The devolution of the West can be seen through popular sports – Return Of Kings

The devolution of the West can be seen through popular sports – Return Of Kings

I am not interested in football, nor in the American distortion of rugby nor in football. Unsurprisingly, this can leave someone out of many workplace conversations and other modern, bourgeois scenarios. Is it because these sports are just too masculine and brutal? On the contrary, it is because they are too feminine!

Things only get worse when I explain that I like more masculine, dangerous (not necessarily violent) sports. The worst reaction comes when I declare feminine not to personally practice such sports. After a brief and heated discussion, I’m usually the recipient of the same silent, frustrated race for a good answer. You may forget to mention my thoughts on porn – it’s not alpha male behavior to masturbate while watching another better endowed man plow nubile nymphs. This is not a digression, notice; there’s something more masculine about being involved in the action, whether it’s conquering enemies or beautiful maidens.

But can I really prove it?

After all, I might not like football because I’m not particularly good at it, and conversely, like wrestling because I was. Maybe I had the bias and the others were right – aside from all the padding and effeminate diving with feigned injuries, maybe watching a game of some bourgeois, team sport was just as masculine as become the Ultimate Fighting Champion.

What are the fundamental differences between the aristocratic sports of yesteryear, which focus much more on the individual man, and the spectator sports of today, which focus more on a team, apparently designed to maximize the profitability of said spectators?

Where the traditional aristocrat sought, for example, the adventure of mountaineering, the well-meaning bourgeoisie thinks: “Why on earth would you be so reckless? You could hurt yourself! The same attitudes apply to traditional aristocratic sports, such as boxing, wrestling, historical fencing, horse racing and jousting.

Notice how these sports focus on individuals, often dueling against each other. A certain sense of transcendence is required to engage in such daring pursuits, elevating nobles above mere practical concerns in their struggle for glory – immortal fame, so to speak. Once you have conquered the mountain, conquered your enemy, and in doing so conquered your fear, you have somehow conquered yourself; win or lose, the handshake of peers afterwards is, yes, out of Christian charity, but also a show of respect for those who are in the same noble quest.

So what has changed?

Renowned historian, book by Jacques Barzun, From dawn to decadence: 500 years of Western cultural life, describes the difficult relationship between the ancient chivalric order and the developing modern state, led by an increasingly dominant bourgeoisie, the merchant class. On the subject of duels, he wrote that “the desire to justify himself is deeply rooted in Western man”.

Until the early modern and revolutionary periods, this was called “the point of honor”. His moral strength derived from medieval chivalry, which viewed the knight as the champion of all that was noble and just and as an independent judge in his own cause. No monarch wanted his subjects to lose all these qualities, and the philosophy persisted. However, time has since eroded any regard for male virtue.

Barzun takes the example of the bourgeois French monarch, Louis XIV, who led the transition not only from royalty to monarch but also from the quest for honor to the quest for honours: “titles, decorations, favors light in themselves- same but of infinite value, like being spoken to by the king before anyone else among a group of courtiers.

As for the love of titles and decorations, it has become the rage in democracies, prizes for everything and for everyone. Thus, a mere glance at the transition from the medieval period to the modern period can give us a clear picture of the distance that separates modern Western man from his self-justifying ancestors; while the modern bourgeoisie relies on the pervasive state to serve as an intermediary and safety net for all social interactions, and has no communal or cultural authority in its life except the state, it is a far cry from the chivalry of old.

The Ten Commandments of Chivalry

  1. You will believe everything the Church teaches and observe all of its guidelines.
  2. You will defend the Church.
  3. You will respect all weaknesses, and you will be their defender.
  4. You will love the country where you were born.
  5. You will not back down from your enemy.
  6. You will make war on the infidel constantly and without pity.
  7. You will scrupulously fulfill your feudal duties, if they are not contrary to the laws of God.
  8. You will never lie and you will stay true to your promise.
  9. You will be generous and you will give largesse to everyone.
  10. You will be everywhere and always the champion of Right and Good against Injustice and Evil.

It is the generally irresponsible attitude of the modernist and bourgeois spirit that I contest. For more than five hundred years now, Western man has been handing over responsibilities to a distant group, claiming to be the State of Leviathan, all in exchange for comfort. Of course, we are more and more comfortable and entertained. I can’t complain, but we’re also increasingly detached from reality, from hardship, and from the common sense that comes with fighting for what’s ours, not to mention fighting for what’s right, good. and true.

So when I see grown men speak with the depth of a philosopher on the eve of a battle of what is effectively a game for minors, and in which they will not participate and will indeed be played by overpaid strangers, not even parents from their beloved region, I dare not laugh, because these are the horrors of my civilization.

I cannot help but agree with the reactionaries of the 20th century in this respect, but it is not an idle or obsolete theory and I am in good company – the work of Professor Walter J. Ong on the of masculinity confirmed these intuitions based on data on male development and competition:

“Historically, the agonistic and masculinizing era has given way to that of greater femininity. In a sense, the male sports viewer…[described elsewhere as] slumped alone with his can of beer in front of the screen under the furious gaze of his rightly outraged athletic widow… is the product of a highly feminized culture: no previous oral-agonistic age could have produced this abstract semi-disengagement with the agōnia in the arena. ‘

I recommend his excellent work, Fighting for life: competition, sexuality and conscience, but more than that, I would recommend that we all rise up against the modern world by fighting against such disengagement, by engaging more in our communities and also in sports that truly test our personal mettle. I know this will be hard for some of us to accept, but as the saying goes,

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens his friend’s face.

Read more: Why chivalry is dead

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.