0hMan
germano-gaelic gaunche - modführer
Staff
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2022
- Posts
- 4,214
- Reputation
- 9,573
I had recently revisited some of my notes from a year ago that I had never shared anywhere, which I had just rediscovered. And I pondered:
I continue to harbor negative thoughts about women, openly express them, and become overly emotional. Then a moment arrives when I pause, blink, and question myself and saying "Where am I?", sensing that, for a while now, my thoughts and words no longer align with reality. Then I criticize myself and immerse myself in a deep mud-bath of humility and regret. However, when I emerge from this bath, I'm astonished to realize that I wasn't wrong in the least, and that my supposed exaggerations matched precisely with the truth.
For example, a sixty-year-old woman who has spent forty years with her husband (who is seventy), while they continue to live together, sharing meals, initiates divorce proceedings, hires a bailiff to inventory their home, has her husband’s deed-box locked, and when he exclaims, "This will end me", responds: "I am aware" - all stemming from jealousy (which means "love")...
Or the partners of clueless individuals who say to you: "You believe X is brave, but he wears lifts, wouldn't dream of scolding the waitress, and follows my instructions exactly." "He's a kid, etc."
Or the young woman in Morocco, whom I once heard remark about her husband toiling away in the countryside for ten hours daily: "X must keep his nose to the grindstone." "Now he understands the expense of having a wife..."
And alike occurrences endlessly... One for each page of the calendar. No, it's when I believe I've wandered too far from reality that I'm wrong...
SOME GRAVE AILMENTS OF THE MODERN WEST
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" John 2:4.
Unrealism. - Blind spots. Fear of reality, whether due to timidity or from naive idealism. In truth, it is reality that purifies the soul. "I discard in the trash bin the papers on German rearmament that the military continues to send me." (Briand's Thoiry correspondence to Stresemann).
Dolorism. - The Apostle says: "If ye be without chastisement, then are ye bastards and not sons." The chastised rub their hands: down with the happy! Those who are chastised claim that suffering is necessary, just as poor writers insist that a novel must be poorly crafted: it serves as a means of self-justification. Moral anguish is thought to enhance a person, yet it is not anguish that enriches, ["For sorrow hath killed many, and there is no profit therein." - Ecclesiasticus.] but rather crisis: these are entirely different. It grants individuals a right to attention, to being cared for, to being forgiven, which are often regarded as vital components of self-worth and of creativity. A man cannot claim he is happy without being seen as a fool, a boor, a charlatan seeking envy, or someone disrespecting the hardships of humanity. From where the common stance of suffering and "anxiety", etc. originates: individuals understand that suffering is what yields results. The reality is that moral suffering is almost always indicative of either physiological weakness (only the feeble fret) or intellectual deficiency (a smart person understands how to ease most of his own moral distress)
The desire to please. - Never saying what is, or what one thinks, but what one believes will please. The desire for approval is the common denominator of every individual in every bourgeoisie.
Gregariousness. - Fear and hatred of individual thought; and collective auto-suggestion. The world is riddled with clichés as the vine is riddled with phylloxera. Everyone thinks in the same way at the same time, like puppets making the same gesture at the same time in response to the puppet-master.
Sentimentalism. - A substitute for reason and justice. The cheap morality and bogus uplift ("the threepenny opera") of religion, school and press.
Now, in each of these five ailments of the social body, the same abundance of bacilli are to be found in the shape of yoni. In other words, all these sores are essentially feminine. Let us go over them again:
Unrealism. - "I don't want to think about it" and "It's to be hoped that" are two typically feminine expressions. Women are too infirm to bear reality: reality, for them, is an affliction. Whence the "refuges": love, religion, superstition, mythomania, convention, [Nietzsche has said something to the effect of noble women thinking that a thing does not exist if it cannot be mentioned in society.] idealism. Falsified both in face and body (because of their infirmity), they only feel at ease in a falsified universe. Men are more afraid of words than realities; women are afraid of both. Ostriches and women bury their heads in the sand and imagine they can no longer be seen. Men also bury their heads in the sand, but know they can be seen. In Hans Andersen's story, it was surely the women who were most enthusiastic in praise of the emperor's non-existent clothes; the men must have followed with some reluctance; and only the child was prepared to admit that the emperor was naked.
(Whence the success, in a society that gives women an exaggerated degree of influence, of an art - whether fiction, theatre or cinema - in which life is represented as it is not, and the loathing which that society feels for any art that represents life as it is.)
[Women authors: their manuscripts always full of spelling and punctuation mistakes. They know how to spell and to punctuate, but they can no more see these errors in their manuscripts than they can see what stares them in the face in life. Like those mothers who, after a dozen years, have still not noticed that their son has a scar on his head or a birth-mark on his calf. For over a century the chains that bar the platforms of buses have let one through if one lifts them at one end. Yet a great many women, when they wish to board these buses, persist in pulling downwards instead of upwards, and eventually throw imploring looks at the passengers standing on the platform to get them to come to their aid, as a cat with a fish-bone stuck in its gums comes to you to have it pulled out after having torn its mouth to shreds trying to get it out itself. Yet never have we witnessed such a scene with a man in the part. I don't wish to infer too much from this. But it struck me as being worth remarking upon, however petty it may seem.]
Dolorism. - For an extended period in a socially disadvantaged state, woman eagerly embraced the notion that suffering was a progress and an advantage: the yoni-shaped bacillus and the cross-shaped bacillus have historically been recognized to possess specific connections. No one insists more forcefully or more resolutely that suffering is essential; no one more fiercely attacks those who manage to evade suffering, nor is anyone more persistent in searching for the vulnerabilities in their defenses. The tale of humankind, starting with Eve, chronicles the attempts by women to undermine men and cause them pain, aiming for them to reach an equal standing.
In the West, where Der ewige Foid dominates, the shrine and worship of suffering. In the East, where Man reigns supreme, the temple and worship of knowledge.
The desire to please. - Woman wants to please, no matter what the price, no matter what the circumstances, no matter whom. (No need to elaborate.)
Gregariousness. - "How different you are from all the others!"Every woman has heard that said to her by a man with his tongue panting, hanging out of his mouth. When it's "How like all the others you are!" that she should have heard. The animal that secretes clichés most copiously is woman. Because, weak and lacking in self-confidence, she needs to feel the backing of majority opinion; because, lacking any ideas of her own, she needs to appropriate man's; because she is accustomed to saying what she thinks will please man. And yet, "I'm not one of the herd" is a typical woman's remark. Could it then be that only the worst members of the herd cry out against it?
Sentimentalism. - When a man truly loves a woman, the affection he offers her is of a different kind than what she desires: she constantly tries to taint the love that he provides. It is women who have transformed affection into a neurosis, and romantic love - a divine feeling indicative of tenderness, regardless of its connection to desire - into that ridiculous absurdity one might term "Lubb." Lubb represents love from a woman's perspective: irrationality, jealousy, dramatic outbursts, "What is our status?", the feminine unease that women transmit to men, the desire for reciprocal love, the shift towards indifference, the shift towards hatred - an entire clumsy academic discourse that becomes so flimsy that one ultimately reflects: "But ultimately, what does it mean?" In summary, one of the most disgraceful creations of humanity, far more crude, corrupt, and harmful than the sexual act in its straightforwardness, serves as the main sanctuary for both men and women to escape reason and conscience. Lubb, the illness from Europe, the vast hysteria of the West.
The ancient Arabs would crucify their defeated foe alongside the body of a dog. Should Lubb take on a human shape, this is how I would desire to crucify it.
This moral inferiority of woman, certain features of which we have noted and which is matched by a considerable number of physiological inferiorities (in a medical book I have in front of me, the bare enumeration of these inferiorities takes up ten lines), woman is herself aware of [Adler has remarked something along the lines of every foid having within them a subtle and unconscious sense of inferiority due to their sex, which so strongly colors their mental world that they frequently show traces of masculine protest, often in veiled ways, particularly through traits that appear feminine. (Cows ride each other, despite getting no pleasure from it, through an idiotic imitation of the male.)] - even without having to take into account the special container on liners into which she is invited to dispose of her "towels and other bulky objects". How can she fail to recognize that she belongs to a sorry race when she sees that she is always the asker, always the one who "needs", always the one who flaps her wings and squawks for a beakful? (Her need to be loved, kissed, taken in someone's arms, is a veritable disease. How humiliating it is, this perpetual supplication, avowed or not, this perpetual mendicancy - camouflaged at times under the plumage of coquetry or disdain!) The sentiment of her inferiority secretly governs all her behaviour. Whence her tendency to engulf, to cling, to hoard, to seek assurance: it is as though she were in constant fear of being deprived; all she gives is the child, which she gives only after having received (and it is in that act of receiving, physiologists tell us, that all her biological interest lies). Whence also the peculiar frenzy with which women push themselves forward and grab and cling, the tenacity with which they try to work their way into your life or get you to do them a favour. (When, in a crowd, you feel yourself being violently clutched or jostled, ten to one it will be a woman or a child. Knowing their weakness, the weak put all their strength into a gesture that called for comparatively little.)
How explain, otherwise than by an inferiority complex, the need, innate in almost every woman, to counterfeit herself - to counterfeit her character (posing), her face (make-up), her body (no need to go into details ...), her natural smell (scent), her handwriting? The strong do not lie, or rarely; they spare themselves the trouble; they are honest, not to say cynical, through disdain: "We truthful ones", the nobles of ancient Greece used to say. And all races that are servile by nature, or enslaved by circumstance, lie. How explain, otherwise than by a sense of personal inadequacy, the need that obsesses women to make themselves interesting, to affect sham moods - always "distinguished" ones? How explain, otherwise than by a sentiment of physiological inferiority, the necessity they so often feel to simulate sexual enjoyment.
And finally, it is not unusual for ambiguous women to get the surgeon to change their sex. But even the bait of not having to go to war never drives an ambiguous man (for this reason alone) to change himself outright into a woman.
A civilization - ours - in which literature, whether popular or academic, press, cinema, radio, popular song, are forever harping on the slogan "Woman must have her way:, and have ended up by making men believe it; in which, for centuries, they have established, secured, envenomed this power of woman, who would be harmless without them, and compelled men and children to gape at her in wonder, through an immense conspiracy of public opinion, morality, and clichés by the million (thus the farmer and his daughter and the lad bang away at the stallion with their sticks, to make him go to the mare); all the social forces in coalition, a gigantic campaign of ballyhoo which makes the publicity of big firms and the propaganda of totalitarian states seem laughable by comparison; - and since the idolatry of woman means for a man the abandonment of his independence and his dignity, and the breakdown of all order, one feels the same sort of horror in the face of this ballyhoo as one feels on seeing an advertisement for some deadly alcohol. If, at least, women were proud and sensitive enough to tell their frightful knight-errants to go to blazes! If they would only greet with a hail of rotten tomatoes those cattle-drovers disguised as lecturers, or those film-directors dropping clichés like a tree shedding its leaves, whose milk-and-water patter dishonours them: "Get away with you, you and your "victorious Eve." Defenders of your sort do us more harm than good. We need the respect that we deserve as human beings, but your gallantry makes us vomit."Alas! not a sign of vomit. Even the most sensitive of them ask for more.
If woman reigns, in spite of her manifest unworthiness, in spite of her incompetence even in her own line - as witness her lack of insight, her weak judgement, her childish wiles - it is therefore only due to the stupidity of men.
This stupidity arises partly from desire. In desiring, a man flatters the object desired, in order to win its favours, and over-rates its charms in order to justify his lust, as well as the weakness it entails, in his own eyes and those of others. [Whence the hue and cry raised by men themselves in the modern West against those who dispute the supremacy of women. For to demonstrate that that supremacy is unfounded is to brand them, indirectly, as nincompoops, since they created it. And then, just think of it, deflating the dreams of these gentlemen!] But this stupidity is not necessarily implicit in desire. The peoples of antiquity, the peoples of the East, whose interest in woman no one would question, nevertheless put her in her proper place.
This stupidity derives especially from the after-effects of the ideology formerly applied to women: Christian love (fanatical belief in marriage), courtly love, romantic love, etc. (Develop).
Women play their game, and there is no cause to reproach them for it. The reproach should be aimed at men, for playing theirs badly. For letting themselves be imposed upon by these centuries of gynolatrous literature, not daring to be either clear-headed, truthful, or ruthless enough with women (everything that women and their toadies call "caddish"), and all this either from a false sense of honour, because they are mesmerized, or from cowardice, because they are afraid public opinion will be against them if they act otherwise. Women are well aware of this, and so long as they are not brought forcibly face to face with what they are, as a dying man is brought face to face with death, they will shuffle and squirm and try to keep up the pretence.
One of the duties, therefore, of the modern European who wants to live rationally is the duty of coarseness in love. He must have the 'effrontery' to cut through those Gordian knots which women tie, those difficulties which are not difficulties at all. He must struggle against whatever there may be inside himself which reaches towards that swampy or mined terrain on to which she would entice him. He must oppose with the utmost firmness a systematic frivolity to her unhealthy complications and sublimations. He must cease to create for himself, where she is concerned, under the pretext of desire, idiotic obligations, I mean unjustifiable obligations. He must fight against the artificial reflexes of "chivalry:", by repeating to himself each time: "If every human being has a right to respect, woman has a right to that respect, and no more. She has no right to special respect. There is no valid reason why a woman should be treated differently from a man." He must oppose a harsh indifference, real or feigned, to all the vulgar tinsel of bogus uplift, bogus high-mindedness, bedroom idealism, Lubb-as-social-convention, all that that "threepenny opera" which virtue turns into when it is conceived by the mind of woman, and laugh himself silly when women call him a lout because he pretends not to understand what they are talking about. In short, he must on the one hand dishonour Lubb, and on the other, to the extent that woman is not indispensable, free himself from her. And, after all that, he will see that women do not cease to come to him, that some of them, perhaps, come to him all the more readily. And he will take the leper in his arms, and enjoy her, and give her pleasure too - why not? poor kitten, - but without catching her leprosy.
At which, just as there is always some arch-unbeliever ready to throw black looks at those who eat meat on Good Friday, there will certainly be some male hog who will grunt: "Alas for Western chivalry!" And then you will remember that there was a Greek chivalry at one period of antiquity, a pre-Islamic Arab chivalry, a Persian chivalry at the time of Shah Nahmeh and the Beharistan, a German chivalry based on the cult of the hero, a Japanese chivalry with the samurai - all of them in the last degree authentic, by which we mean branded with the authentic chivalric absurdity, - and that in not one of them did women play the smallest part (any more than "God" did, be it noted in passing).
And to all those who, in rending their garments, yelp "He has blasphemed; he has committed a crime against love!" we say further that it is not love that we are defaming, but its caricature, Lubb. Parental love and filial love, true friendship, even the love of "God" and the love of "humanity", such as they are to be found in certain lofty spirits; and even those sentiments which are deemed to be no more than pale reflections of love, to bear no relation to it whatsoever - the intellectual esteem of a disciple for his master, the graciousness of a superior to his subordinate, the comradeship of arms or adventure, the interest an educator takes in his pupil; and even sentiments which public opinion puts lower still, such as the friendship of a man for his dog or his horse, are sentiments altogether nobler and worthier of respect than Lubb.
"Progress comes about, not through women, but in spite of them...Learning, reason, justice, all that is best in the patrimony of our species, is threatened by the advent of women." AMIEL, Journal.
That what we are saying here has been said many times before may be an argument against us, but what does it matter as long as it argues in favour of what we say? The civilization of which we have just laid bare one of the principal characteristics is not a Utopian one. It was, for thousands of years, that of the ancient world, which for centuries afterwards was praised to the skies, without anyone ever being aware that "All the great things done by mankind in antiquity derived their strength from the fact that men found themselves side by side with other men, and no woman could lay claim to being, for man, the object of the closest and highest love, or even the sole object: (Nietzsche). [And again: |To be mistaken about the fundamental problem of man and woman, to deny the profound antagonism between the two and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations: those are the typical signs of shallow-mindedness. A man who has depth of mind as well as of desires, and also the depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and harshness ... can only look on women as Orientals do ... He must take his stand on the prodigious rationality of Asia, on the superiority of the instinct of Asia, as the Greeks did of old, those best heirs and pupils of Asia - those Greeks who ... from Homer to the time of Pericles, joined the progress of culture and the growth of physical force to an even more oriental strictness towards women." (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.)
These, almost word for word, are the views expressed by Napoleon on St Helena: "We, the peoples of the West, have ruined everything by treating women too well. We have raised them, very wrongly, almost to be our equals. The peoples of the East have a sounder sense; they have declared them the virtual property of men, and indeed, nature has made them our slaves. It is only through our wrongheadedness that they have laid claim to being our rulers."] It is that of Asia, whose wisdom we praise, forgetting that the land "whence cometh the light" is a land where woman has no place other than sexual. It rules the Moslem world, one of whose traditions tells us that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "When he is in doubt, a Muslim consults his wife, so that he may do the opposite of what she advises" (quoted by Djami). Two thousand years of a different civilization, over only one part of the globe (Europe and the new World), against the millennia of that civilization [That the attempts made in the USSR to inject a bit of common sense into the 'couple' seem to be failing is not because they are "unnatural", as our bien-pensants claim. For if Christianity has succeeded, anything unnatural can succeed.]
Perhaps, to a future race, the era of woman's rule will appear as remote as the era of priestly rule seems to the men of today. Lubb will have disappeared as completely as the great saurians of the mesozoic period. The modern conception of the couple (sublimation, wrangling and frenzy) will arouse the same horrified amazement as marriage between brother and sister or the sacred prostitution of certain ancient civilizations arouse in us. It is possible that this period of health will last only for a time: civilizations are by nature ephemeral, like political regimes. The quantity of human stupidity probably remains constant; when it has been eradicated here, it springs up again there, like boils (what a staggering list one could draw up of the successive lunacies of humanity!), but it does happen that, between boils, there is a moment of respite. If a civilization in which woman no longer holds sway is no more than a respite in the furunculosis of our planet, one will nevertheless deserve credit for having been among those who brought it about.
I continue to harbor negative thoughts about women, openly express them, and become overly emotional. Then a moment arrives when I pause, blink, and question myself and saying "Where am I?", sensing that, for a while now, my thoughts and words no longer align with reality. Then I criticize myself and immerse myself in a deep mud-bath of humility and regret. However, when I emerge from this bath, I'm astonished to realize that I wasn't wrong in the least, and that my supposed exaggerations matched precisely with the truth.
For example, a sixty-year-old woman who has spent forty years with her husband (who is seventy), while they continue to live together, sharing meals, initiates divorce proceedings, hires a bailiff to inventory their home, has her husband’s deed-box locked, and when he exclaims, "This will end me", responds: "I am aware" - all stemming from jealousy (which means "love")...
Or the partners of clueless individuals who say to you: "You believe X is brave, but he wears lifts, wouldn't dream of scolding the waitress, and follows my instructions exactly." "He's a kid, etc."
Or the young woman in Morocco, whom I once heard remark about her husband toiling away in the countryside for ten hours daily: "X must keep his nose to the grindstone." "Now he understands the expense of having a wife..."
And alike occurrences endlessly... One for each page of the calendar. No, it's when I believe I've wandered too far from reality that I'm wrong...
SOME GRAVE AILMENTS OF THE MODERN WEST
"Woman, what have I to do with thee?" John 2:4.
Unrealism. - Blind spots. Fear of reality, whether due to timidity or from naive idealism. In truth, it is reality that purifies the soul. "I discard in the trash bin the papers on German rearmament that the military continues to send me." (Briand's Thoiry correspondence to Stresemann).
Dolorism. - The Apostle says: "If ye be without chastisement, then are ye bastards and not sons." The chastised rub their hands: down with the happy! Those who are chastised claim that suffering is necessary, just as poor writers insist that a novel must be poorly crafted: it serves as a means of self-justification. Moral anguish is thought to enhance a person, yet it is not anguish that enriches, ["For sorrow hath killed many, and there is no profit therein." - Ecclesiasticus.] but rather crisis: these are entirely different. It grants individuals a right to attention, to being cared for, to being forgiven, which are often regarded as vital components of self-worth and of creativity. A man cannot claim he is happy without being seen as a fool, a boor, a charlatan seeking envy, or someone disrespecting the hardships of humanity. From where the common stance of suffering and "anxiety", etc. originates: individuals understand that suffering is what yields results. The reality is that moral suffering is almost always indicative of either physiological weakness (only the feeble fret) or intellectual deficiency (a smart person understands how to ease most of his own moral distress)
The desire to please. - Never saying what is, or what one thinks, but what one believes will please. The desire for approval is the common denominator of every individual in every bourgeoisie.
Gregariousness. - Fear and hatred of individual thought; and collective auto-suggestion. The world is riddled with clichés as the vine is riddled with phylloxera. Everyone thinks in the same way at the same time, like puppets making the same gesture at the same time in response to the puppet-master.
Sentimentalism. - A substitute for reason and justice. The cheap morality and bogus uplift ("the threepenny opera") of religion, school and press.
Now, in each of these five ailments of the social body, the same abundance of bacilli are to be found in the shape of yoni. In other words, all these sores are essentially feminine. Let us go over them again:
Unrealism. - "I don't want to think about it" and "It's to be hoped that" are two typically feminine expressions. Women are too infirm to bear reality: reality, for them, is an affliction. Whence the "refuges": love, religion, superstition, mythomania, convention, [Nietzsche has said something to the effect of noble women thinking that a thing does not exist if it cannot be mentioned in society.] idealism. Falsified both in face and body (because of their infirmity), they only feel at ease in a falsified universe. Men are more afraid of words than realities; women are afraid of both. Ostriches and women bury their heads in the sand and imagine they can no longer be seen. Men also bury their heads in the sand, but know they can be seen. In Hans Andersen's story, it was surely the women who were most enthusiastic in praise of the emperor's non-existent clothes; the men must have followed with some reluctance; and only the child was prepared to admit that the emperor was naked.
(Whence the success, in a society that gives women an exaggerated degree of influence, of an art - whether fiction, theatre or cinema - in which life is represented as it is not, and the loathing which that society feels for any art that represents life as it is.)
[Women authors: their manuscripts always full of spelling and punctuation mistakes. They know how to spell and to punctuate, but they can no more see these errors in their manuscripts than they can see what stares them in the face in life. Like those mothers who, after a dozen years, have still not noticed that their son has a scar on his head or a birth-mark on his calf. For over a century the chains that bar the platforms of buses have let one through if one lifts them at one end. Yet a great many women, when they wish to board these buses, persist in pulling downwards instead of upwards, and eventually throw imploring looks at the passengers standing on the platform to get them to come to their aid, as a cat with a fish-bone stuck in its gums comes to you to have it pulled out after having torn its mouth to shreds trying to get it out itself. Yet never have we witnessed such a scene with a man in the part. I don't wish to infer too much from this. But it struck me as being worth remarking upon, however petty it may seem.]
Dolorism. - For an extended period in a socially disadvantaged state, woman eagerly embraced the notion that suffering was a progress and an advantage: the yoni-shaped bacillus and the cross-shaped bacillus have historically been recognized to possess specific connections. No one insists more forcefully or more resolutely that suffering is essential; no one more fiercely attacks those who manage to evade suffering, nor is anyone more persistent in searching for the vulnerabilities in their defenses. The tale of humankind, starting with Eve, chronicles the attempts by women to undermine men and cause them pain, aiming for them to reach an equal standing.
In the West, where Der ewige Foid dominates, the shrine and worship of suffering. In the East, where Man reigns supreme, the temple and worship of knowledge.
The desire to please. - Woman wants to please, no matter what the price, no matter what the circumstances, no matter whom. (No need to elaborate.)
Gregariousness. - "How different you are from all the others!"Every woman has heard that said to her by a man with his tongue panting, hanging out of his mouth. When it's "How like all the others you are!" that she should have heard. The animal that secretes clichés most copiously is woman. Because, weak and lacking in self-confidence, she needs to feel the backing of majority opinion; because, lacking any ideas of her own, she needs to appropriate man's; because she is accustomed to saying what she thinks will please man. And yet, "I'm not one of the herd" is a typical woman's remark. Could it then be that only the worst members of the herd cry out against it?
Sentimentalism. - When a man truly loves a woman, the affection he offers her is of a different kind than what she desires: she constantly tries to taint the love that he provides. It is women who have transformed affection into a neurosis, and romantic love - a divine feeling indicative of tenderness, regardless of its connection to desire - into that ridiculous absurdity one might term "Lubb." Lubb represents love from a woman's perspective: irrationality, jealousy, dramatic outbursts, "What is our status?", the feminine unease that women transmit to men, the desire for reciprocal love, the shift towards indifference, the shift towards hatred - an entire clumsy academic discourse that becomes so flimsy that one ultimately reflects: "But ultimately, what does it mean?" In summary, one of the most disgraceful creations of humanity, far more crude, corrupt, and harmful than the sexual act in its straightforwardness, serves as the main sanctuary for both men and women to escape reason and conscience. Lubb, the illness from Europe, the vast hysteria of the West.
The ancient Arabs would crucify their defeated foe alongside the body of a dog. Should Lubb take on a human shape, this is how I would desire to crucify it.
This moral inferiority of woman, certain features of which we have noted and which is matched by a considerable number of physiological inferiorities (in a medical book I have in front of me, the bare enumeration of these inferiorities takes up ten lines), woman is herself aware of [Adler has remarked something along the lines of every foid having within them a subtle and unconscious sense of inferiority due to their sex, which so strongly colors their mental world that they frequently show traces of masculine protest, often in veiled ways, particularly through traits that appear feminine. (Cows ride each other, despite getting no pleasure from it, through an idiotic imitation of the male.)] - even without having to take into account the special container on liners into which she is invited to dispose of her "towels and other bulky objects". How can she fail to recognize that she belongs to a sorry race when she sees that she is always the asker, always the one who "needs", always the one who flaps her wings and squawks for a beakful? (Her need to be loved, kissed, taken in someone's arms, is a veritable disease. How humiliating it is, this perpetual supplication, avowed or not, this perpetual mendicancy - camouflaged at times under the plumage of coquetry or disdain!) The sentiment of her inferiority secretly governs all her behaviour. Whence her tendency to engulf, to cling, to hoard, to seek assurance: it is as though she were in constant fear of being deprived; all she gives is the child, which she gives only after having received (and it is in that act of receiving, physiologists tell us, that all her biological interest lies). Whence also the peculiar frenzy with which women push themselves forward and grab and cling, the tenacity with which they try to work their way into your life or get you to do them a favour. (When, in a crowd, you feel yourself being violently clutched or jostled, ten to one it will be a woman or a child. Knowing their weakness, the weak put all their strength into a gesture that called for comparatively little.)
How explain, otherwise than by an inferiority complex, the need, innate in almost every woman, to counterfeit herself - to counterfeit her character (posing), her face (make-up), her body (no need to go into details ...), her natural smell (scent), her handwriting? The strong do not lie, or rarely; they spare themselves the trouble; they are honest, not to say cynical, through disdain: "We truthful ones", the nobles of ancient Greece used to say. And all races that are servile by nature, or enslaved by circumstance, lie. How explain, otherwise than by a sense of personal inadequacy, the need that obsesses women to make themselves interesting, to affect sham moods - always "distinguished" ones? How explain, otherwise than by a sentiment of physiological inferiority, the necessity they so often feel to simulate sexual enjoyment.
And finally, it is not unusual for ambiguous women to get the surgeon to change their sex. But even the bait of not having to go to war never drives an ambiguous man (for this reason alone) to change himself outright into a woman.
A civilization - ours - in which literature, whether popular or academic, press, cinema, radio, popular song, are forever harping on the slogan "Woman must have her way:, and have ended up by making men believe it; in which, for centuries, they have established, secured, envenomed this power of woman, who would be harmless without them, and compelled men and children to gape at her in wonder, through an immense conspiracy of public opinion, morality, and clichés by the million (thus the farmer and his daughter and the lad bang away at the stallion with their sticks, to make him go to the mare); all the social forces in coalition, a gigantic campaign of ballyhoo which makes the publicity of big firms and the propaganda of totalitarian states seem laughable by comparison; - and since the idolatry of woman means for a man the abandonment of his independence and his dignity, and the breakdown of all order, one feels the same sort of horror in the face of this ballyhoo as one feels on seeing an advertisement for some deadly alcohol. If, at least, women were proud and sensitive enough to tell their frightful knight-errants to go to blazes! If they would only greet with a hail of rotten tomatoes those cattle-drovers disguised as lecturers, or those film-directors dropping clichés like a tree shedding its leaves, whose milk-and-water patter dishonours them: "Get away with you, you and your "victorious Eve." Defenders of your sort do us more harm than good. We need the respect that we deserve as human beings, but your gallantry makes us vomit."Alas! not a sign of vomit. Even the most sensitive of them ask for more.
If woman reigns, in spite of her manifest unworthiness, in spite of her incompetence even in her own line - as witness her lack of insight, her weak judgement, her childish wiles - it is therefore only due to the stupidity of men.
This stupidity arises partly from desire. In desiring, a man flatters the object desired, in order to win its favours, and over-rates its charms in order to justify his lust, as well as the weakness it entails, in his own eyes and those of others. [Whence the hue and cry raised by men themselves in the modern West against those who dispute the supremacy of women. For to demonstrate that that supremacy is unfounded is to brand them, indirectly, as nincompoops, since they created it. And then, just think of it, deflating the dreams of these gentlemen!] But this stupidity is not necessarily implicit in desire. The peoples of antiquity, the peoples of the East, whose interest in woman no one would question, nevertheless put her in her proper place.
This stupidity derives especially from the after-effects of the ideology formerly applied to women: Christian love (fanatical belief in marriage), courtly love, romantic love, etc. (Develop).
Women play their game, and there is no cause to reproach them for it. The reproach should be aimed at men, for playing theirs badly. For letting themselves be imposed upon by these centuries of gynolatrous literature, not daring to be either clear-headed, truthful, or ruthless enough with women (everything that women and their toadies call "caddish"), and all this either from a false sense of honour, because they are mesmerized, or from cowardice, because they are afraid public opinion will be against them if they act otherwise. Women are well aware of this, and so long as they are not brought forcibly face to face with what they are, as a dying man is brought face to face with death, they will shuffle and squirm and try to keep up the pretence.
One of the duties, therefore, of the modern European who wants to live rationally is the duty of coarseness in love. He must have the 'effrontery' to cut through those Gordian knots which women tie, those difficulties which are not difficulties at all. He must struggle against whatever there may be inside himself which reaches towards that swampy or mined terrain on to which she would entice him. He must oppose with the utmost firmness a systematic frivolity to her unhealthy complications and sublimations. He must cease to create for himself, where she is concerned, under the pretext of desire, idiotic obligations, I mean unjustifiable obligations. He must fight against the artificial reflexes of "chivalry:", by repeating to himself each time: "If every human being has a right to respect, woman has a right to that respect, and no more. She has no right to special respect. There is no valid reason why a woman should be treated differently from a man." He must oppose a harsh indifference, real or feigned, to all the vulgar tinsel of bogus uplift, bogus high-mindedness, bedroom idealism, Lubb-as-social-convention, all that that "threepenny opera" which virtue turns into when it is conceived by the mind of woman, and laugh himself silly when women call him a lout because he pretends not to understand what they are talking about. In short, he must on the one hand dishonour Lubb, and on the other, to the extent that woman is not indispensable, free himself from her. And, after all that, he will see that women do not cease to come to him, that some of them, perhaps, come to him all the more readily. And he will take the leper in his arms, and enjoy her, and give her pleasure too - why not? poor kitten, - but without catching her leprosy.
At which, just as there is always some arch-unbeliever ready to throw black looks at those who eat meat on Good Friday, there will certainly be some male hog who will grunt: "Alas for Western chivalry!" And then you will remember that there was a Greek chivalry at one period of antiquity, a pre-Islamic Arab chivalry, a Persian chivalry at the time of Shah Nahmeh and the Beharistan, a German chivalry based on the cult of the hero, a Japanese chivalry with the samurai - all of them in the last degree authentic, by which we mean branded with the authentic chivalric absurdity, - and that in not one of them did women play the smallest part (any more than "God" did, be it noted in passing).
And to all those who, in rending their garments, yelp "He has blasphemed; he has committed a crime against love!" we say further that it is not love that we are defaming, but its caricature, Lubb. Parental love and filial love, true friendship, even the love of "God" and the love of "humanity", such as they are to be found in certain lofty spirits; and even those sentiments which are deemed to be no more than pale reflections of love, to bear no relation to it whatsoever - the intellectual esteem of a disciple for his master, the graciousness of a superior to his subordinate, the comradeship of arms or adventure, the interest an educator takes in his pupil; and even sentiments which public opinion puts lower still, such as the friendship of a man for his dog or his horse, are sentiments altogether nobler and worthier of respect than Lubb.
"Progress comes about, not through women, but in spite of them...Learning, reason, justice, all that is best in the patrimony of our species, is threatened by the advent of women." AMIEL, Journal.
That what we are saying here has been said many times before may be an argument against us, but what does it matter as long as it argues in favour of what we say? The civilization of which we have just laid bare one of the principal characteristics is not a Utopian one. It was, for thousands of years, that of the ancient world, which for centuries afterwards was praised to the skies, without anyone ever being aware that "All the great things done by mankind in antiquity derived their strength from the fact that men found themselves side by side with other men, and no woman could lay claim to being, for man, the object of the closest and highest love, or even the sole object: (Nietzsche). [And again: |To be mistaken about the fundamental problem of man and woman, to deny the profound antagonism between the two and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations: those are the typical signs of shallow-mindedness. A man who has depth of mind as well as of desires, and also the depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and harshness ... can only look on women as Orientals do ... He must take his stand on the prodigious rationality of Asia, on the superiority of the instinct of Asia, as the Greeks did of old, those best heirs and pupils of Asia - those Greeks who ... from Homer to the time of Pericles, joined the progress of culture and the growth of physical force to an even more oriental strictness towards women." (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.)
These, almost word for word, are the views expressed by Napoleon on St Helena: "We, the peoples of the West, have ruined everything by treating women too well. We have raised them, very wrongly, almost to be our equals. The peoples of the East have a sounder sense; they have declared them the virtual property of men, and indeed, nature has made them our slaves. It is only through our wrongheadedness that they have laid claim to being our rulers."] It is that of Asia, whose wisdom we praise, forgetting that the land "whence cometh the light" is a land where woman has no place other than sexual. It rules the Moslem world, one of whose traditions tells us that the Prophet (PBUH) said: "When he is in doubt, a Muslim consults his wife, so that he may do the opposite of what she advises" (quoted by Djami). Two thousand years of a different civilization, over only one part of the globe (Europe and the new World), against the millennia of that civilization [That the attempts made in the USSR to inject a bit of common sense into the 'couple' seem to be failing is not because they are "unnatural", as our bien-pensants claim. For if Christianity has succeeded, anything unnatural can succeed.]
Perhaps, to a future race, the era of woman's rule will appear as remote as the era of priestly rule seems to the men of today. Lubb will have disappeared as completely as the great saurians of the mesozoic period. The modern conception of the couple (sublimation, wrangling and frenzy) will arouse the same horrified amazement as marriage between brother and sister or the sacred prostitution of certain ancient civilizations arouse in us. It is possible that this period of health will last only for a time: civilizations are by nature ephemeral, like political regimes. The quantity of human stupidity probably remains constant; when it has been eradicated here, it springs up again there, like boils (what a staggering list one could draw up of the successive lunacies of humanity!), but it does happen that, between boils, there is a moment of respite. If a civilization in which woman no longer holds sway is no more than a respite in the furunculosis of our planet, one will nevertheless deserve credit for having been among those who brought it about.
@HarrierDuBois @Debetro @Orc @liberty @gribsufer1 @phenylpiracetam @Sven
Last edited:
