06-06-2023, 02:37 PM
I hate that some faggots call themselves sensitive young men. Yes it a troll. The big noticing. Hitler likes animals and art. Fragile Mishima. Jünger was a dandy. Céline was a cuck (he tried to direct other men to his "girlfriends" in Mitteleuropa read his Letters). Nietzsche no GF. Gay because of lack of space. Troons as arterial Hegelians. You heard it from BAP. Here is some rhetorical cannon fodder from Harvey Mansfield's (straussogroid) book on manliness:
The Great Inversion: Sensitivity as power?
"The same action, say a polite request, that looks like subservience to a man looks like sensitivity to a woman. If a woman is silent, a man thinks she has nothing to say; if a man is silent, women think he does not need to speak. Silence means lack of power in the first instance; confident power in the second." (p. 30)
Simping
"A gender-neutral society is a society of independent men and women, especially the latter. Although modern women still have some of the ways of traditional women, they behave much more as only men used to behave. The sexual difference is not so much set aside as actually diminished. Not only are women behaving more like men, but also men are more welcoming to such women, more sensitive toward them, as we say. The sensitive male is above all sensitive to the desire of women to be like men (though also, in a lesser degree, to their desire to remain women and to combine this with the main desire). Such a fellow is no longer the Male Chauvinist Pig he was accused of being when this great change got underway. Men have had to curb, if not totally suppress, their sense of superiority to women. And having done this at the behest of women, they have in a way abandoned the contest and acknowledged the artificiality and fragility of their superiority. By their failure to resist they admit that it is easier to live equally." (p.4)
The essential contrast:
"...men are hard, women soft; men assertive, women sensitive; men seek risk, women security; men are frank, women are indirect; men take the lead, women seek company; men don’t cry, women do; men are aloof, women sympathetic; men are cold, women warm; men boast and show off, women are modest; men are forceful, women persuasive or seductive; men are loud, women quiet; men are laconic, women are loquacious; men are stoic, women com-plain." (p. 23)
Der Übermensch als neuer Mann?
"It is good for us to think ill of ourselves. Thus science is unpretentious on behalf of mankind but in a manly, pretentious way; this is the wrenching complication to which Nietzsche compels manliness to conform. Looked at for content, science levels all things and con- tributes to relativism or nihilism, but with regard to its motive and its moral perspective, science is manliness. At one point Nietzsche thought science could be our savior against nihilism.
Nietzsche wants us to stop here, but we today have taken a step beyond to unveil the sensitive male, the man whose manliness demands that he abandon manliness. For we mustn’t suppose that any man finds it easy to be sensitive, or if perhaps there is one who does, we cannot allow him any merit. Instead of the feminist woman treated equally by the sensitive male, Nietzsche, for all his creativity, retains the traditional role of woman as companion to the manly man. Men must be manly in a terrific new way, women must stay as they are." (p.115f.)
"Nietzsche is disgusted with the reduction of beauty and nobility to utility, and this causes him to throw himself into the lap of manliness and then, out of excessive zeal or ambition that is not manly, to revalue manly man into superman. Superman is manly man who does his own thinking, and his thinking is called a “redemption” of every- thing against him.96 For this, superman needs manly man together with his opposite, the feminine—even (in Goethe’s phrase) the eternal feminine." (p. 116)
The Leviathan as the Longhouse:
"The conceptual leap in Hobbes’s state of nature was the work of his science, the new political science he said he began. This new, modern science enables Hobbes to be quite ambivalent in his attitude toward manliness. In the state of nature everyone has the right to be a manly aggressor against everyone, but in civil society (or Commonwealth, Hobbes calls it) everyone has the duty, having signed away this right, to forget his manliness and become sociable, or sensitive, or relational, or unmanly. In Hobbes’s theory just as in the gender-neutral society everyone has a formal right to be manly, but in fact manliness must be suppressed." (p. 170)
Logorrhea and Language Conspiracy against Men:
"All in all, Hobbes deserves the mantle no one has yet awarded him of having created the sensitive male. For the sensitive male is one who follows Hobbes’s advice to lay down his right. Feminist commentators have not praised Hobbes for this foundational command, partly because of the want of apology in his tone, partly because it is not to women as such that the Hobbesian male is to be sensitive. Certain asides of Hobbes, such as that “men are naturally fitter than women for actions of labor and danger,” dis- close that he was more wary of men than favorable to women. But the main point is that being more naturally fit in these ways, as men may be, is not a title to rule. Women are naturally equal to men, meaning equal in the state of nature, substantially equal, equal in the ability to kill. Women may not kill as often or as easily as men, but to establish a threat one example is enough, and one can readily imagine a Salome finding a way to catch a man off guard." (p. 173)
The Libs getting owned by and selling themselves off as slaves:
"Through work, and not through courage, the fear of death characteristic of bourgeois society is overcome. This is perhaps a promising possibility for women even if the work of the bondsman is the imposing of form, or manufacture, rather than housework. Work does away with fear, courage deals with it; so work with its “feeling of absolute power” (compare Kant’s di- vine creation) implies the elimination of superior force, while courage implies its presence. In early liberalism the ever-presence of nature suggests the need for something like manliness to cope with it, but with Hegel a more sober activity is more effectual: precisely bourgeois work overcomes the unmanliness of bourgeois fear. Thus recognition, for Hegel, means finding one’s self in the other rather than above oneself in nature or in the supernatural.
To the feminists it is as if Hegel were saying that there is nothing to be afraid of; the “other” is another woman or a sensitive male; women don’t need men. Nor do men need manliness at the end of history. Without sacrifice, difficulty, or any possibility of greatness, the rational state is all past and no future, no longer in a spirit or mood to assert itself. Hegel’s insistence that liberalism’s abstract principles be actualized, or made “concrete,” deprived those principles of their power to inspire. To Nietzsche, denizens of the rational state seemed mediocre or worse, “last men” on the way to be- coming subhuman." (p. 184)
Werewolves?
"Could it be that the truly sensitive male is the one who, unlike some others you are thinking of, does his job and leaves you alone—except when you don’t want to be alone?" (p. 191)
Skrewl against Thymos:
"If we convince ourselves that manliness need not be, we will conclude not that males have no nature but that they are by nature sensitive. And so we would blind ourselves to the need to educate them in sensitivity. The practical measures taken in our schools to make boys more like girls are based on the premise that boys by their nature start out unlike girls. Gender- neutral schools have to be schools in gender neutrality." (p. 208)
The origins of the sensitive liberal man and the "I can't even with you..." : (The Nietzscheanization of the Left and...)
"...Kurt Lewin, who pushed sensitivity. Erikson, following Nietzsche, showed how identity could be both an individual and a social creation, but Lewin had an even greater success with the notion of sensitivity, to which we owe the Sensitive Male. The gender-neutral society is much indebted to post-Nietzschean psychology of this sort.
Sensitivity was a movement in social psychology that had some success after World War II in corporate management. Businessmen would get together to meet in a “T-Group” or “encounter group” where they would begin by disregarding all existing hierarchy among those present. They would then proceed democratically to make a new hierarchy or—surprise!—confirm the old one and in the process teach sensitivity to one another. To become sen- sitive meant to become aware of your tendency to throw your weight around and hurt other people, especially to hurt their feelings. Comment in T-Groups was supposed to be personal rather than abstract because abstractions give offense and reduce intimacy. “You’re a fool!,” for example, is the kind of abstract description that gives offense. When you have to respect personal feelings, however, those feelings become immune to moral judgment and do not have to face critical challenge—as they do when you are told to stop sniveling. Here we see a sudden access of democracy through the exposure and purging of aggressiveness, done by males to themselves as if they were too impatient to wait for the feminists to do it to them.
Sensitivity, like political correctness at the end of the century, was (and is) the insinuation of opinion into others without either argument or imposition. It is an effective rhetorical method traditionally used by women to de- liver a surprised reproach: Tut, tut! With expressions such as “You just don’t get it!” women can get what they want without having to ask for it directly, thus without asserting themselves. Applied to their careers, which are now part of their identities, women can have their merit recognized without having to call attention to it." (p. 151)
Do not give up Vril
"Sensitivity, we note, has nothing to do with having sex but is intended to open the doors for women’s ambition, not merely to let women pass through in the literal sense. Sensitivity is what has happened to gentlemanliness in our day." (p. 152)
The Great Inversion: Sensitivity as power?
"The same action, say a polite request, that looks like subservience to a man looks like sensitivity to a woman. If a woman is silent, a man thinks she has nothing to say; if a man is silent, women think he does not need to speak. Silence means lack of power in the first instance; confident power in the second." (p. 30)
Simping
"A gender-neutral society is a society of independent men and women, especially the latter. Although modern women still have some of the ways of traditional women, they behave much more as only men used to behave. The sexual difference is not so much set aside as actually diminished. Not only are women behaving more like men, but also men are more welcoming to such women, more sensitive toward them, as we say. The sensitive male is above all sensitive to the desire of women to be like men (though also, in a lesser degree, to their desire to remain women and to combine this with the main desire). Such a fellow is no longer the Male Chauvinist Pig he was accused of being when this great change got underway. Men have had to curb, if not totally suppress, their sense of superiority to women. And having done this at the behest of women, they have in a way abandoned the contest and acknowledged the artificiality and fragility of their superiority. By their failure to resist they admit that it is easier to live equally." (p.4)
The essential contrast:
"...men are hard, women soft; men assertive, women sensitive; men seek risk, women security; men are frank, women are indirect; men take the lead, women seek company; men don’t cry, women do; men are aloof, women sympathetic; men are cold, women warm; men boast and show off, women are modest; men are forceful, women persuasive or seductive; men are loud, women quiet; men are laconic, women are loquacious; men are stoic, women com-plain." (p. 23)
Der Übermensch als neuer Mann?
"It is good for us to think ill of ourselves. Thus science is unpretentious on behalf of mankind but in a manly, pretentious way; this is the wrenching complication to which Nietzsche compels manliness to conform. Looked at for content, science levels all things and con- tributes to relativism or nihilism, but with regard to its motive and its moral perspective, science is manliness. At one point Nietzsche thought science could be our savior against nihilism.
Nietzsche wants us to stop here, but we today have taken a step beyond to unveil the sensitive male, the man whose manliness demands that he abandon manliness. For we mustn’t suppose that any man finds it easy to be sensitive, or if perhaps there is one who does, we cannot allow him any merit. Instead of the feminist woman treated equally by the sensitive male, Nietzsche, for all his creativity, retains the traditional role of woman as companion to the manly man. Men must be manly in a terrific new way, women must stay as they are." (p.115f.)
"Nietzsche is disgusted with the reduction of beauty and nobility to utility, and this causes him to throw himself into the lap of manliness and then, out of excessive zeal or ambition that is not manly, to revalue manly man into superman. Superman is manly man who does his own thinking, and his thinking is called a “redemption” of every- thing against him.96 For this, superman needs manly man together with his opposite, the feminine—even (in Goethe’s phrase) the eternal feminine." (p. 116)
The Leviathan as the Longhouse:
"The conceptual leap in Hobbes’s state of nature was the work of his science, the new political science he said he began. This new, modern science enables Hobbes to be quite ambivalent in his attitude toward manliness. In the state of nature everyone has the right to be a manly aggressor against everyone, but in civil society (or Commonwealth, Hobbes calls it) everyone has the duty, having signed away this right, to forget his manliness and become sociable, or sensitive, or relational, or unmanly. In Hobbes’s theory just as in the gender-neutral society everyone has a formal right to be manly, but in fact manliness must be suppressed." (p. 170)
Logorrhea and Language Conspiracy against Men:
"All in all, Hobbes deserves the mantle no one has yet awarded him of having created the sensitive male. For the sensitive male is one who follows Hobbes’s advice to lay down his right. Feminist commentators have not praised Hobbes for this foundational command, partly because of the want of apology in his tone, partly because it is not to women as such that the Hobbesian male is to be sensitive. Certain asides of Hobbes, such as that “men are naturally fitter than women for actions of labor and danger,” dis- close that he was more wary of men than favorable to women. But the main point is that being more naturally fit in these ways, as men may be, is not a title to rule. Women are naturally equal to men, meaning equal in the state of nature, substantially equal, equal in the ability to kill. Women may not kill as often or as easily as men, but to establish a threat one example is enough, and one can readily imagine a Salome finding a way to catch a man off guard." (p. 173)
The Libs getting owned by and selling themselves off as slaves:
"Through work, and not through courage, the fear of death characteristic of bourgeois society is overcome. This is perhaps a promising possibility for women even if the work of the bondsman is the imposing of form, or manufacture, rather than housework. Work does away with fear, courage deals with it; so work with its “feeling of absolute power” (compare Kant’s di- vine creation) implies the elimination of superior force, while courage implies its presence. In early liberalism the ever-presence of nature suggests the need for something like manliness to cope with it, but with Hegel a more sober activity is more effectual: precisely bourgeois work overcomes the unmanliness of bourgeois fear. Thus recognition, for Hegel, means finding one’s self in the other rather than above oneself in nature or in the supernatural.
To the feminists it is as if Hegel were saying that there is nothing to be afraid of; the “other” is another woman or a sensitive male; women don’t need men. Nor do men need manliness at the end of history. Without sacrifice, difficulty, or any possibility of greatness, the rational state is all past and no future, no longer in a spirit or mood to assert itself. Hegel’s insistence that liberalism’s abstract principles be actualized, or made “concrete,” deprived those principles of their power to inspire. To Nietzsche, denizens of the rational state seemed mediocre or worse, “last men” on the way to be- coming subhuman." (p. 184)
Werewolves?
"Could it be that the truly sensitive male is the one who, unlike some others you are thinking of, does his job and leaves you alone—except when you don’t want to be alone?" (p. 191)
Skrewl against Thymos:
"If we convince ourselves that manliness need not be, we will conclude not that males have no nature but that they are by nature sensitive. And so we would blind ourselves to the need to educate them in sensitivity. The practical measures taken in our schools to make boys more like girls are based on the premise that boys by their nature start out unlike girls. Gender- neutral schools have to be schools in gender neutrality." (p. 208)
The origins of the sensitive liberal man and the "I can't even with you..." : (The Nietzscheanization of the Left and...)
"...Kurt Lewin, who pushed sensitivity. Erikson, following Nietzsche, showed how identity could be both an individual and a social creation, but Lewin had an even greater success with the notion of sensitivity, to which we owe the Sensitive Male. The gender-neutral society is much indebted to post-Nietzschean psychology of this sort.
Sensitivity was a movement in social psychology that had some success after World War II in corporate management. Businessmen would get together to meet in a “T-Group” or “encounter group” where they would begin by disregarding all existing hierarchy among those present. They would then proceed democratically to make a new hierarchy or—surprise!—confirm the old one and in the process teach sensitivity to one another. To become sen- sitive meant to become aware of your tendency to throw your weight around and hurt other people, especially to hurt their feelings. Comment in T-Groups was supposed to be personal rather than abstract because abstractions give offense and reduce intimacy. “You’re a fool!,” for example, is the kind of abstract description that gives offense. When you have to respect personal feelings, however, those feelings become immune to moral judgment and do not have to face critical challenge—as they do when you are told to stop sniveling. Here we see a sudden access of democracy through the exposure and purging of aggressiveness, done by males to themselves as if they were too impatient to wait for the feminists to do it to them.
Sensitivity, like political correctness at the end of the century, was (and is) the insinuation of opinion into others without either argument or imposition. It is an effective rhetorical method traditionally used by women to de- liver a surprised reproach: Tut, tut! With expressions such as “You just don’t get it!” women can get what they want without having to ask for it directly, thus without asserting themselves. Applied to their careers, which are now part of their identities, women can have their merit recognized without having to call attention to it." (p. 151)
Do not give up Vril
"Sensitivity, we note, has nothing to do with having sex but is intended to open the doors for women’s ambition, not merely to let women pass through in the literal sense. Sensitivity is what has happened to gentlemanliness in our day." (p. 152)
