Old school red pill pt 2.

I am just about done with Nietzche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” which the major thrust is that conventional morality is enslaving and a way to keep superior males down and as a form of power control.  He has a section near the end where he talks about women, and I found it pretty interesting given the prescience of it, and how true it has become.  This is in contrast to say the oscar’s or whatever it was yesterday where I had passed a tv with it on and some femcunt was saying ‘its time we finally have wage equality for women!’ which got the typical herd cheers.

 

‘Woman wishes to be independent, and therefore she begins to enlighten men about “woman as she is”—THIS is one of the worst developments of the general UGLIFYING of Europe. For what must these clumsy attempts of feminine scientificality and self-exposure bring to light! Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridledness, and indiscretion concealed—study only woman’s behaviour towards children!—which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the FEAR of man.

… Enlightenment hitherto has fortunately been men’s affair, men’s gift—we remained therewith “among ourselves”; and in the end, in view of all that women write about “woman,” we may well have considerable doubt as to whether woman really DESIRES enlightenment about herself—and CAN desire it. If woman does not thereby seek a new ORNAMENT for herself—I believe ornamentation belongs to the eternally feminine?—why, then, she wishes to make herself feared: perhaps she thereby wishes to get the mastery. But she does not want truth—what does woman care for truth? From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth—her great art is falsehood, her chief concern is appearance and beauty. ‘

‘ To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of “man and woman,” to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension, to dream here perhaps of equal rights, equal training, equal claims and obligations: that is a TYPICAL sign of shallow-mindedness; and a thinker who has proved himself shallow at this dangerous spot—shallow in instinct!—may generally be regarded as suspicious, nay more, as betrayed, as discovered; he will probably prove too “short” for all fundamental questions of life, future as well as present, and will be unable to descend into ANY of the depths. ‘

(The depths he refers to here is having sufficient moral bravery of sorts to be able to throw off the shackles of conventional morality, esp. into what might be called ‘evil’)

‘The weaker sex has in no previous age been treated with so much respect by men as at present—this belongs to the tendency and fundamental taste of democracy, in the same way as disrespectfulness to old age—what wonder is it that abuse should be immediately made of this respect? They want more, they learn to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty. And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste.

She is unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who “unlearns to fear” sacrifices her most womanly instincts. That woman should venture forward when the fear-inspiring quality in man—or more definitely, the MAN in man—is no longer either desired or fully developed, is reasonable enough and also intelligible enough; what is more difficult to understand is that precisely thereby—woman deteriorates. This is what is happening nowadays: let us not deceive ourselves about it! Wherever the industrial spirit has triumphed over the military and aristocratic spirit, woman strives for the economic and legal independence of a clerk: “woman as clerkess” is inscribed on the portal of the modern society which is in course of formation. While she thus appropriates new rights, aspires to be “master,” and inscribes “progress” of woman on her flags and banners, the very opposite realises itself with terrible obviousness: WOMAN RETROGRADES.’

Pretty interesting hearing someone rage about the proto-femenism 100+ years before it became the culture-killing, empire-ending blight it has turned into now.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “Old school red pill pt 2.

  1. It’s amazing how accurate the things he says about women are. I can’t help but wonder how such knowledge could be lost. How could nearly everyone at a worldwide level be brainwashed into the equality bullshit?

  2. Another, not quite Nietzschean take on the ‘overman’ idea:
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/spellchecked-supermen/
    A series of documentaries titled ‘Brainwash’, which was produced in Norway, the most ‘equal’ country in the world:
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/culturalists-vs-biologians-or-where-is-the-american-harald-eia/
    Genetic ‘fossil record’ of human ethnicities more often merging with than replacing each other:
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-holocene-alien-years/
    Ashkenazim as a hybrid population, primarily Jewish/Italian mix:
    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/jewish-moms/
    See? There is a lot more to current state of knowledge than to the one from the time of Nietzsche.

  3. hehe…

    Have you seen how M(H)RA’s doxxed prominent MGTOW’s because they were unable to debate them…

    The irony is that MGTOW’s such as Barbarosssa and Stardusk wanted to avoid “identity politics” and discuss ideas….

    And those limp dicks at AVfM have shown that they have no honor…

    Well for all their talk, all the old boomers like Aaron Clarey and Elam-the last thing they want is a meritocracy. And the White Nationalist’s are the same-oh, we are the “master race” without any merit….

    Just like a trashy feminist who wants a 6 figure job without producing anything…

    They couldn’t hang in a meritocracy…

    It’s ironic you are reading this “will to power” stuff. He is essentially advocating “might is right.” And awhile back, you wrote about the inequity of wealth. He is essentially saying the rich (modern power) have a different morality than the poor (everyone who is not a 1 percenter.) This is essentially facism. Or if you prefer, corporate oligarchy. Ironic how that shit is so big in the so-called manosphere. Ironic how many neo-reactionaries see themselves as part of this “elite.” It’s funny how the HBD-race realists will whine on and on about IQ, but when have you seen those fuckers talk about playing a musical instrument? Playing a musical instrument is scientifically linked to intelligence–and most of the things that are presumed to increase intelligence involved using muliple parts of the brain–games like Dual-N-Back. Identifying something visual and auditory for example. Or training your hands and training your ears. So most of these neo-reactionaries are far from the cognitive elite. (I don’t claim to be myself.) They are all talk and no results.

    Looks to me like you are allowing yourself to be lead astray…

    If you think my assessment is wrong and I’m full of shit, feel free to delete linkage to me in the side bar…

    • I’m glad you commented on this, basicly I would answer your point about hating rich people, and I would say that the difference is the ‘best’ are not the ones in power, its the ones who were born into wealth. I can’t resort to violence against them, the rules and society are geared against me, and I am forced to play by the corrupt rules.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s