Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Your email address rouesolaire@yahoo.fr is bouncing! Click here to Unbounce or see More Info.
  • Evola
    Jul 1
    View Source
    As we were footnoting a chapter that has been published since then at http://elementsdeducationraciale.wordpress.com/ of a book by the nineteen century French sociologist Charles Letourneau on the condition of women in various races throughout history, who, just as his colleagues, looks down upon Bachofen's theory from the egalitarian standpoint, that is, from below, contending that there is no such thing as a matriarchy, we have realised that, as surprising as it may sound to those who are familiar with the work of that Swiss jurist and anthropologist, the word `matriarchy' is not used in `Das Mutterrecht: eine Untersuchung über die Gynaekokratie der Alten Welt nach ihrer Welt Nach Ihrer Religiosen Und Rechtlichen Natur.' Bachofen's central concept is that of gynaecocracy, as the title states, and not that of `matriarchy'. What is translated as `matriarcat' in its French edition and as `matriarchy' in its English edition is the word `Mutterrecht', which means `mother right'. J. Evola himself rendered the term by `matriarcato'.

    Does it actually matter ?

    The literal meaning of both terms is quite similar. `Gynaecocracy' means `government by females' and `matriarchy' either `that which has its source in mothers (as source, origin)', or `the rule of mothers'. Admittedly, the distinction is hardly relevant, except for sociologists, ethnologists, etc., little bees busy "redefining matriarchy" and affirming - especially those whose MP is a woman, for whom they have gladly voted ; whose lawyer is a woman ; who are in charge of pushing the baby carriage in the town centre in the morning, the caddy at the supermarket in the afternoon, and the dog in the neighbourhood in the evening ; whose children's teachers have all been females from kindergarten to university, etc. – that there is no such thing as a matriarchy.

    The definition of both terms in most dictionaries reflects the aforementioned semantical twinning, if we may put it in this way.

    Matriarchy:
    1. `a social system in which the mother is head of the family' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matriarchy) ; `a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy) ; `a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women'. (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/matriarchy)
    2. `a family, community, or society based on this system or governed by women' (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matriarchy) ; `a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matriarchy)

    Gynarchy or gynaecocracy:
    A political system governed by a woman (http://dictionary.sensagent.com/gynarchy/en-en/) ; and also `a form of social organization among insects (as ants, bees, wasps) in which only the female parent takes part in establishing the colony' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gynarchy))

    Letourneau's book, to return to it, still remains a work of reference (does it have an equivalent in the Anglo-Saxon world ?) for the study of the rôle of women in traditional societies, that is from a factual standpoint, and leaving aside the petty-bourgeois moralistic judgments, which, quite interestingly from an ethnographic perspective, are far harsher when it comes to our ancestors' mores than when it comes to the customs of coloured races. On a much higher level, and beyond the question of matriarchy and gynarchy, `female rule' may work through even more powerfully on the psychic and subtle plane than in the social, political, and economic plane. Indeed, "Sex, to quite an extent, permeated the psychic field and caused a constant, insistent gravitation toward woman and love. Thus we have sensualism as a basic influence on this mental level with two outstanding characteristics. First is a widespread and chronic excitement, almost independent of every concrete, physical satisfaction because it persists as psychic excitement; and second, partly as an outcome of the first characteristic, this sensualism can even coexist with apparent chastity." (Metaphysics of Sex, p. 7)


    --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "darkiexx" <tristanarpe@...> wrote:
    >
    >
    > You speak many words of fine wisdom…
    >
    > ===================
    >
    > In fact men or at least those men in the Occidental world, are being
    > feminised at such an alarming rate, its scary.
    > Advertisements etc, show men in the usual passive role of the
    > sensitive type (not that it matters anymore we have all fallen hook
    > line and sinker for that Capitalist ploy). The androgynous species
    > of human, is upon us fast and it is being manufactured (consciously
    > or unconsciously I don't know). Why? Because one can get more
    > mileage and more selling power from such a generalised stereotype.
    >
    > And as for the typical working class man who gets frustrated (like
    > myself); the only time they can feel alive, is when they knock seven
    > bells out of each other, usually after downing a mountain of alcohol
    > (Dutch courage) or as in Europe after a soccer match..
    >
    > A pitiful state of affairs..
    >
    >
    > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "evola_as_he_is"
    > <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > That excerpt from the 'Law of Manu', which is actually quoted
    > quite
    > > often by people who work themselves to death to prove that ancient
    > > Hindu society was not misogynist, applies to women who are in
    > > accordance with their inner nature, whereas the excerpt from
    > > the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' which was quoted the other day
    > applies
    > > to representatives of the weaker sex who have betrayed their inner
    > > nature, and, more specifically, to the steps which should be taken
    > by
    > > a Kshatriya to put them back where they belong.
    > >
    > > As for the opinion according to which "Evola seems to be dedicated
    > > more to a critique of non-conventional females, as opposed to
    > actual
    > > women as a collective group", those who are of it are invited to
    > read
    > > again texts such as 'Do we live in a Gynaecocratic Society?',
    > which,
    > > as any of Evola's writings on the 'woman question', works on the
    > > principle that "non-conventional females" have become the
    > majority.
    > > Those who are not fooled by the word 'feminism' won't be surprised
    > to
    > > hear that the word 'feminism' is almost completely absent from
    > > Evola's writings on modern gynaecocracy. 'Feminism ' is only a
    > > catchword, a trap into which anti-feminist books like 'The Myth of
    > > Male Power' and anti-feminists site like www.savethemales.ca
    > (sic)
    > > fall merrily. Admittedly, Feminism as a verse collection of social
    > > theories, political movements, and moral philosophies motivated by
    > or
    > > concerning the experiences and the interests of women, especially
    > in
    > > terms of their social, political, and economic situation, still
    > > exists, chiefly in Anglo-Saxon countries ; certainly, it is still
    > > striving, as you know, to "eradicate and promote women's rights"
    > in
    > > those three fields, in which it has managed to get everything it
    > > wanted on issues such as reproductive rights, i.e. the right to
    > > choose an abortion, the elimination of legal restrictions on
    > > abortion, and access to contraception, maternity leave, equal pay,
    > so-
    > > called sexual harassment, so-called sexual violence, you name it.
    > > Certainly, that kind of movement always wants 'more' and will
    > never
    > > stop until it gets even 'more' ; women don't know what they want,
    > but
    > > they want it badly. The point is that the claims of feminism have
    > > gone far beyond the context of feminism and that, today, not only
    > > feminists are convinced that they have all those rights : in fact,
    > is
    > > there a female in the Western world which is not 'deeply'
    > convinced
    > > that she's got those rights, so to speak, by birth and by the mere
    > > fact of being a woman?
    > >
    > > Feminism as an ideology no longer exists in its former
    > aggressively
    > > activist form for the simple reason that it has achieved most of
    > its
    > > goals and, besides, it has turned any Western female into an
    > > unconscious feminist, who may condemn feminism, but behaves and
    > > thinks as a feminist, without her being aware of it. Unnaturality
    > has
    > > become, so to speak, natural.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, Savitar Devi
    > > <savitar_devi@y...> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > By the same token, no one seems to quote this passage from the
    > > Laws of Manu either-
    > > >
    > > > '5. Status and Duties of Women
    > > >
    > > > 55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers,
    > > brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own
    > > welfare).
    > > > 56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but
    > > where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
    > > > 57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon
    > > perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.
    > > > 58. The houses on which female relations, not being duly
    > > honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by
    > > magic.'
    > > >
    > > > Furthermore - '45. He only is a perfect man who consists (of
    > > three persons united), his wife, himself, and his offspring; thus
    > > (says the Veda), and learned brahmins propound this maxim
    > > likewise, "The husband is declared to be one with the wife'.'
    > > >
    > > > (A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, Moore & Radhakrishnan,
    > > Princeton University Press, 1957).
    > > >
    > > > Given that this is from the Laws of Manu, which are Vedic, it
    > can
    > > hardly be dismissed as non-Aryan in origin, yet it seems to be
    > > curiously absent.
    > > >
    > > > I think the key point some people are missing is that Evola
    > seems
    > > to be dedicated more to a critique of non-conventional females, as
    > > opposed to actual women as a collective group. The above passage
    > from
    > > Manu would not have applied to modern feminists though - a woman
    > who
    > > adopted a 'male' role lost her rights as a woman in Vedic times,
    > and
    > > was in general treated as a man.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > evola_as_he_is <evola_as_he_is@y...> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > In the meantime, we are still waiting for one of
    > > > those 'traditionalists', 'Satanists' or 'neo-pagans' to set to
    > > music
    > > > this Stotra from the 'Brihadaranyaka Upanishad' (VI.4.7), that
    > is
    > > one
    > > > of the main Upanishads : "If she does not grant him his desire,
    > he
    > > > should buy her (with presents). If she still does not grant him
    > his
    > > > desire he should beat her with a stick or his hand ...", as well
    > as
    > > > other 'misogynist' parts of the Rig-Veda.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Three heavens there are; two Savitar's, adjacent:
    > > > In Yama's world is one, home of heroes.
    > > > As on a linch-pin, firm, rest things immortal:
    > > > He who hath known it, let him here declare it.
    > > >
    > > > - Rig Veda I.35 (Griffith)
    > > >
    > > > Send instant messages to your online friends
    > > http://in.messenger.yahoo.com
    > > >
    > >
    >
  • Show all messages in this topic

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
Reply to this message...
evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
  • evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
  • evola_as_he_is@...
  • evola_as_he_is@..., evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com
  • evola_as_he_is-owner@yahoogroups.com
  • evola_as_he_is@..., evola_as_he_is-owner@yahoogroups.com
Thank You !
Thank you for being a great customer.
We made changes to your Y! Groups experience. Take a quick tour.
Product Tour
  • Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
OK
Cancel