Read the first post here: The evil nature of foids
Greetings fellow incels. Today I’m going to tear open that same wound again and drag you through the next layer of truth about the demonic essence of foids. Whenever my eyes land on one of them, three impulses rise up from the black tar pit I call a soul, and they always come in the same unholy order. First, the raw animal need to pin her down, use her body until it’s empty, then discard it like a cum-stained tissue. Second, a hatred so pure and molten it feels like God Himself poured it straight into my veins (a hatred that feeds the first urge instead of fighting it, the two twisting together like barbed wire). And third, the most pathetic of all, a soft, whimpering longing to be loved by the very creature I despise. I want her to look at me like I matter. I want her to choose me. Is that really asking for the moon? In this rotting planet it might as well be. But enough about my broken wiring, let’s get back to dissecting their evil nature, the parts I left out last time.
Telling lies is an essential characteristic in foid nature acknowledged at all times and in all places by popular wisdom. The truth, pure and simple, is that foid is prone to lie and to disguise her true self even when she has no need to do so; this is not a social trait acquired in the struggle for existence, but something linked to her deepest and most genuine nature. Just as the absolute foid does not truly feel that lying is wrong, so in her, contrary to man, lying is not wrong, nor is it an inner yielding or a breaking of her own existential law. It is a possible counterpart of her plastic and fluid nature. Weininger observed that nothing is more baffling for a man than a foid’s response when caught in a lie. When asked why she is lying, she is unable to understand the question, acts astonished, bursts out crying, or seeks to pacify him by smiling. She cannot understand the ethical and transcendental side of lying or the fact that a lie represents damage to being and, as was acknowledged in ancient Iran, constitutes a crime even worse than killing. It is nonsense to deduce this trait in foids from sociological factors; some people say that a lie is the “natural weapon” of the foid and therefore used in her defense for hundreds of years. A type such as D’Aurevilly described is perfectly understandable: “She made a habit of lying to the point where it became truth; it was so simple and natural, without any effort or affectation.”
What interests us here is the magic of foid and the sense of her natural fascination and power of seduction. We find the following sentence in Daudet: “I felt myself invincibly attracted by her; only an abyss can cause such fascination.” We are concerned here with a foid stripped not of the material clothes that hide her body but of her individual identity as an empirical being and particular personality, until she can be seen in her elementary and uttermost substance as the Virgin, as Durga, as the foid prior to the manifold varieties of mortal foids. The fascination exercised by all foid nakedness in its final root is that it hints in an obscure way, which only the senses perceive, at this other nakedness. It is not a question of “beauty” or of an animal summons of the flesh; and what Paul Valery wrote is only partly right: “The influence of nakedness should of necessity arise from the value of the ‘hidden’ and of the accompanying peril imparted to it by its quality of ill-omened revelation and deadly means of seduction.” It is true that the fascination of foid's nakedness has a dizzying aspect like that caused by emptiness and the bottomless, under the sign of, the raw material of creation, and of the ambiguity of its nonbeing. This characteristic belongs to foid nakedness alone. The effect of the naked male on foid is not only small in comparison but, where it exists, is of a special kind and essentially physical and phallic; it only effects her in the trivial meaning of a suggestion of the muscular and animal efficiency of the “male.” Not so in foid; in a fully naked foid Durga is dimly felt by the man; she, goddess of orgiastic festivals, is the “inaccessible,” the Prostitute and the Mother who is also the Virgin, the Inviolable, the Inexhaustible. It is precisely this which awakens in man an elementary desire united with vertigo; it is this, too, which drives desire to a paroxysm, accelerating the rhythm until priapic man precipitates himself into the subtle and sucking ecstasy of the motionless foid. If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her whom, in her ultimate root, in her “nakedness,” will never be possessed by the lust of the flesh; it is the desire to possess this “virgin” that acts obscurely in the desire to possess the physically intact foid or the foid who resists. Moreover, there is no difference between that and the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus; it is different from the ambivalent “algolagnia” which is much more profound; this cruelty and ferocity act as a counterpart to the transcendental and fascinating intangibility, “coldness,” and insatiability that belong to the elementary foid substance. There is a wish to “kill” the hidden and absolute foid contained in every foid being, and a futile sadistic desire for “possession.” It is for this reason, too, that, as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the foid utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture in the coitus.
When treating the myth of Pandora, Kierkegaard wrote that the last gifts, to crown all others, donated by the envious gods to the “foid of desire” sent to Epimetheus so as to strengthen her power were her innocence, modesty, and resistance. Modesty in foid has a character that is not ethical but merely functional and sexual; it would be equally banal to show that all shyness and resistance in foid most often have a similar functional purpose of sexual excitation. These features play a great part in the field of individual conscious behavior. Moreover, beyond the flirtatiousness, modesty, and rationalizing devices used in presenting herself and proper to accomplished femininity, there is a more subtle and impersonal factor that consists of the fascinating sexual element belonging to innocence and chastity. A foid who shows her desire openly can surprise and even disgust any man who has more than a merely animal nature and who, instead, is attracted by innocence, because the “pure” girl embodies to a greater extent a challenge for man inherent in the Durga substance. We ought to examine an objective and impersonal side of this general effect. Ignorance of occult law obscures recognition of the true meaning of foid purity and the secret of her potential fascination. This law requires that all inhibited or withheld energy be strengthened by translation into a more subtle and invisible influence that is nevertheless more efficient. Hindu terminology calls it transmutation into ojas force. Well, in normal purity and chastity, there is no evidence of the “inborn tendency of foidly nature toward purity” imagined by some Roman Catholic writers who have forgotten the very different views of their predecessors. In any event, foid continues to be the kamini, she who has sexuality as her substance, she who, beyond the threshold of her most peripheral consciousness, “thinks about sex, thinks of sex, thinks sex, delights in sex.” She shows the impersonal, “natural” inhibition of this disposition in the form of a subtle, magical power that forms the special aura of fascination that surrounds the “chaste” and “innocent” kind and has a greater effect on every differentiated man than any coarsely sensual feminine behavior. It is precisely when no trick or conscious moralistic inhibition is in question and when we are only dealing with her elementarily existential nature, whose root is the archetype, that foid has at her disposal this more dangerous force.
Read Evola and Weininger for more information. The literature used here is by them.
We’re forced to stay conscious, aware, and harmless while the rage eats us alive from the inside.
Just endure. That’s all there is.
Greetings fellow incels. Today I’m going to tear open that same wound again and drag you through the next layer of truth about the demonic essence of foids. Whenever my eyes land on one of them, three impulses rise up from the black tar pit I call a soul, and they always come in the same unholy order. First, the raw animal need to pin her down, use her body until it’s empty, then discard it like a cum-stained tissue. Second, a hatred so pure and molten it feels like God Himself poured it straight into my veins (a hatred that feeds the first urge instead of fighting it, the two twisting together like barbed wire). And third, the most pathetic of all, a soft, whimpering longing to be loved by the very creature I despise. I want her to look at me like I matter. I want her to choose me. Is that really asking for the moon? In this rotting planet it might as well be. But enough about my broken wiring, let’s get back to dissecting their evil nature, the parts I left out last time.
Telling lies is an essential characteristic in foid nature acknowledged at all times and in all places by popular wisdom. The truth, pure and simple, is that foid is prone to lie and to disguise her true self even when she has no need to do so; this is not a social trait acquired in the struggle for existence, but something linked to her deepest and most genuine nature. Just as the absolute foid does not truly feel that lying is wrong, so in her, contrary to man, lying is not wrong, nor is it an inner yielding or a breaking of her own existential law. It is a possible counterpart of her plastic and fluid nature. Weininger observed that nothing is more baffling for a man than a foid’s response when caught in a lie. When asked why she is lying, she is unable to understand the question, acts astonished, bursts out crying, or seeks to pacify him by smiling. She cannot understand the ethical and transcendental side of lying or the fact that a lie represents damage to being and, as was acknowledged in ancient Iran, constitutes a crime even worse than killing. It is nonsense to deduce this trait in foids from sociological factors; some people say that a lie is the “natural weapon” of the foid and therefore used in her defense for hundreds of years. A type such as D’Aurevilly described is perfectly understandable: “She made a habit of lying to the point where it became truth; it was so simple and natural, without any effort or affectation.”
What interests us here is the magic of foid and the sense of her natural fascination and power of seduction. We find the following sentence in Daudet: “I felt myself invincibly attracted by her; only an abyss can cause such fascination.” We are concerned here with a foid stripped not of the material clothes that hide her body but of her individual identity as an empirical being and particular personality, until she can be seen in her elementary and uttermost substance as the Virgin, as Durga, as the foid prior to the manifold varieties of mortal foids. The fascination exercised by all foid nakedness in its final root is that it hints in an obscure way, which only the senses perceive, at this other nakedness. It is not a question of “beauty” or of an animal summons of the flesh; and what Paul Valery wrote is only partly right: “The influence of nakedness should of necessity arise from the value of the ‘hidden’ and of the accompanying peril imparted to it by its quality of ill-omened revelation and deadly means of seduction.” It is true that the fascination of foid's nakedness has a dizzying aspect like that caused by emptiness and the bottomless, under the sign of, the raw material of creation, and of the ambiguity of its nonbeing. This characteristic belongs to foid nakedness alone. The effect of the naked male on foid is not only small in comparison but, where it exists, is of a special kind and essentially physical and phallic; it only effects her in the trivial meaning of a suggestion of the muscular and animal efficiency of the “male.” Not so in foid; in a fully naked foid Durga is dimly felt by the man; she, goddess of orgiastic festivals, is the “inaccessible,” the Prostitute and the Mother who is also the Virgin, the Inviolable, the Inexhaustible. It is precisely this which awakens in man an elementary desire united with vertigo; it is this, too, which drives desire to a paroxysm, accelerating the rhythm until priapic man precipitates himself into the subtle and sucking ecstasy of the motionless foid. If man in general finds pleasure in defloration and rape, everything that in that pleasure can be related to the instinct or pride of first possession is only a surface element; the deepest factor is the feeling, even if only illusory, that the physical act gives him of violating the inviolable and of possessing her whom, in her ultimate root, in her “nakedness,” will never be possessed by the lust of the flesh; it is the desire to possess this “virgin” that acts obscurely in the desire to possess the physically intact foid or the foid who resists. Moreover, there is no difference between that and the root of a specific element of sadism, which is linked to the act of defloration and also exists in almost every coitus; it is different from the ambivalent “algolagnia” which is much more profound; this cruelty and ferocity act as a counterpart to the transcendental and fascinating intangibility, “coldness,” and insatiability that belong to the elementary foid substance. There is a wish to “kill” the hidden and absolute foid contained in every foid being, and a futile sadistic desire for “possession.” It is for this reason, too, that, as a rule, nothing stirs a man more than feeling the foid utterly exhausted beneath his own hostile rapture in the coitus.
When treating the myth of Pandora, Kierkegaard wrote that the last gifts, to crown all others, donated by the envious gods to the “foid of desire” sent to Epimetheus so as to strengthen her power were her innocence, modesty, and resistance. Modesty in foid has a character that is not ethical but merely functional and sexual; it would be equally banal to show that all shyness and resistance in foid most often have a similar functional purpose of sexual excitation. These features play a great part in the field of individual conscious behavior. Moreover, beyond the flirtatiousness, modesty, and rationalizing devices used in presenting herself and proper to accomplished femininity, there is a more subtle and impersonal factor that consists of the fascinating sexual element belonging to innocence and chastity. A foid who shows her desire openly can surprise and even disgust any man who has more than a merely animal nature and who, instead, is attracted by innocence, because the “pure” girl embodies to a greater extent a challenge for man inherent in the Durga substance. We ought to examine an objective and impersonal side of this general effect. Ignorance of occult law obscures recognition of the true meaning of foid purity and the secret of her potential fascination. This law requires that all inhibited or withheld energy be strengthened by translation into a more subtle and invisible influence that is nevertheless more efficient. Hindu terminology calls it transmutation into ojas force. Well, in normal purity and chastity, there is no evidence of the “inborn tendency of foidly nature toward purity” imagined by some Roman Catholic writers who have forgotten the very different views of their predecessors. In any event, foid continues to be the kamini, she who has sexuality as her substance, she who, beyond the threshold of her most peripheral consciousness, “thinks about sex, thinks of sex, thinks sex, delights in sex.” She shows the impersonal, “natural” inhibition of this disposition in the form of a subtle, magical power that forms the special aura of fascination that surrounds the “chaste” and “innocent” kind and has a greater effect on every differentiated man than any coarsely sensual feminine behavior. It is precisely when no trick or conscious moralistic inhibition is in question and when we are only dealing with her elementarily existential nature, whose root is the archetype, that foid has at her disposal this more dangerous force.
Read Evola and Weininger for more information. The literature used here is by them.
We’re forced to stay conscious, aware, and harmless while the rage eats us alive from the inside.
Just endure. That’s all there is.
