A more hopeful glimpse of the future

(Note: see reader Daniel H.’s comment on Brandon in another entry.)

At The Thinking Housewife, a 22-year-old, self-described traditionalist named Brandon speaks of how different he is from his peers, whom he describes as “weak, thin, slouched, slovenly dressers with effeminate mannerisms. They also tend to be extremely weak of character, standing for nothing and going along with everything women want.”

I wrote to Laura Wood:

This Brandon is 22 years old, and he sounds so mature and writes so well? Don’t lose touch with this fellow, Laura. He’s the future.

Laura replied:

Yes, he is impressive. Roissy doesn’t have readers like this.

I replied:

The Roissyites think that young men like this cannot exist. They think the only way for a young man to live well in our society is to be a barbarian or a decadent.

- end of initial entry -

Alan Roebuck writes:

Regarding the young traditionalist Brandon with whom Laura Wood has a dialogue: I sent Laura the following email:

And regarding Brandon the young traditionalist. He said

However, I have seen a major traditionalist streak in my generation. They just don’t have anyone to effectively articulate their latent intuitions for them. I will give you an example…

It confirms my intuition. The young know, if only subconsciously, that they are slackers and losers compared to their ancestors. I also know it because once, when I was a young liberal, I recognized my plight. That’s why so many of the young eagerly participate in the campaign to condemn, and then erase, the system of the past. Like a sinner trying to deny his sinful state, they try to make themselves virtuous by obliterating true virtue. And the young also have a sense that it is the system the authorities present which is largely responsible for their plight.

So it is as I have been saying: If somebody will present the good news that they need not participate in the evil system of liberalism, that there is a better way, many will respond. There is hope.

N. writes:

While I admit that I know essentially nothing about Roissy or his site directly, I’ve gleaned some knowledge from reading other sites that refer to it, starting with the references at VFR. Based on what little I know, I speculate that Roissy or some of his followers might well be willing to acknowledge the existence of young men like Brandon, but they would then denigrate him as a “chump” who will inevitably be cruelly taken advantage of by some young woman in the thrall of feminism. They would scoff at the notion that a young man such as Brandon could find a young woman who would share his cultural views, and that they could marry and in time have children yet not fall prey to the divorce industry.

Which brings up what I see as an interesting paradox. On the one hand, those followers of Roissy whose writings I have seen at VFR and elsewhere seem to me to be materialists, using their knowledge of “evolutionary psychology” in search of as much carnal pleasure as possible in the short term. However, if one truly understands and embraces evolutionary theory, then the only “winners” are those people who propagate their genes, i.e. have children. Men and women who do that are still called “parents,” and if there’s anything the Roissyites seem to have scorn for, it is men and women who marry and raise families.

So we have the spectacle of believers in evolution doing as much as possible to ensure that the next generation of humanity is not descended from them. They choose deliberately to be losers in the “evolutionary sweepstakes.” This seems to be a clear cut case of cognitive dissonance.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 20, 2010 12:42 PM | Send