ottoweininger

Otto Weininger: The Jew Who Saved Me

TRIGGER WARNING: The following article contains nuclear-grade Real Talk. If you haven’t taken your iron-pill today, you might want to read something else. Even for hard-core Stormfront proles, the conclusion may be tough to swallow.

The Jewish Question and the Woman Question are rather tedious. Both issues are intrinsically ‘low.’ People of common intellect find them interesting only because of their tendentiousness. Serious intellectuals, on the other hand, tend to shy away from such subjects, lest they be distracted from matters of greater philosophical depth. While acknowledging the bad, one should, like Xenophon’s Socrates, focus on the good. However, these two questions “on Jews and women” cannot be avoided. They are of critical import in dealing with history, political philosophy and sociology. For a man to have any understanding of his world, he is forced to grapple with these two most mundane of issues.

As expected, given the generally lower intellects attracted to them, most of what is said about Jews and women is utter garbage. Just check your local university. So it is rare to find an author who addresses either question with the appropriate gravity. Such an author is Otto Weininger (1880-1903), who tackles both issues in his magnum opus Sex and Character. Weininger was an Austrian Jew who committed suicide at 23, but who, despite his short life, attained an unusually mature level of philosophical development. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein went so far as to call him a genius (albeit with certain reservations). Sex and Character is nowadays universally panned as misogynist, anti-Semitic and all-around evil. So you know it has to be good.

But Sex and Character, for all its genius, does not carry its own argument to its logical conclusion. It does not address the issue of what religious belief is most appropriate for men and women. Weininger states that Christ was the greatest prophet, but stops short of advising belief in Him. What are we to think?

The Argument

The argument, in all its evil glory, is far too detailed to lay out here in toto. What follows is a summary of the points relevant to this discussion, which the reader will have to take as assumptions. (1) Absolute, ‘platonic’ masculinity and femininity do not exist in individual humans. While masculine and feminine coexist in all real people, the masculine predominates in men, the feminine in women.

(2) People are attracted to members of the opposite sex who balance them, so that the pair creates a full male, and a full female. Thus very masculine men are attracted to very feminine women, and more mixed types are drawn together. (3) The absolute male is the genius, “a man who knows everything without having learned it” (p. 112). (4) Genius is impossible for the woman, because she does not have reason, which makes her non-moral. But she is not immoral. Only the man, because he of his reason, is capable of morality. One can be immoral only if one can be moral and fails to be so. (5) As a result, only men have being. Absolute woman is marked by non-being.

Weininger goes on to conclude that (6) sexual relations, and even love, are immoral, because both treat another human being as an object (even in a woman there is some of the masculine, some real humanity), not as an end in themselves.

2dwaifu
2D Waifus: Approved by Neo-Kantian ethics.

He also realizes that (7) if man is to redeem himself, “he must endeavor to get [woman] to abandon her immoral [sexual] designs on him. Women must really and truly and spontaneously relinquish coitus. That undoubtedly means that woman, as woman, must disappear” (p. 343).

The JQ

In his second-to-last chapter, Weininger brings up the Jewish Question. This would seem unconnected with the Woman Question, but Weininger shows how they are, in fact, inextricable. For Weininger, Judaism is not a race or creed, but “a tendency of the mind, as a psychological constitution which is a possibility for all mankind, but which has become actual in the most conspicuous fashion only amongst Jews” (p. 303). It is marked by its non-morality. Thus we see the connection between Jews and women, “both are non-moral. Woman is non-moral because she lacks reason. Judaism is non-moral because it does not have universal values, but what might today be called “particularist morality.” “What is good for the Jews” being the highest moral question, rather than the Christian and Platonic “What is good?”

But because all existing women have some masculinity (1), and all jews have some morality, we cannot solve the either Question by so crude a means as killing off all jews and women. To do so would violate universal (real) morality, because all existing jews and women have in them some element of the masculine, of the moral. In killing them, we would not end Judaism and femininity, but only turn ourselves into jews. Thus the solution can only be metaphysical. Only the jew, says Weininger, is in a position to save himself, and to do so he must relinquish his Judaism by striving after morality.

Has any jew ever conquered Judaism? Weininger posits that Christ did. To understand how, we must follow Weininger on one further point about the nature of genius: that the prophet is a special type of genius. Like other geniuses, prophets ascend to a higher realm of philosophical realization. But they differ from common geniuses “the Aristotles and Kants” because they are not born good, but evil, and only acquire goodness. For this reason, Christ, born a jew, was the greatest prophet. He had to overcome the greatest defect: Judaism, that is, the inability to be moral.

At this point, I had to put down Sex and Character. My brain must have melted. It was like reading Spengler for the first time. All my life I have distrusted Christianity, just another Middle Eastern cult invented by Semites for the purpose of destroying the Aryan quest for Truth. But this jew Weininger had turned me into a Christian. He proved to me, philosophically, why I had to love Jesus. For antisemitic reasons. A feeling of quietude filled my soul. At last I had found spiritual peace, at last I had something in common with my people. I was a Christian.

The ecstasy lasted about 24 hours before I realized I was being retarded. Weininger, you almost had me. You sneaky jew. Further thinking unmuddled the issue. Christ-worship is not the solution to the Jewish Question, or the Woman Question.

Truly Aryan Religion

All Middle Eastern religious thinking–Jewish and Christian alike– is unbefitting of a moral being. Christ may have overcome Judaism and become moral, but that does not mean we should worship him. Even if he was the greatest prophet, because in his moral life he traveled the farthest, that does not necessarily make worthy of our worship. He was a moral mediocrity. In attaining morality, he became comparable to any non-jew. Christ, the jew who became a real human being, is an imperfect version of ourselves. Moral, but not perfectly moral. Worshipping him would be to deny our potential for perfect morality, for godliness. Christ-worship is thus the greatest sin. We should rather worship our highest potential– Genius itself.

Christ-worship can only be justified on relativist, non-moral grounds. It values the man who advanced the farthest on the path to Genius, not he who actually attains it. Its valuation is not absolute, but relativist, and therefore jewish. Paganism, on the other hand, worships the man who comes absolutely closest Genius–perfect masculinity, perfect morality, perfect being. If a man ever became a perfect Genius, he would be God. It is the divine potential in such a man that we must worship. And unquestionably the greatest Genius of all history was that discoverer of Logic, Aristotle. We must worship Him. For He is (almost) God.

aristotle
I am God. You must kneel before God. Therefore, by law of syllogism, on your knees, sluts!

Two Final Solutions

Where does all this leave women? Should women worship Christ? At first blush, the answer appears to be yes. It is woman’s greatest hope to become, like Christ, moral. From this hope stems her love of man and her sexuality. But because morality is masculine, she is disbarred from it. If no man has ever become purely moral, what chance has woman? Her attempts “loving a man, worshiping Christ”are all doomed. Christianity for women is thus a sort of feminism, a misguided attempt to become masculine. The man who bows to Christ sins by worshiping a lower version of himself. The woman who bows to Christ sins by striving after androgyny.

The correct reasoning sees that if man should worship Genius, absolute masculinity, woman should worship absolute femininity. She should strive to cultivate her womanly, her non-moral nature. Both sexes should strive to escape the androgyny of their fallen natures. Only in absolute femininity will it be possible for woman to attain her greatest potential, that of non-existence. As Weininger points out, to do so, woman must relinquish coitus (6). But that is only the beginning. She must abjure all attempts at masculinity, whether it be feminism, love, sex, or Christianity.

So the Woman Question becomes an issue of helping woman to stop existing. Just as men must become worshipers of Genius, we must give woman a belief system appropriate to her non-logical, non-moral, relativist nature. The antithesis of Genius-worship is not Christianity, but Judaism. Woman must become jewish. Judaism is the religious expression of non-being, and therefore the religious mode best suited to fostering absolute femininity. Just as all men must become Geniuses, all women must become Jewesses. Thus men will become gods, and women, and jews, will cease to exist. This is the fulfillment of all human desire, of which sexuality, love, and Christianity are all perversions. Whatever masculinity resides in woman will be reunited, truly, philosophically, with man. At one stroke, the Woman Question and Jewish Question will be solved.

(Note: This essay originally appeared in Greg’s now-defunct blog in December.)

7 thoughts on “Otto Weininger: The Jew Who Saved Me”

  1. I like the idea of finding new things to worship, it’s what we need. Christianity leaves me flat – be good, you’re done. Gnosticism pointed to things beyond. But – and maybe Weininger argues it more convincingly – Feminity = Jewishness = non-being – that’s the danger of abstraction.

    1. Very true. A classical psychiatrist said Jews and women both suffer from abnormally high rates of hysteria. Jewish men were the only males to suffer from hysteria in substantial numbers.

  2. This sounds like Islam.

    I have a question; in one of your podcasts you said that the alt right needs to put pressure on the system in the same way that the left does. This is one of the wisest things I’ve heard from the alt right. And yet shouldn’t that be obvious? Forgive me, but all you people do is complain silently (online) and philosophize. Besides your heatfelt philosophy you have this defeatist mentality (I recall reading on one of your posts that you think you’re destined to lose and that Chinese historians will write your history). So my question is, what are you trying to accomplish?

    You are well aware that 50% of the population of Europeans are women. And yet you immediately write them off as useless to the cause. That is bullshit. Muslims don’t do this. Marxists certainly don’t do this. And the national socialist party didn’t do this either. The nsdap leadership didn’t look a to women and say that they need to become Jewish. That they should strive to become nonexistent. Hitler surrounded himself with dedicated women. He knew that seeing beautiful women marching in rallies was one of the best recruitment strategies for young men! Don’t put women on a pe distal and worship them, but don’t just ignore basic male psychology. Marxists are so successful because young men see women in their ranks and then end up parroting the marxist anti-male, anti-white bullshit because they’re convinced that that is the only way to get laid. You seem determined to throw out every woman and make sure that no man wants to be a fascist.

    You want a patriarchal society. But you seem determined to piss off every demographic that could help make this a reality. Maybe you’re okay with sitting around pinning for the good old days while your race and history are destroyed, but there are other people out there who are acting. You’re doing exactly what the Marxists want.

    1. Hey man, thanks for giving us a listen.

      I think you need to take what Greg says about women “having no essense” with a little bit of humor.

      Its a dark humor, but one that doesn’t reflect defeatism- more like it reflects our desire to be as edgy as possible. Besides, Greg hasn’t experienced Eastern European women and therefore doesn’t know what he is talking about.
      Red Dawn isn’t for the blue-pilled. That isn’t the format, and frankly none of us have the patience to lay down red-pill points over and over again to get a few normies up to speed. We’d rather assume the listener is red-pilled enough to not get triggered and give the new ideas a chance.

      Furthermore, the red pill is in fact the starting point. Almost all people used to be “red-pilled” not so long ago. We want to take it a step further.

      In other words, relax. We don’t make this stuff for normie consumption.

    2. You are quite right that much of the alt-right is prone to defeatism. I noticed that especially in the last few days, following a deluge of MSM articles proclaiming Trump’s political end. My comment about Chinese historians writing our history was meant to be taken in a cosmic light. We can start winning again in the realm of politics, and I think we will. But from a tragic perspective, it’s all futile. That doesn’t mean we should not try. Struggling against all odds is the quintessence of the Faustian spirit. For an outstanding expression of this idea, I refer to a quote from Spengler’s Man and Technics:

      “We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man.”

      As far as women–any healthy political movement must be based around strong men. They are crucial to any cause, but they cannot be the focus. Trump gets criticized on this point all the time, eg “Trump is losing among women.” But that fundamentally does not matter. The key to winning female support is to appear to be winning. The commies have women, sure, but rarely the healthy ones, not the ones who will become mothers. With these creatures they attract weak and impressionable men.

      As far as “people out there acting,” perhaps you have done more than me for our cause in the real world. While I am not weev or Heimbach by any means, I have done things. But my experiences are beside the point. Ideas matter. The alt-right is winning the intellectual fight, and the more we do, the more we can transition to propagandizing (spreading our ideas in normie-friendly form), building our network, and then taking power. Acting and fighting are futile if you have not prepared the ground.

      And, as to Vince’s point about my humor, it must be remembered that platonic forms are not real.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *