Part Two: Parable of Iron Prison
31
If you recognize pathology, brokenness, denatured life as what it is, it can teach you a lot about life in healthy state. There is nothing wrong with looking in life under distress, if you no confuse it for life in ascent and freedom. When you put some kind of working dog, like terrier, even cute Jack Russell in city apartment, they will start to try to dig through the floor. This mode is inborn to them, they seek the development of their powers, and there are very few sadder things than to see animal thwarted like this. Playing at becoming itself, but reduced to a doll and useless acting. Carl Schmitt said, “They’ve put us out to pasture.” This is the condition of life in modern world.
32
Modern world not bad just because modern; and it is better than some ages in the past. Many parts of past were as bad, or worse, than our situation, and for the same reasons. The modern is “nothing new”: it is the return of a very ancient subjection and brokenness under new branding, promoted by new concepts and justifications. If you want to see our future look to Europe as it existed before 1600 BC, or much of the world as it was until recently and still is….the communal life of the longhouse with its young men dominated and broken by the old and sclerotic, by the matriarchs, the blob and yeast mode in human life overtaking and subjecting all higher aspiration. Aztec “cities” with twenty morons sleeping and eating off the floor, demagogued in the masses by blood-hungry priests with dead eyes. It is no different if they use the doxies of Reason and Logos to cart us off to this life.
33
A history of modern brokenness—So many different things have been written about the evils of modernity, or the crisis of our situation. Both on left and right many, maybe most, feel something has gone terribly wrong. Even those who love some aspects of the new age, like technology, look away from our banal time and instead hope for a futuristic flourishing that is not yet here. I’m a little tired of all this! I don’t want to just repeat more aspersions of modernity, which many of you already know. Most of these are footnotes or commentaries to Nietzsche’s Prologue from Zarathustra, where he describes the Last Man. The Last Man has been wrongly confused for the bourgeois, though Nietzsche says it’s something much worse. Houellebecq, whose explanations of the sexual problem of modernity, of the incel —all of these explanations are amazing and true, but even he is just following Nietzsche. If you want to understand true problem of our time, you can read that, then, and I won’t dwell on it. I want only to deal with one particular case of domestication, brokenness, of potentially high life that has been thwarted, to illustrate modern problem. The peculiar “history” of how the queen develops, the modern effeminate homosexual, is very telling. The problem of the modern homosexual is revealing because it is the model according to which many other kinds of higher life have been thwarted and warped into something else. Don’t be fooled by propagandists: the modern homo has nothing to do with ancient “predatory bisexuality” or with the pederastic rites found in many societies. On one hand such people as the modern queen have always existed but on the other, there are many specimens now who become this, who would not have before. It is very unfortunate event in life of animal. Camille Paglia says that the modern homosexual is the product of the pressures of post-industrial life. Her model for this is that a very sensitive young boy, open to aesthetic experience of all kinds, maybe the kind of slightly neurotic and artistic boy that a century ago would have experienced synaesthesia; such boy is turned off by the horseplay and “rough” masculinity of his brothers and father and other boys his age. The distancing from this masculinity is concurrent with his becoming over-close with his mother, idolizing the feminine: upon puberty, the distance or fear from masculinity leads him to eroticize it, while he turns away from women, either because of too much familiarity, or too much awe. In this she is only half right, and the other half of the story I discovered from an alien mind whose teachings have been spread among some of the frogs. His name Harro MJ, but I think this is false name. I tell some of his ideas here as best I understood. He tells I believe his own story, or someone he knows: he tells of how modern world corrupted his nature through stricture and turned him into a homo. But I think his story speaks to many others, who didn’t turn into ghey, but who have nevertheless been disfigured in some other way… by the same force. Now, Paglia’s restatement of Freud is correct, but she misses an important element of the story, which is why such a boy turns away from the masculinity of his peers in the first place. It is not horseplay or the roughness of male competition as such that makes him turn away, but the utterly fake or artificial character of such displays, usually, in our time. Such boy perceives what his peers don’t, the conditional and entirely dependent character of life in our age. It is not the masculinity, the competition for status among men, the physical roughness, that makes him turn away… but the fact that all such play is happening in already owned space. It is this aspect of our time that is crucial to understand. When I speak of something like owned space, it must not remain mere word. When you understand something: I mean you must see and feel it like you would a landscape you know from youth, how to navigate all its nooks, the different heights of earth, the banks of streams, where the trees are and how it feels inside them, how long it takes walking from this or that group of beech to the abandoned factory, so that the map is already in your body. This is only way to really understand something. I believe boy like this is one of the types that sees through the charade the lords of lies have dangled in front, the shadow-play to dazzle the many, and he is turned off, maybe not by manliness, but the buffoonish, deluded character of modern masculinity. The defeated male that is turned into a peon and a neutered beast for women and hidden masters is a terrible thing to see. The jockeying for status, the physical fights, the adventures boys are supposed to have in a state of nature…all of this is in nature meant as preparation for life, for a life of conquest and expansion. Roman teenagers of patrician class were sent already on missions on behalf of Empire abroad. Modern adult Western male seeks permission to watch other men playing sports, quaff vegetable oil relish, beg for “coochie” in simulated intercourse, masturbation with plastic on dick. Precisely a character born for conquest, for expansion, a precocious type of boy who seeks real development and the real domination of the space around him, who understands in his blood that play and manliness are to this end, precisely such a boy will have his expectations about life crushed and thwarted as soon as his eyes open. This may be around the age of six or seven, but it sometimes happens earlier. Such boy then comes to have only contempt for those among his peers who, not seeing the subjection we are in, continue under their delusion and accept the breaking that the lords of shadows begin on the human spirit around this age of awakening—by nine or ten, the “education” is almost already complete in our time. They submit to the yoke and their sham simulated masculinity is now a parody of the true manliness, which in a state of ascent develops into the will to actually dominate space around oneself, not into a caricature for the benefit of women. But this domination is not possible when space is already owned. This intuition of owned space comes on one very early: with eyes open, it’s like an evil spirit inhabits everything. I think there are many types of energetic and perceiving boys who reach this stage, who are turned off by the moral and biological self-castration of their conventional peers, who sense the suffocating limitations of modern space. The rest of this story is more particular to the boy who as response becomes a homo or trap, and Paglia is right about that part—masculinity rejected simply because of distance from other boys in general, mostly as a result of a certain native over-sensitivity. But then there is the added observation that when, late in adolescence or some time in youth, such boy decides he is “gay,” that is but the final act of self-misunderstanding. The drama of his spirit is reinterpreted on sexual terms. He has convinced himself that the feeling of suppression and dread that had accompanied him his whole life was because his sexual desir
es or “sexuality” had been repressed by “society.” He forgets how these sexual desires developed in the first place, that these desires themselves were a circuitous result of the truth that dawned on him in silence, the truth of the utter subjection and domestication of the space in which he found himself. In becoming “gay” he believes he is escaping that sense of primal limitation and subjection that he felt as a small boy: he has reinterpreted his entire drama as a maudlin story of sexuality suppressed or oppressed by retrograde social and political norms. In this he becomes an unwitting pawn himself of the very power that as a young boy he had intuited to be the enemy, the great and suffocating shadow of our time, that smothers all higher life out. The gay is the spiritual foot-soldier of the new regime, when he is born to be its enemy. This is the unusual part of this realization, that some of the most sensitive and perceptive youths, those maybe imbued with spark of inspiration and a conquering, expanding spirit, end up becoming the vanguard of that which has smothered and broken them. In a previous age they wouldn’t have been gay at all in the first place. The story of such boy is story of all higher types in our time. Not all gays are of this origin—there is Jeffrey Dahmer, there are others. And of course not all higher types become gay, only a tiny minority. But all higher types in our age are afflicted by a similar drama of the spirit—what happens later, the sexualization of this alienation particular to this case, I use only as the most vivid example. Now in all this you see this idea of space or territory that is already closed and owned. And this brings up the question of who or what this force is. I think the answer to this problem isn’t so simple, but one feature of this new condition in modern age is that the masters are hidden. That is even why this condition of subjection seems so suffocating, because they hide, and so there is no opportunity for open and manly challenge. This problem is then to be understood through example of a different type…and I mean that of the spook. Vivid and instructive is the matter of the gay underworld, which no longer really exists in our time. But in the 1950’s and a little before then, when the system of global tyranny was being firmly erected, it should not be a surprise from everything that has been said, that the gay underworld was the “negative” of the new world order, its sieve and pressure valve. The gay underworld was part of “the remainder.” The phenomenon of “homosexuality” in the modern world reaches up to the most profound of political and social problem: it was always the ghost world, the underworld left over that the engineers of our time couldn’t manage or account for in the erection of the Leviathan. This underworld included far more than the gays of that time, of course: that’s the point. But the gays formed a kind of “bulk population” that allowed an easy bridge between this world and ours. They made it far more permeable to others as well: if you had girlfriend, maybe artsy girlfriend, she had ghey friend; you could go with them to lounge of this half-world, and there would be there…maybe two social contacts removed…there would…one of them. But now that this world has disappeared, you have no easy way of even knowing where to start. Its boundaries were policed, its entry points were surveilled, but it always existed as a space of freedom outside the pervasiveness of domestication in post-industrial civilization. Let’s not forget, I repeat, that the “gay underworld” was hardly just the gays, but precisely that world penetrated by all types of deviants, perverts, whores, pimps, impresarios, night club owners, mafia, gangsters, spooks, intelligence services of all kinds—just see the Dark Ocean Society and you will understand. The Dark Ocean Society of Japan is the key to understanding all modern political and social organization because underneath the pervasiveness of the domestication and management of modern civilization, underneath its superficial orderliness, there remained the “floating world,” the free world as a still and dark ocean in which moved monsters, including the lords and crafters of this new civilization themselves. They still live in that world, not in ours. Our world is the house of subjection, they live in the estate of freedom and power. It is only that, with the relatively large number of gays that exist, this world was much larger than it is now, and more varied, its entry points more penetrable. The space of night that gays created for themselves, in which such types could at least feel they had new opportunity to expand and act, was nuked in the 1980’s with AIDS first of all, and then at the same time with the “gay rights” and “gay identity” movement, through which they came “into the open,” and became the worst and most merciless enforcers of the global slave state. But enough about them: you must understand! I use this as illustrative and true example of what happens to all higher types in our time. The vast majority don’t become gay, but the plight of the gay is the most simple and therefore instructive example of this. Anyone born with a will to conquest and expansion, any specimen born to courage and the expansion of boundaries, will feel thwarted now, will awaken at a young age to find themselves in a world pervaded by an evil and smothering shadow that seeks to blot out their spirit and break them. How one responds to this…that is different. And the responses are various. Look at litter of pups, of whatever species, some will be inquisitive, playful, seek to experiment, to push boundaries, to leave gaze of parents and the old, to conquer space; others will be far more docile and will lack curiosity. The only ones who survive the modern education “whole,” not to speak of the regime of modern medication, are precisely those in the litter who are born docile. And more to the point; who can look at the beaten-down males of today and think that a boy who inside him has the spark of conquering spirit won’t have anything but disgust for their clownish parody of masculinity! What matters here is which way the spirit turns, and if it can survive the obstacle course of domestication that modern life and the modern education imposes on the best. “Homosexuality” in our age, in any case, is unlike any behavior in the past: as a total phenomenon, it represents one of the characteristic ways that some of the most unusual specimens respond to domestication and are broken by it. Modern homosexuality is a form of vacuum behavior and stereotypy.
34
As sad as the story of many of the modern gays is, the story of the modern transsexual is the same in all ways, but worse. This explains also why so many traps are obsessed with Hegel. They know in their blood—but they misunderstand themselves and forget who broke them. The story of the modern transsexual is the story of our collective future.
35
Should the tyranny that has descended on our age ever gain the power it seeks and then be challenged enough to feel itself in danger, the mass annihilations that will be carried out by homosexual, transsexual, and especially lesbian commissars will exceed in scale and cruelty anything that has yet happened in known history. Imagine lesbian mulatta commissars with young Martin Sheen face and haircut manning the future Bergen-Belsens, installations that will span tens of miles.
36
Barbarism and Civilization—It’s funny when Westerners defer to China or the old cities of the Near East and the Orient as the fountains of civilization, the standards of city life: “we’re latecomers, we were in loincloths in forest with painted face hunting boar while they had cities and writing.” This true, but Westerner forgets what civilization means. Less myopic than others, but still myopic, he thinks when he hears Chinamen lived in cities for five thousand years, that these must be like the cities in his own history. There are cities and cities. But what was writing? Most of it was for inventory or the most tedious kind of national or dynastic chronicles. Lists and lists: the kinds of passages that make the young bored even with the Bible. The oldest part of Greek literature is from the Iliad, the catalogue of ships: the heroes and their retinues are recounted with much flourish and poetry, so it’s not so boring, but is just barely saved by Homer’s artistry. But nearly every national “writing” is like this, and most “writing” stayed in that condition for a long time. Chinese have always lived in houses, yes, if that’s all you mean by “civilization”; but their history is marked by convulsions of annihilation. Just look in their history, the Cultural Revoluti
on is the norm: mass extinction of millions of faceless peasants in the name of remaking a new society. They are no hive: they ignore the dead in the street and look away. I’ve known of ravens who have more consideration for one of their own. Everything for oneself, everything for personal utility: a pleasure in cruelty toward the weak and toward animals. This is the end-result of thousands of years of “civilization.” Don’t be fooled by the supposed historical self-conception of such people. Many periods of forgetfulness, when they erased and threw away their chronicles even and totally falsified their history (small example even today: they teach that Genghis Khan was a Chinese general…) This true for many other civilizations. Even religious texts: leaving aside the problem of translation, the Koran is, as Schopenhauer claimed, a tedious book of wretched, repetitive stupidity, with not a single new idea in it, “the poorest form of theism.” Unfortunately this is sufficient for the level of most people’s religious needs. Is not clear that writing is a great advance, for much of history…its value is questionable. Only quite late some productions of genius arise that redeem the skill of writing. In similar way, different societies mean quite different things by “city.” In the Orient this has always referred to a steaming pile of humanity, with crowded, fetid eateries, close-packed throngs wading through shit and the filth of animals, rabbit and hen kept in cages, abused orphans, endless drone of yelling humangs hawking wares and spitting phlegm on street. You see this still in the cities of the Far East. Even in Japan, that all love for its supposed order, there is a terrible menace hanging on the streets of Tokyo that drives too many of the good people there to the mental asylum. The workplace is hell and transportation system is chaotic and suffocating, it reduces everyone again to the cipher he has always been in the Oriental city… a shadow even in his home where the woman inhabits all the terror of the ancient family deities. The Japanese man gets allowance from wife, who often physically depletes him, takes his phone allowance, his lunch money. The woman rules Vietnam, and the faceless clerk or merchant who claws his path in the antheap of this society is beholden to his hectoring wife like slave. Matriarchy and anonymity are the principles of these piles of biomass—never call them hives! The hive is noble: the hive can be a work of beauty and order, but the city, the city in its original form, is humanity reduced to a steaming ratpile. In the hive the ant or bee achieves the full development of its inborn nature as worker or warrior or queen, but who can say this of most cities in history—do you think man stamping papers, scheming to escape wrath of long-nailed office autocrat with spittoon, who hawks smoked fish out of newspapers with fingerless gloves or sells birds with clipped wings to jeering hueman macacas, do you think such creature is a specimen of well-turned out life? And the more depressing possibility that, for the vast majority, such life is the expression, the full expression of their inborn reach and wants, still it must be the case that they were selectively bred by their masters to this degraded and zombified form. But even the scared and huddled ash-and-sallow-faced schemer of Saigon or Chengdu was in his remote ancestry like the free Black Yi who terrorized the Han as recently as a hundred years ago, or the powerful-bodied, self-sufficient Tibetans who have made sport of them for centuries. Existence for such life is hell, trapped not only in a miserable society of anonymity, but in a body bred for such a society. Still there must be a spark they can never extinguish, that at least asks for all this to stop. Do you understand what Buddhism is now? No, look north: to the Manchus and other Tungus-peoples hardened in the taiga and the Arctic, to the freedom-loving Mongols who to this day love nothing more than to drive out into open country with no roads and consider our cities horribly claustrophobic. Actually in history when you look at life of true nomads who are always on the move and in open space, they never engage in the kind of depressive introspection and questioning of life that you only see in settled and civilized peoples. The Buddha became a world-denier in the city—look at his conversion, what drove him to it! It is the injustice but above all the filth, the disgusting suffocation of city life, the vision of life degraded and under distress, that led him to his escape…he said, “the home is a place of filth.” And what was this escape, after all, but just an attempt to re-establish the freedom and openness of the steppe, where man can once again be what he was born to be? He thought he was opening up a steppe of the spirit, and in the sangha, the brotherhood of disciples and monks, he was re-creating that true secret society of the steppe, the society natural to a man like him, the brotherhood of warriors and the free youths! In such way you must also understand “the West,” or actually the city of the West. The small, orderly city of the north Italians, the German and Swiss cities Machiavelli praises for how well-run they are, this is entirely alien to the Orient, and indeed to all other civilized societies that we know of. The very idea of the citizen is alien to civilization as such. In the respect for privacy, for distance, for property and propriety—in the small and orderly character of the cities, in the relentless concern of the aristocracy with biological quality, you see an attempt to mitigate the great evils of civilization. Actually you see an attempt to reestablish some of the character of barbaric and free life inside the city, if only for the citizen class, or the upper class. If there can be any defense of civilization it is this, that historically it gave a class the full or nearly full benefits of the free life of the steppe and forest and mountain while ridding them of some of its inconveniences—at the price, of course, of misery for the vast majority. In nearly all other parts of the world but the West, the misery inside civilization was universal and the elite, such as it was, didn’t redeem this misery: they themselves remained servile. A city means nothing, but could even mean a retrogression in the human type. If the only civilizations that had existed were all like Han China, then the choice between barbarism and civilization would be easily made in favor of barbarism, of free Mongol life.
Bronze Age Mindset Page 6
