The Devolution Of The West Can Be Seen Through Popular Sports

I am not interested in football, neither the American distortion of rugby nor soccer. Unsurprisingly, this can leave one ostracised from many conversations in the workplace and other modern, bourgeois scenarios. Is it because these sports are just too masculine and rough? On the contrary, it is because they are too feminine!

Things only get worse when I explain that I enjoy more masculine, dangerous (not necessarily violent) sports. The very worst reaction comes when I declare it feminine to not be engaged in such sports personally. After a brief, heated discussion, I am usually on the receiving end of the same, silent, frustrated scramble for a good answer. You can forget about mentioning my thoughts on porn – it is hardly alpha male behaviour to masturbate whilst watching another, better-endowed man plough nubile nymphs. This is no digression, mind you; there is something more masculine to being involved in the action, whether conquering foes or fair maidens.

But, can I really prove it?

After all, I might dislike football because I am not particularly good at it and, conversely, like wrestling because I was. Perhaps I had the bias and the others were right – aside from all the padding and effeminate diving about with feigned injuries, perhaps watching a match of some bourgeois, team sport was just as masculine as becoming the Ultimate Fighting Champion.

What are the fundamental differences between the aristocratic sports of old, which focus much more on the individual man, and the spectator sports of today, which focus more on some team, seemingly devised to maximise profitability from said spectators?

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

Notice how these sports focus on the individuals, often dueling one against the other. A certain sense of transcendence is required to engage in such daring activities, elevating the noble above mere practical concerns in their struggle for glory – immortal fame, as it were. Once you conquer the mountain, conquer your foe and, in so doing, conquer your fear, you have in a certain sense conquered yourself; winner or loser, the shaking of peers’ hands afterwards is, yes, out of Christian charity, but also a showing of respect for those on the same noble quest.

So, what changed?

Acclaimed historian, Jacques Barzun’s book, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, describes the uneasy relationship between the old, knightly order and the newly developing, modern state, headed by an increasingly dominant bourgeoisie, merchant class. On the subject of duels, he wrote that the ‘desire for self-vindication is deeply ingrained in western man.’

Up to the early modern and revolutionary periods, this ‘was called “the point of honor.” Its moral force derived from medieval chivalry, which regarded the knight as the champion of all that is noble and fair and as an independent judge in his own cause. No monarch wanted his subjects to lose all of these qualities, and the ethos persisted.’ Time has since eroded any such regard for masculine virtue, however.

Barzun uses the example of the bourgeois, French monarch, Louis XIV, who led the transition not only from kingship to monarch but also from the quest for honour to quests for honours: ‘titles, decorations, favors slight in themselves but of infinite value, such as being spoken to by the king before anyone else among a cluster of courtiers.

As for the love of titles and decorations, it has become the rage in the democracies—prizes for everything and everyone.’ Thus, a mere glance at the transition from the medieval to the modern period can give us a clear picture of how far removed the modern, Western man is from his self-vindicating ancestors; whereas the modern bourgeoisie relies on the ubiquitous state to act as middle-man and safety net for all social interactions, and has no communal or cultural authority in his life except for the state, this is a far cry from the chivalry of old.

The Ten Commandments of Chivalry

  1. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.
  2. Thou shalt defend the Church.
  3. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
  4. Thou shalt love the country in which thou wast born.
  5. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.
  6. Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
  7. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the laws of God.
  8. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.
  9. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.
  10. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

It is the generally irresponsible attitude of the modernist, bourgeois mind that I take exception to. For over five hundred years now, Western man has been palming off responsibilities to some far off group, purporting to be the Leviathan state, all in exchange for comforts. Of course, we are increasingly comfortable and entertained. I can’t complain, but we are also increasingly detached from reality, hardship and the consequent gumption to fight for what is ours, let alone to fight for what is right, good and true.

So, when I see grown men talking with the depth of a philosopher on the eve of battle about what is effectively a game for juveniles, and one in which they shall not participate and indeed will be played by overpaid foreigners, not even kinsmen of their beloved region, I dare not laugh, as these are the death throes of my civilisation.

I cannot help but agree with reactionaries of the 20th century in this regard, but this is no idle or defunct theory and I am in good company – the work of Prof. Walter J. Ong on the subject of masculinity confirmed these intuitions from the data regarding male development and competition:

‘Historically, the agonistic, masculinising era has given way to one of greater femininity. In a sense, the male television sports watcher…[described elsewhere as] slumped alone with his can of beer before the screen under the glare of his justifiably outraged sports widow…is a product of a highly feminized culture: no earlier oral-agonistic age could have produced this abstract half-disinvolvement with the agōnia in the arena.’

I would recommend his excellent work, Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality and Consciousness, but more than this, I would recommend we all revolt against the modern world by striving against such disinvolvement, by becoming more engaged in our communities and also in sports which really test our personal mettle. I realise this will be hard for some of us to come to terms with, but, as the proverb says,

Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.

Read More: Why Chivalry Is Dead

56 thoughts on “The Devolution Of The West Can Be Seen Through Popular Sports”

  1. Personally, I entirely disagree with the whole crux of this article.
    I say that it totally misreads human history and the progression, and regression, of masculinity.
    For example…
    ‘As for the love of titles and decorations, it has become the rage in the democracies—prizes for everything and everyone.’
    ..and yet we recall…
    ‘A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon.’ Napoleon Bonaparte
    Read more at:
    ‘For over five hundred years now, Western man has been palming off responsibilities to some far off group,…’
    ..and yet Roman history was beset by the question of taking responsibility for the poor.
    ‘In ancient Rome, the Roman government used the term Cura Annonae (“care for the grain supply”), in honour of their goddess Annona, to describe its distribution of a dole of grain, and later bread, to hundreds of thousands of the poorer residents of Rome. The grain was distributed from the Temple of Ceres.’
    )…from which we get breakfast cereals of course)
    Cura Annonae – Wikipedia
    None of this is peculiar, and nothing about this is modern.
    I respect the effort at such an ambitious topic, I just disagree.

    1. I hate guys who do individual sports, they are almost always complete arseholes. They are completely out of touch with their fellow man, can’t work in a team, they actually think that people listen to what they say because they say it. Wannabe Aristocratic trash. The worst are those who do canoeing.
      I prefer rugby, you realize that you are in the game for your buddies, for your “gang”, and will only go off if you really can’t run or catch the ball or scrum. Teeth knocked out, spit them out and continue playing. Nose broken, just shove it back more less straight, wipe off the tomato juice, and continue playing, and that was already at schoolboy level. But to be honest, you don’t actually feel anything on the rugby field.
      The American grunts in the Vietnam war knew how to sort the snobs out. “Just take the lead Sir, we’re right behind you”, and then they shoot the bastard in the back.

      1. Interesting thoughts on individual sports.
        A lot of golfers and tennis players are complete tossers, that’s for sure.
        Agreed on not feeling the pain when on the pitch playing rugger.
        My school term was good (aged 15).
        It had some rather ‘rough’ lads.
        At least two went on to be murderers, thing is, their year playing rugby was the only time in five years at school they were productive, ‘happy’ and a real part of the school.
        I think they would have been better men if they’d carried on playing.

        1. Wrestling, Boxing, Weight lifting, Track n Field, Judo, Skiing, Swimming.
          Pretty much 80% of the Olympics is individual Sport related and is 2000 years old.

        2. Olympics?
          Good point!
          It’s arguably the world’s most corrupt outfit after the UN.
          From the Soviets to the London Games, people literally died to put on that ugly parade.
          I lived directly over the London games (tower block) and moved to avoid the crowds.
          Still had to endure sitting next to sweaty athletes on my Central Line commute.
          Never watched a moment. Not the twisted opening ceremony nor the 100 meters.
          If it wasn’t for government, it would not exist.
          Just like gridiron.
          You’ll find it’s nearer 4500 years old….and even the ancients had problems with drugs, doping and bribes.

      2. I live in America where we play football which is a little rougher than rugby. We also don’t wear shorts when playing, maybe someday you can get to wear your big boy pants when playing.

    2. The question remains, is oversupplying for the poor part of why Rome fell? It’s easy to point back at Rome and say, “they did this and they did that,” but the question becomes at what point in history did they do it, why is it likely they did it, and since we also know the history that preceded and followed, what outcomes do we witness in history?
      So, can you tell me at what point in Roman history they were feeding massive amounts of poor through the government and what effects it had on the society as a whole both short term and long term?

      1. ‘ It’s easy to point back at Rome and say, “they did this and they did that,” ..’
        Perhaps for the ill educated, it might be. However, no-one has done that.
        I don’t now why you’d type that out.
        ‘So, can you tell me at what point in Roman history they were feeding massive amounts of poor [?] through the government and what effects it had on the society as a whole both short term and long term?’
        Er…yes, I can, but I’ll gratefully decline your kind offer as it sounds rather like, ‘Can you educate me in a sphere? I am ignorant.’
        That’s what some teachers like me call ‘work’ and I doubt you’d be happy with my fees.
        I’m interested in discussion with those who do not require MY many years of reading as a crutch with which to disagree, I’m sure you will understand.
        As I’m here, I’m half way throug this …

        …but certainly can’t recommend it. A little two dimensional.
        You migh like to look up the effects of Greek slavery on the Roman class system and economy. Failing that take a course. Or read.

  2. Notice how much the old code of chivalry said about women?
    Chivalry was a warrior code. It was about serving your lord, protecting your vassals, preserving the faith and smiting your enemies.

    1. er….pretty sure there were chivalric codes regarding interaction with women.
      Certainly regarding interaction with other men’s women.
      Basically, women were not fair game.
      However, women were not important. They did not really ‘matter’. They did not occupy any central position and their concerns were irrelevant.

      1. Women had to run castles when their husbands were elsewhere, and occasionally even had to defend it. Some of them were pretty handy with a mangonel. If they had you in their gunsights, you were dead.
        They weren’t 4Fs, unlike some of you.

        1. Who designed and built the castles after raising the finance and organising the workforce?
          Anyway, look up Boudicca, you coud quote her in support of your flawed argument. It will appear more substantial.
          Don’t know what ‘4Fs’ are.
          Is it a new American jet fighter?
          Overpriced and tech heavy I supposed?

      2. Boudicca was a failure. Her ill considered attack on Roman forces was all about her feelings and emotions. As a result Britons were slaughtered by the thousands in battle against a much superior foe. They were completely subdued by the Romans as a result and lost what independence they had retained.

        1. ‘Feelings’?
          Not really.
          Her daughters were raped in front of her. Ancient Britain was not modern Rotherham. We could do with some of that now.
          Oh, and most of those she attacked were turn-coat Brits who had gone over to the Romans.
          I’m with the Rebels on this on.
          …and all revolts against the Romans ended in failure, so no shame there.

    2. The “old” code of chivalry was created in 1883 by 19th century romantic writter.
      It’s like the 9 noble virtues of vikings.
      Knights had one code, don’t kill a surrendering ennemy because ransoms make good money. Of course does not apply to footmen, they are broke commoner filth.
      For the other aspects of the buisness, they did pretty much what they wanted, switching sides if they saw fit, loot, rape and murder for the kicks, abduct and marry heiress, steal from the church, charge “protection money”…
      They were the products of their colourful time.
      So they would not obey the church if not forced, even excommunication was hardly a deterrent. Many bishops and other members of the clergy were actual lords and ruled harshly over the populace.
      Defend the weak ? Not so much, the strong dominate, they only defended their properties.
      Love your country ? Nationalism is a 19th century creation, warriors back then worked for anyone willing to pay, including against their country and nominal liege.
      Not recoil ? Better to live to fight another day than ending prisonner or dead.
      Might is right, and good is fulfilling one own advancement in life, so lying and betraying is acceptable, do not do this too much often, or your employers will become scarce.
      Feudality was quite similar to mafia, then knights were hardly restrained by moral considerations. Of course there was a wide range between the highest nobility, the petty noble barely above the peasant, and knights forming bands of highwaymen and mercenaries.

    3. Geoffroi de Charny said something about women in his book about chivalry, but mostly it was about the behavior of knights and men-at-arms.

  3. The guys who talk tough do not want to go and live in a shithole country and do real battle; they want to emulate that battle in their martial arts gym or whatever petty little hobby they have that makes them smirk arrogantly at people with different interests.
    The world has changed and the tough guys secretly love it because they get to live out Steven Seagal movie fantasies from the comfort of their home and perhaps stand in front of the door of a night club where the police and paramedics will always be a brief phone call away if he gets to bite more than he can chew.
    Times have changed. No matter how hard they stomped their feet, the haggard medieval knights could not imagine the comfort of a television and a hygienic can of beer. Just like the Bible quoted above, we pick and choose which passages and romanticized images we allow to enter our minds to build a smug identity.
    In the end of the day we’ll all be old and a nurse will be wiping our spit off our face before we expire. What you do between that and your birth is hopefully something you like doing; does not matter if it’s “feminine” or “masculine”. If you chase someone else’s dream and reach it, you still lose.
    I’m not actually opposed to the concepts of battle, heroism, challenging yourself etc. but the real battle ahead of us is different for every person and a lot of it is very mundane; it is not about some decisive blow, move or daredevil stunt; that’s wishful thinking in a world where endurance is worth much more than explosion. Going to the gym when you feel like shit, going to work when you feel like crap, writing a boring essay to get your credits or even doing your dissertation, gaming that lady you like but are intimidated by, not losing your cool with your children etc.
    But within all that grey and ordinary daily grinding there are also flashes of light that make it interesting and rewarding.
    Actual slaughter, killing, suicide attacks and physical stunts may be worthy images to be inspired by but if the person feels like they cannot feel any male tingles without practicing some very specific hobby out of a thousand options then I think it’s his lack of imagination that’s the problem and not Joe Blow’s.

    1. Agree with most of this.
      Any man in the west who wants to experience a New Frontier only has to buy a plane ticket and secure a Visa. No-one is stopping him.
      The fantasy of masculine self discovery through killing other men was tired even before industrial warfare took all the fun away.
      Further, we saw a glimpse of where it all terminated with M.A.D.
      How boring.
      To imagine Real Men are forged by killing remains adolescent. Seductive, but adolescent.

        1. We’ve already HAD that correction.
          It wiped out masculinity from the public sphere, wiped it out TOTALLY without any ressistance whatsoever.
          Masulinity was ROUTED in no time whatsoever.
          No-one even burried it’s corpse, dogs dragged it around town before it was left to rot and children threw stones at it.
          Two men now seem to engage in this debate.
          One lives on Planet Earth and sees the world as it is.
          The other awaits the ‘collapse’ or ‘magical salvation’ or ‘reversal of history’ or whatever.
          That’s it.

    2. You had me until you blurred the “Masculine & Feminine” lines. That is some flat out Marxist horse dung and a prime example why that mentality should be avoided
      In truth your name and your fatalistic nihilistic attitude is exactly what the author was trying to point out.
      Why struggle for self improvement when nothing really matters and we’re all dead anyway. Let me just sit on my ass and enjoy my Negro Felon League.

      1. I’m all for self-improvement. It’s just that I’m against shoe horning people into “masculinity” as described by some guy that is not secure enough in his (masculinity) to allow for different human destinies. You make your own meaning whatever it is. Whether it’s christianity, buddhism, dudebro red pill masculinity, nihilism, world traveling international hipster masculinity, money making yuppie masculinity or something else.
        Your age and health also determines it for you to some extent. This is psychology 101. Your outlook on life won’t be the same at 50 as it was at 25. That’s normal and healthy. Your core personality may be the same but your goals, dreams and aspirations do change.

    3. “In the end of the day we’ll all be old and a nurse will be wiping our spit off our face before we expire.”
      Quite a lot of my pals have managed to (unintentionally) die well before that stage, and you could always kill yourself.

  4. Throw out chivalry. It is fantastical and MANKIND doesn’t honor it anyway. Fools write this bullsh* into their hearts as it is meaningless words to ALL mankinds acts.

  5. Honestly I used to enjoy this site but I’m starting to think that the Inmates may be slowly overtaking the Asylum.
    Quality articles that actually require some thinking and observation about grander things rather than “Muh Dick” or harping on about how terrible modern women are (as truthful as that may be) are becoming increasingly scarce.
    I dont fault Roosh on this as hes had obvious personal struggles but quality control is slipping.
    Add to that now half the comments are a bunch of black-pilled nihilists who only seem to read this site as an excuse to bitch about the world or trolls and other questionable characters.
    I dont mind agreeing that the world sucks right now and that our lands and women are garbage but there is an increasingly growing vibe of nihilistic outlooks and overall “fuck it I’m going to -insert foreign eastern or SA country here”
    Hopefully something changes here but if growing trend of black-pilled mgtow libertarian style circle-jerking continues then its only a matter of time.
    Great article and really does make on think about “Bread & Circuses”.

    1. This site isn’t ‘serious’, if it ever was.
      I understand it was a good place to debate certain issues, around 5 years ago.
      Best utilised on boring days off work, I find.

  6. Hello, I’ve been trying to bushwhack my way out of a giant YetiBush all afternoon. I was using a peculiar pink toadstool as a landmark but I seem to have lost sight of it, and I’m now totally lost. I cannot last much longer. Please send help.

  7. In Rugby League the Helen Lovejoys are completely ruining the sport. They don’t even know what they’re doing anymore, trying to appease the whining women. They set new rules on certain contact but then these rules are broken because they naturally occur when bodies are positioned in certain ways and there’s nothing the player can do about it, but he’s punished regardless. Then high profile players are ruled out of games, ruining the overall product, and the fans complain, but the higher ups are too afraid to change it back because they will be attacked for teaching the children that it’s okay to do that. It started with fighting, then it degraded from there. As you all know it’s never enough with these people, you cannot give them an inch.

  8. Chivalry is a warriors code it has nothing to do with women so why do they always bitch about men not being chivalrous

  9. I’m not interested in sports that end in ties 50% of the time and where acting is king. That’s all soccer is. Oh, and those gaybo incidents like Luis Suarez biting other players and the guy a couple years ago who grabbed another dude’s (obviously huge, erect) dick while contesting for a header.

    1. If you think Gazza’s penis was erect when Vinny Jones grabbed him, you are seeing things that….erm…that only you can see.
      Football is the world’s biggest and greatest game.
      It dwarfs all other sports, easily.
      Who knows?
      Perhaps it will survive without you?

        1. I don’t know who you are and there is little point debating personal taste.
          One observatuon, however.
          With this ongoing ‘American football/sports’ versus ‘the choice of the rest of the entire planet’ debate, I never come across American actual PLAYERS who are still out there on the field, who were REALLY GOOD attacking football/soccer.
          They all seem, at least, to be armchair fans.
          I play Mondays.

      1. I don’t waste my time watching sports but have played football in amateur leagues. It is a man’s game. I don’t really care what the rest of the World likes. Since most of Western Europe is more decayed and sissified than America, I really don’t care what type of sissy sports they like.

        1. You just don’t make any sense.
          Why would a person write out a post about something they ‘don’t care about’ and then another about just how much they don’t care abou….
          ….and what’s worse, it causes in ‘in’ notice in MY e-mails….

  10. Jews may have destroyed the US, but complaining and doing nothing is useless.
    The USA is now an immoral bankrupt warmongering police state flooded with illegal immigrants.
    Americans bitch and complain that they are victims of the Jews, but how can Americans say that they aren’t responsible for anything?
    If the Jews tell you to be immoral and you are immoral then whose fault is that?
    If the Jews tell you to go in debt and you are in debt then whose fault is that?
    If Americans hate wars then where are the war protests?
    If Americans hate illegal aliens then where are the protests?
    If Americans love freedom then why do they beg for more laws?
    Do Jews outnumber white people?
    Can’t white people start movie studios, media companies, and stock markets?
    Are Americans crippled retards?
    How can Americans sleep at night while the USA collapses?
    How can Americans look in the mirror today without feeling disgusted?

    1. White men are too divided. Where I work they promote (((diversity))), a White either vocally supports it or keeps quiet. The Whites that keep quiet are mostly indifferent. The best of the goyim are relegated to fringes.

  11. The author has a point here. I remember one time a million years ago I read Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “The Education of a Bodybuilder” and he states that though his father preferred he participate in soccer, he was drawn to more personal and selfish glory. He did not want to share his conquests with others, it was all his. We see what he accomplished with such an attitude.

    1. Arnold was very lucky he stumbled across guys at the gym that had access to high quality medicinal gear and they educated him on using it in his teens.
      Otherwise he most likely would of amounted to nothing.

  12. I don’t know if I agree with all the points made in this article but I can say this. I HATE football. It is the most asinine invention i the history of humanity. People paying exorbitant prices for a ticket to watch a bunch of overpaid, self important morons play with a ball. Worse yet park yourself infant of a television for hours cheering for “your team” when “your team” doesn’t give a shit about you while you feed your face a stare at a television. Worse yet, fantasy football. As if going and watching weren’t already a sufficient display of idiocy, groupthink you want to review the stats of these high priced idiots to make up fake teams. Don’t these drones have anything better to do. Read a book, get a job, talk to your wife or children, expand your mind. Idiots,complete and utter idiots.

  13. “Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt observe all its directions.”
    Not if that church is teaching apostasy or outright betraying the Doctrine of Christ. When this happens, the chivalrous have a duty to obey these Scriptures:
    “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” – 2 Timothy 3:1 through 5 (KJV)
    “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” – Revelation 18:4 through 5 (KJV)
    Thou shalt NOT believe all that the Church teaches and thou shalt NOT observe all its directions but in every way…
    “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” – 1 John 4:1 through 3 (KJV)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *