Something keeps pulling me back to Evola’s book on eros

This reminds me of what I said about sophistry the other day- that they’re usually not telling you something FALSE per se, they’re just not discussing the Real with you. In other words, they’re “right”, but what they’re saying is trivial. Profane eros is similar, and actually, profane eros is what drives sophistry too.

This is an awkward subject so people usually avoid it. I’m just built different etc. etc.

This puts a big grin on my face, let me tell you

If you ask me, I expect the monks of history were secret masturbators. Definitely not through personal experience I’ve learned that it gets the animal out while also keeping the worldliness of woman at a distance.

“Some monks don’t have any animal they need to get out!” Yeah right. Maybe though in some cases.

Oh good, Evola agrees with me

Sexual drive lies at the very root of the living individual, and to believe one can truly suppress it is self-delusion.

Those monks were probably pounding each other in the ass, who knows. We see how the celibacy of Catholic priests leads to all these pathologies ending in pedophilia. So I think the Protestant pastor’s innovation to marry has its just cause. At the same time, celibates are regarded as “saintly” and part of the profanation of Protestantism is that their pastors are seen as “just another dude”- and that lowers divinity closer to our drab immanence.

The only alternatives in coping with the sexual drive are to assert it or to transform it.

Evola is saying that Freud is right here.

We won’t escape our biological instincts. That’s where “sublimation” enters the picture. While I may have a “crush” from time to time on ZOG women, I ultimately worship a Goddess, you could say. I prefer to “fuck” the Divine Feminine.

Sometimes an actual living woman can embody that but it’s rare in our political climate.

Don’t worry, this is just the cope of an incel, not someone tall and charming saying this to you. I just see modern women as “scrubs” typically.

“Wow, he said the word ‘tall’ first, as if to imply that’s more important than ‘charming’.” Yeah, women are superficial idiots.

My point here though is, from my own self-understanding, I didn’t begin to philosophize properly until I consciously closed the door on the worldliness of woman.

Of course I’ll always have the fantasy of “living far away in a cabin” with the Divine Feminine in human form, I just think it’s important to put Ideas first. I don’t expect many to relate to this. If they can’t live up to the Ideas, they aren’t worthy of love anyway. And many married men probably understand this, and lowkey see their wife as a hole to bang. And maybe that will be me in the future too.

“I think you’d only be dwelling on these subjects so much if you were in love with a person.” It’s complicated.

See, I don’t look for synchronicities, they find ME

When conscious yogic techniques are applied, transformation can take place, if the spirit of the practitioner possesses a truly transcendental reference point capable of absorbing the whole of his being. This is the case in the higher practice of asceticism but not in the therapy of psychoanalysis.

If you recall my post on hysteria- hysteria isn’t eliminated, a NEW hysteria is introduced, in certain forms of psychoanalysis. This is another way of speaking of the sex drive. Therapists help you sublimate it toward profane ends, typically. In some cases profane ends that are healthier, no doubt. There’s just another form of sublimation you’re not going to hear about in many institutions, hence why I’m reading an Evola book right now.

“If you masturbate you’re not sublimating it right.” Masturbation is nothing. Have you ever been in love before? There’s next to no attachment involved when you masturbate. This is the problem I am speaking of. ATTACHMENT to worldliness.

Women are just naturally sell-outs, I’d keep them at a distance. Their virtues are as thin as wax paper. If they do something “good” look more closely and I’ll bet you’ll see they’re just being a conformist of some sort, and it’s an “accidental” goodness.

Nothing against women, because men can rarely do the following either

the transformation of the normal sexual force will happen by itself, without violent and specific occurrences, when the whole spirit is truly focused on something higher.

“I didn’t learn about this in Spongebob or Family Guy, how could I ever understand?”

This isn’t some kind of “puritanical” shit I’m on, okay?

the ascetic, yogic, or initiatory commandment of chastity is justified in technical rather than “ethical” terms.

If women are natural Mammonites (as they seem to be) then they should have to prove themselves. Because otherwise you’re going to be attaching yourself to Mammon by attaching yourself to them. I’m sure they exist somewhere- I’ve speculated about “farmer’s daughters” for instance. The word “technical” is key above. All this is necessary if you are concerned with “pure philosophy”.

This is tough for many to face, and I’ve spelled it out before- women don’t love “YOU”. They love how you’re part of society. They love the state and you just happen to be a representative of the state. This is why men cut their balls off and conform, because they want a woman’s “love”. That isn’t love, bud. I’ll go with my love for the Divine Feminine instead. Any woman that demands you be a zoggling isn’t worth loving either. News flash! Redact this!

“He’s exposing our plot again!!” You’re disgusting.

“Worldly women and other-worldly men are supposed to be together, it’s natural!” I do wonder if my philosophizing would change in such a case. I expect an increase in moderation. Plato’s teaching of moderation is exoteric and for the gullible silver-souls. “Hey, that’s me!” Probably. Society is mostly COPPER though, and women tend to hitch up with copper. If you could forgive a crude expression- moderation is for suckers but at least you get sucked off.

Evola being dialectical

that most subtle and efficacious power of seduction exercised by the “chaste” type of woman

This is lost on the sluts of our time. They’re hottest when they seem nun-like. Men have just “gotten used” to the sluttiness and have forgotten this themselves in many cases. That’s how women could appear as a manifestation of the Divine Feminine and seem worthy of love. They don’t care about this typically, because they’re broken shiksa whores that only yearn for lust. Ouch!

Puh, I’m remembering now Badiou’s book on Lacan’s anti-philosophy about how sublimation–wanting to “fuck philosophy”–is a bad thing. Yeah you can expect the French to be profane and not understand.

Not to sound too out-there, I just feel I’ve developed certain “psi” abilities from doing the things mentioned above. I can understand the mechanics of society better because I’ve detached myself from the worldliness of woman.

Not like I’ve completely detached myself- the Sirens have tried to hypnotize me over the years, and I do feel like I’m partially in a state of hypnosis as we speak. I just don’t let them get the better of me. They want to make you a ZOG puppet like them.

Evola explains so much

It was in this connection that we recognized a higher form of manhood in the ascetic. This background is consistent with the specific doctrine of transmutation and the upward flow of force, which flows downward in merely natural sex

Excuse my french! When you attach with them in sex you are basically fucking a jew.

Imagine the Happy Merchant down there the next time one is sucking you off.

Anyway, Evola has multiple books like this, that are in an agon with Nietzsche’s diminishment of the ascetic ideal. And I think the former makes a pretty convincing case.

The ideal would be two like this though, obviously

I think most of them are just content being skanks and worshiping the demiurge.