Why if it isn’t one of my dear “shithole-country deservers” (whom I usually refer to as my “readers”)

Yes, “meanness” and Geburah are overlapping.

Why when I finally more or less ghost this place people start talking to me?

If I made a documentary about my time on the internet no one would believe it who hasn’t closely followed me the last 7 years or so.

Unspoken agreement to redact, as if in a harmony that is psychic. (Millions of people on an unspoken wave-length at once.) Among other things.

Waaal you know, this is the New Age, and reincarnations from the old times are perceived as lower than a beast.

Chomping on roasted human hamhocks, held by the bone, rude spit flecks flying all over amid boisterous mockery, must not be something that is approved of these days.

So, people don’t usually talk to me directly so I meditate on what they say more than most things, and you’re probably right that I’m mean, not in a wholly good way.

The various shades of golem that visit here have a type of stockholm syndrome and ideally they’d be treated more gently as if one were treating a child or teenager.

The only bioleninist I have any respect for is women, and I’ve been beginning to accept that the relation between the sexes necessarily involves deception and concealment.

It was just my “Enlightenment cladistics” showing to have talked to them the same way I’d talk to a (Norman) male.

They probably DID feel at times as if they were in an Islamic country. That’s because Muslims tend to have a more realistic understanding of the relation between the sexes than the west does. Not saying they’re perfect, it’s just closer to realistic in my opinion.

For instance, we have the impulse-control to not need the use of hijabs, and so more beauty is able to be seen in public here. And the women are less slavelike here than the dunecoon version and more catty, because we can tolerate higher levels of cattiness (and so less personal dogmatism). But the downside is that no hijab leads to encroaching whoredom and cattiness quickly lapses into shrewery.

Oh shit, I’m doing it again- see, the above is not an example of the “concealment” I endorsed above. This is a conversation that should only be had with (non-jewish) men (which is a redundancy).

Men have virtue, jews do not have virtue- so follow the syllogism.

Yeah but you’re right that I’m a “meanie”, and so I’m trying to reform my ways of brutality and respect women more, so I’ve been checking out Jane Austen’s lesser-known novels. It’s tough to disrespect women when you read Austen, because throughout it’s palpable she’s a better writer than you’ll ever be.

Still, I have many critiques of her.

Probably the greatest woman in history though, if you ask me.

There are different standards to judge this by.

Well she’s not the prettiest

Off-the-reservationly speaking, isn’t that the central criteria for judging a woman, even in our enlightened age?

She’s usually spoken of as a “woman novelist”. On the other hand, Uncle Ez recommends her as one of the best novelists and doesn’t even mention that she’s a woman. And I think I agree with his temperament to do that.

Something I read Wyndham saying the other day has stuck in my mind- that women are “sexual phenomena”. This is one of those things which, when you see it, you can’t UNSEE it.

DOES Austen escape this charge? No, I don’t think she does.

While she WAS part of a what we call “prudish” time, her novels revolve around courtship, so sex is implied.

While a man writes a treatise on epistemology, virtually every woman brings “pairing” into her thoughts.

While this is probably seen as insulting, I really am trying to help women “emancipate themselves” from the shackle of being the Robin to Batman. Ironically, that’s because I’d think they’d be sexier that way. So there truly IS NO escape for them, in a sense.

To put in a crude way, women are the ones who are fucked.

If that was me, I would not want to be that.

So I concede that I am following the enlightenment-era Kant in this. Though this was in the European air even before Socrates.

Why do you think every single culture in history has had men and women and not just one gender? It must be because they liked the arrangement.

I personally don’t like “dumb cunts” very much, which is why I’m spotlighting Austen here. So I think there’s some kind of wiggle room in between this “iron law” of the division of the sexes.

Austen reveals a lot about the primitive unconscious of woman, I think.

She’s totally status-obsessed, all thoughts revolving around marrying-up and marrying-down.

It’s a common misconception to say her novels are about the romances of the aristocracy. They’re mostly about the “landed lords” who are a few ranks below the monarchy, and a couple below the aristocracy- they just seem like aristocrats in our time, because we live after a few Regressions of the Castes since then.

Similar to Byron, she’s a Napoleonic Age writer. She was born a year before the American Revolution. She herself was born into a family of lesser landed lords, which probably explains her acute (and cute) obsessions.

The novel that probably inspired her the most was Richardson’s Pamela, which is about a servant girl who tries to resist her master’s flirtations and eventually marries him.

So, from off the reservation, she clearly IS a “woman novelist”.

Women are part of life though, it seems to be an iron law of sorts that they are.

So in that sense she’s not merely a woman novelist.

The King of England of her time even requested from her that she dedicate her next novel to him. He was an avid reader of hers. So she ascended the castes in a spiritual sense, if not in a physical sense (she died a spinster without children).

That book she dedicated to him was Emma, the only one of her novels titled after a female character, so we can assume that it’s more about a woman’s perspective, less than a woman in a man’s world perspective. (In letters we see that she hated that King.)

In fact, a prominent theme throughout her novels is the critique of the higher-classes of 19th century England.

Let’s not get carried away though- what does it tell you that a “nazi monster” like me admires her?

Certainly she’s “artificially boosted” higher into the canon because of the sheer fact that she’s a woman. On the other hand! she’d be talked about a lot more if she weren’t such a “Neoplatonist”.

I’m not a Nazi, I’m a Neoplatonist. Please jot that down somewhere.

Up and down, high and low, better and worse, noble and base- these are things I ardently believe in and perceive in reality.

So Austen’s caste-obsessions render her an “Atlantean” of my pantheon.

No, she’s not the prettiest, and no, she couldn’t pass the BECHDEL TEST to save her life! but I see her as one of the “noblest” women to have lived.

Why is that? Because she’s a good writer.

You can have pretty eyes and be a bad writer. Being a good writer is a higher form of having pretty eyes.

This is why I don’t think much of supermodels or actresses as the “alpha females” of culture (as the multitude does for the most part). No, you need to show that you possess a subjectivity, and can’t just read lines someone else wrote for you or flash your cleavage.

Every woman in history is a “basic bitch” compared to Jane Austen. I was learning about her close relationship with her sister earlier, and thinking “Damn, it would be so eugenic to even (no, not “breed”, calling it breeding is “creepy”) TALK with her sister.

To give you a picture of “hellworld” today, Austen fantasized about ascending to a caste that was two removes from the typical kike. The lesser landed gentry she was part of saw themselves as above the “merchants”. This is when the English were still sane. Though, we see in her contempoary Byron the symptoms of frivolity setting in.

While I’m on Skid Row myself, and some would probably argue that I can’t fathom the true nature of Austen for that reason, it is my perspective that people who understand the old aristocrats and dare to show that they do in public are systematically pushed down to this level, and it’s a sign that we are what we are that we voluntarily take on such a burden.

Anyway, speaking in 2023-terms, I mostly see Austen as representing a noble alternative to millennial hook-up culture.

The “caste-system” never went away, it was just rearranged to be somewhat upside-down. In Austen you see beautifully crafted portraits of true gentlemen and fine ladies. And you can use this as a contrast to know the plastic and artificial posers for lack of a better word, in our time.

As for the decadence of Austen’s England- my highest suggestion to women is to… read the ancient Greeks. Start from the beginning with the Iliad (which is pretty slow), only because it allows you to better appreciate the Odyssey. To grasp the whole mythoplex of the Greeks you need to read the Iliad. From there, the Tragedies, the Comedies, Plato, and Aristotle. Austen herself was between the Neoclassical and Romantic periods of literature, so you see strong traces of the Greeks in her too. Just if you want a well-rounded, lady’s education.

See, I’m not a “meanie”, fuck off.