M (THUMP) NOT (THUMP) GAY (THUMP). (Yes, the McKays instruct us on how to perform the man hug in both its American and international versions.)</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Another thing that has ruined male friendships is women, but in a number of different ways. First of all, as every man knows, women have now invaded countless previously all-male areas in life. This usually results in ruining them for men. Second, many women resent it when their husbands or partners want to spend time with their male friends. In earlier times, men would spend a significant amount of time away from their wives working or playing with male peers. But no longer. Now women expect to be their husband’s “best friend,” and men today passively go along with this. The result is that they often become completely isolated from their male friends. It is quite common today, in fact, for men to expect that marriage means the end of their friendship with another man. Please note that all of the above problems have only been made possible by the cooperation of men – by their not being manly enough to say “no” to women.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Eventually, one finds the McKays dealing with matters having to do with manly character, such as their discussion of the characteristics of good leadership. A lot of what they have to say is sound advice, but it is not without its problems. At one point they invoke old Ben Franklin and his homey list of virtues. Anyone interested in this topic should read D. H. Lawrence’s <a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/benjamin-franklin/" target="_self">hilarious demolition of Franklin</a> in <em>Studies in Classic American Literature</em>. Franklin is the archetypal American, extolling (among other things) temperance, frugality, industry, and cleanliness. This is setting our sights <em>very</em> low, and it’s not the least bit manly. If I’m going to take lessons in manliness from an American I’d much rather get them from Charles Manson.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">There are other problems I could go on about, such as the McKays advising us to give up porn because it “objectifies women” (“But that’s the whole point!” a friend of mine responded when I told him this). However, as I said earlier, their heart is in the right place. Whatever its flaws, this book is a celebration of traditional manhood and an honest, well-intentioned attempt to improve men.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Still, there is something undeniably creepy and postmodern about this book. If you follow all of its instructions you won’t be a traditional manly man, you’ll be an incredible, life-like simulation of one. The reason is that everything they talk about came <em>naturally</em> to our forebears. It flowed from their characters, and their characters flowed from their life experience. But their life experience was quite different from ours. They were not constantly shielded from danger and from risk taking. They had myriad ways open to them to express and refine their manly spirit. They had manly rites of passage. Their spirits were not crushed by decades of PC propagandizing. They had been tested by wars, famines, depressions. They were tough sons of bitches, and nobody needed to tell them how to win a fight. And if you tried to tell them how to braid their daughters’ hair you’d better be ready for a fight.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">True manliness is not the result of acquiring the sort of “how to” knowledge the McKays try to provide us with. Manliness is not an art, not a <em>techne</em> – but it’s inevitable that we moderns, even good moderns like the McKays, would think that it is. Manliness is a <em>way of being</em> forged through trials and tribulations. In a world without trials and tribulations, in the “safe” and “nice” modern, industrial, liberal, democratic world it’s not at all clear that true manliness is possible anymore. Except, perhaps, through rejecting that world. The subtext to <em>The Art of Manliness</em> is anti-modern. But the achievement (or resurrection) of manliness has to raise that anti-modernism out from between the lines and make it the central point.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">At its root, modernity is the suppression of manly virtues and manly values. This is the key to understanding the nature of the modern world and our dissatisfaction with it. Manliness today can only be truly asserted through revolt against all the forces arrayed against manliness – through <a onclick="_gaq.push(['_trackEvent','outbound-article','www.amazon.com']);" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089281506X?ie=UTF8&tag=countecurrenp-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=089281506X">revolt against the modern world</a><img style="margin: 0px; border-style: none! important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=countecurrenp-20&l=as2&o=1&a=089281506X" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" />.</span></strong></p><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><strong><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><script type="text/javascript"></script></span></strong></div></div></div></div>
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlJack Malebranche's Androphilia: A Manifestotag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2010-10-10:29307082010-10-10T00:15:00+02:002010-10-10T00:15:00+02:00 Jack Malebranche’s Androphilia: A Manifesto Derek Hawthorne...
<h1 class="entry-title"><span style="font-size: xx-large; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: arial black,avant garde;">Jack Malebranche’s <em>Androphilia: A Manifesto</em></span></h1><div class="entry-meta"><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;"><a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/androphilia.jpg"><span style="color: #000000;"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-4771" style="float: left;" title="androphilia" src="http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/androphilia.jpg" alt="" width="178" height="284" /></span></a></span><a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/androphilia.jpg"></a><span style="font-size: large; font-family: arial black,avant garde;">Derek Hawthorne</span></span></div><div class="entry-content"><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: arial black,avant garde;">Ex: <a href="http://www.counter-currents.com/">http://www.counter-currents.com/</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Jack Malebranche (Jack Donovan)</span><br /><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><strong><em>Androphilia: A Manifesto</em></strong></span><br /><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Baltimore, Md.: Scapegoat Publishing, 2006</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Near the end of <em>Androphilia</em>, Jack Donovan writes “It has always seemed like some profoundly ironic cosmic joke to me that the culture of men who love men is a culture that deifies women and celebrates effeminacy. Wouldn’t it make more sense if the culture of men who are sexually fascinated by men actually idolized men and celebrated masculinity?” (p. 115).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">He has a point there. As Donovan notes, homosexual porn is almost exclusively focused on hypermasculine archetypes: the lumberjack, the marine, the jock, the cop, etc. (I am going to employ the term “homosexual,” despite its problematic history, as a neutral term to denote same-sex desire among men. I am avoiding the term “gay,” for reasons that will soon be apparent.) So why are homosexuals, who worship masculine men, so damn queeny? Most straight men (and women too) would offer what they see as the obvious answer: homosexuals are not real men. They are a sort of strange breed of womanly man, and it is precisely the <em>otherness</em> of masculine men that attracts them so. This is, after all, the way things work with straight people: men are attracted to women, and vice versa, because they are other. We want what we are not. Therefore, if a man desires another man then he must not be a real man.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">What makes this theory so plausible is that so many self-identified homosexuals do behave in the most excruciatingly effeminate manner. They certainly seem to be not-quite-men. Donovan thinks (and I believe he is correct) that it is this womanish behavior in homosexuals that bothers straight men so much – more so, actually, than the fact that homosexuals have sex with other men in the privacy of their bedrooms.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Donovan objects to effeminacy in homosexuals as well, but he sees this effeminacy as a socially-constructed behavior pattern; as a consequence of the flawed logic that claims “since we’re attracted to what’s other, if you’re a man attracted to a man you must not be a real man.” Having bought into this way of seeing things, the “gay community” actually encourages its members to “camp it up” and get in touch with their feminine side. They think they are liberating themselves, but what they don’t see is that they have bought into a specific set of cultural assumptions which effectively rob them of their manhood, in their own eyes and in the eyes of society.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Donovan argues, plausibly, that homosexual attraction should be seen as a “variation in desire” among men (p. 21). Homosexuals are men — men who happen to be attracted to other men. Their sexual desire does not make them into a separate species of quasi-men. This is a point that will be resisted by many, but it is easily defended. One can see this simply by reflecting on how difficult it is to comprehend the homosexuals of yore in the terms we use today to deal with these matters. There was, after all, unlikely to have been anything “queeny” (and certainly not cowardly) about the Spartan 300, who were 150 homosexual couples. And the samurai in feudal Japan were doing it too — just to mention two examples. These are not the sort of people one thinks of as “sensitive” and who one would expect to show up at a Lady Gaga concert, were they around today. It is unlikely that Achilles and his “favorite” Patroclus would have cruised around with a rainbow flag flying from their chariot. These were manly men, who happened to sexually desire other men. If there can be such men, then there is no necessary disjunction between homosexuality and masculinity. QED.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">In essential terms, what Donovan argues in <em>Androphilia</em> is that homosexuals should reject the “gay culture” of effeminacy and reclaim masculinity for themselves. Ironically, gay culture is really the product of an internalization of the Judeo-Christian demonization of same-sex desire, and its insistence that homosexuality and masculinity are incompatible. Donovan wants gays to become “androphiles”: men who love men, but who are not defined by that love. “Gay men” are men who allow themselves to be defined entirely by their desire, defined into a separate segment of humanity that talks alike, walks alike, dresses alike, thinks alike, votes alike, and has set itself apart from “breeders” in fashionable urban ghettos. “Gay” really denotes a whole way of life “that promotes anti-male feminism, victim mentality, and leftist politics” (p. 18). (This is the reason Donovan often uses “homo” instead of “gay”: gay is a package deal denoting much more than same-sex desire.) He argues that in an effort to promote acceptance of men with same-sex desire, homosexuals encouraged others to regard them as, in effect, a separate sex — really, almost a separate race. “Gay,” Donovan remarks, is really “sexuality as ethnicity” (p. 18). As a result, gay men have cut themselves off from the fraternity of men and, arguably, trapped themselves in a lifestyle that stunts them into perpetual adolescence. Donovan asks, reasonably, “Why should I identify more closely with a lesbian folk singer than with [straight] men my age who share my interests?”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Many of those who have made it this far into my review might conclude now that <em>Androphilia</em> is really a book for homosexuals, and doesn’t have much to say to the rest of the world. But this is not the case. Donovan’s book contains profound reflections on sexuality and its historical construction (yes, there really are some things that are historically constructed), the nature of masculinity, the role of male bonding in the formation of culture, and the connection between masculinity and politics. This book has implications for how men — all men — understand themselves.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Donovan attacks head-on the attempt by gays to set themselves up as an “oppressed group” on the model of blacks and women, and to compel all of us to refrain from uttering a critical word about them. He attacks feminism as the anti-male ideology it is. And he zeroes in on the connection, taken for granted by nearly everyone, between gay culture and advocacy of left-wing causes. <em>Androphilia</em>, in short, is a book that belongs squarely on the political right. It should be no surprise to anyone to discover that Donovan has been busy since the publication of <em>Androphilia</em> writing for sites like <em>Alternative Right</em> and <em>Spearhead</em>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Donovan himself was a part of the gay community when he was younger, but never really felt like he belonged. He so much as tells us that his desire for men is his religion; that he worships masculinity in men. But it seemed natural to Donovan that since he was a man, he should cultivate in himself the very qualities he admired in others. His desire was decidedly not for an “other” but for the very qualities that he saw, proudly, in himself. (He says at one point, “I experience androphilia not as an attraction to some alien opposite, but as an attraction to variations in sameness,” p. 49).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Donovan is certainly not alone. It’s natural when we think of homosexuals to visualize effeminate men, because those are the ones that stand out. If I asked you to visualize a Swede you’d probably conjure up a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic exemplar. But, of course, a great many Swedes are brunettes (famous ones, too; e.g., Ingmar Bergman). The effeminate types are merely the most conspicuous homosexuals. But there also exists a silent multitude of masculine men who love men, men whom no one typically pegs as “gay.” These men are often referred to as “straight acting” — as if masculinity in a homosexual is necessarily some kind of act. These men are really Donovan’s target audience, and they live a tragic predicament. They are masculine men who see their own masculinity as a virtue, thus they cannot identify with what Donovan calls the Gay Party (i.e., “gay community”) and its celebration of effeminacy. They identify far more closely with straight men, who, of course, will not fully accept them. This is partly due to fear (“is he going to make a pass at me?”), and partly, again, due to the prevailing view which equates same-sex desire with lack of manliness. The Jack Donovans out there are lost between two worlds, at home in neither. Loneliness and sexual desire compels such men to live on the periphery of the gay community, hoping always to find someone like themselves. If they have at all internalized the message that their desires make them less-than-men (and most have), then their relationship to masculinity will always be a problematic one. They will always have “something to prove,” and always fear, deep down, that perhaps they are inadequate in some fundamental way.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><em>Androphilia</em> is therapy for such men, and a call for them to form a new identity and group solidarity quite independent of the “gay community.” On the one hand, Donovan asserts that, again, homosexuality should be seen as a “variation in desire” among men; that homosexuals should see themselves as men first, and not be defined entirely by their same-sex desire. On the other hand, it is very clear that Donovan also has high hopes that self-identified androphiles will become a force to be reckoned with. He writes at one point, “While other men struggle to keep food on the table or get new sneakers for Junior, androphiles can use their extra income to fund their endeavors. This is a significant advantage. Androphiles could become <em>leaders</em> of men in virtually any field with comparative ease. By holding personal achievement in high esteem, androphiles could become more than men; they could become <em>great</em> men” (p. 88).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Is Jack Donovan — the androphile Tyler Durden — building an army? Actually, it looks more like he’s building a religion, and this brings us to one of the most interesting aspects of <em>Androphilia</em>. Repeatedly, Donovan tells us that “masculinity is a religion,” or words to that effect (see especially pp. 65, 72, 76, 80, 116).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">A first step to understanding what he is talking about is to recognize that masculinity is an ideal, and a virtue. Men strive to cultivate masculinity in themselves, and they admire it in other men. Further, masculinity is something that has to be achieved. Better yet, it has to be <em>won</em>. Femininity, on the other hand, is quite different. Femininity is essentially a state of being that simply comes with being female; it is not an accomplishment. Women <em>are</em>, but men must <em>become</em>. If femininity has anything to do with achievement, the achievement usually consists in artifice: dressing in a certain manner, putting on makeup, learning how to be coy, etc. Femininity is almost exclusively bound up with being attractive to men. If a man’s “masculinity” consisted in dressing butch and not shaving, he would be laughed at; his “masculinity” would be essentially effeminate. (Such is the masculinity, for example, of gay “bears” and “leatherman.”) Similarly, if a man’s “masculinity” consists entirely in pursuing women and making himself attractive to them, he is scorned by other men. (Ironically, such “gigolos” are often far more effeminate mama’s boys than many homosexuals.) No, true masculinity is achieved by accomplishing something difficult in the world: by fighting, building something, discovering something, winning a contest, setting a record, etc. In order for it to count, a man has to overcome things like fear and opposition. He has to exhibit such virtues as bravery, perseverance, commitment, consistency, integrity, and, often, loyalty. Masculinity is inextricably tied to virtue (which is no surprise — given that the root <em>vir-</em>, from which we also get “virile,” means “man”). A woman can be petty, fickle, dishonest, fearful, inconstant, weak, and unserious — and still be thought of as 100% feminine.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">A woman can also be the butchest nun, women’s lacrosse coach, or dominatrix on the planet and never be in any danger of someone thinking she’s “not a real woman.” With men, it’s completely different. As the example of homosexuals illustrates, it is quite possible to have a y chromosome and be branded “not a real man.” Masculinity, again, is an ideal that men are constantly striving to realize. The flip side of this is that they live in constant fear of some kind of failure that might rob them of masculinity in their eyes or the eyes of others. They must “live up” to the title of “man.” Contrary to the views of modern psychologists and feminists, this does not indicate a “problem” with men that they must somehow try to overcome. If men did not feel driven to make their mark on the world and prove themselves worthy of being called men, there would be no science, no philosophy, no art, no music, no technology, no exploration.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">“But there would also be no war, no conflict, no competition!” feminists and male geldings will shriek in response. They’re right: there would be none of these things. And the world would be colorless and unutterably boring.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">As Camille Paglia famously said, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” She also said “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” What this really means is that given the nature of men, we can’t have Mozart without Jack the Ripper. So be it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">It should now be a bit clearer why Donovan says that “masculinity is a religion.” To quote him more fully, “masculinity is not just a quality shared by many men, but also an ideal to which men collectively aspire. Masculinity is a religion, one that naturally resonates with the condition of maleness. Worship takes place at sports arenas, during action films, in adventure novels and history books, in frat houses, in hunting lodges” (p. 65).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Earlier in the book he writes: “All men appreciate masculinity in other men. They appreciate men who are manly, who embody what it means to be a man. They admire and look up to men who are powerful, accomplished or assertive. . . . Men respectfully acknowledge another man’s impressive size or build, note a fierce handshake, or take a friendly interest in his facial hair. . . . Sportscasters and fans speak lovingly of the bodies and miraculous abilities of their shared heroes. . . . While straight men would rather not discuss it because they don’t want to be perceived as latent homosexuals, they do regularly admire one another’s bodies at the gym or at sporting events” (p. 22). None of this is “gay,” “latently gay,” or “homoerotic.” This is just men admiring manliness. One of the sad consequences of “gay liberation” (and Freudian psychology) is that straight men must now police their behavior for any signs that might be read as “latency.” And gay liberation has destroyed male bonding. Just recently I re-watched Robert Rossen’s classic 1961 film <em>The Hustler</em>. In the opening scene, an old man watches a drunken Paul Newman playing pool and remarks to a friend, “Nice looking boy. Clean cut. Too bad he can’t hold his liquor.” No straight man today would dream of openly admiring another man’s appearance and describing him as “nice looking,” even though there need be nothing sexual in this at all.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Of course, there <em>is</em> something decidedly sexual in androphilia. The androphile admires masculinity in other men also, but he has a sexual response to it. An androphile may admire all the same qualities in a man that a straight man would, but the androphile gets turned on by them. Here we must note, however, that although the straight man admires masculinity in men he generally spends a lot less time reflecting on it than an androphile does. And there are innumerable qualities in men (especially physical qualities) which androphiles notice, but which many straight men are completely oblivious to. In fact, one of the characteristics of manly men is a kind of obliviousness to their own masculine attractiveness. Yes, straight men admire masculinity in other men and in themselves — but this is often not something that is brought fully to consciousness. No matter how attractive he may be, if a man is vain, his attractiveness is undercut — and so is his masculinity. Men are attractive — to women and to androphiles — to the extent that their masculinity is something natural, unselfconscious, unaffected, and seemingly effortless. Oddly, <em>lack of self-consciousness</em> does seem to be a masculine trait. Think of the single-minded warrior, uncorrupted by doubt and introspection, forging ahead without any thought for how he seems to others, unaware of how brightly his virtue and heroism shine.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">What all this means is that androphilia is <em>masculinity brought to self-consciousness</em>. To put it another way, the androphile is masculinity brought to awareness of itself. It is in the androphile that all that is good and noble and beautiful in the male comes to be consciously reflected upon and affirmed. It is in androphiles like Jack Donovan that the god of masculinity is consciously thematized as a god, and worshipped. Masculinity is a religion, he tells us again and again.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Now, I said a few lines earlier that <em>lack</em> of self-consciousness seems to be a masculine trait. If in androphiles a greater self-consciousness of masculinity is achieved, doesn’t this mean that androphiles are somehow unmasculine? Actually what it means is that they are potentially <em>hyper</em>-masculine. It is true that we admire unselfconscious figures like Siegfried or Arjuna, because they seem to possess a certain purity. But such men are always ultimately revealed to be merely the plaything of forces over which they have no control. Greater still then a naïve, unselfconscious purity is the power of an awakened man, who consciously recognizes and cultivates his virtues, striving to take control of his destiny and to perfect himself. This is part and parcel of the ideal of <em>spiritual virility</em> Julius Evola spoke of so often.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">The difference between Siegfried and Arjuna is that the latter had the god Krishna around to awaken him. Krishna taught him that he is indeed a plaything of forces over which he has no control. But Arjuna then <em>affirmed</em> this, affirmed his role in the cosmic scheme as the executioner of men, and became the fiercest warrior that had ever lived.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Most men unconsciously follow the script of masculinity, pushed along by hormones to realize the masculine ideal — usually only to find the same hormones putting them in thrall to women and, later, children. Androphiles consciously recognize and affirm masculinity, and because their erotic desires are directed towards other men, they have the potential to achieve far more in the realm of masculine accomplishment than those who, again, have to “struggle to keep food on the table or get new sneakers for Junior.” Thus, far from being “unmasculine,” androphiles have it within their power to become, well, <em>Overmen</em>. Androphiles have awakened to the god in themselves and other men. There is an old saying on the Left Hand Path: “There is no god above an awakened man.” There is also no man above an awakened man. So much for the idea that a man’s love for other men is a badge of inferiority.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Implicit in the above is something I have not remarked on thus far, and that Donovan does not discuss: the duality in the masculine character. It is a rather remarkable thing, as I alluded to earlier, that testosterone both makes a man want to fight, to strive, and to explore — and also to inseminate a woman and tie himself down to home and family. Of course, without that latter effect the race would die out. But it is nevertheless the case that men are pulled in two directions, just by being men: towards heaven and towards earth. To borrow some terms from Evola again, they have within themselves both <em>uranic</em> and <em>chthonic</em> tendencies. Modern biologists have a way of dealing with this: they insist that all of life is nothing but competition for resources and reproduction. Thus, all of men’s uranic striving, all of their quest for the ideal, all of their adventures and accomplishments, are nothing more than ways in which they make themselves more attractive to females. This is sheer nonsense: nothing but the mindset of modern, middle-class, hen-pecked professors projected onto all of nature.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">The truth is that men strive to realize the ideal of masculinity in ways that not only have nothing to do with the furtherance of the species, but are often positively inimical to it. Perhaps the best and most extreme example of masculine toughness one could give is the willingness of the samurai to disembowel themselves over questions of honor. Men strive for ideals, often at the expense of life. Masculinity has a dimension that can best be described as supernatural — as above nature. Women are far more tied to nature than men are, and this (and not sexist oppression) is the real reason why it is almost exclusively men who have been philosophers, priests, mystics, scientists, and artists. It is woman’s job to pull man back to earth and perpetuate life.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">One way to look at androphilia is that it is not just the masculine come to consciousness of itself, but the masculine ridding itself of the “natural.” This “natural” side of the man is not without value (again, without it we would go extinct), but it has almost nothing to do with what makes men great. The androphile is free to cultivate the <em>truly</em> masculine aspects of the male soul, because he is free of the pull of the feminine and of the natural. This has to have something to do with why it is that so many great philosophers, artists, writers, mystics, and others, have tended to be androphiles. In 1913, D. H. Lawrence wrote the following to a correspondent: “I should like to know why nearly every man that approaches greatness tends to homosexuality, whether he admits it or not: so that he loves the <em>body</em> of a man better than the body of a woman — as I believe the Greeks did, sculptors and all, by far. . . . He can always get satisfaction from a man, but it is the hardest thing in life to get one’s soul and body satisfied from a woman, so that one is free for oneself. And one is kept by all tradition and instinct from loving a man.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">The androphile, again, is masculinity brought to consciousness of itself — and in him, it would seem, much else is brought to consciousness as well. For what else are science, philosophy, religion, art, and poetry but the world brought to consciousness of itself? These things — which are almost exclusively the products of men — are what set us apart and make us unique as a species. Human beings (again, almost exclusively men), unlike all other species, are capable of reflecting upon and understanding the world. We do this in scientific and philosophical theories, but also in fiction, poetry, and painting. Some of us, of course, are more capable of this than others — capable of achieving this reflective stance towards existence itself. And it would seem that of those men that are, some carry things even further and become fully aware of the masculine ideal that they themselves represent. And they fall in love with this. Sadly, androphile writers, artists, poets, etc., have often bought into the notion that their desire for other men makes them unmasculine and, like Oscar Wilde, have shoe-horned themselves into the role of the decadent, effeminate aesthete.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">I think that when Donovan describes masculinity as a religion this is not just a desire to be provocative. I think he does experience his admiration for men as sacred. If this is the case, then it is natural for men who feel as he does to insist that such a feeling <em>cannot</em> be indecent or perverse. Further, it is natural for them to wonder why there are men such as themselves. What I have tried to do in the above reflections (which go beyond what Donovan says in his book) is to develop a theory of the “cosmic role,” if you will, of the masculine itself, and of the androphile. I believe Donovan is thinking along the same lines I am, though he might not express things the same way. He writes at one point:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">Masculinity is a religion, and I see potential for androphiles to become its priests — to devote themselves to it and to the gods of men as clergymen devote their lives to the supernatural. What other man can both embody the spirit of manhood and revere it with such perfect devotion? This may sound far-fetched, but is it? If so, then why? Forget about gay culture and everything you associate with male homosexuality. Strip it down to its raw essence — a man’s sexual desire for men — and reimagine the destiny of that man. Reimagine what this desire focused on masculinity could mean, what it could inspire, and who the men who experience it <em>could</em> become. (p. 116)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">There is much else in Androphilia that is well-worth discussing, though a review cannot cover everything. Particularly worthy of attention is Donovan’s discussion of masculinity in terms of what he calls physical masculinity, essential masculinity, and cultural masculinity. Then there is Donovan’s discussion of masculine “values.” These really should be called “virtues” (especially given the etymology of this word — mentioned earlier — Donovan his missed a bit of an opportunity here!). The language of “values” is very modern. What he really has in mind is virtues in the Aristotelian sense of <em>excellences</em> of the man. Donovan lists such qualities as self-reliance, independence, personal responsibility, achievement, integrity, etc. He starts to sound a bit like Ayn Rand in this part of the book, but it’s hard to quarrel with his message. The book ends with a perceptive discussion of “gay marriage,” which Donovan opposes, seeing it as yet another way in which gays are aping straight relationships, yearning narcissistically for society’s “approval.”</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #c0c0c0; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;">This is really a superb book, which all men can profit from, not just androphiles. If one happens to be an androphile, however, one will find this is a liberating and revolutionary work.</span></p><!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --><span style="font-size: small; font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><script type="text/javascript"></script></span></div>
Ratatoskhttp://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/about.htmlL'homme d'aujourd'hui est soumis...tag:euro-synergies.hautetfort.com,2010-02-04:25886012010-02-04T00:25:00+01:002010-02-04T00:25:00+01:00 L’homme d’aujourd’hui est soumis… « Bien loin de...
<p id="BlogTitle"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><strong><img src="http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/media/01/02/783117913.jpg" alt="hommeosumis.jpg" style="border-width: 0; float: left; margin: 0.2em 1.4em 0.7em 0;" id="media-2252957" name="media-2252957" /><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: arial black,avant garde;">L’homme d’aujourd’hui est soumis…</span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <div id="BlogContent"> <p align="justify"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><strong>« Bien loin de l’insurgé qu’étaient Œdipe ou Antigone, l’homme d’aujourd’hui est soumis, docile, obéissant, il est surtout bien intégré à l’immanence de l’appareil. Ainsi les hommes ne travaillent plus au sens plein du terme, mais « doivent se soumettre à un emploi. Ils sont ainsi commandés, concernés par un poste qui en dispose, c’est-à-dire les requiert ». (Heidegger, Le Dispositif, GA 79, p. 26). Ils occupent une fonction précise dans l’appareil et obéissent aux commandement requis par cette position. L’homme est intégralement défini par ses fonctions, et en réalité, il est une fonction de l’appareil : il est le « fonctionnaire de la technique » (Heidegger, Pourquoi des poètes ?, GA 5, p. 294), en ce sens exact qu’il la fait fonctionner et en constitue lui-même une des ses fonctionnalités. Il n’est plus l’existant, il est l’assistant, au double sens du terme, comme spectateur et comme auxiliaire. Il est en permanence mobilisé par une machinerie dont le fonctionnement n’est autre que sa propre circularité : c’est précisément pourquoi il est constamment en mouvement.» </strong></span></span></span></p> <p align="justify"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><strong>Jean VIOULAC, L’époque de la technique. Marx, Heidegger et l’accomplissement de la métaphysique, Paris, PUF, 2009, p. 160.</strong></span></span></span></p> </div> <hr style="text-align: center;" class="Divider" /> <p><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms,geneva;"><strong>Article printed from :: Novopress.info Flandre: http://flandre.novopress.info</strong></span></span></span></p>