Tough replies

by Eduardo Velasco, 4

 

Skirita said:

Hi NT. I just recently discovered your blog. It is really interesting. I wanted to ask you something from the ignorance and passion that these topics produce:

• On the one hand the Minoan culture has as a symbol the Labrys (according to your article a specifically patriarchal symbol), in another of your comments is considered matriarchal (when you talk about the hero Theseus against the minotaur and the sacrifices that were made by this kind of cultures with young girls).

• On the other hand, studying Roman law and the Roman gods, I have found that they had a very special worship of the god Janus. This, as I understand it, is a deity from the Etruscan pantheon, and yet he was highly revered in Rome and was considered the counterpart of Mars (god of war and fighting). I understand that although the legend says that Romulus came from the lineage of Mars, after he died in unclear circumstances, he became the god Quirinus, who was later called Janus-Quirinus, and came to be the representation of the citizen, that is, the Roman when he was in peace.

I also understand that the figure of the Rex (patriarchal, hierarchical and governing) comes from the Etruscans in the Roman case, and even had a lot of typical Etruscan paraphernalia… I ask you to clarify these things because no one has ever made them clear to me and they are very confusing.

Excellent article yours. Greetings from Argentina. HH!
 

NT (Velasco) replies:

Good morning Skirita.

The use of Labrys by the Minoans is not in contradiction with their matriarchy, simply because Minos was probably not founded as a matriarchy, but as a patriarchy. The symbolism of the axe testifies to this, as does the fact that, like Egypt (and like Etruria) this civilisation drew from what is called the Nordic red race (or Brünns) [Editor’s note: redheaded whites—see here]: a variety that tended towards patriarchy (also Scotland, England and Spain drew from the same race and were patriarchal societies).

The problem is the same as always: miscegenation. When the ‘red’ ruling class of both Minos and Etruria (there are paintings of blond Etruscans and Minoans in the style of the Egyptians that we saw in the post about them) gave way in numbers in favour of the Near-Asiatic and North African type, the idiosyncrasy of the society changed. Thus, the Minoan civilisation at the time of the Achaean invasion was a pale and decadent caricature compared to what it had been. The same can be said of Etruria.

And indeed, the same can be said of our society today. The origins are patriarchal, but the System is leading us more and more into the realm of matriarchy.

As for the ‘Romanisation’ of certain Etruscan gods or institutions, we should not pay too much attention to it, precisely because, after being Romanised, they ceased to be what they really were. What is more likely is that for example the figure of Rex was originally Etruscan patriarchal; in the Etruscan decline matriarchal, and after the Latin triumph, patriarchal again. As you say, it is confusing.

Other customs however weren’t Romanised, but on the contrary, ‘Etruscanised’ Rome, such as gladiator fights, feasting and orgies—unthinkable for a people as disciplined and martial as the Latins!

I would summarise by saying that both Etruria and Minos were almost certainly founded as patriarchates, and that they became matriarchates with the decline of those civilisations, which is when the Latins and Achaeans respectively burst onto the scene, putting things back in their place.

Here is an image that proves that there was Nordic blood among the Minoans. Pay attention, more than to the hair, to the profile of the individual: [linked here in the original thread—Ed].
 

Anonymous said:

NT, a question that has nothing to do with matriarchy. Why are the Vikings and Germanic people in general depicted as the men in the video you posted, and not platinum blond guys as they were pure Aryans?
 

NT replies:

Well simply because perfect Nordic whites are not plentiful, and even fewer Nordic white film actors. On the other hand, modern Scandinavians are also quite mixed.
 

Daniel the Argentinian said:

Nordic Thunder, I see that in the list you present at the top of the page, you show those you admire followed by those you hate or despise as opposed to the former. Examples: Sparta vs Athens; lord vs slave; strong and healthy vs weak and sick; training vs leisure; Spain vs the Moors; soldier vs hippie; fascism vs communism.

But you also place the Antichrist before Christ and Lucifer (Satan) before Jehovah, the Judeo-Christian God. Do you and your Nazi henchmen confess that you are Satanists? Clearer than water…!
 

NT replies:

First of all, apologies for taking so long to reply, but it’s just that the new comment notification service isn’t working too well.

Let’s see. Being anti-Christian is not the same as being Satanic, just as being anti-capitalist is not the same as being communist.

Lucifer wasno’t equivalent to Satan. He was reminiscent of ancient Aryan gods (such as Baldur, Abelius, Byelobog, Apollo) which the Church demonised to accuse of ‘heresy’ anyone who worshipped such gods. The ‘Antichrist’ was a way for the original Christians (who were Jews) to designate everything they hated, i.e. the strong pagan Aryan states fighting against the Jews (in this case, the Roman Empire). The Emperor was the Antichrist. The legionaries were the Antichrist. Roman art (98% of which they destroyed) was the Antichrist because it represented the glory and health of the pure human body.

I take this opportunity to remind people that Szandor LaVey, the ‘apostle’ of modern Satanism, was a Jew. Satanism sucks. It is a childish reaction against Christian dogmas. No, I don’t consider myself a Satanist, I think it’s stupid.

Without Christianity, Satanism makes no sense, just as without capitalism, communism makes no sense.

Greetings.
 

Daniel the Argentinian said:

[…] Returning to the subject of the Amazons who supposedly castrated men, and you accused me of that story, that I had invented it, well I found it in Wikipedia. Look it up in ‘Eunuch’ on Wikipedia. It says something like this: In ancient Greece, the Amazon warrior women were feared, formed a matriarchal society. According to some versions of the legend, they killed or mutilated the men who were no longer useful to them for reproduction.
 

NT replies:

As for the problem with Wikipedia, anyone can get into the articles to edit them. And it’s well known that feminists have an unhealthy fixation with male castration, which fits in nicely with making that up about the Amazons. The most the Amazons did was to go to a neighbouring tribe, where they lay with the men to get pregnant and, after returning to their kingdom, the male babies were killed.

On the other hand, I have never ceased to find this feminist fascination with the Amazons comical, because they were defeated a thousand times by the Greeks. Besides, the Amazon chiefs had the habit of falling in love with the Greek hero of the day (the Amazon queen fell in love with Hercules).

Cheers.
 

Anonymous said:

Very good article, but I would put ‘Puritanism’ in the list of ‘schizophrenias’: it is an anti-pagan, anti-Christian, anti-natural schizophrenia.
 

NT replied:

Anonymous, when I speak of Puritanism I am not referring to the modest attitude of the Puritan sects, but to a non-promiscuous attitude to sex, which is what once distinguished the Germanic (heathens) from the decadent Romans, or the original Romans from the Etruscans.

Cheers.
 

Aed Caomhnóir said:

NT, I’ve been reading you for a long time now, and truth be told your blog is one of the ‘where I go to die’ places to pick up good information in these days of miscegenation and treachery in the streets.