Man and Woman

The Truth of Sex and Gender

Democrat that I am, I’m bowing to popular demand and republishing this entire piece for all subscribers. Feel free to leave a comment or question. If you want to ask something not related to this subject, or respond to any of my other articles, please go over to the general discussion thread, still open, and post there.

Some of what follows is unorthodox, and may arouse ill-will, particularly if you are unfamiliar with the rest of my work, which sets it in a fuller context. Anyone who reads and reacts with instinctive antipathy might like to ask why her feelings should be those of the system; why so much of what follows is verboten in the media of the system (both mainstream and dissident), while contrary views are strenuously promoted. Given the nature of the system, the correct answer is unlikely to be ethically satisfying, which is why it is never given.

---

Preamble: The Fact of Sex and The Quality of Gender

The words man and woman refer to sexual facts. Men actively produce sperm and women are passively born with eggs. These primal facts have qualities, as all facts do, which is why men are always basically (or qualitatively) masculine, and women are always basically feminine.

The words masculine and feminine, however, refer not to sexual facts, but to gendered qualities which, as all primal people (and great artists) well understood, can inhere in any kind of fact, even in numbers. This is why, for example, cats feel more feminine than dogs, which feel more masculine.¹

Upon the primal facts of man or woman the self comprises an infinite number of secondary facts, with their own gendered qualities. I call these ‘secondary facts’ modalities. These pertain to mind, will, body and feeling, each of which can be ‘shaded’ with more or less masculinity or femininity.

Woman then is ultimately feminine, and man is ultimately masculine, but each is made up of many, various and extremely subtle gendered modalities. A man can have a slightly feminine jaw, for example, or a feminine attitude to authority, while a woman can have a touch of masculinity in her sexuality, and so on.

Thus a balanced human is primarily either male or female, with, following from this, a massive and highly nuanced variety of secondary modalities. Together all these qualities make up the fascinating blend, in all human beings, between the essential or general man and woman, and the specific, unique individual.

Modalities can be culturally acquired; they are shaped by environments which can also be masculine or feminine.² Thus, balanced (primal) societies produce essentially masculine men and essentially feminine women, with, again, an immense variety of subtle and interesting modalities following from this.

Unbalanced societies either produce overly masculine men and feminine women (such pseudo-gendered people tend to appear in pre-modern, moralistic societies) or they produce overly feminine men and overly masculine women (such mono-gendered people tend to appear in postmodern, decadent societies).

Opposites attract, which is why a partner is most attractive when they have complementary modalities. A projective masculine mind will enjoy the company of a receptive feminine mind, a sharp, square masculine body will find a soft, round feminine form attractive, and so on and so forth.

Although it is considered a thoughtcrime today, it is possible to make general observations³ about men, those people who produce sperm, and about women, those people who are born with eggs, and about the masculine and the feminine, qualities which most — but not all — men and women essentially possess.

But generalisations are gestures. To speak of the essential difference between man and woman one must, as Ivan Illich pointed out, reach for metaphor, because sex and gender refer to complementary qualities that are, rationally speaking, enigmatic. It is impossible to ‘pin down’ man and woman.

The miracle of love is impossible without this complementarity. If you are basically the same as me, I may love you, understand you; but I cannot experience a mystery that unites, as metaphors do, two different qualities. Love becomes mathematical, or rationally understandable. Unmysterious. Economic.

Man and Woman

Man makes History, woman is History.
Oswald Spengler

Have you ever noticed how, when a man and woman in relationship argue, if he is found to be wrong he often seems to be more wrong, than she does when she’s guilty? Even with the most atrocious, horrendous women there is often, somehow, a sense of innocence about them that male monsters do not possess?

It’s simple. It’s his fault. Ultimately, it’s all his fault. Adam fell first, and then he blamed Eve, and has been blaming her ever since. Woman is responsible, of course — in fact she takes on the evil in the world more readily than man does, and becomes far more deranged — but the source of it all, is in his stinking heart.

Every man has a devil in him. An angel too, yes, but the fiendish horror that man nurses in his self (even — sometimes especially — the nicest and most likeable men) makes her evil look, if not more trivial (for she can certainly be diabolic), then, at the very least, more pitiful.⁴

Woman, generally speaking, is more innocent than man. She is more gullible than man, more childlike, more trusting, more spontaneous, more sensitive and more compassionate. This is because she is born whole. Man is born incomplete, with an insensitive split, and must learn to become whole, in time.⁵

A woman’s guess is much more accurate than a man’s certainty.
Rudyard Kipling

Man thus has aspiration, something which is basically alien to woman. She may aspire, but she doesn’t have the need to master herself in worldly activity. This is why feminine women tend to give up on the path to mastery. They become good, but they almost never become great. Anyone who says otherwise has no taste.⁶

A woman with personal aspiration is either unhappy or angry. Woman does not need to aspire to completeness. What she needs to do is refuse to compromise with a loveless — which is to say, incomplete — life. This is the only real rift in her existence, and the only thing she naturally ‘aspires’ to.

The loving completeness of woman might then manifest as some kind of marvellous work in the world, perhaps even something which can be described as worldly ambition, but this is unlikely. Women don’t naturally strive as such. They just do what they love and acquire skill that way.

This is unsayable in the unnatural world. The possibility that there is something that women might desire beyond wordly career or technical mastery must be taken as bigotry by a world which demands woman’s competitive participation, and which also demands she deform herself in order to competitively participate.

Men are not really interested in women who strive. Okay, so she has an ambition, fine. Lovely. Women, however, hate men who do not strive. He doesn’t have to aspire to some marvellous cultural achievement, but if there is no sense in him that he is seeking to overcome his self, she’ll unconsciously hate him.

If men knew all that women think,
they would be twenty times more audacious.
Alphonse Karr

Another aspect of aspiration is individuality. The aspiration of man to overcome his self pulls him out of the crowd; although man is naturally more individual than woman anyway — and seeks individuality more than she does — which is why women’s faces naturally resemble each other more than men’s do.⁷

Overcoming self means discovering some ‘part’⁸ of your conscious experience that transcends will, mind, body and emotion (a ‘part’ women have no need to find, because she is that). Man does this through love (for nature, for woman, for the ineffable) and through mastering his tools in worldly activity.

In mastering his tools — including the tool of his mind — man learns to master himself. Industrial technology and institutions are not tools, they are systems, and cannot be mastered (they master us), which is why guitarists are more desirable than managers and why women do not fawn over professional gamers.

Men who do not master themselves seek to master other selves. This explains the striking similarity between the attitude of unconscious men towards both nature and women, as external things to be studied, experimented on and used, for one’s own benefit, rather than as mysteries to be experienced, from within.

The main difference between men and women is that
men are lunatics and women are idiots.
Rebecca West

Such men are rightly considered to be, by women, simple creatures.⁹ This is because they do not have a very noble aspiration or are not far enough advanced in their pursuit of it. They are children, and she treats them as such. A man who knows what he is about is almost as subtle and strange as a woman. Almost.

Today we live in a world in which women are forced to aspire, to achieve, to succeed and, most unnaturally of all (for her) to win. She really doesn’t give a damn about winning, but she has to in the man-made world. All this disturbs her spirit, particularly when she is menstruating.

Menstruation is a monthly purge of all the misery and pain she has accumulated in man’s world over the past three or four weeks. During this time she finds it more difficult to participate in that world, and resents having to. She tends to take out her resentment on the nearest representative of man’s world to her.¹⁰

Woman is also forced to hyper-focus in the world — another male trait. She must pick out things in the world and manipulate them. Obviously she can do this, and even enjoy doing it, but the degree to which she is compelled to abstract in this way corrupts her embodied presence and wisdom, and makes her male.

Acquisitive and competitive women are, increasingly, in control of the world, but woman cannot change its male-made essence. It changes her. It infects her with an unnatural, projective, abstract, insensitive and disembodied maleness which she then defends as her nature and her right.

The most conspicuous physical manifestation of woman’s acquired maleness is her tragic lack of sensuality. Modern woman, in man’s world, has less and less sensuous presence, which makes her more and more emotional; more depressed, more anxious, more frustrated, more angry,¹¹ and less feminine.

The most conspicuous social manifestation of woman’s acquired maleness is feminism. Feminism can mean a simple desire to help women, but the word as it is officially used refers to an ideological technique for forcing woman into man’s working world, where he can more easily manipulate her. Feminism serves man.

Emancipation of women has made them lose their mystery.
Grace Kelly

Although it is true that once, in the ‘bad old days’ of the pre-modern past, men wielded ruthless power over women’s lives, it is also true that women once had power over her domain, the home, which she has now lost. Now, with the exception of a few privileged women in the West, she is powerless everywhere.

If you ask young women in the West today, ‘do we need men?’ many will cry ‘no!’ Not because she can do everything he can do (such as all the gruelling physical professions dominated by men¹²), but because his technological system has made him (and her) obsolete. When it falls apart her answer will quickly change.

Now man might be under her thumb at home and in the office, but this is a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one. Not only has her power over him eroded the love between them, but the man-made system now rules over her completely, over her mind and body, everywhere, and she helped that happen.

Woman might be more innocent and loving than men, but she is as responsible as he is for the loveless state of the world, because she compromises so readily with it. She accepts lovelessness; through fear of being abandoned, through lack of confidence in love and through her perverse addiction to emotion.

Man plays on this emotion. First of all he undermines her confidence in love by conflating it with mere self-confidence which he knows she always, no matter how powerful and successful she is, possesses less of than he does. If he is particularly low he will play on her fears of being unloved and abandoned.

Woman’s first great weakness is an addiction to security. Often she is unconscious of this. The most unconscious woman will gravitate to whoever or whatever can give her security, be it a man or an institution. Only the experience of love in her body can give her real security and confidence, but she forgets that.

Woman’s second great weakness is a refusal to acknowledge her own helplessness. She has no defences against being corrupted by man, and by his world. This is one reason why she needs a man to protect her — to protect her against his world and to protect her against his self.¹³

Woman thus see-saws between two kinds of men; cowards and bastards. Half the time she is addicted to the niceness and security of cowards, whom she can push around. The other half she is prey to the charm and confidence of bastards, who push her around. Neither cowards nor bastards can reach her heart.¹⁴

A woman knows how to keep quiet when she is in the right, whereas
a man, when he is in the right, will keep on talking.
Malcolm de Chazal

Don’t argue with women. Women will take what you say personally. This is why, in our world, which is increasingly run by the personalities¹⁵ of women (or by feminine minds), it has become increasingly difficult to make impersonal criticisms of each other. Everything has become personal.¹⁶

Another problem with institutions run by women¹⁷ is that conservative behaviour tends to predominate. This is because women are less willing to take risks than men and so tend to form structures that reward safety, bureaucracy, proceduralism and attitudes that reward conformity to the status quo.¹⁸

A third consequence of institutions becoming directed by female priorities is that fewer people within them strive. There is less aspiration, so greatness is rarer. Defensive mediocrity prevails and superb quality, along with the male competitiveness that greatness requires,¹⁹ is ignored, excluded or punished.

That everything has become personal explains many problems that men face endeavouring to assert themselves in a world now threatened by such assertions, whatever they happen to be. These observations, for example, can be dismissed as ‘sexism’ for no other reason than because a man has written them.

Similarly ‘rape’ now largely means (in the unofficial dictionary of identity politics) ‘sex I regret’, while ‘sexual harassment’ often means ‘an approach from a man I am not attracted to’. That these definitions now have the force of law behind them is one reason men no longer approach women.²⁰

Or take ‘toxic masculinity’, which really just means ‘masculinity’ for the pomo left. ‘Toxicity’ serves a similar function to ‘mental illness’, in that it makes unpleasant behaviour an institutional concern. It’s no longer my responsibility to deal with an arsehole, or his, but a matter for teachers, lawyers and doctors.

Notice that there is no such thing as ‘toxic femininity’. That women (unconscious women I mean) like being sex objects, that they want to be commodified, that they run, open armed, towards commodification and go out of their minds if they are ‘left on the shelf’… all this is heinous wrongthink.²¹

And because it is unsayable, so is the solution. Women cannot free themselves from a situation that it is impossible to openly acknowledge. They can never regulate their sexuality if it is not seen as a problem, nor recognise their need to be loved if they cannot see how being loved resembles being merely desired.

Love is the solution. Love is the ineffable meeting point between essentially complementary differences, which is why it is feared by pseudo-gendered caricatures and mono-gendered ciphers, both of whom egoically seek their own reflection (either exaggeratedly sexed or exaggeratedly unsexed) in the beloved.

Love in the world must be made, which is to say brought into the world through and between two complementary opposites. This is the primary purpose of loving sex. Without this purpose, sex becomes mere pleasure, which degrades into either drippy sentimentality or hollow, demonic pornography.

The majority of husbands remind me of an
orangutan trying to play the violin.
Balzac

The demon of porn is a male invention. Woman does not need pornography, because her sexuality is essentially embodied. Man’s diabolic disembodied need to fuck an idea²² is one of the principal barriers between him and his woman, the overcoming of which is the secondary purpose of sex.

Pornography extends beyond arousing imagery. All spectacular projections of the system, which stimulate the mind while retarding and infantilising the body, are pornographic. Video games are porn, as are most male movies (superhero, fantasy, science fiction), as are all adverts, as is the news.

Pornography intensifies the effects of living in a high-tech senile-capitalist system, which itself is pornographic, titillating consumers with long build ups to snowflake orgasms.²³ Pornography speaks to sentiment and expectation, manufacturing anxieties for which the system then proffers palliatives.

The effect on man of consuming pornography, is as disastrous as it is on woman. It drains him of vitality, replaces reality with a monstrous idol and slowly turns him into an anaesthetised cipher, a helpless, sexless puppy. He even begins to look like a puppy, like a featureless thumb.

He also starts to seek substitutes for the respect and love of woman, who is now beyond him. He turns to his games and his work, he seeks ‘friendships’ with women, he masturbates, he numbs himself into an unfeeling torpor, or he chooses to be gay, which is to say, to assume an identity of gayness.

Gay men are afraid of loving women, an unconscious fear they translate into lack of desire for them.²⁴ There is no such thing as fundamental gayness in nature or in natural people. Instances of [unproblematic²⁵] gay sex do not indicate fundamental gayness in primal people or mallard ducks.

The caricatured ‘man’s man’ is, like the gay man, also afraid of loving women, but he translates his fear into either the promiscuous desire of the bastard, one conquest after another, or the weak surrender of the coward, giving in to the tyrannous emotions of a ‘strong’ (but bitterly unhappy) woman.

Our loveless, bodiless world thus creates unattractive men; vain, weak, incompetent, unsure, unable to make decisions, unable to take care of themselves without a woman and unable to understand that a short, fat, bald and ugly man who can do these things is more attractive than a ripped prince.

Man must resolve the split he was born with by plunging into the innocent heart of things, he must master his tools (not his machines, his tools) and he must face the world. He must learn to stand completely alone, to stop putting what is correct above what is right. Then women will love him.

But man must also learn to commit to one, loving woman. Only through such commitment can he discover the courage and the love to master her emotions — in order to overcome his emotions and his sexual restlessness (which sometimes masquerades as sexual disinterest). And vice versa.

A ritualised promise of commitment is the purpose of marriage. This is why men and women who love each other marry, and this is why it feels nobler to speak of ‘my wife‘ or ‘my husband’ than to speak of ‘my boyfriend’ or ‘my girlfriend’. Women usually understand this better then men.

Women today²⁶ often reject love and marriage though. They have not really been loved, only wanted, needed, sexually desired and pathetically worshipped. Fawning attention might appeal to the vanity of woman, and she might make use of it to get what she wants, but this kind of ‘love’ disgusts her.²⁷

There is no limit to a woman’s intelligence
provided she is not required to be coherent.
Miguel de Cervantes

Woman has been conditioned, by man, to not fall in love. She has been taught, by man, to prefer sex — which means pleasing man and getting shallow, clitoral orgasms — to making love. She has been taught that consistency means the same as reasonableness, and that rationality means the same as truth.

A woman who is loved is content with poverty. A woman who is loved is not fiendishly jealous, nor is she needy. A woman who is loved will even enjoy being told what to do by a man (indeed she may love to be told what to do).²⁸ A woman who is loved can read this essay without losing her fucking mind.

A woman who is not loved will seek substitutes, such as having children, career success, cute animals, consumption, moral crusading, chasing youthfulness and endless dramatic chatter.²⁹ If woman reaches menopause without having loved and been loved, she’ll turn into a sentimental pity monster³⁰ or a witch.

If she has loved and been loved, a woman at menopause loses her personality and her love becomes impersonal. This is a very difficult and painful transition, but a woman who has been loved welcomes it. She knows that the depth of the love now dawning in her is roughly that of the entire universe.

There are very few impersonal old women, or wise old men, and the link between those who still exist and the young has been severed by ‘youth culture’ and social media, leading to a breakdown of culture and a consequent inability of young men and women to learn the reality of gender from their elders.

A woman unsatisfied must have luxuries.
But a woman who loves a man would sleep on a board.
D.H. Lawrence

The sexual league-table, which was once a locality that character, truthfulness, spirit and love could all find a place on, has been warped by the screen into a brutally crude global arena of a few winners, who get all the attention (and affect to hate it) and a mass of losers (who affect to like being outcasts).

Women at the top of the sexual league-table affect to be exhausted by the ‘toxic masculinity’ of men who harass them, but most of these ‘beautiful’ women are addicted to the attention the world gives them, which is why they are invariably the most bored and boring of creatures.

All beautiful people, men and women, are invariably inept for the same reason that extremely rich and powerful people are; because they are pandered to. They don’t have to ever become superb at anything, and so very, very rarely do. If you want someone who is competent, choose someone who is ugly.³¹

Some young women are too weak or too sensitive to handle predatory attention from men and actually seek to be ugly or invisible. They cultivate ugliness for much the same reason as sexual losers do, because it gives them an excuse to not have to make an effort to handle men, which they are quite capable of doing.

Some people who are not desired are simply demoralised. Everyone wants to be loved for their appearance, because everyone knows that appearance and essence are not separate entities. The simplest solution, in a world with unrealistic standards of formal ‘beauty’, is to refuse to play the game at all.³²

Other losers in the sexual league (usually men) exalt in their status as outcasts. These are the laziest and most mediocre of children, manufactured today by the world in their millions, although most are invisible because they spend their lives glued to the sexless screen, which they call ‘the real world’.³³

This ‘real world’ indeed mirrors the sexless screen, which is how sex and gender — their character, difference and complementarity — have become effaced, and why it has become sacrilegious to speak of their difference. But speak we must, even if it makes us outcasts, for a body without distinction is a corpse.

---

Further Reading

I explore sex and gender in much greater depth in my books. There are essays on Gender and on Sex in The Apocalypedia (including a guide on how to make love), sections 59 to 77 of Self and Unself cover my philosophy of gendered love, situating it within the panjective whole, while ‘Panjective Gender’ in Ad Radicem and ‘The Myths of Pseudogender and Monogender’, in 33 Myths of the System, cover the subjects from a social historical perspective.

Finally, a simple, friendly summary can be found in my new beginner’s guide to reality entire, The Fire Sermon.

All images by Edward Munch

1. Language recognises this, although, being a matter of embodied — which is to say contextual — quality, it is not an exact science, nor could it possibly be. Although cat, for example is recognised as feminine in most languages, many varied cultural associations are absorbed into folklore and gendered grammar; so we find, among many other examples, Hebrew chatul (cat — masculine gender).

Nevertheless, we intuitively recognise a qualitative difference, which is why we give catty names to cats, which sound feminine, and doggy names to dogs, which sound masculine. Language, the world over, is gendered in this way, reflecting a reality that, before the modern era, recognised gendered qualities, not just in people, but in animals, plants and objects.

2. The East, as anyone knows who has lived both in the Orient and the Occident, is more feminine than the West, although again this is a crude example — aspects of culture have a range of gendered qualities.

3. I am speaking of official, left-liberal, post-modern identitarian ‘culture’. This is not the place to go into the incoherence of completely rejecting generalisations, suffice it to say, the logical end-point of the belief that nothing general can be said about men and women (or about anything else) is that nothing meaningful can be said at all; language without generalisation is not even a technical concern — as the so-called ‘exact’ sciences are founded on approximations — much less a tool to express life as it is actually lived.

4. Most women know the evil of men, because they’ve come across it in some form, but all men know it, because they are it, although many are the ways that men suppress consciousness of their devilish nature, or rationalise it away. What this means is that a man who doesn’t realise he is a monster is the most dangerous creature on earth, although not much more dangerous than the man who who does realise, but has given in to it. Conversely, the only man worth knowing is he who has seen his evil heart, been horrified by it, and is some way to facing it down.

5. Tragedy is a male genre, in that it is about man, he who is born broken and whose split, if he is not sufficiently conscious, will tragically overwhelm him. ‘There is’ as Camille Paglia wrote, ‘no female Mozart, because there is no female Jack the Ripper.’

6. This is evident in most worldly pursuits, but is clearest of all in the most prototypically male of these, mathematics, composing music and writing philosophy. Woman’s achievements in these spheres are almost laughably trivial. If all the ‘greatest’ theorems, symphonies and philosophies by women disappeared, nobody — apart from misandrist ideologues — would notice.

The usual argument to the contrary is that woman have not ‘had the opportunity’ to become great. Somehow they have managed to become world leaders, army generals and judges, but they can’t seem to pick up a guitar and write a hundred timeless love songs or ten philosophical masterpieces or solve extremely difficult maths problems.

(Chess pieces also seem a terrible weight for women’s delicate little fingers; there is currently only one woman in the top two hundred and only three have ever made it into the top one hundred. No doubt women ‘don’t feel comfortable’ in the big boys’ club of professional, competitive chess.)

This seems to be most odd, given how important intelligence, music, love and philosophical truth are to woman, until you understand that she is, naturally, not interested in unintelligently pursuing abstract truth very far beyond utility, nor is she abstractly, or conceptually, aware of her own heart.

Just as it is the critic’s duty to bring the soul of the poet to mind, so it is man’s duty to bring the quality or essence of woman to awareness, which is how great male artists and comedians are better at expressing her needs than she is; and why she is deeply attracted to them, even if they are stupendously ugly.

7. An extremely individualistic woman would be ugly, and she knows it — although of course a perfectly non-individualistic woman (the omniface that really thick women aspire to) is also boring to the point of horror. Likewise, an extremely ‘samey’ man would be a complete turn off to a real woman.

Note that ‘individualistic’ here does not mean extraordinary, striking or impressive. Women are, on the whole, far, far more impressive than men.

8. ‘Part’ is in scare quotes here for reasons too complex to go into. See Self and Unself for a fuller treatment.

9. A typical observation (usually accurate);

A woman need only know one man well in order to understand all men, whereas a man may know all women and not understand one of them.

Helen Rowland

That said, it tends to be working class and non-Western women who make this assertion. The middle-class woman is ideologically compelled to treat men as friends and equals, while at the same time maintaining that she is oppressed by men, a double-bind which leaves her with no way out but anger.

10. Women can certainly be forgiven for this, and a man who doesn’t take responsibility for her emotions, as well as for his own, is heading for trouble. But she doesn’t have to suffer, nor is she justified in excusing her tyrannous emotionality on her menses, which is no different to a man excusing his shameful sexual violence on ‘testosterone’.

11. ‘Women are Angry,’ ‘I am a Woman. I am Furious,’ ‘Why Women are Mad as Hell’, ‘Rage Becomes Her’ There are now scores of articles and books on the phenomenon of women’s anger. This is explained as being because women are ‘tethered down by archaic, patriarchal systems and culture’, which is certainly true, but only half the story, the hidden half as ever being that which women themselves (particularly middle-class women; class never comes into these articles) are responsible for; their identification with, membership of and support for that system and culture, and consequent inability to calmly and compassionately grasp how it crushes men just as thoroughly, and in some ways even more terribly.

12. For some reason the feminist revolution hasn’t reached these jobs yet…

13. This is why in lesbian relationships one of the pair is nearly always harder, more aggressive, more insensitive and more projective — more male.

That said, as noted above, in this world women don’t think they need such protection; because the technological system that man made offers it, while, at the same time, turning her into a helpless, en-maled and therefore violently assertive slave with Stockholm syndrome.

14. You can tell if a man is a coward or a bastard by the look in his eye, although this is difficult to perceive if you are emotional. Another way to tell is by how he behaves with children, animals, waiters and, most especially, his mother. Cowards tend to have bitch mothers, while bastards have doormat mothers.

The bitch mother corresponds to the kind and lovely — but weak — father, while the doormat mother, sweet and gentle but anxious and easily manipulated, corresponds to the bastard father. Obviously these are gross over-simplifications—for status is a complex and contextually-dependent matter (a man can be a high status bully to his wife but a servile cretin before his boss, or vice versa)—but the basic truism that bitches attract cowards and doormats attract bastards generally holds.

For a good, albeit dramatically exaggerated, account of the bitch-bastard catastrophe all but guaranteed to befall unconscious (particularly beautiful) women, consider Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Thomas Hardy’s ultra bleak tragic tale of a stunning young woman martyred on the cowardice and bastardy of male desire.

15. Personality is different to character. There are still women of character in this world, just as there are men of character, but they are extremely rare. Just as the world punishes the projective genius of man, so it cruelly suppresses the receptive wisdom, presence and innocence of woman. See The Fire Sermon.

16. Women — particularly characterless women — find it difficult to stand back from a feeling of being criticised (‘I am being attacked!’). They then respond to the emotion that the criticism produces in their bodies, calling on whatever facts they need in order to dispose of it.

This is one reason — aside from the difficulty they have being consistent and decisive — why women tend to make poor bosses and judges. Just as she finds it extremely difficult (sometimes even painful) to take an argument impersonally, so she has difficulty taking a case impersonally and ruling with dispassion.

Characterless men blow up if a hint of personal criticism reaches their ears. As Dostoevsky realised, the more someone lies to themselves, the more easily offended they are — and most people are continually lying to themselves. I am speaking here, however, of abstract debate, not personal slight.

For man tends to take impersonal criticism as a game, as something essentially separate from his self. Generally speaking, to criticise a man one must best him in argumentative combat, which, combined with the greater insensitivity of men, is why it is proper, not to mention funnier, to aim harsher blows at men.

17. Principally institutions that pertain to biology, psychology, art, design and culture, administration and education. Men still dominate STEM subjects of course, but they often find that they are in administrative and cultural structures run by women. The problem is compounded because men learn to avoid gynocratic institutions for much the same reason that women used to do the same (and sometimes still do) with androcratic institutions; because such systems will punish them for being men. Gay men don’t face the same problem, and also tend to flourish.

18. This is one reason why women do better at school and university, which basically involves taking orders for two decades (and therefore starts to seem ‘girly’ or ‘gay’).

This isn’t to say that women are the only nor the principle reason that we live in a world that is suffocating beneath mindless formalism. Technology and a massively over-expanded iniquitous system are the chief culprits. The point is that women tend to prefer reform to revolution, particularly when physical security is at stake, and especially when the physical security of her children is at stake.

19. It goes without saying that egoic competition, without either selfless consciousness or the female virtue of cooperation, is insane.

20. Along with their psychological emasculation.

21. How many of three million women on the popular sexual commodification platform, OnlyFans, prostituting their bodily integrity to lascivious men on the capitalist market, would describe themselves as feminists? I’m going to guess somewhere around three million.

22. Which unconscious woman accedes to in a tragic and heartbreaking game of ‘living up to an ideal’ that has played out through the centuries. See How to Not Murder Your Wife, in Ad Radicem…

Wherever there has been a male ideal of woman there has been an unhappy woman living up to it and an unhappy man who, having got ‘the kind of woman’ he wanted, is now bored, a boredom which he inflicts on her and which, sooner or later, she’ll violently react to. Today’s ideals include the matey lad-girl, the pneumatic fuck-doll, the meeky wifey, the filthy succubus, the yang-hungry dominatrix and the crazy artistic gamine. Few are the men who want a woman, in all her mysterious simplicity (or simple mystery) and few, alas, are the women who want this, their original nature.

23. Consider, by way of one example, the fact that Christmas now ‘begins’ halfway through November, manic exhortations to ‘get ready’ (i.e. buy something) filling the screens, hyped-up renditions of Jingle Bells blaring through the airwaves, on and on it goes, more and more build up, it’s coming, it’s coming, Christmas is coming, buy something! And then what is it? What actually is Christmas Day? It relates to the build up as a sterile wanked out orgasm relates to half an hour of edging. I’ll leave it to the reader to think of similar example, there are many.

24. This also partly explains the tragic and theatrical atmosphere which hangs over gay men, bless them. They tend to be very sensitive creatures, and therefore often very lovely and loving — and of course fun-loving — but they are estranged from love.

25. To reiterate, there is nothing wrong with men having sex with other man, men being attracted to other men, or men holding hands and running, laughing and singing, across a summer meadow together. What is unnatural is men not being attracted to women at all, preferring anuses to vaginas (a favourite of many straight men unable to love—which is one reason that we live in the age of ‘booty’ and ‘twerking’, fetishised representations of a loveless fixation on the anus), being completely unable to physically love women, and, a consequence of all this, taking on a compensatory identity of ‘gayness’, with all its predictable downsides; sexual voraciousness, obsessive fear of disorder, self-disgust, pretension, insincerity, a tragic hand-on-brow imitation of true sorrow and hyper-sensitivity to criticism. Feminine men who tend to be attracted to men are often the sweetest, most joyous and creative of people — and their persecution in the early twentieth century was a nasty bit of work by repressed pseudo-sexual caricatures — but when their sensitivity is degraded into an identity it becomes a betrayal of itself, and of love.

26. By which I mean, here as elsewhere, middle-class women in the West and those who have been infected by the hyper-civilised ‘values’ they promote. Much of this account would strike Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Peruvian women — not to mention women of the past and future — as transparently obvious.

27. Women today understand that the ‘chivalry’ of the past was a pretext for abusive paternalistic oppression, but in turning her back on chivalry she has not freed herself from debasement at male hands, but exposed herself more completely to violence and ruinous exploitation. Now she is just like a man, and so can be abused just like a man.

28. This of course is an outrageous thing to say nowadays. If you feel yourself bristle, think of ballroom dancing, a Viennese waltz, for example, in which the woman must, in the outer world, follow the man. She will willingly do this if she knows that he is consciously attentive to her inner life (and of course to the music). Men who are not conscious in this way can be superb dancers, technically brilliant, but women will not enjoy dancing with them. They will feel oddly excluded, or strangely bored.

29. Another substitute for love, common among unloved women, is a lesbian relationship.

Gay and lesbian relationships are common among ciphers, which is to say, disembodied men and women. Homosexuality appears in groups that have detached themselves from functional existence. In the past, superfluous elites and intellectuals, today, urban lefties and liberals.

The opposame to the asexual cipher is the hyper-sexual caricature, reproductive organs whose only real task in life is to spread their genes, with everything they think or do directed towards this one aim. They are equipped with very small brains in order to help them achieve this simple task.

Ciphers and caricatures make a lot of fuss about how different they are, but they are all unhappy, their lives filled with anxiety and contention.

30. Pity and sentiment are both emotions which masquerade as love. Love is not an emotion. It is a feeling. See The Apocalypedia.

If beautiful face have man or woman, always I know is merde. If lawyer or engineer I need, never I choose beautiful face—merde is. I choose monster. He is not spoiled. He study when young, is clever.

31. George Gurdjieff

32. See the excellent A Partial Explanation of Zoomer Girl Derangement, to which this and the previous paragraph is in debt.

33. All of this is much more prevalent in adolescence, when it is more difficult to find a path between the power-thrill of being attractive and the anguish of being unattractive. A sane society would allow young people to get through this traumatic time, instead of extending it to envelop their whole lives.