Except for sailors and ex-cons.
https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/1/31/on-secret-cults-and-male-dominance
So should piercings, except for earrings, and slutty gals should be allowed an eyebrow ring to signal she’s available for casual sex. Who in the world convinced young women that literally putting a cow ring in their nose was sexy? Of course those “gauges” should be banned with extreme prejudice.
But it’s not just women. Even just regular guys look like trash with tattoos, especially those idiotic sleeves. Barbed wire on your arms? That screams “try hard.”
I consider it a sign of mental illness, both tats and piercings.
Interestingly, rock stars were not hard hit [by AIDS]: after Freddie Mercury, the most famous victim was … who? The guy in the B-52s? Rock stars tend to be the not terribly masculine pretty boys who figure out it’s a good way to get girls.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-are-there-more-lesbian-than-gay-male-jocks/?highlight=rock+stars
To be a female pop star, you have to be good looking or a good singer or both. But to be a male rock star, you can look like the Mad Hatter in Tenniel’s illustrations for Alice in Wonderland and sing like, well, I don’t know what Petty sang like.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/tom-petty/?highlight=Petty
Petty was an artsy redneck. Here’s his 1985 video “Don’t You Come Around Here No More” combining an ominous Scots-Irish warning with Petty’s Mad Hatter resemblance:
Rock stars tend to start as delicate, artistic, high-cheekboned, not terribly masculine heterosexuals who drive young girls wild. (How many burly rock singers have their been? The singer in Smashmouth, and probably some country rockers. But the classic rock band frontman is wiry.)
The youngest girls tend to go for the boy band practice boyfriend types like The Beatles in 1964, while the slightly older ones tend to go for the leering, concupiscent Rolling Stones in 1965 types.
The classic rock star look is often a weird combination of pretty and grotesque, like Steven Tyler of Aerosmith. But to be/stay a huge star, you need male fans. The young girl audience isn’t loyal. There is always somebody new. So rock stars often butch up their acts: Springsteen as working man, Petty as redneck, Strummer as Kiplingesque soldier of fortune.
Sailer also said that women like rock stars because their looks suggest they will have beautiful daughters, and then her daughter can be the Belle of the Ball.
Banned Hipster 
Tattoos and piercings… not the worst thing to criminalize. Interesting that both AIDS and Covid were unable to drive them out of business., while all kinds of small businesses have folded. After the apocalypse, will tattoo parlors still exist? Hey. that’s were the mark of the Beast comes from!
But why the swerve into Steve Sailer’s ice cold hot boomer takes? It seems like he has a keyboard macro for “not terribly masculine”. Always harping on those damned skinny kids who didn’t deserve to get the girls, when Steve had that cool ‘stache and permed hair (see his College Bowl photo). Oh for the good old days, when the chicks went for guys with mid-Atlantic accents like Noel Coward, saying things like “not teddibly”.
A commenter on his more recent musings on “Football is gay and ballet is lesbian” had it right:
“Super fit, muscular male ballet dancer, who spends all his time surrounded by beautiful women: “What a fruit salad!”
“Lazy man who spends all his time slumped in front of the TV watching sports and sucking down beer and nachos, with a belly so distended he can’t see his d*ck without a mirror: “What an Alpha Male!”
He and you miss the chance to look into this “grotesque” thing. I can’t remember who it was who pointed out that in 1964, a guy who looked like Mick Jagger was considered disfigured, then in 1965 he was the epitome of hotness. How’d that happen? The pretty boy of the Stones was Brian Jones, and you can see the girls focusing on him in early films/photos.
I speculate that magick was involved in forcing out Jones (and killing him), the success of Jagger and Richards, and even their unnatural longevity. How many 80 year old junkies are there? See my review https://counter-currents.com/2014/12/welcome-to-club-27/ which has a link to an earlier review of Dave McGowan’s Laurel Canyon book.
I suppose it’s the negrofication of culture: big fat lips and big fat asses, which ties in with the tattooing and piercing and even scarification. Hesse alludes to this in Weimar Germany in Demian. Steppenwolf focuses on jazz, the Stones promoted da bluze, now its rap.
Punk was the next iteration of ugliness, piercing and negro worship (reggae).
But anyway, missing in all these HBD-style discussions of “beauty” is awareness of the allure of the “grotesque”. You might be interested in Alan Watts’ discussion of the ugliness of Protestant churches and services (he was an Episcopalian priest), which nevertheless has a charm and snuggly warmth of their own, in his Beyond Theology (1964). He compares the allure of the grotesque to the fascination of a broken tooth that one just can’t leave alone. This kind of “offbeat good looks” often works for celebrities, models, actors, singers. “Child bearing hips” and “healthy teeth” has little to do with real popularity.
LikeLike
“Super fit, muscular male ballet dancer”
Well I don’t know about ballet specifically – I remember when I was a child in the 80’s there was a mini-trend with the famous Russian ballet dancer and he was obviously straight. Wasn’t the black actor, Gregory Hines, also in that movie?
There’s Rahm Emmanuel who is straight as far as I know. But he’s a Jew so it’s different.
But outside of ballet … my wife forced me to go to a modern dance thing. We got front row seats due to her string-pulling. It was literally the gayest thing I have ever seen in my life, gayer than Elton John plus Liberache.
These dudes were cut, obviously incredibly strong, and managed to be gayer than a red balloon. Literally within two minutes of the opening dance, she gave me a sort of timid/malicious smile, either apologizing for making me go to this or gloating she made me go to this. Or both. Probably both.
The main thing I remember though is that one guy was sweating so much I actually kind of flinched whenever he was doing a move because I thought he was going to slip off the stage into our laps. The other guy wasn’t. So I wonder if the poor dude had like sprained his ankle on the first move or whatever.
I certainly like some high culture – I’ll go see a symphony anytime. But ballet is all see through tights and camel toe and makes me feel a bit … like I’m a voyeur peeking into the girl’s locker room or something.
I always thought Sailer’s takes on “gender studies” were quite good and miles above any other right-wingers, who think the way to be masculine is to out Africa the Africans – something I figured out myself in high school, then when I discovered you realized I wasn’t the only one to notice it.
We were all either long haired Viking rockers or suave New Wavers like Bryan Ferry, until Nirvana and then we could all just start dressing like rednecks in Walmart flannels – our natural state, frankly – and still be “cool.”
LikeLike
I must admit dance or rather “The Dahnce” (like “The Theatre”) means nothing to me. People seem to find some kind of artistic or spiritual content, as if it was Shakespeare or Beethoven, but it all looks the same to me. I suppose I’m movement-blind like being tone deaf. No attempt to claim I’m “too macho” to be bothered, I just don’t “see” it. I suppose I “get” some forms as a kind of mating ritual, or public demonstration of fitness, but that’s the “utilitarian” angle. People from ancient India to Nietzsche to Watts use it as a metaphor for spiritual freedom or something but whatever. I only comment on it externally — asking why is this fashionable, why this isn’t, and so on. See my essay on Clifton Webb (a dancer on Broadway before he came to Hollywood) in “Sitting Pretty” in my new book, Passing the Buck.
LikeLike
> the ugliness of Protestant churches
On no, I discussed this pre-blog, as a commenter. It’s not “ugliness.” It’s “plainness.” Clearly a difference. “Plainness” certainly is not an African trait. Maybe groteque is – think of the scarification, the bones in noses, etc. But that is very much not “plain.” It’s actually “fancy” in its own, grotesque way.
I had this discussion with my sister just a few years ago, in fact. As I’ve said a million times, there is no real “Catholic vs. Protestant” debate just like there is no “Christian vs. Pagan” debate – except in the sense of two hipsters arguing over their favorite band. In other words, it’s a pretend argument, fun because it’s so meaningless.
But, every time I read one of you Catholics, or E. Michael Jones, I am reminded of how you people totally do not get it. You are simply outsiders peering in on something you don’t understand at all.
LikeLike
I take your point about plain vs. ugly, however Watts was exploring areas where p does shade into u. One of his examples: stained glass was viewed as “papist”, fair enough; but rather than just using clear glass, churches would install yellow glass that gave everything a pale yellow tint. Why? (It occurs to me that Breaking Bad used to film regular spots in the US with a yellow filter to suggest Mexico; were these folks LARPing as ancient Hebrews in the Holy Land?)
Plainness is just fine, and indeed has its own beauty, such as Shaker furniture or certain Quaker meeting houses., as well as the more fashionable Zen look. In fact, I find myself closer to endorsing good solid Federal style architecture, Founding Fathers dress etc. as the American equivalent of genteel society and good gentlemen of the German Enlightenment period, Goethe and Weimar and all that, along with the politics. The Tea Party was onto something! If that means endorsing a Broad Church kind of Anglicanism (assuming Deism is too extreme) then so be it; neither Anglo-Catholic sodomites nor Low Church barbarians.
I have in fact many times denounced the E Michael Joneses for their Mediaeval LARPing, which both stupid (“the Enlightenment isn’t going away, and that’s a good thing” – real conservative Roger Scruton) and dangerous (if it did happen, life would suck and most of these guys would be executed).
The Nativists were correct to fear that Irish and Italian immigrants would bring Papism (so-called “Americanism” – i.e., freedom of religion — was a literal heresy well into the XXth century); ironically, however, the immigrants instead abandoned their religion for the fleshpots of the New World, so it worked out. The same thing happened to Marxism in Europe: the working class was “seduced” and abandoned the Revolution. No surprise then, that both the Fuenteses and Joneses and the Frankfurt School turned on the Enlightenment as the real villain. Is Yarvin another one? Both the Woke and the Traditionalists denounce the American founding as a Bad Thing.
But back to Watts: he was hardly an “outsider”. Born and raised in the Anglican church, he joined the Episcopal church in the US, got an M.Th. from Seabury seminary and became a chaplain at Northwestern. As the latter he got quite familiar with Low Church architecture and the pew potatoes who liked it just fine. Indeed, in his earlier Behold the Spirit (1947), which his bishop selected as the Easter Reading for the diocese, he derives a theory of historical development from Spengler (!) in which Catholicism represents a literally “childish” level of understanding, leading to the necessary “adolescence” of Protestantism (he views Luther, Calvin and the Anglicans as the mainstream, the others as deviations), “angsty” and “rebellious” but a necessary development towards maturity (which, of course, is his version of Anglican Zen). So hardly pro-Catholic or anti-Luther.
Speaking of deviations, Bro. Stair, the radio preacher and prophet of the End Times who is my window on the Low Church, denounces all Protestant denominations (“Is Christ divided?” – St. Paul) as merely the “daughters of the Great Harlot” known as the Roman Catholic Church. So don’t think you can hide in your fellowship hall when Christ comes again, soon, in vengeance!
Maranatha, brother!
LikeLike
If we’re going down that route, after reading your piece on Brian Johnson, the Rolling Stone, I wonder if we should just go whole-hog Pentecostalism.
It is tribal trance music and they love to dance. The “theology” – such as it is – is pretty much whatever you want it to be and the serious ones just stick as closely to orthodoxy as a low church Protestant can – the Apostles’ Creed and Luther’s three Solas. Early 20th churches Snake-Handling churches played Rock-a-Billy, and better than 99% of the stuff they ever played on the radio.
I also heartily agree that the music was hardly “stolen” from Black slaves. It would be too uncharitable to say they stole it from us, but Robert Johnson was just playing hillbilly and gospel music on a bad guitar. Blues is just the “blue note” – a bendy third – which is a byproduct of the difference between Pythagorean tuning and equal temperment. White gospel hints at it via a major second and trills. Actual African music, with the polyrhythms and whole tone scales, have had virtually zero influence on American music, White or Black.
I’d say the main difference between White and Black American music is the “swing.” “Swing” means beats one and three are slightly longer than beats two and four. Take AC/DC for example. The Pentatonic is hardly “Eastern” – it’s in plenty of European folk music and you can sit a child in front of most instruments and they will discover that scale by themselves, because it’s simple and you can’t play a wrong note. So AC/DC has no “swing” – it’s precise like a marching band. It’s not really “blues” – it’s just Scottish folk music with electric guitars.
Now Pentecostalism is the lowest of low church, but that’s the point – it’s so low it’s literally pagan. It’s Dionysus. That Mars Hill soft rock gospel music is technically Pentecostalism with all the sex taken out of it. The basic gimmick is it has to be singable, so the melodies tend to be simple and limited in range.
So as I’ve said for ever, you really do have to have both. You need the Church and the Mannerbund. You need Dionysus and Apollo. You need Bryan Ferry and Ratt. You need men and women. They are not necessarily “opposites” – “complimentary” is a better term, but all these pairs are not equasions where one side equals the other, or the different left hand terms are equivalent and the right hand terms are all equivalent. It’s something else.
So you go to your Episcopalian service on Sunday morning and your Pentecostal service on Sunday night. Friday night is your AC/DC concert, as the TOO writer put it so well, “a pagan fertility rite to whip up male bloodlust and sexul lust.”
Oh, also, after you mentioned Quiet Storm in the context of Yacht Rock, I listened to a bit. Frankly, I hated it and it was unlistenable. But obviously extremely well made and technically perfectionist. I guess it’s true Black music with all the White taken out, which is why I couldn’t listen to it perhaps.
LikeLike
My tattoos are within the business zone.
Dont worry, never got into those wild piercings and gauges.
LikeLike
@freemattpodcast
> within the business zone
LOL!
LikeLike
Not the fun zone, business zone is where a pair of shorts or short sleeves would cover the tattoo(s).
LikeLike
Good stuff. Narcissism, tattoos/piercings, and social media are the nu-drugs, that’s why tattoo parlors got through the plandemic in my view.
I don’t have any “tats”, piercings, or social media so does that make me hip to be square here in California?
LikeLike
Tattoos are like clothing. If everyone was forced to wear uniforms we’d have to work harder to spot the weirdos. Information is always useful.
As for modern dance, can confirm. Extremely flaming and subversive. Ballet is in different league like all classical art forms.
LikeLike