“Flirtatiousness is fundamental to a woman’s nature, but not all put it into practice because some are restrained by fear or by good sense.” – La Rouchefoucauld
The ‘desert island’ film Castaway (1986), directed by Nicolas Roeg and starring a dipsomaniacal Oliver Reed and a hot young “Ms. Robinson”; Amanda Donohoe, is based on the memoirs of Lucy Irvine. Irvine had responded to an advert placed by writer Gerald Kingsland seeking a mate for a ‘survivor experiment’ to last the duration of a year on a desert island. I was reminded of another film with the same theme of a man and a woman alone together on an island; Swept Away (1974) (Italian: Travolti da un insolito destino nell’azzurro mare d’agosto The full English title is Swept Away… by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August), directed by Lina Wertmuller and starring Giancarlo Giannini and Mariangela Melato.
Both films are really truly vehicles about the sexes and not really about the individuals themselves who in their isolated environments lose track of ‘who they are’ – Donohoe asks Reed in one scene “who am I?” having lost contact with the world in which their identities were built and reflected back to them by their relationships with other people and their social roles. While in Swept Away, the prior identities of the two characters function also as a Marxist critique of capitalist society; Melato as Raffaella the high society capitalist snob and Giannini as Gennarino the proletariat deckhand who works on her yacht despising her, but these political identities are also washed away on the island isolation and also in their physical union with each other. Without the contingencies that ground social identities individuals just become the primordial man and the primordial woman, the necessities of survival account for time spent in cultural and individual attributions.
As Castaway was based on real occurrences in which both participants wrote accounts, the subjects abilities to transcend their identities were limited – that is knowing they were involved in a sort of publicity stunt their behaviors were somewhat kept in line by the knowledge of a mutual Hawthorne effect and the limitations of the experiment. Now of the two Swept Away is the more radical endeavor because it is a work of pure fantasy and the relationship between the sexes is to be read as one of Weberian Ideal Types. There is no expectation for the conditions of their isolation to end they are truly free to lose the vestiges of their social conditioning and return to the primordial garden. Roger Ebert wrote that the film “resists the director’s most determined attempts to make it a fable about the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and persists in being about a man and a woman. On that level, it’s a great success.” I agree with Ebert who mentions that the film is a “kinky” updated variation on the desert island theme of films like Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (1957) in which a nun and a US solider become trapped on together.
The same sexual tensions run through all three ‘scenario’ films but with varying results; in the earliest incarnation Heaven Knows; God, chastity and honour win out. In Swept Away, vital “toxic” masculinity wins. in Castaway it is womanly manipulation triumphant. Now it would be interesting to account for these differences in a comparative treatment. While Heaven Knows certainly reflects the time period in which the Hollywood production code was being enforced and the relative constrained morality of 1950s America, which make it easy to write off as a kind of tamed examination of the ‘Adam and Eve scenario.’ While Swept Away, being a product of the 1970s, European and directed by a woman may help explain its overt patriarchal message, Ebert again:
“that woman is an essentially masochistic and submissive creature who likes nothing better than being swept off her feet by a strong and lustful male… The more the woman submits, the more ecstasy she finds – until finally she’s offending the hapless Sicilian by suggesting practices he can’t even pronounce.”
The violent culmination is a sadistic sodomy rape that makes the woman the man’s bitch. Wertmuller’s handling of the subject invokes the bestial remnants of centuries of non-consensual sex; when men got women as a prize for victory over a vanished tribe or foe – the film is a misogynistic rape-fantasy and is regarded by feminists and liberals as an abomination. In sharp contrast, in Castaway, Donohoe’s character Lucy refuses to ‘put out,’ and although starving for sexual communion, Reed’s Gerald acquiesces to her sudden frigidity, feigning indignation, again this is tempered by the circumstances; based on real events, an experiment meant to last a year, being the subject of one another’s published chronicles, but also they are visited multiple times by other groups of people who help them survive (not truly deserted!) – Gerald then in some sense couldn’t just rape her. The transgressions were mitigated. Therefore, this American 1980s turn towards a kind of Lysistrata revolt cannot be said to be without contingent factors within the text itself – (Lucy implies it is because Gerald is not working hard enough at some point, but often uses muddled reasoning). The twelve year period between the two films cannot be said to constitute different epochs of feminism, both being within the confines of the so-called ‘second wave,’ although Castaway seemed to embody the radical feminism of the later period of Andrea Dworkin who argued famously in her 1987 Book Intercourse that “all heterosexual sex is rape.” However, the real account of difference must be one in which the ‘Real scenario’ of Ideal Types is allowed to play out because it is less contingent on mediating factors and the one in which the ‘System’ of mediation cannot interfere to ensure some sense of civil propriety is maintained. Perhaps Dworkin was partially correct, in so far as the primordial sexual communion may well be the forced rape of the female – Lilith be damned.
Now the idea of man and woman alone on an island may also be looked at metaphorically. The monogamous relationship and the globe of psychic, emotional and physical bond between lovers can create a kind of separation between their love and the rest of the world – the idea that love is an island. Curiously in the three films after the ‘island adventure’ all three couples relate their love for one another but ultimately go their separate ways – this is always due to the woman’s decision. Here the ‘island of love’ is revealed to be merely another kind of illusion dependent on contingent circumstances, like that of their identities – Lucy’s “who am I?” and Raffaella and Gennarino’s “class.” Of the three women the only one who remains true throughout is the nun because of her love for God (which should be read as kind of refusal to play the game or her inability to be true to her human nature), the lesson of the other two ‘islands,’ whether radical feminist or patriarchal misogynistic, both agree on one thing; the precariousness of woman – she is an evil thing. Evola, Weininger and the whole of Patriarchal Traditionalism agree that woman is by nature chthonic, devious and ultimately heartless – incapable of spiritual ascent and great works – she is too readily conditioned by exterior contingencies. Recall that when Zeus decided to give humanity a punishing gift Hephaestus molds from the earth the first woman, whom Hesiod calls a “beautiful evil thing” whose descendants would go forth to torment the human race. The lesson with woman then is to sodomize her while you can.
Just a couple of days after I published my blog post criticizing Jordan Peterson’s individual reductionist approach to the social problems alienating and detracting from the life expectations of European men, his professional discipline, for his hypocrisy in regards to free speech, and for superficial and vague dodging of the JQ Peterson gets called out by a Jew about the JQ. Times like these it seems Reality herself literally follows my blog. The story was brought to my attention via the Daily Stormer’s write up.
Years ago I read what was available online of Solzhenityn’s 200 Years Together, the book is mentioned and given to Peterson as a gift in the above clip. The book is about the history of the Jews in Russia – and there is certainly a reason this account written by a gulag survivor and world renowned noble prize winning author has not been translated and available in English; because Solzhenityn crushes the myths of Jewish prosecution. That is to say and I am working on memory here; the Jews, like the very one in the video questioning Peterson on the Jewish role in the Holodomor and subsequent control of US media narratives, have long attested to hatred between Gentiles and Jews as arising because of Gentile reprisals for Jewish success. There were many pogroms against the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and all over Eastern Europe and only in the sense that Jewish success was largely based on exploitative practices fueled by their tribal ethnic hatred of the goyim could one make the case for resentment and jealousy. What happens is Jews say they were persecuted by illiterate peasants out of jealousy through no real faults of their own, this is the same line of specious argument that Peterson uses.
You can see in this clip on the JRE that Peterson tries to sheepishly avoid the topic, by saying he might say the wrong thing. If that isn’t an indication of Voltaire’s dictum “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” I don’t know what is.
In the video when discussing the Hitler Question, the Jew Bret Weinstein preambles his position by asking JP, “If I’m cornered will you, (stuttering) come bail me out?” Peterson’s response is “No way man, the knives are coming out.” Weinstein’s ‘controversial’ opinion: “Hitler was a monster (OMG WHAT A REBEL!), as we all know, but he was a rational monster…” Weinstein goes on to say that when austerity hits a society because of loss of opportunity the society looks for some weaker group to blame for its ills. This kind of psychoanalyzing of mass psychology is the same as what I criticized in Peterson’s approach to individual psychology. The question is not raised why did austerity hit? Are there groups who are responsible? and who should be blamed? – that is the question of culpability of problems is not handled rather the symptoms seem to be the products of magical forces worthy of reprieve.
Onto Hitler; the Germans were an upstart nation and within their field of continental thought they had become giants, the new inheritors of the Greeks as Hegel would have put it. But also industrially and scientifically they had begun to displace and replace the British as the major economic power in the world. The theory that the Americans got involved in the war due to a ‘special relationship’ (a more integrated global usury system with leading branches in New York and London) with their one time parent nation, is also mitigated by many other historical factors. But the Balfour Declaration granting Lord Rothschild the two-centuries-longed-for-Jewish-homeland in Palestine surely tipped Jewish support totally in favor of the Anglo-Americans. The Dolchstoßlegende the stab in the back “myth” along with economic warfare perfected against Germany during the Second Moroccan Crisis (the Agadir Crisis) meant that the German nation could not count on even nationally grown Jewish favor and the credit lines to the war backers suddenly dried up.
Now hardly anyone ever mentions any of these factors or looks at them critically, but everyone knows what happened next in the Treaty of Versailles (austerity). (Likewise the 2011 financial crisis just happened Goyim, no one’s to blame, ‘too big to fail’ we just happened to give foreign people our money and jobs while importing millions of them into our countries – that’s just the “market” and the “invisible hand,” no identifiable groups are pulling strings or stabbing backs – we’re all in this together – we are the world, kumbuya).
Now ask yourself did the German nation and people have multiple reasons for “disliking” Jews? (not merely the racial Darwinian one of muh blonde hair, muh blue eyes kin – and this is just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head and the tip of my tongue). Or was it all according to Weinstein and Peterson; “Hitler was a monster and hard times make people look for scapegoats and they’re just jealous of Jewish success?” – massive psychobabble!
Back to Germany; while at the same time that the nation is brought to financial ruin largely by Jews, Jewish communists in Russia are slaughtering the White Russians, peasants and the Christian clerics and clergy, enforcing a genocide on Ukrainians and centralizing power to turn the nation into a bleak nihilistic dystopia. Making the native Russians obedient workers to a slave run materialist doctrine with Jews as the drivers. In Berlin the Jew Rosa Luxemberg and in Munich the Jew Eisner are fermenting the same Red takeover in Germany. But Hitler was a monster.
This is not the sort of historical nuance you learn in school and my quest to discover the “Why?” ultimately makes one angry at being taught half-truths and distortions, but they say the winners write the history books. But for Weinstein “the opportunity has all been absorbed” as in “it just happened nobody benefited or orchestrated it goys.” The Treaty of Versailles and the harsh austerity doled out to Germany meant that the Allies were able to pay back their (((Money Lenders))) of which the Anglo-French Financial Commission had been arranged through Rothschild agent JP Morgan Jr. But according to Peterson his disagreement with Weinstein over the Hitler Question are not due to any of these historical facts that give the “Why?” meaning, no his “disagreement” is that “Hitler is even more evil than we thought he was.” That’s clinical psychology for you.
Apparently Adolf just didn’t want to clean his room. JP through did have one caveat for Old Uncle and did say he did wonders for the German economy (well that’s what happens when you nationalize the bank, print your own monetary notes backed by public trust in the government, control inflation and kick out the usurious Jews who undermine the nation for tribalist profit). But never mind the tribalism, the nepotism, the usury, the media lies, the manipulation of Gentile society to fit their ‘open society’ curriculum, the quest to degenerate and replace Europeans due to the two thousand years of tribal animus, and the murder of the God of universal love… You’re all just jelly.
Jordan Peterson’s “solutions” are ultimately solipsistic and incredibly specious despite the word salads he brackets them in. That being said lunatic progressives make him look eminently “reasonable” (which I think is his whole socially conservative brand).
I do not much enjoy watching people like Jordan Peterson, I frankly and flat out do not find his perspective interesting or unique or especially insightful or intelligent. But despite my personal reservations Peterson has kind of become the Tony Robins of the Alt-Lite: the boomer parent, telling his kid to clean up his room, while his social habitat is being invaded by foreigners. Or rather the boomer parent talking about how great western values like free speech are and then supporting banning someone who gave that cherished right to marginal viewpoints from attending a free speech event. There is a solipsism present within Peterson and his advice to adopt personal responsibility which does come off like the boomer parent making a mess out of Western Civilization, squandering centuries of inheritable wealth and then telling his kids to “deal with it.” Peterson, champions free speech or speech without deceit, and “adoption of responsibility for the conditions of existence and some attempt on your part to rectify them,” – but would Peterson support someone that views the Jews as responsible for the conditions of existence and makes an attempt to rectify it? – no that would be an avoidance of “personal responsibility” and what clinical psychologists would call “scapegoating.” He is not concerned about your right to “speak your truth” or any of the empty platitudes he preaches, but is acting as an establishment stooge meant to divert your interest of the world wit large into your own petty problems.
Every so often I’ll catch a clip that will make me think I might be turning a corner with Peterson, a little bit; such as this one. There are a couple of things that struck me about the interview; firstly; his apparent sincerity. Secondly; that he knows young white men (he largely avoids the word “white,” but given that a male PoC is interviewing him and the language used “the West,” etc are euphemisms we know who they are talking about) are taking a ‘hit’ so to speak.
I may be more open to the kinds of empty pragmatic thinking that Peterson preaches, more than ever before, because I have usually been able to critique from a relatively stable position; but in recent months my more or less secure but low status demeaning job and support network has crumbled, I now find myself close to homeless, broke, hopeless, filled with anger, resentment, regret, bitterness and socially isolated and estranged. I feel these strains, which were always present, more acutely than ever before and I admit to myself and to you as a matter of full disclosure. But where Jordan Peterson seems in my opinion to be ‘wrong’ or less developed is in a sociological critique of our and my own predicament. For a clinical psychologist his primary concern is with the individual and for this reason alone he seems unwilling to conceive of collectivist modes of improvement or solutions to complex problems, despite the fact that he is discussing a particular demographic or group.
This failure of Peterson rests on an overemphasis on personal responsibility and ideological explanations, i.e. toxic feminism and post-colonial discourses and their psychological effects on individual white men subjected to them, and less on the structural changes to our societies – i.e. the importation of mass non-white immigration, the change from assimilation to multiculturalism, the globalization of the world market and the ascendancy of Other groups, internal forces that seek to weaken Western identity and resolve for personal tribalist gain and objectives, impersonal institutional structures spreading anomie and apathy etc. These sorts of things would enrich Peterson’s psychological approach to these issues, but they would make him a real persona non grata, instead of the controlled opposition he in fact represents. In effect he is dealing largely with symptoms instead of with the actual roots of problems. The ethics of boiling things down to “personal responsibility” betrays a larger understanding of the human being as a social and political animal. This is one of the reasons why Ezra Pound considered psychology to be bunk. Pound was concerned with societies, with civilizations, with economics, with races, he was not concerned with theories put forth about Nazism stemming from Adolf Hitler’s ‘single testicle complex’. This is why Pound largely considered psychology to be Jewish in nature; because it socially isolates the individual and treats him as an island to be dissected, obscuring the wider picture to deal with the individual neurosis – such “internal states” cannot ever be conceived comprehensively without the “external” macrocosm as in the feedback loop of the hermeneutic circle.
Psychologists are really just bad sociologists, who focus on the parts instead of the whole, and that also makes them ideological liberals, who despise wholeness and “totalitarianisms” in favor of radical individualism and existential self-creationisms – they are philosophical nihilists who prefer pragmatic solutions to petty problems than full solutions to major ones. The nearly complete atomization (part of what I call Total Gesellschaft); this demanding and lecturing about “personal responsibility,” allows for collective responsibility, for community, to fall by the wayside. The refrain is always “never mind about them, what have you done?” This is the sneer of the selfish individualist whose only concern is to fill his belly – to stabilize himself. As an anecdotal expression of the sorts of cultural hegemony and psychological gesellschaft involved in such thinking take for example the film Limitless, in which the protagonist takes a drug that allows him to perform at optimal superhuman capabilities – does he change the world? No. Does he help his fellow man? No. He uses his gifts to maximize his self-interest becoming a Soros-like investor like his mentor. Peterson and those who champion the notion of individualism ultimately utilize a fundamental desire of the individual to attain personal mastery, to become a hero and while the egotism and the nobility of such yearning might be irrevocably intertwined Peterson has shown by his actions and philosophy a preference for the baser expression. While this type may give idle consideration to “ideas” his principle concern is the satisfaction he gets from personal gain, wheeling and dealing in “ideas” – not “truth” only attained in the gutter of realpolitik (Christ/Socrates). Peterson solutions are only slightly better than the “Do something” that is the call of the nihilistic ignoramus, any activity is better than no activity; they despise real spiritual struggle, repose and contemplation or any activity for which there is not a demonstrable gain attached: Bleistein with a cigar. Peterson’s personal philosophy, his advice, does not go much further than that.
The air has been putrid for too long. The northern wind gathers violently. Recriminations are in order. Bloodlust must be satisfied. Boreas rapes without courtship. Defiles without sanctimony. Billows over Civility like an old hag, breaking her hip, to a truer, more barbarous rectification.
A mercurial being overhead, practicing the arts of mimicry
wings outspread, stretching beyond the gates of eternity
The Return of Authoritas at the Helm of Western Destiny
“No ‘enlightenment’ provides a purely rational, universal form. There is no such form.” – Michael Novak, Unmeltable Ethnics
“The bourgeois, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.” – Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
The major pillar of ‘Western repression’ identified by the Left begins within the basic unit of society, the family, and extends as a corruption of human nature itself, which it centers on the free conscience of the individual – thus making the individual the basic unit of society.
This is especially problematic for the family, originally conceived as the basic unit of society, now viewed as an instrument or remnant of oppression. The Left’s attacks against patriarchal authority, have morphed the symbol and function of the Father, as something at the very center of the evil ‘authoritarian society’ to be overcome:
“the fundamental shift from the sociological to the psychological level that occurred during the 1940s was motivated by the fact that in Germany the proletariat had succumbed to fascism and in the Soviet Union socialism had not prevented the development of an authoritarian government that failed to guarantee individual autonomy or Jewish group interests. Within the new perspective authoritarianism was viewed as the fundamental problem, its origin traceable to family interactions and ultimately to the suppression of human nature.”
Even at its onset, the primordial cry of the child for the freedom of the birds – the cry for individual freedom was heard loudest from men who owed their learning and subsequent indignation to the very forms of authoritarian government that had nourished their genius, Immanuel Kant referred to the Enlightenment as “man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage”, tutelage being “man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another”. Of course Kant’s ideas were the result of studiously leaning from the knowledge of other men. Perhaps those men who learn to be shepherds can lead a flock, but not all men become shepherds and philosophers or poet-visionaries, or ‘dreamers of the day,’ like the shepherd, are useless without a flock, just as flocks are aimless without shepherds. One need not look to Milgram-like experimentation to confirm that the majority of people everywhere are sheep. Whether in NAZI Germany or under Maoist communism or within Anglo-American liberal-capitalism, supraindividualist systems, modes of interaction, interrelated recursive systems of symbolic interaction mean that most people just want to get along to get by, most accept the rules of the game, adopting coping mechanisms, and top-down ideologies, accepting that life is unfair while attempting to make the most of it. Thus, the dictation of our current social order, which knowingly and self-deludedly expects shepherds, priests and philosophers of ordinary men and women of no considerable inclination towards such vocation – the ultimate lie of democracy and equality is in attributing noble virtues to the ignoble masses.
“The first great affirmation of modern liberalism: religious freedom.” such injunctions justified its historic attacks against the Church; ‘bless me Father,’ became a form of oppression. Protestantism had broken the sacredness of authority by bestowing priesthood on all believers, the social order that rested on the idea of the Holy Family became a source of exploitation, which have since morphed into attacks upon the social role of men generally, but the European “white male,” in particular. That the crisis of the West has been conceived in terms as a crisis of authority, is most relevant, liberalism like Protestantism is merely a revolt against the sacred principle of authoritas; “Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative–it means in fact, freedom from authority.” To base the society on the abstract principle of freedom necessarily entails always looking to extend the remit, from men, to women, to Negroes, to homosexuals, to transgenders, to animals, etc. The progressive tendency is never satisfied because freedom is limitless in its abstraction and run from authoritas. To base a society on Reason, as the Enlightenment attempted, was to dream ineffectual. The sleep of Reason, produces monsters.
That Freud’s father figure had to be dislodged from the fall of 20th Century “totalitarianisms,” became a clarion call to dethrone the European man from atop the castle that he built, as Gertrude Stein once said of Hitler, Mussolini and Roosevelt; “There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing” (Blackner 1995). The father is ‘depressing’ because the father represents the Apollonian principle, a Nietzschean disciplined control of the unregulated Dionysian ego (Freud’s Id) through instilling social order – the father expects, the mother accepts.
The empty shell of nationalism usurped by the merchant religiosity of economic and social liberalism. Insofar as the guillotine performs its democratic function, with globalized finance underwriting both government debt and the illusion of sovereignty. In attempting to give form to modern man (and woman), the private individual endowed with the right to pursue his own happiness, who is nevertheless under the distrustful surveillance of the national security state, one should recall the figure of the Acephalic employed by that theoretician of ‘sacred sociology,’ George Bataille. The Acephalic is the figure of man and the body politic of his democratic-liberal dispensation = headless, which is Bataille and Andre Masson’s symbolic representation of modern man, as a being “unaware of prohibition” moving beyond god and himself, “made of innocence and crime” holding life in one hand and death in another, losing himself in the labyrinth of his intestines, “in which I discover myself as him, in other words as a monster.” His appetites are his only responsibility, the politics of the ‘free’ individual.
Bataille’s Acephalic, apparently giving form to the Leftist variant of the Nietzschean ‘Ubermensch’… as “an attempted harnessing of an aggressive libidinal energy to combat the violent ascendancy of Fascism… The community must serve no master, no minister, no Fuhrer, it must be headless.”
It was at one point common to speak of the father as the ‘head of the family’ but under the assault of ‘freedom’ and ‘happiness’ only rarely is that possible. The ascension of Trump at least symbolically reinstates such a positionality, as the homosexual-nigger-dick-sucking-Jew-Milo affectionately calls Trump “daddy” it is in fact representational of the primordial need for strong men in leadership positions, to concretize form in the shape of authority to battle the chaos monsters that threaten to relativize the world into the primordial swamp of its birthing.