This is the head of a holy statue of Aphrodite, as desecrated by degenerate Christian blasphemers:
Aphrodite, the Goddess of Sex, was sometimes respectfully called by the epithet of Ἀφροδίτη Ἑταίρα, Aphrodite Hetaera, ‘Aphrodite the Courtesan’—or even called Ἀφροδίτη Πόρνη, Aphrodite Porne, ‘Aphrodite the Prostitute’ (e.g., Ath. XIII.31). The Greek root πόρνη gives us the English word pornography, via French, < πορνογράφος, πορνεία ‘prostitution’ + γράφω ‘I depict’.
Andrew Anglin, a Christian par excellence, is an exemplary specimen of the Christian worldview and the Christian spirit:
[Andrew Anglin. “Further Proof That Women are Disgusting Sex Perverts Who Must be Sanctioned by the State”. (Archive.) Daily Stormer, September 6, 2017.]
All things women are involved in involve some kind of gross sexual perversion.
The biggest lie in the universe is that women are sexually innocent. They are biologically evolved to promote this image of themselves, specifically to hide the fact that they are twisted sex perverts, the lot of them. What’s more, men are evolved to be blind to this sexual sickness in women, because at one point in history it was beneficial for men to not have to think about just how sick these bitches actually are.
The entire existence of the human female revolves around sexual derangement.
The only thing that can control this is a strong state, or legalized beatings.
Christianity is the first and greatest Jewish controlled-opposition movement; in that aspect, it has thoroughly duped Mr. Anglin, and all Christian “antisemites”. And considering Christianity in itself, Christian “antisemitism” is the final consequence of Judaism—not in a way that the Christians would like to admit; cf. Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, #24.
And the above juxtaposition of imagery is perfectly logical. Christianity inherited from Judaism the misogyny best symbolized by the recycling of Adam’s rib, and exponentiates it through the Christian notion that said rib transmitted to all mankind the stain of Original Sin. Even the Jews are not so hateful! The Christians closed the trap in the moment they declared that the only sinless woman was conceived without sexual pleasure (!), and remained anatomically a virgin even after she gave birth (!!). (N.b. that Protestants generally retain the latter doctrine—whilst increasing their misogyny from their obsession with the Jewish Bible, and by rejecting natively European “pagan” elements that the Catholics had absorbed.) By iron logic, that line of thought leads here:
What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic danger, a delectable detriment, an evil of nature, painted with fair colors!
Christians who may claim that I chose a bad representative of their cult should perpend that that quote from the Malleus Maleficarum is the distilled essence of the creed first propounded a millennium earlier by Augustine, et al.—and even earlier in substantial parts of the Christian scriptures. Do you really want to incite me to go about proving that the Fathers of the Church were Andrew Anglin in vulgar Latin, who essentially viewed women as evil witches?
Anyway, in evaluating not the minutia of theological abstractions, but people’s basic outlooks, methinks the above juxtaposition of pictures said more than the proverbial thousand words.
Ancient Greece was a strict family-values society, which regarded Hera, the goddess of marital fidelity, as the Queen of the Gods. People whose minds have been rotted by over sixteen centuries of Christianity cannot comprehend a Weltanschauung so alien to them. How could the highly cultured, conservative Greeks worship one of their other major goddesses by, in effect, respectfully calling her a whore?
Furthermore, Greek society was aristocratic, hierarchical, masculine, and patriarchal. That last word, like the word “misogyny”, has been so distorted by feminists as to evoke misunderstandings; in effect, feminists use both words to mean “disagrees with feminists”. I mean both words in their respective proper senses. Misogyny is hatred of women—a crime committed by the feminists, who hate healthy, feminine women. And as I will explain presently, patriarchy is not “oppression”.
The flipside of the Christians, their mirror image of equal and opposite errors, consists of the feminists, the left-wing “neopagan” hippies, and that pseudoscholarly fantasist Robert Graves and his disciples. They would all suffer nervous breakdowns, if ever they were honestly to contemplate the attested goddesses of classical antiquity, rather than play make-believe about the times then and before.
Contrast the Homeric Weltanschauung. The words that I have declared are “the ‘בראשית’ of Western literature”: “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ”—‘wrath, o goddess sing’. Although that wrath is said to bring grief, it is the wrath of a great hero—a manly hero—and it is celebrated accordingly. The story quickly finds a promise by a “blue-eyed” goddess, Athena Pallas, to Achilles, that he would be compensated for the wrongful seizure of his rightful war prize Briseis (Hom. Il. I.188 ff.), whom he had seized first fair and square. This is followed by Achilles’ mother, a minor goddess, appealing to the King of the Olympian Gods to avenge her son for the same said injustice (Id., I.493 ff.). Philologists should perpend the history of the word “rape”: Its antecedents had subtly, but decisively different cultural implications compared to modern usage.
Equal and opposite errors make it difficult, and even dangerous to discuss these issues in public. If you hail the goddesses of antiquity, hoi polloi will associate you with Graves’ feminist delusions of “Goddess religion”. If you speak honestly of Aphrodite, hoi polloi will mistake you for a third-wave “sex-positive” feminist and/or a dirty Jew pervert. If you dare to mention some of the politically incorrect facts about the rôles of women in the ancient world, hoi polloi will associate you with Anglin’s misogynist Christian delusions, and bin you as criminal-minded scum who wants to rape and beat women. Every which way, I can only take it as proof that, as Nietzsche observed, “Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.”
These errors are systematic and endemic. Cf. the infinite stupidity with which the Wikipravda perplexes itself over the Aryan Hindu Laws of Manu: “Manusmriti offers an inconsistent and internally conflicting perspective on women’s rights.” No, honey: There only thing “inconsistent and internally conflicting” is you, who view other cultures through the distorted lens of your own Christianized worldview, the cultural residues of which produced the mental disease of feminism.
For one who was born and raised in the modern world, the mind of antiquity is indeed alien. So-called “Western culuture” does not have continuity between the Graeco-Roman world and the world of today. For “Western culture” of today is a pseudomorphosis, the distortion of European culture by Christianity—by a death-cult which arose as proletarian agitation by the dregs of Jewish society, took the essential structure of a Judaized Zoroastrianism, rose to power amongst the decadent urban liberal classes, and devolved into a sui generis cult of hate which defies rational description.
To the extent that anything good came of “Christian” culture, it arose from the natively European cultural substrate on which Christianity was overlaid. Observe that medieval Christian art was barely above the level of African tribal “art”—and that starting with the Renaissance, all of the best art was Graeco-Roman in form; much of it took as its subjects the gods and goddesses now called by the Christian slur-word “pagan”, and even nominally Christian art was Christian in name only. Observe that much of the greatest “Christian” literature is essentially anti-Christian—an implicit, perhaps even a racially subconscious rebellion against Christianity; e.g., in Milton’s Paradise Lost, Satan has the soul of an ancient hero, corrupted in form into a Christian antihero and thus, a Christian villain. Therein at the (in)famous I.253, is Milton making the character of a villain? —Or is he expressing, perhaps subconsciously, his own tortured inner rebellion against the Christian Hell on Earth of his culture?
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
Ever since the days when Roman Christians smashed sacred statues (always a liberal obsession!), desecrated authentically Roman temples, scraped irreplaceable writings from vellum to replace them with drivel about Jesus (if they didn’t simply burn or trash them), showed the true meaning of Christian lovingkindness by scraping the living flesh from Hypatia’s body with oyster shells, Holohoaxed themselves into fits of righteousness with made-up stories about Christian martyrs, created prolific forgeries to support their lies (innumerable examples range from fake letters from Pontius Pilate, to fake correspondence between Seneca and Paul, et cetera, ad maximam nauseam), and otherwise behaved as the cultural inferiors of primaeval savages, European Christianity grew into a schizophrenic cultural mongrel of incompatible elements: The truly Christian elements—which, with maybe one exception that is not hereby relevant, are despicable in total, without even the slightest hint of redeeming value—mixed with the Graeco-Roman and Germanic elements—which came before Christianity, which largely arise from racial instincts, and which are corrupted, distorted, suppressed, and in the long term, annihilated by Christianity. Europeans are thus so muddled and befuddled that they cannot properly understand themselves in the present, let alone understand their distant ancestors.
Moreover, most of the ancient world is irretrievably lost—and as I have just noted, much of the destruction was deliberate. The Christians memory-holed the world that came before them. Contrary to popular misperceptions, all that we have now is a painstaking scholarly reconstruction from almost negligible remains. The veracity of that reconstruction depends on the honesty of the scholars; verisimilitude is all too easy a substitute. Whereas Professor Oliver frequently remarked, “Lying for the Lord is a normal exercise in piety.”
Westerners today tend to have the illusion—nay, the delusion—of cultural closeness with a world which is alien to their minds after more than sixteen centuries of intensive Christian brainwashing—which was almost entirely blotted out of existence—the remains of which are distorted through the Judaeo-Christian Pravda.
Apropos the subject hereof, Westerners cannot comprehend the deep respect, and even reverence with which ancient Western men treated the women whom they also tended to treat as possessable property. Also, they cannot understand the following.
The aforementioned Athena Pallas was a war-goddess, whom one may expect to be harsh. Lest you suppose that the winsome winner of the Golden Apple be any different in her attitude towards relationships, flip forward through the Graeco-Roman myths to find the most-beautiful Goddess of Sex, divine patroness of hetaerae and of prostitutes, blessing her mortal son to win himself a wife and a kingdom the old-fashioned way: By waging war, killing his rival, and claiming the princess as his bride (Verg. A. VII–XII).
In the Iliad, Aphrodite personally intervened on the battlefield to protect her mortal son Aeneas. In the Aeneid, Venus (= Aphrodite) seduced her husband Vulcan (= Hephaestus) (VIII.370–406), whom she had cuckolded with Aeneas’ mortal father, to make the armour that her bastard son needed so that he could better indulge his toxic masculine aggression. Charms are her arms! “Sensit laeta dolis et formae conscia coniunx.” After trading amour for armour, of course, she must present the product of her husband’s hard labour to not-his-son:
I have hereby moved from ancient art to post-Renaissance, pre-modern art, to show that the classical Weltanschauung did begin to revive from the Renaissance. The revival was quite imperfect; it was undermined by the Christian fanaticism caused by the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and the Wars of Religion; and it has been killed off by “modern ideas”. But for awhile, the spirit of classical antiquity did begin to rise anew.
Now, let’s see what happens when the Goddess of Sex gives her blessing to toxic masculinity:
Since the dear princess Lavinia would pretty much just have to marry the man who won this fight, that seems to be Venus’ idea of proper matchmaking.
Venus the Prostitute must have enjoyed quoting Nietzsche:
Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly. [Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Old and Young Women”.]
According to the Romans’ foundational myths, the founder of Rome was descended from Venus via Aeneas, and was the son of Mars, the God of War—Mars, whom they worshipped as the patron god of Rome.
The same patterns are woven throughout the whole fabric of classical antiquity.
Contrary to the Jew-Freudian, Cultural Marxist Big Lie, a healthy, non-degenerate release of sexual repressions increases aggressiveness. The organism is enervated by either of the equal and opposite errors of repression or perversion.
Contrary to the Christian moralists, it is not eroticism qua eroticism, but the misdirection thereof which ruins the individual and subverts society.
And contrary to the Cultural Marxist influenced hippies, from the Iliad to the Aeneid, the slogan of worshippers of Aphrodite-Venus must be: “Make Love and War!”
In modern times, Nietzsche was the first philosopher to identify and attack fundamentally the general type of equal and opposite errors that I hereby examine.
Professor Nietzsche was a university Chair of Classical Philology. He did most of his philosophical work after he retired. His profound scholarship in the antiquities, which I can only envy, went beyond treating the subject as an abstract story—as something that was merely read in a book. He understood the people of that world—his “inner experience” aligned with theirs; by the philosophy that he expressed, he himself became what he called “a species of atavism” [note 2 at link]. And thereupon, he turned his eyes not to the past, but to the future.
I am not a Nietzschean—to assume as much is almost as fallacious as would be interpreting my occasional quotations of Seneca, and my homages to Arria the Elder, as making of me a Stoic. (Life is complicated: Cicero was an Academic, not really a Stoic himself.) I diverge much from Nietzsche, including in the instant essay. I know Nietzsche’s writings well enough to suspect that he would probably disagree with some significant parts of what I have said here—possibly including the manner in which I quoted him in the preceding section; about that, I am not sure.
This is not to disclaim Nietzsche, whom I account as one of my major influences. Rather, I explain this because I know Christian chutzpah. The way that Christian argumentation stereotypically works, the Christians will knee-jerk dismiss what I have said as a “Nietzschean screed”—and then, they will turn around and blame Nietzsche for ideas that I did not learn from him, and even for ideas that are originally mine.
Nietzsche’s greatest influence influence on this essay is in itself hereby illustrative: He inspired me to radical re-examination of the culturally alien antiquities.
When I first read Beyond Good and Evil, I was perplexed at #239–239. In close juxtaposition, Nietzsche declares that women should be treated as “confinable property”—then turns around and accuses early feminists of “an almost masculine stupidity”—whereupon he extols women’s power: “…the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men. That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her nature, which is more ‘natural’ than that of man…” Moreover, practically within the same breath, he says that women should fear men, and men should fear women.
How can this be? One moment, he sounds like Anglin—the next, he may as well be from the Women’s Studies Department. —Or so it may seem, to those who read superficially.
The key to the puzzle: Nietzsche effectually rejected not only Christianity, but the whole Christian worldview, including all cultural residues thereof. I learned the idea of Christian cultural residues from Professor Oliver. Thereupon, I realized just how much I, who first rejected the Christian religion as a young child, still had within myself many cultural elements of Christianity. By an introspective process of examining my own deepest assumptions, I believe that I have succeeded in ruthlessly extirpating from myself every last trace of Christianity. It was, in effect, the process of curing myself of a mental disease.
Thereupon, I understand that there is no contradiction between a patriarchal, authoritarian, masculine society, and cherishing womankind to the degree of worshipping goddesses who personify stereotypically feminine characteristics. For healthy men love women! Healthy men—strong men even have a taste for the female characteristics which cause men problems…
Too sweet fruits—these the warrior liketh not. Therefore liketh he woman;—bitter is even the sweetest woman. [Id.]
…and for those who are too weak to smile at that, my best advice is to ask your favorite local liberal how to convert to homosexuality. Women are a joy unto the strong. When they reject or even ruin weak-willed men, the result is eugenic; and since there obviously aren’t enough strong men to go around, the logical solution is that women should advocate polygamy in the manner of the ancient Aryan Hindus. What man worth being called a man would be able to resist that proposition?
—Well. Now that Christians, feminists, and other liberals all hate me, that frees me up to make a proposal for those who do not fit that description.
If you want a stable, orderly society in which human behavior matches the natural requirements of life on this Earth, then a radical re-evaluation is required. Reject modern ideas. Restore the natural balance of the sexes—not an illusory harmony, but the mutually beneficial antagonism which makes them work together because they work against each other.
If and when the sexes work together, it is a diagonal alliance that joins mutual interests and mutual desires across vast, sometimes seemingly irreconcilable differences. In effect, it is a delicate dance; and in any dance, someone needs to lead.
When men are leaders worth following, which modern men are not, women love to follow men’s lead in their little dance, in their similar-but-very-different counterpart to how masculine religions worship goddesses together with their gods. The result is patriarchy—I mean real patriarchy in the ancient sense, not feminist “patriarchal oppression”. Alack, modern men are a mess; and the modern problems between the sexes are more or less all men’s fault. Until men take responsibility for that and shape themselves up, they need to understand that women need to fend for themselves.
In the instant essay, I have barely even mentioned the manly Greek gods. There is a reason for that: Modern men are in no way godlike. Women respond most to the heroic in man—not the “macho”: The heroic. Modernity is the effacement of the heroic in man.
Moreover, recognize that just as the social and family order symbolized to the Greeks by Hera is wise, good, and necessary, so are the feminine characteristics archetypally symbolized by Athena, the ever-virgin goddess of war and wisdom—by Aphrodite, who needs here no further description—and by others, even including such fearsome deities as Tyche, she whose fickle whims may set your destiny by a roll of the dice, and by Nemesis, who shall have her revenge.
And when you study the antiquities, immerse yourself not in words on a page, but in the inner experiences thus represented—not to live in a dead past, but to rebirth its best characteristics for a better future. ®