Mean Fops; Or the Government's Idea of Heroism

One of the things I think we can all agree on by this point is that real men are in short supply. The alt-right have a very catchy way to refer to this phenomenon; degeneracy, defined for all practical purposes as the elimination of masculinity from society. With the SJWs and their female bias, this is quite pronounced, but people don’t have a long enough memory, or often enough persistence to discern that in truth, it was ever thus. Even authors as ancient as Homer talk about the “real men” of the past, who were strong enough to lift boulders which would take four men and an ox-cart to move in these degenerate times. Then later, in Classical Greece, men invented philosophy, and democracy in which only they could vote, only naturally, since they fought all the wars and the citizenry and militia were nigh interchangeable.

The product of a small scale, organically developed and homogenous society.

Later still modern government was invented, democracy was made anew, but this time there was a clear separation emerging between military and civilian. Beau Brummel never went to war against Napoleon, and the Regency fop was a cultural phenomena derided for degeneracy. Clearly the goalpost for men was moving significantly. But what about the men of substance, the alpha males of the past? They were always moving into the military, or into lives of crime and ever uncomfortable with the newly mannered, lawful, structured and now even “scientific” society that devalued their talents and dynamism. Government was and is, sick with femininity. There was once a time when you could be sentenced to hard labour. This was where the convict would do repetitive, backbreaking and meaningless tasks, a punishment that seems in many ways like government’s attempt at self-referential humour and which had the virtue of breaking the will rather than reforming it. Men are more difficult to control because men always want adventure and action. This is why for most of the modern age the most admired men of any period are always military figures, like Achilles, Admiral Nelson, Eisenhower, and now James Mattis, or they are in some sense criminals or fringe characters like Pirates, Cowboys, or the like.

That's a lot of charisma for a blank expression.

So, why am I bothering with all this explanation? It is because government has a right wing absurdity to contrast with the left wing hatred of men; and this absurdity is the mean, cruel and vindictive fop in a Hugo Boss(TM) uniform. Contrast this character if you will with the evident personality and integrity of James Mattis, John Wayne or even a sportsman and philosopher like Albert Camus and you can see immediately the unhealthy fixations of an alpha imitator. The vindictive fop has a fixation for appearance and order, but he is so ruined by government that his appearance contains none of the individuality by which men, even foppish men, are able to communicate heterosexuality with their appearance. The real men are still disbarred, along with real courage, the courage of saying no. Government understands cruelty better than courage. Thus whoever happens to run the state; the government and that unquantifiable minority known as people of substance are at war.

The state has no way of measuring personal integrity, so appearance obsessed villains is all you should expect. 

This is critical to understand and bear in mind in light of the alt-right and its relationship to the Dark Enlightenment. One must be both an individualist and a collectivist, one must have identity and personality and both senses of self must support the other or one has not met the challenge issued by such thinkers as Nietzsche and Evola of squaring the circle of the individual presented by a society of consumers. We cannot destroy this society by radical anarchism any more than the Luddites could destroy all the factory machinery in the world, and we cannot be subsumed in the society or we risk repeating a totalitarian past of cruel fops invigorated only by service to a monstrous state. There is a middle ground in which a person can be powerful in his own right, and the test of the powerful individual is whether or not he feels empowered enough to say no convincingly. Saying no requires having both strength and people who will fight with you, thus where the individual is, there must be a society, or their is neither and all that exists in their stead are regimented animals.

Luddites subscribed to the extremely sophisticated philosophy of destroying things that they felt threatened by, in other words the same philosophy as the anarchist when confronted by the state.