When we compare femininity with virility understood in material terms, such as physical strength, harshness, and violent affirmation, it is only natural that the woman, owing to her characteristics of sensitivity, self-sacrifice, and love - not to mention the mystery of procreation - was regarded as the representative of a higher principle . . . Thus, it is not a contradiction that in some instances, spiritual and even social gynaecocracy did not appear in effeminate but in violent and bellicose societies. . . (RaTM)
. . . Woman always and decisively has the upper hand over any man who desires, that is, over mere masculine sexual need. . . Thus priapic man is quite deluded when he assumes and boasts that he has "possessed" a woman just because he has been lying with her . . . Man knows it, and often owing to a neurotic unconscious overcompensation for his inferiority complex, he flaunts before woman an ostentatious manliness, indifference, or even brutality and disdain . . . passivity of man increases the more the material aspects of the "male" and the instinctive violent and sensual traits of manhood are predominant in him. As a rule, the man poorest in inner manliness is the very type that the Western world has adopted as the ideal of manhood. (MoS)
When we compare femininity with virility understood in material terms, such as physical strength, harshness...
...
My friend recommended I read Evola. Maybe I will.
Evola ever speak about man's chauvinism with regard to animal life?
Reminded me of this:
(Re-formated because pasting from a pdf on phone is a joke)
>Hmm, justice, you say? Well, what IS justice to you?
>Isn’t it obvious? Justice means not hurting other people, keeping the peace, making sure people who do bad things get punished.
>What do you mean, by “hurting other people”? Do you only
mean killing, or injuring? What about emotional distress? Insults? Making fun of people? What about making people unhappy, unsatisfied with their lot? What about exploiting them?
>I don’t know… I haven’t thought about it.
>The fact is that our whole existence is filled with suffering, with pain. No matter what we do, we can’t change that fact, no matter what laws we make or what social order we adopt. The only thing we can change, is WHO suffers, and in WHAT way. Justice can’t be about “preventing suffering”.
>Then what? Just kill everyone you don’t like? Let the world burn?
>No. But think about this. Would you describe the world of animals, and nature in general, as being “unjust”?
>It’s just nature, the way things are.
>Is it unfair that the lion eats the gazelle, yet the gazelle never gets to eat the lion?
Trying to re-format is also a joke it seems.
>Ha, no, it’s just their nature. But you’re using a false analogy. All humans are equal, we’re not differing species of animals, so we should all be treated equally. If one person is always ahead of others, it’s unfair; you can’t justify THAT with nature.
>Is that so? Would you say that all humans are the same height?
>Of course not.
>Do they all have the same strength?
>No, there’s big variations in strength.
>Have you ever met anyone who was clearly more stupid than you?
>Yeah, but I’ve also met people who were smarter, too.
>How can someone who’s bigger, stronger and more intelligent be perfectly equal to someone who’s smaller, weaker and dumber?
>It just seems like they should be equal.
>If two people apply for a job, what does JUSTICE call for? Should the more competent and experienced person get the job, or the lesser one?
>I think it would be unfair to give the job to the lesser man.
>So justice calls for INEQUALITY, not equality. Because the TRUTH of the human condition, is that we’re not equal at all.
>Well, I can’t really argue with that, though it seems wrong somehow. It seems like it’s really unfair to people who are less gifted by nature. They keep being told to succeed, yet they can’t perform, failing at everything they do.
This is good to argue for inequality among people but not races.
Having been socially put on equal footing with the superiors, the inferiors still feel wronged because the real issue is innate: unchangeable human nature. They then felt that the inferior were at the bottom too long, and now just needed a boost and then they’d be equal to the superiors. “Give the Negro a leg up - he’s been oppressed for so long he needs a lil’ starting boost”. But that failed all the same. So now they are finally, slowly realizing that the issue is with human nature, though they can’t really fathom it to its full extent, thinking of it mostly in terms of abstract thinking and materialism. What do you think is there left to do to realize equality, if the inferiors can’t climb up to the level of the superiors?
>The opposite? To bring down the superiors to the level of the inferiors?
>Exactly. And so they try to shame the superiors and blame them for all ills of the world. But this will have about as much success as their previous approach, because innate nature remains the same. They will inevitably come to the only logical conclusion: the only way to realize the myth of equality is if there are no superiors. This was already manifested once before in history, when some claimed that nobody will be poor, if nobody is rich.
>But that failed all the same.
It was never tried. In fact closing the wealth gap would add up to the income gap (ie they are as far behind as they started)
>So it’s not true you’re out to get Jews either, right? The stranger seemed surprised at the question for a second, then burst out laughing.
>Ha ha ha, of course we’re out to get Jews! We hate the slimy bastards! He said this as innocently as a child might, which struck me as strange, when discussing such a heavy topic. I was mildly offended by his laughter, which I felt in part was directed at me.
>How can you say something like that? My opinion of you was getting better!
>What, you’re serious? Don’t you hate Jews? What do you like about them, exactly? I was taken by surprise by him reversing the question back to
me, and didn’t know how to answer.
what a fag lol
Pic.
>Erm, why would I hate them? I’ve never even met a Jew, so I don’t see why I should be concerned about them. Besides, it’s wrong to generalize about people; just because a person is a Jew, doesn’t mean they’re bad people.
>Ah, I understand, you just don’t know anything about them, so you don’t see the problem. Okay. Let’s first address your theory that it’s wrong to generalize about people.
>What do you mean, “my theory”? It’s definitely wrong!
>What if you misjudge people based on your prejudice? No one deserves to be treated badly because of what others have done!
>You’re right that not all Jews – or all members of any group – will conform to stereotypes 100% of the time – or
even most of the time. But imagine you’re in the jungle, and come across a tiger. Would you be scared? Of course! Most tigers, most of the time, won’t attack you: either because they’re scared of humans, or because they’re not hungry at the time, or for a myriad of other reasons. But isn’t it the right reaction to be careful around it? Isn’t that the right choice, to protect yourself, and others you care about?
>Yes, of course, that makes sense. But Jews aren’t tigers! They won’t attack you for no reason, so it’s silly to be suspicious and discriminate against them.
>No, you’re wrong, it’s perfectly normal and healthy to discriminate. In fact, it’s the greatest tool we have to help us survive and prosper. We learn from experience what to expect from people who look a certain way, and react accordingly. This allows us to avoid the worst-case scenarios for our lives.
>Why should you increase the risk factors in your life to spare the feelings of certain groups?
>Maybe it’s fine to discriminate in our personal lives, then, but to base government policies on it is totally unjust. You can’t make me swallow that pill.
>The basic fact of life is this: whenever two groups exist within the same territory, they will always end up fighting to get the resources and political power. This is nature. If you want to avoid conflict, then the only solution is to make sure every group has its own territory. So in a way, you’re right that it’s wrong to have one government discriminating against a foreign group in its midst – the correct solution is to eject them, instead.
>But Jews aren’t even that different from us. We’ve been co-existing for so long, why would they cause problems? I can’t even tell a Jew apart from our people, so you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
>That’s where you’re wrong. Jews are the most different group from our people there is on this planet. They are creatures that fester and willfully, knowingly indulge in falsehoods. While we strive for truth, they are truth’s sworn enemy.
>This seems far-fetched…
>Remember the point we discussed earlier, how humans can have different natures?
>Yes, but it’s obvious that this applies to individuals, not groups. I mean, there are tall Jews, short Jews, smart Jews and stupid Jews, right? So we can’t put them all in the same basket. I’m sure there’s plenty of scumbags among them, but what you’re saying just doesn’t seem believable at all.
Someone's thinking they're the next Plato
They're very wrong
>Let me ask you this: do you think some groups tend to excel at certain things, or to have different traits, as a group?
>I don’t know…
>How about the Olympics, then? What type of people tend to win foot races?
>Blacks seem to win almost all racing events.
>What kind of people tend to win weightlifting events?
>It seems it’s almost always whites or Asians.
>And swimming?
>Mmmh... never seen a black win or do well at water sports…
>The jumping events?
>I see where you’re going with this, but this is only athletics. Those things are secondary.
>No, you’re wrong. If you search your memory honestly, you’ll see that in every domain, some types excel more often than others, whether it’s school, chess, ping pong, artistic merit, you name it.
>I became conflicted… on one hand, I hated the point he was making, and I was certain he was wrong… but as my mind raced to find counter examples, all I could come up with were more confirmations, almost as if my mind had already done the job of putting people in categories along the lines that he was suggesting.
>Look, it’s one thing to say that groups are better at something or another, but it’s another thing to accuse them of being evil liars!
>What’s the difference, why do you draw that line?
>We can all choose to do good or evil, no one is forcing anyone to commit theft or rape kids! No group has a monopoly on being a scumbag – there’s plenty of terrible criminals among our people, as well.
>How we act is a reflection of our nature. Good and evil, as you call them, are judgments you make according to your nature and your interests. But some people, as a part of their very being, have different tendencies and interests. They will have a tendency to act in a way you would consider “criminal”. And some groups are more likely than others to have many of these individuals.
>I still can’t cross that bridge.
>This all seems abstract to you, because you know nothing of Jews. But I’m sure you have experience with gypsies, on the other hand, so let’s talk about them.
>I suddenly had a sinking feeling at the mention of gypsies. While I like to think of myself as being free of prejudice, I’ve had so many bad experiences with gypsies at the capitol that I couldn’t help feeling hostile towards them. Now whenever I see one, I look around for his friends and keep my left hand on my wallet.
>Ugh… I’d rather not think about gypsies, let’s talk about something else…
>Hit a nerve now, have I? Since everyone can do both “good and evil”, according to you, how about you find me some gypsy families who aren’t full of criminals and leeches?
>Seems like… an impossible challenge.
>Ha ha ha, well you’re right, of course. Do you still want to argue that no group can exhibit marked tendencies towards what you’d consider “evil” behavior?
>It seems like deep down I didn’t even believe it myself… I feel embarrassed now.
>Don’t worry about it. Just accept that you don’t know much about Jews. Listen, Jews are to deceit what gypsies are to theft. They are falsehood given human form; it is literally the air they breathe. Everything they engage in is perpetually, willfully and instinctively materialist, abstract and oriented toward their specific interests.
>What could make them this way?
>Nothing made them this way. It’s just their nature, their “truth”, if you will. But that is why they are incompatible with our society, even moreso with the type of organic society we want for the future.
>Do you think it would be impossible for a Jew to adhere to truth? Are there no Jews that could hear your whole explanation about truth and the organic order, and agree with it?
>If you were to take a Jew and work him in this direction from cradle to the grave, maybe so. And after all, they vary as individuals in the strength of their racial qualities. But policing their proclivities can only go so far, when we talk of going against someone’s innate tendencies. That is why one of our strictest policies is to never let Jews in positions of authority over anything – ever.
>I’m still not convinced. Can’t it be just the result of all the persecution they had to deal with over the course of history? Something that happened to them, rather than being innate in their nature?
didn't read lol
>They’ve been run out of virtually every country on this continent and elsewhere - you think everyone else were at fault but the Jews? If your friends warn you not to take some man in for the night, and the man tells you they all treated him badly and ran him out of their homes, are you truly going to think the fault lies with them or suspect that he did something in each home he was taken into?
>I suppose I’d trust the judgment of people I know over some stranger whom they all had experiences with.
>And you’d be right to do that. Nothing made Jews the way they are, there was no event, no catharsis or catalyst that put them on this path as a whole group, it simply is the way they are.
>But how did we allow them back into our homes again then, if at some point they were run out for their actions?
>One honorable man once said: “A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.”
>So, you’re saying that the more we departed from truth, the more we opened the way into our homes for the Jews?
>They were attracted by the lies and falsehoods that overtook our lives, both because they consciously knew they could exploit it for their benefit, and because their innate nature drew them to what is only their natural environment: an instinct not unlike that which leads the salmon upstream, or the sea turtles back to the place of their birth.
the communism that can be spoken of is not the true communism
>when you're incapable of arguing things with actual people so you make up a half-idiotic strawman that you smugly BTFO in your fantasies
This is profoundly pathetic. How much text is there anyway? It's ten fucking posts at this point.
I'm simultaenously flattered and insulted that you think I'm capable of typing all that within a few minutes.
But no, that's a book called a Squire's Trial.
By listing one logical fallacy that "I" supposedly commited and then commiting another yourself with so much as not even an attempt of refutation, however, is the greatest irony I've seen in quite a while. Thanks for the laugh. I'll be back in hour or two if you or anyone else attempts to deconstruct and refute the logical sequence(s) in that (admittedly long) excerpt.
>I'm simultaenously flattered and insulted that you think I'm capable of typing all that within a few minutes.
But I don't think that. You literally said that you're pasting it, that's why I asked how much is left.
>and then commiting another yourself
You mean I committed a fallacy if I thought you wrote all that?
>with so much as not even an attempt of refutation
I have better things to do than to refute what is essentially a massive "I AM SILLY"-tier caricature in dialogue format.
That was real gay, my nigga.
this is why im not reading evola you people are such giga faggots
You wouldn't have the patience or even the acumen to genuinely understand Evola's writings. Go slave your time and money on Spencer and Tara, altcuck.
stop posting succubi. They want to steal my life essence. Overtime you post them it gets harder and harder to resist
sorry user, she does have a great bottom...
>socially put on equal footing
Sheltered suburbanite detected
I totally agree with everything said here. I haven’t read any of his books before but now I can’t wait to get stuck into them!