Gynecocracy after Evola, or the World as an Open Vagina
www.nimrodderosario.com
Gynecocracy after Evola, or the World as an Open Vagina
by B. de Kemper
Even before Evola spoke of it, the formless and bottomless substance that is woman in her specific essence had already been sensed by our ancestors, who had forced her to reveal herself; the conditions for this then being ideal. One of these conditions was violence. It is precisely by doing violence to the woman that it is possible to get the best out of it, or to derive the strength that emanates from this substance and which constitutes its profound essence. It was a constant violence, a total and unconditional control over a being, or more exactly, the source of force behind that being.
Female magnetism is certainly something natural, being only one of the manifestations of the energy of which Tantrism speaks. The less the woman is stimulated to be aware of this magnetism, the more for her it will constitute only a means to achieve her own goals, generally purely material.
As Evola rightly points out in "Metaphysics of Sex", and as far as I know he is the only one to have pointed this out, few white women can claim to have been spidocchio, so to speak, in a higher sense: even if physically penetrated, they have not been psychically, nor, inevitably, beyond this level.
Wanting to make poetry, we could say, in this regard, that modern Europe is a cemetery of senile virgins. The white woman constitutes a substance to which it is convenient to give shape, by any means and at any price, whether she agrees or not, going beyond any psychological conditioning. Now, from this point of view, the whole story could be seen as an attempt by the white woman to prevent the man from reaching what is behind her, a largely unconscious attempt, of course, given that she is only an instrument, it always has been and always will be, of extra / anti-Aryan forces. In fact, it is these forces that, through its mediation, have gradually, inexorably and underground, built on the ruins of the Aryan patriarchal civilization, the current gynecocracy that could rightfully correspond to the open vagina of the provocative title we have chosen. , so much does it appear visible, heavy, and to which economic independence has been granted, knowing perfectly well that, once granted, nothing would connect it to man again, and that, due to its influence, and so to speak its force of gravity, this independence will only strengthen gynecocratic power.
The word misogyny, among other things, was included in the dictionary at the beginning of the seventeenth century, that is, precisely for the first time in European history when women began to have a real influence on the social economy. What I would like to point out is that Evola's views in relation to women are none other than those that all men worthy of the name had, let's say until the end of the nineteenth century. Since that moment, not loving women has become a crime against humanity, even if after all, there aren't too many women worthy of the name around. Therefore, strictly speaking, to be misogynistic, it would be necessary before there were still real women worthy of being taken into consideration ...
The modern notion of women's rejection actually belongs to psychology, and can only be applied to hysterics. It is no coincidence that there was not a single woman invited to Evola's cremation ceremony, while at the funeral of Osho, who had written about "Woman and Spirituality" (sic), the room was
overflowing with delirious women. Perhaps Osho was actually addressing only the sexual plane? A priori, one wonders on what level the woman, exploited on all levels by subversion, except on the sexual one, could be used by the human type that Evola had in mind, if not on a purely sexual level, according to strict Vedic orthodoxy. Today, however, women are no longer even usable on this level.
When you walk down the street to your home from the baker, most of the women you cross are wearing pants and a shirt, and have short hair,
"with an affected air of detachment and almost of sovereignty, as if the mere fact of being women must mean those who know that, since, in addition to this quality in its most primitive form, it is difficult to say what in them can justify such a demeanor ",
so writes Evola; the desire to imitate man, this is what emerges from this attitude. It is much easier for a man to imitate female behavior than for a woman to imitate male behavior. It is much more difficult to rise than to go down. Similarly, it is much easier to add than to remove, in a spiritual as well as in a material sense: for the moment, modern science, even if it can do the opposite, is absolutely unable to insert a male sex on a body. female.
The undifferentiated man, unlike the undifferentiated woman, cannot live without sex, so it is clear that, deprived of sex by the white woman, he will go to console himself with pornography, which, unlike pure and simple sex, requires money. It therefore seems clear according to what gynecocratic mechanism modern man is destined to become a consumer of pornographic products. At this point I would like to draw attention to the fact that industrial pornography and the European feminist movement have exploded especially in Scandinavia.
Rather than saying that the modern white woman is not interested in sex, it would be more appropriate to say that she no longer needs sex, since modern life gives her the same cerebral satisfactions as sexual intercourse, but in a different way, without requiring contact. physical. There is nothing particularly mysterious or extraordinary about this phenomenon, which is part of the "solidification" process that René Guénon talks about in "The Kingdom of Quantity", and there shouldn't even be a need to remember it. In order for the white woman to reach her current condition, it was first necessary to transform the environment, through the typical superstructures of the modern world, that is, the conditions that allow the white woman to free her worst instincts. Of course also the worst instincts of the white man, but with the difference that, in the modern world, the white woman is in her true element, where she feels like a fish in water. In this world, in fact, mediation has replaced action, words have replaced acts, the virtual has replaced the real. It remains to be seen whether man is equally responsible for it. Evola talks about it in "The Style Defects of Italian Girls" (I Testi del Meridiano d'Italia, Ar, Padua 2003) in response to an article, which appeared in 1954, by Antonietta Fiumara, where she objects that "the general form of a society is not the woman who creates it (…). Woman is as man wants her ". As a general principle, this is correct, and Evola had remarked it before her.
Nonetheless, we cannot be satisfied with having this subject emphasized only in an abstract way. We must go further, and say that therefore, in a warrior-type society, you will have a warrior woman; in a bourgeois society, there will be a bourgeois one; in one where the Fourth Estate prevails, there will be a
plebeian woman, and so on. Basically, if it is true that it is man who shapes a society, we still have to ask ourselves what kind of man we are dealing with in today's society. In our age it is precisely a type of emasculated man who is in power; from this we deduce the type of masculine female that he helped to create and put into circulation. What can still characterize a real man? Nothing.
There may be exceptions to the rule, which however soon reveal inexorable limits, as soon as the existential conditions necessary for a healthy and airy relationship between the sexes intervene. At that point, the paint peels off in the blink of an eye, leaving only actions and thoughts to appear that have nothing to do with the Aryan spirit. Only a more or less bourgeois kind of life can allow the white woman to save appearances and the white to imagine her counterpart full of "loyalty" and "honor", two qualities that, incidentally, a man can hardly expect from a woman , just as one cannot expect water to burn, unless it is boiling: Napoleon was abandoned by his wife as soon as Rothschild realized that he was going too far. Moreover, today there are no longer many men who can escape a bourgeois type of life.
The liquidation of the "female question" would also more or less imply the disappearance of the Jewish problem. From this point of view, one cannot remain insensitive to the spirit of National Socialism, the first attempt, after centuries, to entrust the reins of a European society to men. We are not saying that the feminine should be rejected, but that it should be given a precise form and that it should be dominated: Nietzsche, the best, told us: "when you go to a woman, take the whip with you", and also: "the woman is the warrior's rest ". And that's that.
Having said this, on a concrete level, it is evident that in the world in which we live, woman is more than ever the medium through which the most harmful infra-human influences act; it is therefore a question of protecting oneself from it at all costs, even if it is almost impossible, because the "manhunt" is open: Maya deludes herself.
By the time you finish reading this article in full, hundreds of whites will have abortions across Europe, as by the action of some Jewish parliamentarian, Jewish or Judaized parliamentarian, let's call them demo-gynecocrats, they authorized the white woman's abortion, and she, stimulated in her vanity which it is difficult to describe as an ape, abortions with the same ease with which she goes to the doctor or changes her blouse. Evola pointed out well that, in relation to the Aryan man worthy of the name, white does not seem to embody Aryan qualities, but racial qualities, at best, non-Aryan, and at worst, anti-Aryan.
Conversely, it seems to me exaggerated, the idea of considering women only as a passive substance that would only absorb, and whose specific nature would be to assimilate foreign bodies. In reality, even if only physically, any man with a minimum of sensitivity for these things can perceive that it is in the nature of the female body also the fact, I dare say, to empty oneself. Everything that comes out of her body gives her as intense pleasure as what goes into it. Ultimately, what seems to physically characterize the woman is this movement of perpetual going in and out of things, an incessant coming and going. From here to think that this also characterizes it physically, there is only one step.
As for the millions of white fetuses that are eliminated every year, it is probably better for them that they have never been born, because given the mental and physical state of the white who were
producing them, they would probably have been degenerates, like the vast majority of whites. and white women who can still see the light of day. This despite the sacrosanct "freedom" of the modern woman, who, as everyone knows, fights for the protection of the whales, but much less for the irreparable damage caused by an abortion to the psyche of the white woman, who after such an abortion seems nothing more than a psychic corpse. "Stop killing whales", said the buttocks of a New Zealander a few years ago, when, in front of the cameras of the whole world, she lowered her jeans. Not even the most popular pornstar has managed to show her buttocks to so many people.
With regard to prostitution, which certainly does not date back to today, Celine rightly distinguished two forms: the one practiced before marriage and the one practiced after. The Greeks or Romans of good families did not trade in women, they simply bought their own. The Greeks who surprised their wife in "flagrante delicto" in the arms of her lover had the right to demand compensation from him. What was more normal? The Negro or the Asian charge a lover, directly or underground, and even go so far as to allow their women to have more than one. It was with the introduction of "love", and therefore of sentiment, into the air society, that the anti / extra-Aryan peoples were able to enter the fortress: "love" was their Trojan horse. Needless to say, the Ariians did not cultivate sentiment: they were above it.
It is no coincidence that the Crusades correspond to the birth of "courtly love" in Europe: all men were fighting in Palestine, and in the meantime who ruled at court? Priests and women, or rather: priests, women and artists; and behind them, as a sort of invisible "glue", the bankers, the bourgeois, the Jews. A few decades before luring Europeans to Palestine in a senseless war, the Caliphs launched a cultural offensive in the early 11th century, sending Sufis to teach this "love" to Europeans, through their sentimental poetry and their decadent airs, artistic reflection, at best, of a mystical and sentimental Tantrism. Seen in this perspective, medieval history appears as a first stage in the devolution of European man and his domestication. The Church began to impose its own vision of the warrior by creating a new one, whose first mission would be to come to the aid "of widows and orphans", as indeed in India, before the coming of Jesus Christ, the brahmanas had apparently worry about devitalizing the kshatriya caste. Of course, the kshatriyas did not need to wait for a Rule to be codified to help "widows and orphans", if in need.
Let us then add the preponderant part played by women in the development of Christianity itself, that is, in the financial support which the first Christians benefited from by some women belonging to the Roman aristocracy, this for the psychological reasons that drive women and, more generally, who is weak and labile, to join hybrid cults such as Christianity. Nietzsche has already said almost everything about it.
Early Buddhism and even Mithraism were reserved for men, apparently this is enough to make them receptacles of misogyny in the eyes of a modern Westerner. If it is evident that the Christian precepts could not help but devalue the Roman, nothing shows on the other hand that Buddhist teaching has spiritually castrated the Indian warrior. Of course, it is not excluded that later Buddhism, inclined to devotion and good feelings, could have contributed to this mental castration.
The woman, and by analogy the mass, of a feminine nature, has something of the Jew, and even if in ancient times there was not yet a mass in the present sense, it must be thought that, in every age, the plebs and the woman had a common moral point of view on everything. Until relatively recently, their point of view did not really matter at all, or, in any case, was subordinate to that of man, at least in the sunniest Aryan societies. In the lower strata of the republic and empire, the personal God has always existed in one form or another, which explains the success of Christianity, at its advent, among those strata of the population. Therefore, even if power could have been seized by even lower forces, which used these lower strata only as a lever to take possession of them, it would not be a question, with all evidence, of artificially replacing God the Father and the various madonnas, which, moreover, fewer and fewer people believe today, with "daimones" and their following. On the other hand, this power cannot be taken except by people who have made contact with the transcendent forces that are at the origin of their own lineage.
One can be surprised that Evola, considering the hypothesis of replacing Catholicism with another religion, did not think of this possibility, of this "two-speed" regime, which springs from that source. In this highly unlikely eventuality, the Vatican could even continue to exist, provided that it transfers its Roman headquarters to a non-European district, which would allow it to keep in touch with peoples who are better able to receive its " divine message ", ie peoples of color or similar.
Little by little, a dechristianization from above could also be possible in Europe, over the generations, aware however that all those born under the current regime are inexorably doomed.
Christianity is the worst of the inversions in the spiritual realm, because it supposes that God needed to become man, when, in a non-Semitic perspective, it is up to man to make himself God, that is, to reach states of consciousness that are not conditioned as those know most humans. That this may appear as Luciferian or Promethean, to a Christian, practicing or not, is not surprising. It is possible that symbolic forms of identification with non-human consciences exist in every civilization; it remains to be established what exactly they correspond to, depending on civilization: superhuman or infrahuman states? In fact, Christianity somehow invented the ego, or more exactly, it attracted the attention of a human type who didn't even suspect they had one. Hence the stroke of genius of Buddhism with the affirmation that the ego does not exist, at least the original Buddhism, because, due to the propagation of Tibetan teachings in Europe, any type of European Buddhist today is convinced that they have an ego , which you should get rid of. Reversed, however, Buddhism can give rise to Bolshevism. It is therefore not surprising that, at the beginning, Bolshevism received the support of many personalities of Tibetan origin.
In the idea of taking upon oneself all the sufferings of the world, there is a paranoid and almost megalomaniac undertone, as well as masochistic. On a deeper level, it is a tendency which, being linked to the will to live, therefore to attachment par excellence, could lead to possession. As for reducing human suffering, this is a central theme of Enlightenment thought, without taking into account the fact that suffering is also the very substance of which the life of most individuals is woven; therefore, it is not so much a question of making it disappear, but rather of orienting it towards more constructive and positive purposes: for those who belong to the lowest caste, that of the shudra, suffering somehow
hides the mental one, which does not appear in him if not when the former ceases, that is, when it is passed from physical work to intellectual work.
In conclusion, only a problematic recovery of certain values of virility in the air, such as "virtus" and "fides", could oppose the spread of gynecocracy and the forces of subversion which willingly favor it, and which use women as a Pandora's box, a myth that almost seems to recapitulate the female hysterical and menstrual disorders that make the fortune of gynecologists and psychiatrists. It is almost a reverberation of pollution, not only trivially atmospheric, but physical and psychic, and of which the altered state of the modern woman is nothing but a consequence, physical and nervous, of a profound imbalance. Of this pollution, the female is above all an instrument, as we have tried to indicate.
In some Asian countries, female employees are sent home during menstruation; a sort of atavistic quarantine against the uterus or hystera, as the Greeks called it. In addition, modern, predominantly Plutocratic-Jewish pharmacology has corrupted, with its ambitions for hygienic contraception, the female cycle and its blood, with palliative tampons that almost have a taste of black magic.
The above considerations should then be supported by further mythical and symbolic references, in particular relating to female symbolism that is found in the various traditions, because, after all, none of these considerations is only the result of observations of a purely psychological nature.