The Male bond/Mannerbund as the source of civilization

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's been some time since I've read Satyr's feminization of man, but if I remember correctly he claimed that all socialization necessitates a feminization of a sort.

The assumptions of these articles seem to be the exact contrary - that the ability to form bonds and cooperate with other males is a part of what masculinity is about.

Not sure what to make of it right now, but the articles are a good read nonetheless, especially the second one, which emphasizes the importance of keeping women and faggots out of masculine groups.

Male bonds are formed around common blood and shared risks.
Female bonds are formed around common interests and shared fears.

In male groups hierarchies are established, otherwise it falls apart. Hierarchies imply that one male is dominant and the rest subservient....a fact not to be mentioned but understood.
Males tend to not shame those who are subservient - an unwritten rule of manliness.
All are made to feel manly and equal, even when all know who the top-dog is, and who is at the bottom - male razing, hazing is part of the ritual. A way of affirming dominance, without making it obvious. All this ends when the group is confronted by an alien group of males.
Then all males within the group are superior to all males not in the group - in-group dynamics.
Then all is shared as belonging equally to all, because all put their lives on the line to acquire them: females, resources....etc.
See wolf packs. In wolf packs the beta and omega males experience a reduction in testosterone allowing them to participate within the pack.
This is not the case with cats. Lions for example only share when they've established a bond, or share genes.
All males are expelled from a pride by the dominant male, or they leave on their own.

When I said all socialization necessitates some degree of feminization this is what I meant.
We are currently able to function within a system because, whether we want to admit it or not, we've submitted to a noetic alpha, represented by an institution, and symbolized by a figurehead...which, in the west, may very well be a female, or a faggot.

Shared risks cultivate trust based on actual events, not on theory.

Females risk group cohesion because they produce male competition, and because they are sperm samplers, they cause rifts within a group.

Another factor is group size.
The larger the group the more feminization is required to integrate successfully.
Masculine males tend to not assimilate easily and to identify with a select few. All outsiders are not considered part of their in-group, their kind. They do not care about them other than as obstacles or challenges.
Modern systems are huge and always heterogeneous, multicultural. Males feel alienated from this.
Those that can integrate do so by cultivating their feminine traits, or they face the consequences.
Males tend to also become more discriminating in such circumstances, using details to differentiate the in-group from all others. Their sense of self and those they consider their kind becomes refined, sometimes extreme.

Furthermore, a degree of femininity is not shameful.
Without it one cannot become a good leader, nor tolerant of the other's small annoying quirks to make bonding possible.

Unlike eros agape is not blind, but open-eyed.
Friendship, agape, is more durable than love/lust.
The latter is stronger but it dissipates quickly - it's a kind of madness.
Agape is rational, aware...it dos not idealize the other; it knows exactly why it is loyal to him/her.
Agape is based no common interests, blood, and it is tested over time.....not founded no a theoretical bond, but on actual interactions.
This is why males form the strongest bonds in war.
This is also why marriages become stronger when they face adversity and survive it.

But, let's be honest...even in the most macho group, like a Navy Seal team, there's a hierarchy, from alpha to omega, that is not exposed to those outside the group.
Everyone in the group knows who is in charge, and who is last on the rung.
This hierarchy is established, like I said, using humour, in-group interactions over time.
Rank is partially irrelevant because it is externally imposed.
All this happens on a subconscious level - it's psychological.

AutSider wrote:

It's been some time since I've read Satyr's feminization of man, but if I remember correctly he claimed that all socialization necessitates a feminization of a sort.

The assumptions of these articles seem to be the exact contrary - that the ability to form bonds and cooperate with other males is a part of what masculinity is about.

That's a matter of semantics, isn't it? What you need to do in order to solve this problem is to understand the manner in which different people use words. Specifically, you need to understand what the author of these essays means when he says "masculinity" and compare it to what Satyr means when he uses the same word. Personally, I find it very frustrating to be surrounded by people who speak different languages.

Regardless of how you define masculinity, if your goal is maximum integral masculinity over time (MIMOT) and if MIMOT entails periods of very low masculinity then that's precisely what you should do -- not be masculine at certain points in time. The emphasis is on the word [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. You are not trying to pick the path with the highest level of masculinity at a single point in time. No, you are trying to pick the path with the highest sum of momentary levels of masculinity. What this means is that someone who is constantly at a mediocre level of masculinity can be considered better than someone who has moments of extremely high level of masculinity.

I guess the problem here is the paradox caused by the nature of cooperation, which is that cooperation consists of surrendering dominance, to an extent, in order to gain more overall dominance.

One way of looking at it is that all cooperation is necessarily feminine because it requires an act of surrender, another way to look at it is that since cooperation results in more dominance overall and those who do not cooperate get dominated by those who do cooperate, not cooperating is the less masculine option.

I'm also not sure to what extent it makes sense to even call cooperation a masculine or feminine trait - it might be as nonsensical as calling eating a masculine or feminine trait. It is something characteristic of both sexes, humans are a social species. Just like non-cooperation is characteristic of some other animals, like bears or tigers, where both males and females are loners.



Femininity in a man is shameful (in the sense it is something that should be reduced), but also inevitable, as absolute masculinity is impossible.

Overall I'd say masculinity is primarily about dominance, which is control over resources, so if cooperating results in more overall control over resources than not cooperating would, then it is more masculine to cooperate than not to cooperate. So males who remain cooperative while they are being scammed (beta cucks), mostly out of cowardice or stupidity, are the non-masculine ones.

And if we get down to it, doesn't some form of cooperation precede even the existence of sexes? Atoms "cooperate" to form molecules, which form cells, which form tissues, which form organs, which form organ systems, etc. And if it does, does it make sense to interpret cooperation as feminine or masculine in and of itself, if its existence precedes the development of biological sexes?

Of course, it's possible to just avoid all the theoretical talk about masculinity and femininity and just speak in terms of costs and benefits, and do what is beneficial and avoid what is costly. That's probably a wiser (cost-effective, practical) option, instead of wasting time building castles in the sky.

Expressed in a more concise way, cooperate when it is profitable, don't if it is not.

It is possible to say that something is both X and not X without it being a logical contradiction. All you need to do is to equivocate i.e. use one and the same word to mean two different things.

I can say that John is both more masculine and less masculine than David without it being a logical contradiction because what I mean when I use the word masculine for the first time is that his integral masculinity over time (IMOT) is higher than David's and what I mean when I use it the second time is that his level of masculinity at some point in time is lower than David's.

In the same manner, we can say that cooperation is both masculine and feminine without it being a paradox because what we really mean is that cooperation increases the integral masculinity over time while decreasing the level of masculinity at certain points in time.

There is no paradox, no logical contradiction whatsoever, there's merely a poor and rather deceptive use of language.

As to why people think that cooperation is feminine, I think they do because in order to cooperate with other people you have to surrender some of the control over your life i.e. you need to let other people make certain decisions for you.

Is not masculinity a balance, and what you mean by the extremes is an unbalanced degree of either masculinity(hyper-masculinity) or femininity? Both the 1 and the 0 are nihilistic, it is the .6/.4 split that illustrates health in both Males and Females? With the masculine energy not becoming so extreme as it denies the feminine but still remains dominant.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Is not masculinity a balance, and what you mean by the extremes is an unbalanced degree of either masculinity(hyper-masculinity) or femininity?

This thread might have to do precisely with the fact that the statement that masculinity is a balance between masculinity and femininity is a confusing one. It looks like a circular definition. You are defining masculinity in terms of masculinity.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Is not masculinity a balance, and what you mean by the extremes is an unbalanced degree of either masculinity(hyper-masculinity) or femininity?

This thread might have to do precisely with the fact that the statement that masculinity is a balance between masculinity and femininity is a confusing one. It looks like a circular definition. You are defining masculinity in terms of masculinity.

It might seem circular but I think femininity as the force of entropy cannot be separated into degrees like masculinity can.

Hypermasculinity is short term order, and Masculinity is long term order, there is no short term/long term chaos, chaos is chaos.

Masculinity outlasts Hypermasculinity due to its acceptance of Chaos and ability to dance with it instead of ignoring it or denying it completely.

Actually you can see the majority of women's base interest in the Hypermasculine as a representation of their Chaotic nature, by selecting the short term order, they further reduce the resistance to entropy.

Immediate gratification, immediate interaction produces entropy at a faster rate, it is only when death is at the door that women rebound upwards and select the long term order to pull them out of the vortex they created for themselves.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

It might seem circular but I think femininity as the force of entropy cannot be separated into degrees like masculinity can.

Hypermasculinity is short term order, and Masculinity is long term order, there is no short term/long term chaos, chaos is chaos.

Masculinity outlasts Hypermasculinity due to its acceptance of Chaos and ability to dance with it instead of ignoring it or denying it completely.

I agree with you. It only seems to be circular but it isn't really. The statement is logically valid and correct but it is difficult to understand -- for some people at least. And that's where the problem is. More masculine types demand higher precision in speech and deeper understanding in thought. It might be precisely the hyper-masculine type who finds it difficult to understand such a statement -- he has no idea how to deal with vagueness.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

I agree with you. It only seems to be circular but it isn't really. The statement is logically valid and correct but it is difficult to understand -- for some people at least. And that's where the problem is. More masculine types demand higher precision in speech and deeper understanding in thought. It might be precisely the hyper-masculine type who finds it difficult to understand such a statement -- he has no idea how to deal with vagueness.

In order to have such precision, one needs a balanced disposition. Hypermasculines either focus too much on body or mind and as a result one cannot understand (the noumenon) and the other will not be satisfied with any precision that is not absolute (illustrating their lack of understanding of phenomenon).

It is these two types that generally make up the majority of normal "men" today, either dumb douchebag physical boys or spineless intellectual boys, both focusing their energies in one quality instead of spreading it out evenly: Of course this makes for a man that is not as physically stimulating and one that is either indifferent or hostile to the prevailing order, but one that will stand the test of time with regards to his ability to kill, outsmart, or control the other two.

I cannot link it but I recall a study of video game players, all female. When the females had high testosterone, they became more concerned about "fairness" and justice. Basically more masculine and assertive. They tried to ensure merit mattered more. The masculine warrior dies satisfied if he is defeated by an opponent superior to him, with no regrets and knowing it was equal, fair - especially if closer genetically. Dueling was used this way. With outsiders, there is no honor in defeat because they will rape and maybe kill your women (and your loss insults those women, since at some point they chose your lineage over a different option) and children, they are genetically dissimilar, and they may not share ethos or reciprocal (usually genetic based) temperament. Females are guided by fear and will seek an external source of protection for what they fear, to take the costs for them. Men ruthlessly demand beauty in return, dying for it. Intelligence is a tool, a means, and not a motivating end. Intelligence produces beauty: symmetry of mind. Courage and cowardliness determine your ability for longsuffering or paying possible ultimate costs voluntarily. Intelligence gives you just as many outs as ins, just as much opportunity for avoidance as engagement.

Slaughtz wrote:

I cannot link it but I recall a study of video game players, all female. When the females had high testosterone, they became more concerned about "fairness" and justice. Basically more masculine and assertive. They tried to ensure merit mattered more.

The flaw of this study is that it does not put the female's body on the line, its easy to pontificate and signal virtues like "fairness" when there is no meaningful cost for paying the price.

A masculine attitude is not achieved with just testosterone although that is a contributing factor, high testosterone causes a female to become seduced by abstractions such as God or State which give her the chance to take on a male role. Females with a masculine attitude remain down to Earth and loyal to their family/husband over any idealism or limit its application within the tribe.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wow, that guy has a good balance of masculinity and femininity.



Almost as good as this:

I see a feminine attitude.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

In order to have such precision, one needs a balanced disposition. Hypermasculines either focus too much on body or mind and as a result one cannot understand (the noumenon) and the other will not be satisfied with any precision that is not absolute (illustrating their lack of understanding of phenomenon).

There are several different ways to interpret the meaning of the statemenet "balance of masculine and feminine traits". Here are some of them:

1. equal measure of masculine and feminine traits
2. some fixed ratio between masculine and feminine traits such as 5:5 or 6:4
3. a ratio between masculine and feminine traits that maximizes the chances of attaining certain goal (such as the previously mentioned MIMOT)

I think that #3 is the correct interpretation. I don't take it seriously when people try to interpret the statement in terms of #1 or #2.

People have different needs and if you need no more than a vague description such as "balance of masculine and feminine traits" then that statement would be enough for you. But other people need more precision and so they can't be satisfied with such statements. They need higher precision, not absolute precision.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

There are several different ways to interpret the meaning of the statemenet "balance of masculine and feminine traits". Here are some of them:

1. equal measure of masculine and feminine traits
2. some fixed ratio between masculine and feminine traits such as 5:5 or 6:4
3. a ratio between masculine and feminine traits that maximizes the chances of attaining certain goal (such as the previously mentioned MIMOT)

I think that #3 is the correct interpretation. I don't take it seriously when people try to interpret the statement in terms of #1 or #2.

People have different needs and if you need no more than a vague description such as "balance of masculine and feminine traits" then that statement would be enough for you. But other people need more precision and so they can't be satisfied with such statements. They need higher precision, not absolute precision.

Don't you think that the intended desire to attain a certain goal might be connected to what ratio is behind such an intent in the first place?

Feminines will always deep down desire an entropic goal, Hypermasculines will desire a stagnant goal which eventually leads to entropy, and Masculines will desire a sustainable goal.

Is there any goal that lies outside the tendency towards Order & Chaos? I would love to hear about it.


Edit: Hmm There might be something to this...
Masculine: Mind
Hypermasculine: Nervous System
Feminine: Body