Part Four: a Few Arrows
63
Giving “freedom” to women—an impossibility. With the liberation of women in the 19th century, the West has given itself an infection from which it can’t recover without the most terrible convulsions and the most thorough purgative measures. What the “freedom” of women means in practice is the domination of mankind by the demagogues who can rally the lower orders of the spirit. Because there is no world in which “the women” can act as a political unit. Liberation of women means freedom and power for financiers, lawyers, purveyors of comforts in and outside government, employers who whore out your wife and daughters. It has been the greatest weakening and self-own a civilization has ever visited on itself. But in the end is this so different from democracy as such? Yes…because the “liberation” of women makes democracy into a terminal disease…one that doesn’t just end a particular government, but the civilization.
64
If you wonder how mankind fell from the high times of the Renaissance and the age of exploration to our times of mediocrity and repression…I can only tell you this, that our age is the norm in history. It takes great efforts and much good luck to be able to surpass the dirty ape and rat inside us all. Most of mankind never left the regime of deformity, and it’s no surprise that this morass is returning. It’s just a reversion to the norm. That said, there does seem to be something especially menacing about developments in our age: the ubiquity of this Leviathan, the inability to escape it. Everywhere you might become a hermit, you are reminded of it, it intrudes everywhere. And so the very success of the great men of four hundred years ago, their foundation of a new world, the great expansion of human knowledge and know-how…this ended up setting the stage for our trash-world. They succeeded beyond what they could expect, and that success is what allowed the profusion of the lower types of mankind. In nature the vital part of mankind would rule and in the beginnings of many societies it does: military brotherhoods of men rule, and physical force as well as force of personality, charisma, draw the rest in an orbit around those who possess these in the highest degree. This is all by a natural and secret pull, by instinct. There is a magic to charisma that does this, and the military-monarchical organization, the rule of the warlord, comes from desire for this in the nature of all, not from reflection and abstraction. Unfortunately some things conspire to end this original condition of mankind, which is itself no paradise and is full of strife, suffering and problems. These things are, first of all, the very success of these men in securing the conditions of life and comfort for the rest of the community. Second, the ascent, within this peacetime, of the priest, the shaman, the schemer, and the matriarch, which slowly usurp power away from the brotherhoods of young men and their captains. Spinoza explains the corruption of the Jewish people in just this way: the Hebrew “Republic” was in fact a military regime of the type I say here, a rule of the captains. But the priests took this power away and corrupted the nation to weakness. In same way something happened to the Aryans in India and in many other places. This state of things doesn’t need to be so: the men of religion and those of power have many interests in common, and can rule together. But it often happens that the men of power become decadent and let the state drift into the hands of those who can’t rule—and who start to resent them for this abdication. Women become also very aggressive, once real and relaxed manhood atrophies. If you imagine that women in the Muslim world, for example, are sweet and feminine…they are hungry viragos of iron will. The feminist Muslima will be a figure of much importance among them. The men in Arabia will turn gay. The Vietnamese or Chinese grandmother has her knee on the neck of the son-in-law. Thus everywhere we see that the very comforts and safety produced by the best men leads to the usurpation of society by those parts of the human spirit that are oriented instead toward a different kind of life, that everywhere that mode of the yeast wins out…and usually wins out very quickly. And in the West, whose special fate has been confused for History or Progress of the entire species, this development has taken place through the promotion of logos or reason and all the manifestations of this: the adulation of empty words, of legalism as a guide for social and political life, of the cult of science that is very far from real science. All of this has been a cover for the ascent of the blob human, of the lower orders of the spirit and is instead delivering not just the West, but all of mankind, to a condition of domestic brokenness and servility. Very concretely you see in feminism the return of pre-Aryan matriarchy. The great “Earth Mother,” originally some kind of half-hueman half-cockroach creature resplendent with horrid eggs like big Amazon centipede….this seeks to re-absorb you. Of all the things that you blame for the decrepit times we live in, feminism and the “liberation” of women is both the proximate and the ultimate cause. Nothing so ridiculous as the liberation of women has ever been attempted in the history of mankind. It is an act of complete insanity, disguised as “logic,” “reason,” presented in the most absurd legalisms about supposed “rights.” The modern socialisms, the expansion of the power of the state that squashes all initiative and all life, the hypocrisy of all political life in our time—all of this is to be attributed to the participation of women in political life. I don’t complain about the “freedom” or “degeneracy” that supposedly comes from this arrangement. That’s all misdirection and self-flattery. The state we live in is as repressive as any oriental tyranny. But its hypocrisy is that it hides its force under the delusion of egalitarian ideals and legalistic procedures inconsistently applied. It is not women actually being free, but their “legal freedom,” a practical fiction, being used by a hidden power to oppress, to dispossess, to intimidate and extort. It took one hundred years of women in public life for them to almost totally destroy a civilization.
But you would be a sperg to think that this problem can be solved by taking away women’s voting power, “forcing” them into the home, or some such thing. The presence of women in public life is a spear with two tips, and can be turned on the enemy with some ease. Women, after all, can still, even in the most debased condition, be made to call on their deep passions by a great leader. They voted for Hitler, Mussolini, and many others, with some enthusiasm. The enemy who “freed” them has made use of a great weapon: he has increased his power immensely and introduced a war into the house and life of every man. But this enemy also made a gamble and I believe, ultimately, a mistake…because women more than others will set their bodies on fire with passion for a savior and be willing to abandon the fear and love of comfort on which the modern state depends…them more than others, out of a wild and stupid enthusiasm.
65
How was it possible for women to become “free” at some point in the 19th century…how did this agitation come about? From where comes the gynocracy that rules, not just as in tribal societies covertly, but that now pretends also to be in the public sphere and to demand “rights”? Who was there in the first place to give rights…and of what use is a right if it’s not also a privilege? The answer to all this is a little bit more unpleasant. It’s only because women lost all respect for the males of the time that there could be any pretext like feminism or “women’s suffrage” in the first place. The loss of respect in general marks the modern age since 1800 or so: the loss of respect in authority, for example, that came when industrialists and bankers replaced the warrior nobility. As “decadent” as the latter had become, this class had never really lost its grace of manner, its beauty and magnificence and glamor: this made the common man more eager to submit, or to accept such leadership. But who could accept the rule of the dour economic creature that took the lead in the states at the end of the 18th century? This is why Napoleon was such an enigma for so many: he represented a man out of time, something completely unexpected in the age of middle class mediocrity and hypocritical “democracy” that was just then coming about. For this reason all the higher spirits of the 19th century, all the great artists, the writers, they threw themselves at the fee
t of his memory: he seemed to represent the possibility of higher aspirations in our time. You can read Stendhal for this spirit. Napoleon was an escape from the domination of the bugman that was just then beginning to take hold of the nations. Now, don’t imagine I will attack “the bourgeois” …we’ve declined so far even from the level of the bourgeois of that age…in our time the desolation is almost complete. This is why it’s so ridiculous to hear these “conservatives” yap on about honor, or glory, or sacrifice, or any of this garbage. The respect in all institutions and all leadership classes and all traditional authority has already been lost long ago, and for good reason. It’s impossible for the erased males to command any respect from the people…and still less from their women. Feminism then is the revolt of women against the outrage of democracy. They have been in a revolt against the inability of the bugman to command authority or respect. And you must understand that there is no bottom to this “freedom” or revolution. There won’t be any opportunity to say “I told you so”: they will never “learn a lesson” from their foolishness. And they resent the insecurity you have put them in. The calamity that will surely follow from going down this path will not be a “teachable moment” to anyone. They resent the “beta,” but you’re wrong to think it was ever any different. No…great civilizations and cultures were never founded nor kept alive by “betas.” The nerdoids who have taken over much of the right have brainwashed you to this view, but it’s wrong. Women never loved the shopkeeper, the timid merchant with the nasal voice, and no, not even the clockmaker or craftsman. They have always loved the knight, the sailor in love with wild ideas of the sea, the adventurer and pirate. And it is right that they loved these men, and that, with the coming of the rule of the bugman, they would try to seek their “liberation” from unworthy men and the boring society they were building. That this resentment was manipulated itself by the Satanic power that rules our time, and that through this very drive for freedom woman became enslaved more than she had been before…is beside the point. You won’t be able to make women “see reason” and love a “beta civilization”—a fabrication of the HBD cuckold crowd of our time. Women will love you if you are a warrior. And they will help, through the entirely retarded mechanism of democracy, to elect men of glamor and charisma who are our only immediate hope against the machine that runs our garbage world. Trump, for all his hesitations, is only the beginning. He has shown the path insofar as woman is concerned. The mob also is a woman. Now imagine a man of Trump’s charisma, but who is not merely beholden to the generals, but one of them, and able to rule and intimidate them as well as seduce the many. So far we have only had Gracchi …but Caesars and Napoleons are sure to follow.
66
A man of great charisma who can seduce the people with a wild spirit and break through the rule of the pervasive bureaucracy-media complex is our best hope for the immediate problem…and maybe our only hope. Such a man might be among you and, in any case, he will need help. Our enemy has so much spread: he is everywhere. He’s in your home even, and he’s inside you. The domain of the fight has extended everywhere now. Therefore any answer must be on multiple fronts, and each one calls for a different strategy and different type of talent and man. I fear that many of you are actually autists and spergs and don’t want to see this. There is no one fight and no one solution, and what you want in the end or as ideal may require different plan than facing imminent threat. For the latter you can make alliance with people who otherwise wouldn’t be your friends. I believe that democracy is the final cause of all the political problems I describe here, but in the short run democracy—the will of the people—is on our side because the democracies have been hijacked by a stupid and corrupt elite. The nations face extinction and an era of permanent civil war because this elite wants to pillage and pillage: and wants to flood them with the shit of the world. This is the immediate threat, and on this you can be allied with people who otherwise may not shoot for the same star you do. If Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan were in charge, you would get 99% of what you want. Therefore use them as models to solve the problems that face you, and don’t scare the peoples with crazy talk if you want to move things politically. Let the normies have their normal lives, and paint our enemies as the crazies…which they are…and as the corrupt vermin they are. If you haven’t compromised yourself go into political life maybe, and use Trump as a model for success. Those of you who choose this path, if you like this book or the other things I say, should denounce it and disavow me if ever asked about it, and denounce also all other crazy ideas. You must have an instinct for how much normies are able to take. It isn’t even a question of getting them to where you want “gradually”—I don’t think they’re able to get very far at all. But they can be moved to defend themselves from the grip of the global slave state, which I also hate, although for different reasons. If an ethnostate is your ideal, or if it’s Renaissance Switzerland or ancient Egypt—fine. If you intend to go public and try something politically, work now instead so that America and Europe don’t become Bosnia or South Africa. People who try to mislead you from such things and try to encourage you to talk in public instead about abstractions like “ethnostate,” dork ideological constructs like “Eurasianism,” anachronistic slogans like “blood and soil” that never had any historical attraction to Anglos and Americans…these people are spergs or very often federal informants, or manipulated by such. By all means study such things, believe in them, troll with them, let them guide your final aims; but know what is possible in the normie political sphere and don’t become the clown of ZOG like Nehlen and so many others did. If they were serious people they would have never come in public and encouraged young men to go on marches where they could be identified and tracked for life. Know when the snake is defending itself—don’t be a patsy. Your models must be those that have worked: Trump, Orban, the Italian movements now ascendant, Sebastian Kurz and his party in Austria. You don’t see these people marching around in hotel bellboy’s uniforms with a Sonnenrad and talking about the “Jewish Question” and this other kind of role-play. It’s true that in the end, my aims here and those of someone like Orban have little or nothing in common. If they were successful, all they would be able to do is reestablish the same world of sheep that existed a hundred years ago, maybe inoculated against the latest degradations…but nothing very great. Still, I think it’s better for the nations to be well-tended, happy sheep than to be reduced to teeming piles of starving rats. This, anyway, is my advice for those who want to go into normie politics and have a relatively normie life, and there’s nothing wrong with that—it’s even a great necessity.
I’ve written this book, however, because this may not satisfy some of us, and I wanted to talk about the world in the coming decades, and what paths may open for a different way.
67
Too much is already said about the evils of suburbs, but I think the danger of such places for modern civilized man is so great that it must be repeated. On the other hand it’s important not to take this too far: the Europeans live in the center of their cities and are politically and socially in just as bad or worse situations. Still, I think it’s easier for them to fix their problems, and to avert the greatest dangers, should they arrive. It’s easier because in these places the rightful citizens of the nations still own their cities. I don’t see any evidence that the tax base of America moved to the suburbs by choice. Their inner cities were taken away from them not, as is imagined, by blacks, but by the politicians—and their handlers—who found it more profitable to replace middle class citizens with an underclass. The space to which they’ve been segregated and to which they have to “commute” is I think a form of absolute hell to raise children in, especially boys. There is no freedom of motion except to regimented activities, they are always watched by caretakers of some kind. The places are of incredible ugliness, which takes away also from the will to discover new things at all. There are no nooks and corners where boys can form gangs, be away from prying eyes
of parents and others, and have the feeling that they are exploring and owning territory, as there is in the city and in the countryside. America has successfully portioned off its historical population, its rightful citizens, and its tax base, in work camps and dormitories. That is what the modern American “city” is: an economic zone arranged much like a work-camp, or concentration-camp if you want. It would be trivial for the French security services to shut off access to the banlieues infested by turds, and it would be just as trivial for American security services to shut off access to the suburbs and hold the middle class by the neck. I think the reason the suburbs are hateful to the raising of boys is also the reason they are most objectionable in general, namely that while in the countryside or the city a restive population would be able to hold their territory and challenge a power should the need arise, such a thing is impossible in the suburbs. Suburbs are living arrangement for slaves and subjects.
68
“Social justice”—disgusting parasitism, dressed up in rags of words so worn-out and pee-stained even their defenders are sick of the smell…they say it half-mouthed and pleading: just look at them during the Occupy rallies, hoping to siphon off respect. The need to be respected is sign of very low and wormlike condition of spirit. The tantrums of the coddled and domesticated, of no force… No force behind it, just the opinions of the left-over, the prattling of guilt and begging: not even the Marxist engine of the worker. What worker? They have contempt for the worker…the force and confidence in his labor, in the place of his labor in history that the Bolshevik had is gone, now it’s the lumpen using his language, unconvincingly. Dependent on the Leviathan, and therefore its tool. “Social” justice…but why only “social”…why set your sights so low…you mean just the opinions of the many? Who cares. Here is my vision of the true justice, the justice of nature: the zoos opened, predators unleashed by the dozens, hundreds….four thousand hungry wolves rampaging on streets of these hive cities, elephants and bison stampeding, the buildings smashed to pieces, the cries of the human bug shearing through the streets as the lord of beasts returns. Manhattan, Moscow, Peking reduced to ruins overgrown by vines and forest, the haunt of the lynx and coyote again. The great cesspool slums, Calcutta, Nairobi, all the fetid latrines of the world covered over by mudslides, overgrown with thick jungle, this is justice. Lisbon to me always seemed city still inhabited just out of vanity. Let loose hundreds of tigers, companies of rhinoceros, with strong engine of spirit revving in their deep chests, let them bring the justice of the volcano to this world of trash! Bless the passing of the Shoggoth!
Bronze Age Mindset Page 15
