The Feminization of Man

Faust · February 9, 2011, 4:32pm

Well, it looks like even the OP doesn’t want to discuss the topic, anymore. So I’m giving this thread a rest. Maybe it will feel better in time.

thezeus18 · February 22, 2011, 9:10am

Why was this unlocked. I thought we had sealed the evil in a can for good.

Kriswest · February 22, 2011, 1:56pm

You can’t dispose of a legend so easily.

Ingenium · February 22, 2011, 7:20pm

Maybe it’s unlocked because the moderator that he so fondly refers to as “The Drunk” is trying to entice him to stay. Or maybe had a few too many and did it by mistake.
Or maybe it’s because Hannibal Wanna-bal has made his grand exit and won’t return for at least a few months, based on his usual pattern.

You know, this thread could (finally) be put to a good use…for posting good-bye notes to him! No doubt he reads it and he loves getting the hits. Size matters when it comes to fashioning the Truth, you know.

Here’s mine: Farewell, dear Sattie! I hope that your wearisome travels will end and that, before too long, you will finally alight within that one forum – not counting the one you started or Stormfront – where your brilliance and wit will be rewarded for all they’re worth! That you will find a place to rest your weary soul. Not that I believe you have one, but you know what I mean. Where you will properly assume your throne high upon the mount and all those of inferior wisdom and lacking your unique quality of prescience (like how you know ahead of time exactly when you’re gonna stop posting on the forum–Wow!) will raise their eyes and clenched right fists in recognition of the one who truly soars above them in every way imaginable.

A place where, most importantly, they will comprehend that oftentimes odd grouping of English words known as “Sattiespeak.”

GOD-speed along your arduous journey, you hairy, sulphurous old halbeziege!

Faust · February 23, 2011, 2:11am

The lock was temporary, done in hopes that people would get back to the topic. As I can see by the last three posts, it didn’t work.

I have said this before and I will say it again. If any of you - zeus, kris or Ingenium, or anyone else continues to make throwaway or off topic posts on the Essays board, I will issue warnings - which eventually result in bannings. Zeus has been previously warned so he gets a warning and a ban.

I’m tired of talking about this.

Lollipop_King · May 12, 2011, 2:58pm

Blatant attempt at self-promotion.

Version V is being prepared…stay tuned for more of the same goodies, offered up in a new platter with nice pictures for all you nice boys and girls.

I’m not done milking this cow.

Of course I am a procrastinator, so do not except it any time soon.

Hey, Faust you stupid idiotic boring douche-bag…wanna lock it again?
Flex those belly muscles of yours; then unlock it as evidence of your open-minded fairness and of your benevolent grace.

Punish me, the only way you imagine that it hurts me.
Show me “who da man” 'round here, you hillbilly.

Ascolo_Parodites · May 13, 2011, 10:37pm

Why the fuck aren’t you banned yet?

Faust · May 14, 2011, 1:41pm

Ascolo - surely you saw my warning post. Board warning issued.

And one for the post below.

I can do this all day, folks.

Evening · May 14, 2011, 2:23pm

Ah, why do you spit into the wind?
Here’s a hankie.

Lollipop_King · August 6, 2011, 7:33pm

I’m hurt.
The thread has been stuck on 160,000 for months.

I can only do so much on my own people!!!
Increasing the hit-count my a dozen every day can only go so far.

For those expecting the revised upgrade to this thesis, shallow and hurtful and misinformed as it might be, I offer hope, as I am almost one-thirds done.
Patience is a virtue…when you hate…when you despise it can be a vice.

Fixed_Cross · August 11, 2011, 5:47pm

It has been a true pleasure to read this essay… it’s too much to do justice to at once — regarding the epilogue:

In short: woman is civilization, man is barbarian.
Culture exists in the interplay between the two.
(it is often wrongly assumed that civilization is culture, or that culture needs civilization)

An often taken option for a woman wanting the best of both worlds is to let herself be impregnated by a barbarian type, and marries a civilized type.

It seems that for man to survive this scenario, he would have to form small bands again and withdraw from the mores of civilization. I think that the modern world actually provides opportunities for this. To be a tightly knit organization of barbaric drives, means to be able to invade civilization and plunder it, perhaps even impregnate some of it with new blood.

This, too is an evolutionary “tactic”. Only the extraordinarily capable and assertive barbarian/male is able to dominate.

Socrates was the first, well known, victim of this trend and the culminating focal point of Hellenic degradation. The final blow was struck when the western body, weakened by centuries of decadence and comfort [due to unforeseen success] was eventually infected with the moral/ethical systems of a people condemned, by history and chance, to be outcasts and the slaves of more powerful civilizations. The attraction to this slavish moral system to the unfortunate growing masses of the underprivileged, multiplying consistently due to mans survival superiority, domination over nature and past spiritual nobility, is understandable. Along with it came egalitarianism, complacency and uniformity caused by the numerical superiority of the weak and the intellectual and spiritual fatigue of the strong caused, in turn, by the unceasing struggle and the stifling effects of exaggerated intellectual scepticism.

I am glad someone says this. Where do you see these effects, and where you draw the line between justified and exaggerated intellectual scepticism?

In more recent times, in the west, with the emancipation of women, the role of maleness and manhood has been further diminished. We see signs of a western hermaphroditization in the changing aesthetic male ideal physical form as promoted by popular culture. The slim build and the adolescent, almost girlish, look, the hairless torso all reveal the feminization of manhood; the emergence of homosexuality, once a source of social stigmatization, as a viable life choice alternative, a cute, amusing quirk of nature awaiting its own emancipation also reveals the feminization of man and the drift to his eventual extinction. In nature any display of homosexuality is one of dominance and not of affection or sexual attraction. Many have taken this natural display of authority as evidence for the “normalcy” of homoeroticism.

Sexual attraction can not so easily be separated from the eros of dominance.
Physical attraction in the aesthetic interpretation of the object of desire is secondary to the males attraction to himself as a dominating power.

I think this needs to be scrutinized in the light of my comment above.

Males, at least those operating within the system on moral grounds, will be slaves to females. That much seems certain.

Except those men who will have nothing of this, there is no conscious force compelling us to participate in the leveling, only the mechanisms of civilization under increasing population. There is no reason to think that this apparatus will include all males. In fact it might in the end be used - this system of well educated slaves - by smaller bandes of more consciously masculine men.

Lollipop_King · September 7, 2011, 9:58pm

Sorry, I cannot respond to this thread, as I am hounded by children wanting me to tell them a bed-time fairy-tale, about goodness and how evil was vanquished by goodness, and how statistics are not corruptible, and about how stereotypes have no basis in reality.

We are all equal, equally so.
We all deserve respect and life and love, because we were born.

Arcturus_Descending · September 8, 2011, 1:47pm

Well, that may just be an excuse on your part, dear sir, as nothing ever stopped you before from telling your perception of gruesome details of the fairy tale. Is the enchanted prince giving way to a Belle somewhere in time and space and slowly transforming/becoming…? Please do not allow it to become a total transformation…except in time…

Well, my take on it is that at least in having been born, as an innocent, we all do deserve respect, a life worth living and love equally though…though of course geography and the circumstances of our birth circumvent this. Nevertheless, we are still no less entitled to the above. But of course, as we grow and change, our own actions - and the judgments of others, and rightly so, may cause us to release and to lose those inherent ‘rights’…and visa versa.

Perhaps the trick is to learn to maintain a healthy and ‘real’ perception and balance of the individual’s right, or ought I to say ‘earned’ right to respect - after a certain age; after all, respect is to be earned, not just given. But this can only be done when we strive to see and to understand as much of the person as we have it in our fullest capacity to. And that is never a fait accompli! Or ought it to be?

Take care of yourself, Satyr and the little guy.

Lollipop_King · December 7, 2011, 9:33pm

Yockey:

• Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself — what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” i.e., a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

Weininger:

• But first I want to define exactly what I mean by Jewishness. One is not dealing with a race or a people, and even less with legally acknowledged profession. One can only define it as a spiritual attitude, a psychic constitution, which offers an OPPORTUNITY for ALL men and which merely found its grandiose REALIZATION in historical Jewery. Nothing proves the veracity of this statement more than anti-Semitism. The truest, most Aryan or Aryans, certain of their Aryaness, are no anti-Semites; they cannot even fathom hostile anti-Semitism;…on the other hand, one can always detect certain Jewish traits in aggressive anti-Semites…It would be impossible for this to be any other way. As one LOVES only those traits in the other which one would wholeheartedly embrace oneself, yet can never fully attain, so one HATES in the other only that which one never wants to be, yet which one partially retains. One does not hate something with which one has nothing in common.

• Our age, which is not only the most Jewish, but also the most effeminate of all ages; the age in which the arts are only a rag for wiping its moods, and which attributes the artistic urge to animal games; the age of the most gullible anarchism; the age without a sense for the state and justice; the age of sexual ethics; the age of the most shallow of all historical methods (historical materialism); the age of capitalism and Marxism; the age in which history, life, and science are reduced to economics and technology.

Spengler:

• To-day we live so cowed under the bombardment of this intellectual artillery(the media) that hardly anyone can attain to the inward detachment that is required for a clear view of the monstrous drama. The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has finished off its masterpiece so well that the object’s sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed.

• Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect.

• Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.

• For the Age has itself become vulgar, and most people have no idea to what extent they are themselves tainted. The bad manners of all parliaments, the general tendency to connive at a rather shady business transaction if it promises to bring in money without work, jazz and Negro dances as the spiritual outlet in all circles of society, women painted like prostitutes, the efforts of writers to win popularity by ridiculing in their novels and plays the correctness of well-bred people, and the bad taste shown even by the nobility and old princely families in throwing off every kind of social restraint and time-honored custom: all of these go to prove that it is now the vulgar mob that gives the tone.

Siegfried:

• In its race towards richness and power, America has abandoned the axis of freedom in order to follow that of productivity…All the energies, including those related to the ideals and to religion, lead towards the same productive purpose: we are in the presence of a productive society, almost a theocracy of productivity, which is increasingly aiming at producing things rather than people, or people only as more efficient workers…In the U.S. some kind of mysticism surrounds the supreme rights of the community. The human being, having become a means rather than an end itself, accepts the role of “cog-in-the-machine” without thinking for a second for a second that in the process he may be somewhat belittled…Hence, a collectivism which is willed by the elites and a-critically accepted by the masses, surreptitiously undermines man’s autonomy and strictly channels his actions, thus confirming his very abdication without him realizing it…No protests and no reactions of the great American masses ever ensues against the collective tyranny. They accept it freely, as a natural thing, and almost as if it were expedient.

Pinker:

• The Blank Slate had, and has, a dark side. The vacuum that it posited in human nature was eagerly filled by totalitarian regimes, and it did nothing to prevent their genocides.

• I suspect that few people really believe, deep down, that boys and girls are interchangeable, that all differences in intelligence come from the environment…

• [The Blank Slate doctrine] implies that [people] could be conditioned to enjoy servitude or degradation.

• The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable. It is a moral stance that condemns judging an individual according to the average traits of certain groups…

• The revulsion we feel toward discrimination and slavery comes from a conviction that however much people vary on some traits, they do not vary on these [innate traits].

• Human nature is the reason we do not surrender our freedom to behavioural engineers.

Orwell:

• Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

• War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

• During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

• Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility.

• Liberal: a power worshipper without power.

• Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.

• Most people get a fair amount of fun out of their lives, but on balance life is suffering, and only the very young or the very foolish imagine otherwise.

• Myths which are believed in tend to become true.

• Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing.

• The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being, but to remind him that he is already degraded.

• The best books… are those that tell you what you know already.

• The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

• We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.

• Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

Marx:

• What are the mundane principles of Judaism? Practical necessity and the pursuit of one’s own advantage. What is its earthly god? Money. The Jew has emancipated himself in a typical Jewish fashion not only in that he has taken control of the power of money, but also in that through him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit have become the spirit of the Christian people. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the earth. The exchange is the true god of the Jews.

• Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

• Art is always and everywhere the secret confession, and at the same time the immortal movement of its time.

• Democracy is the road to socialism.

Le Bon:

• Public opinion no longer knows anything but extreme sentiment or profound indifference. It is terribly feminine, and like a woman, has no control over its reflect movements.

• Crowds exhibit a docile respect for force, and are but slightly impressed by kindness, which for them is scarcely more than a form of weakness. Their sympathies have never been bestowed on easy-going masters, but on tyrants who vigorously oppress them. It is to these latter that they always erect the greatest statues. It is true that they willingly trample on the despot whom they have stripped of his power, but this is because, having lost his strength, he has resumed his place among the weak, who are to be despised and not feared. The type of hero dear to crowds will always have a semblance of a Caesar. His insignia attracts them, his authority overawes them, and his sword instils them with fear…Should the strength of an authority be intermittent, the crowd, always obedient to its extreme sentiments, passes alternately from anarchy to servitude, and from servitude to anarchy.

Hitler:

• Our peasants have not forgotten their true religion. It still lives…The Christian mythology has simply coated it like a layer of tallow….The peasant will be told what the Church has destroyed for him: the whole of the secret knowledge of nature, of the divine, the shapeless, the daemonic. The peasant shall learn to hate the Church on that basis. Gradually he will be taught by what wiles the soul of the German has been raped. We shall wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race.

• Is propaganda a means or an end? It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves….[T]he very first axiom of all propaganda activity the basically subjective and one-sided attitude it must take toward every question it deals with….The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

• Holism contradicts reductionism precisely in the sense that it is built upon this exception or blind spot of “bioinconsistency”. Holism seems “unreal” from the view of strict material objectivity in the same sense that the human bias towards life over death is “unreal” or non-objective. Equalizing bioinconsistency into consistency with the larger material world amounts to unraveling subjectivity into death. The analytic philosophers of the English-speaking world, along with Marxists, are inconsistent as “analyzers”; not analytical enough to analyze themselves to death.

• Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle. If you do not fight, life will never be won.

• The mass consists of the average, the democrats. But one hundred blind do not make up one seeing, a thousand cowards not one hero, a hundred thousand parliamentarians not one statesmen. Cowards vote for cowards as their leaders so that they are not called upon to show heroism, and the stupid the most stupid, so that everybody can still have the feeling that he is still a little bit better than the leader.

Evola:

• America too, in the essential way it views life and the world, has created a “civilization” that represents the exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition. It has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantitative achievements over and above any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has also put the view in which man is considered in terms of quality and personality within an organic system in opposition with that view in which man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate.

• In America any inventor who discovers some new tool that will improve production will always win more social approval and acknowledgement than the traditional type of the intellectual; moreover, anything that is profit, reality or action in the material sense of the word will always be valued more than anything that may derive from a line of aristocratic dignity.

• Obviously, the levelling process applies to the sexes as well. The Soviet emancipation of the woman parallels the emancipation that in America the feminist idiocy, deriving from “democracy” all its logical conclusions, had achieved a long time ago in conjunction with the materialistic and practical degradation of man. Through countless and repeated divorces the disintegration of the family in America is characterized by the same pace that we could expect in a society that knows only “comrades.” The women, having given up their true nature, believe they can elevate themselves by taking on and practicing all kinds of traditionally masculine activities. These women are chaste in their immorality and banal even in their lowest perversions; quite often they find in alcohol the way to rid themselves of the repressed or deviated energies of their nature. Moreover, young women seem to know very little of the polarity and the elemental magnetism of sex as they indulge in a comradely and sportive promiscuity. These phenomena re typically American, even though their contagious diffusion all over the world makes it difficult for people to trace their origin to America. Actually, if there is a difference between this promiscuity and that envisioned by communism, it is resolved in a pejorative sense by a gynaecocratic factor, since every woman and young girl in America and other Anglo-Saxon countries considers it only natural that some kind of pre-eminence and existential respectability be bestowed upon her as if it were her inalienable right.

• If the modern world has disapproved of the “injustice’ of the caste system, it has stigmatized much more vibrantly those ancient civilizations that practiced slavery; recent times boast of having championed the principle of “human dignity.” This too is mere rhetoric. Let us set aside the fact that Europeans reintroduced and maintained slavery up to the nineteenth century in their overseas colonies in such heinous forms as to be rarely found in the ancient world; what should be emphasized is that if there ever was a civilization of slaves on a grand scale, the one in which we are living is it. No traditional civilization ever saw such great masses of people condemned to perform shallow, impersonal, automatic jobs; in the contemporary slave system the counterparts of figures such as lords or enlightened rulers are nowhere to be found. This slavery is imposed subtly through the tyranny of the economic factor and through the absurd structures of a more or less collectivized society. And since the modern view of life in its materialism has taken away from the single individual any possibility of bestowing on his destiny a transfiguring element and seeing in it a sign and a symbol, contemporary “slavery” should therefore be reckoned as one of the gloomiest and most desperate kinds of all times. It is not a surprise that in the masses of modern slaves the obscure forces of world subversion have found an easy, obtuse instrument to pursue their goals; while in places where it has already triumphed, the vast Stalinist “work camps” testify to how the physical and the moral subjection of man to the goals of collectivization and the uprooting of every value of the personality is employed in a methodical and even satanic way.

• The traditional symbolism, the supernatural principle was conceived as “masculine” and the principle of nature and of becoming as “feminine.” In Hellenic terms the “one” (το εν), which is “in itself,” complete, and self-sufficient, is regarded as masculine. Conversely, the dyad, the principle of differentiation and of “other-than-self,” and thus the principle of desire and of movement, is regarded as feminine. In Hindy terms (according to the Samkhya darsana), the impassable spirit (purusa) is masculine, while prakkrti, the active matrix of every conditioned form, is feminine. The Far eastern tradition expressed equivalent concepts through the cosmic duality of yin and yang, whereby yang, the male principle, is associated with the “virtue of heaven” and yin, the feminine principle, with the principle of the earth

• After exposing the decadence of modern woman, he must not forget that man is mostly responsible for such decadence. Just like the plebeian masses would have never been able to make their way into all the domains of social life and of civilization if real kings and real aristocrats would have been in power, likewise, in a society run by real men, woman would never have yearned for or even been capable of taking the path she is following today. The periods in which women have reached autonomy and pre-eminence almost always coincided with epochs marked by manifest decadence in ancient civilizations. Thus, the best and most authentic reaction against feminism and against every other female aberration should not be aimed at women as such, but at men instead. It should not be expected of women that they return to what they really are and thus re-establish the necessary inner and outer conditions for reintegration of a superior race, when men themselves retain only the semblance of true virility.

• Following the mixing of the castes or of analogous social bodies and the coming to power of the inferior social strata and races, it was unavoidable that their spirit triumphed even in this regard; that any relationship with the supernatural would be conceived exclusively in terms of “religion”; that nay other higher form came under suspicion and was even stigmatized as sacrilegious and demonic. The feminization of spirituality was already foreshadowed in ancient times. Wherever it prevailed, it determined the first alteration of the primordial tradition in the races.

• The real man, in addition to the biological and somatic part, is soul and spirit. Therefore, a comprehensive racial theory must consider all these three terms: body, soul and spirit. There will thus be a racism of the first degree, which addresses the strictly biological, anthropological and eugenic problems ; then, a racism of the second degree, which addresses the ‘race of the soul’, that is to say the form of the character and the affective reactions ; finally, as a crowning-piece, the consideration of the ‘race of the spirit’, which addresses the highest elements of the personality which, in regard to the general vision of the world and the beyond, destiny, life, action, in short, the ‘highest values’, differentiate and make men unequal. The classical ideal, racially interpreted, is the harmony and the unity of these three racial aspects in a higher type.

Lollipop_King · December 7, 2011, 9:46pm

de Benoist:

• The biblical approach goes from the universal to the particular; it deduces what we can know of the particular from what we should know of the absolute. In Greek thought, on the contrary, although the universal also plays an important role, the approach is the opposite. The conceptualization of the universal is based on the abstraction and successive generalization of a plurality of concrete particulars. In the Bible what is first provided are totalities, categories, and classes, for which individual things or people are only manifestations…Biblical thought is an all-encompassing, totalizing thought that proceeds from the general to the particular based on deduction from the revealed absolute and not by induction based on lived experience. In this system, the particular is not at all the basis from which the general concept is inferred; it is the projection of the idea of generality. Individuals and things are then themselves only projections, “realizations” of universal essence and ideas. Whereas in the discourse of paganism the particular can attain the universal by virtue of its very particularity – Goethe is universal by first being German; Cervantes is universal by being primarily Spanish – in the discourse of the Bible, it is the universal that provides statutory basis for every particular. In the first case, the general defines itself through the particular; in the second, it is the particular that is defined by the general.

• The balance of force by law under the strict control of political sovereignty is the characteristic of every organic society, and it is only the disappearance of one or the other that will lead either to despotism or anarchy. In Antiquity, the refusal of tyranny, resistance to a power gone mad, to an order that has become no more than established disorder, is symbolized by Antigone rising up against Creon – by Antigone, who, with the choir was seen by all Greece as being in the right (contrary to what Levy, against all the evidence, declares). The affirmation of the primacy of politics is therefore a far cry from the legitimization of despotism; in fact it is the exact opposite. Instead, it is clearly its negation that appears to denote a disturbing mental disposition, a subjectivity that is so pathological that it is spontaneously compelled to transform every object into an “idol”, a subjectivity so materialist that it can only escape its own tendencies by submitting to the absolute decrees of a Completely Other, a subjectivity, which through its protest against hierarchies, is in fact aiming at their reversal. Dare we say it: the interpretation of all power as an evil, every recourse to force as “unjust,” does not only arise out of propaganda that may or may not be effective, it also reveals a profound inability to grasp these notions in any other way. It reveals, in a word, what our preachers of “justice” and universal peace would do with the power if the opportunity arose for them to claim it.

• The sickly types aspire to form a herd. Quantity compensates them – at least they think it does – for what they lack in quality. If several suffer together they believe their suffering is reduced. Those who boast Judeo-Christian values sometimes attribute to the “powerful” the feelings they would have or be tempted to have if they were there in their place. They do not see the true power is an end in itself and does not aim, on condition it is tranquil, at any utility – that the “will to will denies any end in itself and only tolerates an objective as a means in order to best itself deliberately in the game and organize a space for this game.” In paganism happiness is never the antagonist of power, But nor is it an antagonist of equity. By condemning the exaltation of weakness, paganism is not in any way aiming at justifying the crushing of the weak by the strong, nor forming the “ideological alibi” of any sort of established disorder. To the contrary, it claims to contribute to the formation of the spiritual framework that allows every individual, whatever his rank, assuming only that he has the will, to cultivate what inside strengthens and does not undo him. Paganism does not reproach Christianity for defending the weak who are unjustly oppressed. It reproaches it for exalting them in their weakness and viewing it as the sign of their election and their title to glory; it reproaches Christianity for not helping them to become strong. So it is not a question of opposing the strong versus the weak – today, in any event, it is paganism that is weak and Judeo-Christian monotheism that is strong – but purely and simply of opposing a system of remaining weak with a system of becoming strong. It is also a question of making a world that is not a vale of tears, not a theater of shadows, nor a stage where a man with erratic happiness acts out his salvation, but that natural field of self-expansion for a man capable of asserting his autonomy and establishing himself as his own project.

• We can hence better understand that contemporary decadence is not the effect of its distance from the Christian religion, but its profanation in the strict sense of the word, i.e., its generalized diffusion in profane forms – its generalized infection. And it is in this sense that one can say, without cultivating paradox, that the world has never been as Judeo-Christian as it is today. The moral God is dead, but the values he has bequeathed are more present than ever, even though their impotence is a generally noted fact, and even though they constitute merely a décor of the impasse in which our contemporaries crash into time and time again like a fly on a windowpane. God is dead, but the modern world continues to claim him as its authority, precisely because it cannot and does not want to rid itself of his carcass. All Western “humanism,” according to Levinas’ phrase, is passing through a “secularization of Judeo-Christianity” – not is it by chance that we are witnessing the resurgence today of a fundamental criticism of Heidegger accompanied with the adulation of a Judeo-Christian monotheism in which nobody believes anymore but which everyone claims.

Camus:

• In contrast to the ancient world, the unity of the Christian and Marxist world is astonishing. The two doctrines have in common a vision which completely separates them from the Greek attitude. Jaspers defines this very well: “It is a Christian way of thinking to consider that the history of man is strictly unique.” The Christians were the first to consider human life and the course of events as a history that is unfolding from a fixed beginning towards a definite end, in the course of which man achieves his salvation or earns his punishment. The philosophy of history springs from the Christian representation, which is surprising to a Greek mind. The Greek idea of evolution has nothing in common with our idea of historical evolution. The difference between the two is the difference between a circle and a straight line. The Greeks imagined the history of the world as cyclical. Aristotle, to give a definite example, did not believe that the time in which he was living was subsequent to the Trojan War. Christianity was obliged, in order to penetrate the Mediterranean world, to Hellenize itself, and its doctrine then became more flexible. But its originality lay in introducing into the ancient world two ideas that had never before been associated: the idea of history and the idea of punishment. In its concept of mediation, Christianity is Greek. In its idea of history, Christianity is Judaic and will be found again in German ideology. It is easier to understand this dissimilarity by understanding the hostility of historical methods of thought toward nature, which they considered as an object not for contemplation but for transformation. For the Christian, as for the Marxist, nature must be subdued. The Greeks are of the opinion that it is better to obey it. The love of the ancients for the cosmos was completely unknown to the first Christians, who, moreover, awaited with impatience an imminent end of the world.

• The earth for Maistre is nothing but “an immense altar on which all the living must be sacrificed, without end, without limit, without respite, until the end of time, until the extinction of evil, until the death of death.” His fatalism, however, is active, as well as passive. “Man must act as if he were capable of all things and resigns himself as if he were capable of nothing.” We find in Marx the same sort of creative fatalism. Maistre undoubtedly justifies the established order. But Marx justifies the order that is established in his time. The most eloquent eulogy of capitalism was made by its greatest enemy. Marx is only anti-capitalist in so far as capitalism is out of date. Another order must be established which will demand, in the name of history, a new conformity. As for the means, they are the same for Marx as for Maistre: political realism, discipline, force. When Maistre adopts Bossuet’s bold idea that “the heretic is he who has personal ideas” —in other words, ideas that have no reference to either a social or a religious tradition—he provides a formula for the most ancient and the most modern of conformities. The attorney general, pessimistic choirmaster of the executioner, announces our diplomatic prosecutors. It goes without saying that these resemblances do not make Maistre a Marxist, nor Marx a traditional Christian. Marxist atheism is absolute. But nevertheless it does reinstate the supreme being on the level of humanity. “Criticism of religion leads to this doctrine that man is for man the supreme being. From this angle, socialism is therefore an enterprise for the deification of man and has assumed some of the characteristics of traditional religions. This reconciliation, in any case, is instructive as concerns the Christian origins of all types of historic Messianism, even revolutionary Messianism. The only difference lies in a change of symbols. With Maistre, as with Marx, the end of time realizes Vigny’s ambitious dream, the reconciliation of the wolf and the lamb, the procession of criminal and victim to the same altar, the reopening or opening of a terrestrial paradise. For Marx, the laws of history, reflect material reality; for Maistre, they reflect divine reality. But for the former, matter is the substance; for the latter, the substance of his god is incarnate here below. Eternity separates them at the beginning, but the doctrines of history end by reuniting them in a realistic conclusion. Maistre hated Greece (it also irked Marx, who found any form of beauty under the sun completely alien), of which he said that it had corrupted Europe by bequeathing to its spirit of division. It would have been more appropriate to say that Greek thought was the spirit of unity, precisely because it could not do without intermediaries, and because it was, on the contrary, quite unaware of the historical spirit of totality, which was invented by Christianity and which cut off from its religious origins, threatens the life of Europe today. “Is there a fable, a form of madness, a vice which has not a Greek name, a Greek emblem, or a Greek mask?” We can ignore the outraged puritanism. This passionate denunciation expresses the spirit of modernity at variance with the ancient world and in direct continuity with authoritarian socialism, which is about to deconsecrate Christianity and incorporate it in a Church bent on conquest.

• That is the mission of the proletariat: to bring forth supreme dignity from supreme humiliation. Through its suffering and tis struggles, it is Christ in human form redeeming the collective sin of alienation. It is, first of all, the multiform bearer of total negation and then the herald of definite affirmation.

Cezar · December 14, 2011, 12:28am

= The Christianization of the man.

“Christianity was a small Buddhist movement in a sea of resentiment”

No wonder why Buddhists have the female hormones as dominant.

“Christianity is a religion for women.”

Lollipop_King · December 14, 2011, 12:38am

Feminization is a more appropriate word for what is occurring because it goes to the root of the matter…even before all these memes came about. It connects the process to a biological process and to the weaknesses that lead to social behaviors.

Cezar · December 14, 2011, 12:52am

I couldn’t clearly resolve from your introduction what is the primary cause and if there is a use.

Shall the feminization continue or are you fighting against it?

What I read from others usually comes under “descriptions”, observations.

It is fatal if your own misfortune becomes an observation.

Isn’t upbringing everything? And are we not very asocial with our own upbringing in this age?

Lollipop_King · December 14, 2011, 1:07am

I am protecting what I value in myself and trying to gather those that share my intentions around me. .

How easily you exclude yourself.
Have you found a way out of the world?

Temperament…and age simply accentuates it.
Upbringing is everything?
What a modernistic viewpoint.
Tell me about this “everything”?

Cezar · December 14, 2011, 1:26am

A mother will bring up a homosexual or metrosexual if she has no daughters and probably if she has no husband.

We learn all our drives, starting from the primary, sexual to the secondary - passions. They form our body and race as we grow.

As embryos we go through stages from the bacteria over fishes until the mammal. I suppose to this stages correspond to different appetites of the pregnant women.

Each parent can leave a visible mark in the child so visible that the looks of the child can change - the shape of the head - if the child was born with similar looks to the father and if he dies, the child can change it’s looks into his mother’s, I think.

What are your intentions?

The Greeks were the human racial archetype. I take Thucydides and Plato as examples.