Musings on the Day
Ah, yes…professional American football with pink highlights. NFL football is my favorite sport to watch, roughly tied with tennis. I am able to play tennis, so I can relate better to how tennis pros play. Football not so much, but the spectacle is so spectacular.
Apparently, the lack of personal reference does not matter, or is perhaps advantageous. How many avid fans of the NFL were ever good at flag football? Please trust me, dear reader, I’m going somewhere profound.
Yes, the ball is large, the players are large: it’s quite viewable. My point is not to consider why NFL football is the current pastime of the United States de América. Or why world football might be the next one. My point is to investigate the human motive for grand spectacle that has so little relevance to our personal lives except by emotional attachment. I will now summarily give my hypothesis for your distinguished mental viewing pleasure.
Mass-Identity Coward Hypothesis
Life is about conquest, discrimination, hurtfulness—and most people would rather deny it, particularly with the womanization of how we relate to each other and so how we think. Securing your own mortal life in an unfair world, well that’s just plain scary. Anyone honest about the greatest threat to himself or herself would see a Leviathan, a Cathedral, complete with armies of bureaucrats, police, troops, technocrats, talking heads, victims, casus belli, cameras, and information systems. The Matrix of interlocking useful idiots is truly terrifying. Yet, the need to be a reptilian human from the hindbrain remains in force. What to do?
From the hindbrain, men are meant to fight for rank and status by violent dominance, and women to connive for rank and status by emotional dominance. Spectator sports are an outlet for the politically cowardly man. You know the fanatical type, faithful to the tribe because it’s safe conflict.
Now listen up, men! Women are the same way but different, but becoming the same. The reptilian allegiance will matter in evaluating the character of a woman as it does a man. First, consider the same same way. It is hypothesized in the Manosphere that women are increasing the masculinity of their biology by acting with physical dominance = violent license backed by police thuggery. If true, we would expect women to increasingly be sports fanatics since Second-Wave Feminism. We are well aware that NFL football has in recent years been womanized into family entertainment. Employees of the league are prohibited from talking frankly like men and from tackling that looks violently hurtful to the recipient.
According to Time article “NFL Turns Its Marketing Attention to Female Football Fans” by Chris Gentilviso, dated 28 September 2010 (emphasis is mine):
Professional football has devoted $10 million to a new campaign that focuses on products for and ideas from female fans. NPR released a report on Tuesday, detailing the offerings that include everything from nail polish to yoga mats.
Despite the fact that women are ineligible receivers on the field, they represent a strong percentage of the crowds filling stands across the league’s 31 stadiums. The AP notes that females make up 44 percent of the NFL’s fan base, and since 2004, women’s clothing sales have doubled.
More importantly, women have had an outlet and indoctrination for their estrogen-driven conquest by intrigue since some guy figured out how to sell soap on American radio in the 1930s and then on American television in the 1950s. Technocrat George Gerbner studied the effect of television on the masses, which is to say he founded the field of Cultivation Theory. From that work he coined the term ‘mean world syndrome’ to denote correlation between television consumption and fear of the world. In other words, cowardice, dependency, malleability, and the like, and heavy television consumption correlate. The obvious implication is that tell-a-vision is a vision of helplessness and hurtfulness that inculcates political pliability of the masses.
A research paper by Dr. Aaliya Ahmed entitled “Women and Soap Operas: Popularity, Portrayal, and Perception” (June 2012) cites and summarizes from a source identified as Frank and Gerbner (1980), but I suspect the author meant Frank and Greenberg, The Public’s Use of Television: Who Watches and Why.
As an aside, I note that the inflation tax on our Legal Tender Plantations manifests itself partially in quality decline. The goods we have, the works we enjoy, are getting more and more shoddy. I blame people’s acceptance of fiat money, not a lack of people working hard enough, which will never satiate primal greed.
I have not looked at the book by Frank and Greenberg, and I don’t know what they or other researchers say about viewers of sports, but a secondhand idea of researcher’s findings about soap viewers I do have. This excerpt from “Women and Soap Operas” illustrates my hypothesis on cowardice and mass instinctual release with respect to soaps (emphasis is mine):
Frank and Gerbner (1980), in their study combined market segmentation and need and gratification research in their survey. They present explanation for why people watch that vary from one audience segment to another. Members of the soap opera audience are intellectually limited and watch soap because they are socially isolated, lonely and emotionally deprived. Herta Herzog (1944) reported three reasons for listening to radio soaps.
a. Emotional release – a chance to know that others have a problem too.
b. Wishful thinking – they fill in gaps in the listeners own lives or compensate for families.
c. Advice – practical explanations of appropriate patterns of behavior, useful when confronted with various life situations.
Game Lifestyle Application
I hypothesis how this may be useful for men to evaluate the companionship value of women. Women who are ardent sports fans are high-testosterone, behaviorally mannish, and brazenly self-serving. Their cowardice drives their feminine imperatives on the superhighway of political orthodoxy to fast cannibalism and fast decay. These women are good for ONS and not much more. Women who are loyal soap viewers are low-testosterone, behaviorally feminine, timid, and self-effacing. Their cowardice drives their feminine imperatives off the superhighway in fear of being ‘strong and independent’ on the front lines, but they can run down the superhighway just the same out of dread. With such a woman, a man must appear to be the greater dread and authority than the state, a very tall order but possible. Remember, the description of the three categories of masculine mass-identity cowardice, feminine mass-identity cowardice, and no mass-identity cowardice is given as hypothesis.
Perhaps a woman not driven by cowardice at all is ideal, but sans the authority of patriarchy the vanilla female imperative is in play. The emotionally braver woman requires regular exercise of her status seeking and calibration from a position of high social status from her man: that’s two critical elements a man must manage in an LTR with her. She will be more emotionally stable and permit her man more time to recover from a reduction in status than the sports coward, but her openness to her options will not permit indefinite time like the soap coward might. The advantage to the non-coward is that she will actually be a reliable asset in the world and not be a back door liability to you as long as she respects your station. However, the middle class is being methodically destroyed by the inescapable nature of master’s fractional reserve fiat money banking system, and the perennially funded elevation of women (and children) over men, especially white men, will continue, so beware of future relationship obligations. The institution of marriage is not your property so long as you do not take the law into your own hands.
I see only two arguably good reasons to marry: (1) having children, and (2) golden-years companionship. Marriage defined by the state is not necessary for either. It may be possible to approximate the nuclear family without being ensnared by the rape stockades of state marriage by keeping separate but nearby domiciles for the father and mother. I would be sure to have at least one intervening domicile or other third-party property. I would strongly consider running self-sanctioned de facto ‘marriage’ over the state-sanctioned slave-master variety.
Cherchez la femme.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 10 August 2013