The Latent Effeminacy of the Modern Political Economy

In my last post I described six major nodes of conflict and contradiction which have come to a head in recent years, all of which involve questions of monetization and content creation under the Internet paradigm.  Today I’d like to analyze a theme running throughout all of them, a fundamental orientation to the world that is common to all sides in this struggle: that of latent, modern effeminacy.¹

The full extent of this effeminacy was first elucidated by Ann Barnhardt.  She writes:

~ Effeminacy is the vice of softness that is opposed to perseverance. ~

But let’s expand on that so that you can understand what exactly that means.

First two things that effeminacy is NOT:

Effeminacy is NOT femininity. In modern parlance, “effeminate” is often used to mean “feminine”.  This is flatly incorrect.  Femininity, the quality of being female, is a good thing. We know this from the great “Hubba-hubba!” of Adam when he first saw Eve in Genesis 2.  And from any photograph of Lauren Bacall circa 1945.

But femininity is the exclusive asset and domain of females, and men who claim it and manifest it are deluded, mentally ill perverts.  Like Bruce Jenner.  Further, since effeminacy is a vice, it can be manifested by both men and women.

Both sexes are called upon to persevere during tough times.  The effeminate man is he who shirks his masculine responsibility, who instead acts like a little boy who begs mommy for her milk.  He apes femininity is a shallow manner, adorning the trappings of womanhood (either physical or moral) without capturing its true spirit.  The effeminate woman is an entitled princess; she may behave aggressively, in a false aping of masculinity, but ultimately she expects daddy to bail her out of ugly situations, as she shirks her moral duty to herself, to her country, and to God.

Weakness, callowness, and excuses are the habits of the effeminate person; and we see these vices running rampant throughout the West.

Let’s consider some of the nodes of conflict I brought up last time.  The first point I delineated described the lack of major investment, and the reliance upon crowdfunding.

Mighty No. 9 and Broken Age come to mind; games from famed developers who ought to have been receiving investment – and guidance – from moneyed interests, but who instead relied upon micro-donations from the fans.  Both of these projects suffered as a result.  When the project lead is distracted by the fundraising and managing, instead of developing – the skill which brought them fame in the first place – an organizational nightmare is the result, and the lacklustre nature of the finished products is a testament to why adult supervision is needed.

On the one side you have the 0.1%, storing their trillions in offshore bank accounts at near-zero interest, who are failing to re-invest into society.  They are refusing to take any risk, instead looking for the sort of security that leads a 35 year old single mother to suddenly start reconsidering the Nice Guys™ who were invisible to her during her fertile years.  They fail to acknowledge the duty that comes along with their wealth, to use their privileged position to lead and develop those who are less fortunate.  They squander their gifts like the 21 year old thot who was never told by her grandmother that beauty fades.

Much like wealth, you don’t bring it with you; what matters is what you do with it while you still have it.

The developers, meanwhile, fail to take on the entrepreneurial, masculine spirit of responsibility.  They assume that the systems which they worked under in the corporate world are innate aspects of reality, rather than the modern cult of control developed by Utopian fetishists.  The Z Man describes the entrepreneurial system thusly:

The philosophy at work here is you solve problems by giving competent people the tools and the support to go solve the problem. How they solve the problem is secondary. In small business, this is the dominant mode of thought. The owner can be seen washing the toilets then signing payroll checks. Alternatively, his second in command could take over the toilet washing and then hire a new person for accounting. The point is to get the job done, whatever it takes.

The developers expect to be taken care of; they refuse to take care of themselves.

It is the same trend noted in The Z Man’s quote I posted in last week’s article:

What’s happening in the comic book business is a systematic strip mining of the value created in the golden age of comics. The first stage was to use credit money to blow a massive bubble, drawing in stupid money that the smart money players then ran off with before the bubble burst. That’s the essence of a credit bubble. Credit fuels artificial growth, which attracts real money looking for a quick return. Instead, the sharps take out the real money leaving the credit money behind, which is back by the worthless assets.

Rent-seeking, get-rich-quick financing is not the behaviour of a builder; it is the mooching of a welfare queen, herself a failure at womanhood.

The E-Fame bubble is similarly entitled and childish.  Shock for shock’s sake – like a child misbehaving during a family photo.  The sense of entitlement to YouTube revenue, without responsible behaviour – while on YouTube’s part, desire to please everybody, and a failure to provide clear guidelines, to embrace their role as a Common Carrier of information.

The Alt Media, wishes to continue leaching off of, and attacking the mainstream, while profiting off of mainstream advertisers in the process.  They want the freedom to yell at the top of their lungs in an air-conditioned, private mall.

How is this any different than the demands made by Feminists for “Safe Spaces” at Colleges and Universities?  It is the subsidization of ideology.

The YouTubers were pretending that their destiny was in their own hands; that they were the product, the entrepreneur, who’d risen to success by their own bootstraps.  In reality, most of them were serving their own egos.²  They weren’t the product – their audience was the product, delivered up to advertisers who promise an end to pain and strife if you’ll only buy whatever product they’re hawking.  It’s not about the product; it’s about your own inner psychodrama.

A YouTuber is a pimp; Google is the brothel owner.  The advertisers, the creepy clientele.  And despite what Hip Hop culture wants to believe, a pimp is ultimately a shallow, childish, and effeminate man.

The final point I made was our inability to organize.  A commenter on the piece noted:

We need a “king” to unite the alt right. a “head” to the give order to the otherwise​ chaotic body

He is absolutely correct, but a rebellious Anglo spirit has taken hold in our culture.  Everybody wants to be a leader – it’s what they learned from the juvenile fiction which Hollywood markets to adults – but they refuse to put the work into becoming a leader.  Namely, they refuse to start by becoming good followers.

Develop the leadership potential of your followers.

To be a good leader, you must first be a good follower. To be a good follower, you must think for yourself.  Leadership is not a slave morality, it is the ethos of a Free Man. It is just as critical for your subordinates to embrace these principles as it is for you to embody them.

Video Games and Cinema have taught them that the leader is just born into that role.  They have more hit points because they’re a Player Character; James T. Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise because destiny destined him (he even gets to snub his nose at his subordinates in the process).  The problem is not that we are herding bulls – self-actualized, independent men, who’ve embraced responsibility and are uninterested in joining another coercive Utopian system – the problem is that we’re LARPing at being leaders, no more independent or socially conscious than a teenager living at home.

What we require is heroic masculinity; such men will naturally form hierarchies, instead of pursuing ego gratification they will happily embrace their role within the troupe.  This isn’t mere speculation; I am already seeing it happen.

Despite the noisy effeminates who won’t stop singing off key at the top of its lungs, there are those who choose civilization, not rebellion.  The Return of Kings International Meetup might have been overwhelmed (take note of which “Alt Right” personalities jumped on to the SJW bandwagon against Roosh), but all they did was delay the inevitable.  The meetups still happened, and the men within these organization are embracing the masculine hierarchy.  The Churches are becoming militant once more, and despite the loud braying being heard in some sectors, men of character are slowly stepping to the fore.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

1. Speaking as a strict Grammarian, effeminate derives form the Latin effeminatus, past participle of effeminare ‘to make feminine’; a more appropriate word might be effete, from Latin effetus, ex (out) fetus (breeding), ‘worn out by bearing young,’ menopausal, or infertile (which aptly describes much of the population) – but effeminate carries the greater rhetorical weight; furthermore, as a word coined during an age of overweening male excesses, it is particularly poignant to use it during this age of overweening female excesses.
2. Most YouTubers; not all.  There are many who use it for positive purposes, just as there were many who voted for Donald Trump because they wanted the opportunity to Make America Great Again, as opposed to those who voted so that Daddy Trump would Make America Great for them.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ