In another video where MacDonald talks with Miller we see how the Jews wrote the gospel. Anyone who doesn’t want to read these scholars should at least listen to them for a couple of minutes from this point!
Categories
Author: C .T.
Categories
MacDonald & Miller
This dialogue on paradigm shifts between Dennis MacDonald and Richard Miller, two New Testament scholars I respect, can be extrapolated to our topic.
The current paradigm in white nationalism is that Jewry is the cause of Aryan decline.
We, on the other hand, believe that Jewish influence is only possible because of the mortal sins of the Aryans (cf. for example what we have said about Constantine and Charlemagne in Deschner’s books, PDFs of which appear in the featured post).
White nationalists, mostly Christians or Christian sympathisers, ignore the new paradigm: they are stuck in the old one. For the paradigm to change requires the old generation of racialists to perish, and a new generation to be more willing to put the religion of our parents in the dock.
For the moment, the intellectual inertia that gives life to the current paradigm comes from the pundits of the most visited racialist forums, regardless of the fact that that paradigm has already been superseded, at least in the minds of those racialists who are more understanding of what is really going on (e.g., Velasco’s diagnosis of how the West’s dark hour originated: his essay on Judea and Rome).
Categories
Oliver
Damon T. Berry, in his book Blood and Faith: Christianity and American White Nationalism (Syracuse University Press, 2017), devotes a chapter to Revilo Oliver, concluding that ‘Oliver hated both conservativism and Christianity… because they equally represented to him an ideological poison that was alien to the best instincts of the white race to defend its existence’.
Categories
Might is right, 8
As far as sociology is concerned, we must either abandon our reason, or abandon Christ.
He is pre-eminently, the prophet of unreason — the preacher of rabble-rabies. All that is enervating and destructive of manhood, he glorifies, — all that is self-reliant and heroic, he denounces. Lazarus, the filthy and diseased vagrant, is his hero of heroes; and Dives, the sane, energetic citizen, is his ‘awful’ example of baseness and criminality. He praises “the humble” and he curses the proud. He blesses the failures, and damns the successful. All that is noble, he perverts — all that is atrocious he upholds. He inverts all the natural instincts of mankind, and urges us to live artificial lives. He commands the demonetization of virtues that aggrandize a people, and advises his admirers to submit in quietness to every insult, contumely, indignity; to be slaves, de-facto. Indeed, there is scarce one thought in the whole of his Dicta that is practically true.
O, Christ! O, Christ! Thou artful fiend! Thou Great Subverter! What an amazing Eblis-glamour, thou hast cast over the world? Thou mean insignificant-minded Jew!
Why is it that our modern philosophers are so mortally afraid to boldly challenge the ‘inspired’ utopianism of this poor self-deluded Galilean mountaineer, — this preacher of all eunuch-virtues — of self-abasement, of passive suffering?
The sickly humanitarian ethics, so eloquently rayed forth by Jesus Christ and his superstitious successors, in ancient Judea, and throughout the moribund Roman empire, are generally accepted in Anglo-Saxondom as the very elixir of immortal wisdom, the purest, wisest, grandest, most incontrovertible of all ‘divine revelations,’ or occult thaumaturgies. And yet when closely examined, they are found to be neither divine, occult, reasonable, nor even honest; but composed, almost exclusively of the stuff that nightmares are made of; together with a strong dash of oriental legerdemain.
Through a thousand different channels, current politico-economic belief is dominated by the base communistic cabala of the ‘man of many sorrows;’ yet as a practical theorem, it is hardly ever critically examined. Why is it that the suggested social solutions promulgated by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, and other Asiatic cataleptics, are accepted so meekly by us, upon trust? If these men were anything, they were crude socialist reformers with misshapen souls, preachers of ‘a new heaven, and a new earth,’ that is to say, demagogues — politicians-of-the-slums; and out of the slums, nothing that is noble can ever be born.
As agitators, Jesus and his modern continuators shall be exclusively considered in these pages. However, it must be distinctly understood that the spiritual and temporal in all cosmogonies, are so intricately interwoven, that it is almost impossible to completely divorce them. Like the Siamese twins, Gods and Governments are inextricably bound together; so much so indeed, that if you kill one, the other cannot live. Hence the open or secret alliance, that has always existed between the politician and the priest.
Whatever their primitive purity (or impurity), all operative creedal philosophies are essentially civil and military codes, police regulations. ‘Religion is a power, a political engine, and if there was no God, I would have to invent one,’ said the great Napoleon. In letter and in spirit, Christianity is above all things a political theory, and a theory that often takes the form of raging hysterics.
Religions are the matrix in which public institutions are generally moulded. This has ever been well understood by the dominant leaders of mankind, from Numa to Brigham Young, from Solon to Loyola, from Constantine to the lowest Levite hireling, who gets paid in dimes and cents for his unctuous mock — dithyrambs.
by Gaedhal
Thank Yahweh, that instead of a Gestapo, we have a Stasi/s.[1]
Unless protest and speech have within it the potential to provoke violence, at least in the abstract, then one does not possess the freedom of speech. Indeed, this is American Jurisprudence… at least for the time being. This is why Alex Linder was not sent to prison for his praise of Hero Bowers. Sancte Bowers, ora pro nobis. So, in the United Kingdom, one does not possess either the freedom of effective speech, or the freedom of effective protest. Despite the lofty baroque refrains of Rule Britannia, Britons are, thanks to their defeating themselves in World War 2, slaves.
If Hitler had won, we would not be free… however, we would be free-er. Regardless of the political system, absolute liberty is a delusion. We would be free of negro subhumans from Rwanda stabbing our little girls to death, for one thing. We must constantly remind people of that alternative universe in which the good guys—as opposed to the Jews, Christians and Communists, i.e. the Allies—won World War 2.
One can be deeply critical of National Socialism, as Linder and I are, and still maintain that ’twere[2] better if the axis had won World War 2. I take Tom Metzger’s position. I would have been sent to Dachau, a camp for political dissidents, for being more based than the Nazis.
Is é an tSláinte an Buaidh!
Victoria Salus!
Victory is Salvation!
__________
[1] Stasi – Communist East German Secret police. (Also ‘/s’ is an internetism that means: the preceding was sarcasm.)
[2] twere – An old-fashioned form of: ‘it were’, an English subjunctive. It were better means: ‘it would have been better’.
Categories
No pain no gain!
Have any visitors to this site heard of an autobiographer, of our times or times past, who has written a philosophical autobiography, in several books, about how his or her parents and other adults destroyed the life of the autobiographer in question?
What distinguishes The West’s Darkest Hour from other racialist sites is that here we preach an open and blatant exterminationist ideology (see, for example, ‘Dies Irae’, the first article in my Day of Wrath compilation). What is not clear to the ordinary visitor, unless someone has read my trilogy, is that such exterminationism originated precisely after what several crazed adults did to me in my adolescence.
The mind changes dramatically after experiences like the one I suffered. It usually changes producing, in the already adult victim, a mental disorder: either psychoses such as so-called schizophrenia or suicidal depression, or neuroses such as addictions (alcoholism, drug addictions—even legal psychotropics, etc.). In the most serious cases, the victim of maddening parents feels compelled to commit serial murder. This is not said by ordinary psychiatrists, who subscribe to the medical model of mental disorders (a bio-reductionist ideology), but by dissident psychiatrists: those who try to create a trauma model of mental disorders.
Some proponents of the trauma model know that those who had schizogenic (i.e., maddening) parents entered, to paraphrase the gospel, through the ‘wide door’. Sadly, 99.99 per cent of those with schizogenic parents enter through the wide door. What these professionals ignore is that there is another door, ‘the narrow door’, which circumvents psychosis. I am talking about spending decades of your life telling your story, at least to yourself, with an emphasis on the most painful episodes.
These days, for example, I have been reviewing my second volume. It has been so disturbing to relive my early experiences, and what my mother used to do to me, that I have had to make an enormous effort, plus countless pauses, to resume over and over again both rereading and revising (i.e. adding or rewriting many sentences and even paragraphs). To tell yourself your own story, through a good deal of re-reading of what has already been written, and to improve the text in further revisions to leave the original charcoal in diamond prose after so many decades, is what heals the mortally wounded soul.
Someone might reproach me that the mere fact of elaborating an exterminationist ideology after my experiences is, in itself, a psychopathological symptom. I believe that the opposite is true: those who don’t subscribe to such an ideology contribute to what we could call ‘Hell Planet’—our present Earth. This is because without the spirit of Kalki the evil of the earthlings will continue unchallenged, producing endless unnecessary suffering. (Those who want to delve deeper into the matter will have to familiarise themselves with the philosophy of Savitri Devi, who in the darkest hour of the West invokes the exterminationist archetype of the Hindu religion: Kalki.)
One of the things that so-called mental health professionals ignore is that they shouldn’t put the exterminationism of, say, a philosopher like Arthur Schopenhauer in the same basket as, say, a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer. They are not only different things, but Schopenhauer himself may have a moral code infinitely superior not only to that of Dahmer but also to that of the so-called mental health professional. This is something that the pseudo-scientists working in the mental health sector will never acknowledge: that philosophers like Schopenhauer could be… saner than them! Above I spoke of the first essay in my book Day of Wrath. To understand what I have in mind see now the third essay, ‘Unfalsifiability in Psychiatry’ (pages 21-30).
So for the next days and weeks, I will keep revising my second autobiographical book until I feel that the textual coal has turned into more lyrical prose. My thoughts must be hardened until they are as hard as diamonds. The saying ‘No pain, no gain!’ applies perfectly to the spiritual realm. Without the agony of constantly confronting my past, I would be as our friend Joseph Walsh is: in jail and before that, in a psychiatric ward (Walsh also had a schizogenic mother). Those who don’t process their pain through writing their very painful memoirs, and throughout the decades correcting the syntax of that original charcoal until the diamond prose is formed, will never heal.
No one among the racialist forums editors comes from where I come from: a sort of Bran the Broken seeing Westeros’ past because his dad (not Jaime) threw him off the tower, breaking his spine. As I was saying, the mind changes radically after decades of being in the cave retrocognitively seeing the past, what your dad did to you. Those broken lads who fail to reach Bran’s cave change for the worse (schizophrenia, etc.). But I changed for the better because I found it.
And it was precisely because of that change that I became interested in the real history of Europe in the century in which I was born; specifically, the real history of the Third Reich. By seeing my past as it happened, which has nothing to do with the distorted version my crazy mother told, I developed the knack of seeing, now, the historical past of the West as it happened, not as the Jewish media told it to us.
One way to begin to familiarise oneself with the most notable characters of the Third Reich is to read David Irving’s books. So, in parallel with my posts citing Brendan Simms’ and Savitri Devi’s books on Hitler, I think I will resume reading True Himmler which I had neglected since last year.
Anyone who wants to read my previous True Himmler entries can do so here, here, here and here.
Categories
Matriarchy
vs. Patriarchy, 4
by Eduardo Velasco
Author’s conclusion
European culture as a whole is eminently patriarchal, but even within the West, I believe I can observe the clash between patriarchal and matriarchal mentalities, expressed in the nations possessed by these concepts. Thus, France and Italy, as modern nations, traditionally represent a soft and decadent mentality tending towards matriarchy, while Russia, Germany, England, and the United States represent the more patriarchal and aggressive tendency.
Within our civilisation, it is obvious and undisputable that the two principles are in debate and that patriarchy has been slowly being overturned in favour of a pseudo-matriarchy for some time now.
It also seems obvious to me that patriarchal societies are superior and more advanced than matriarchal societies and, especially, have much greater potential. There is simply no point of comparison in terms of achievements and superiority between the ridiculous pacifist matriarchy and the glorious, all-conquering patriarchy. For me, it is enough to glance over mythology, or to read The Iliad, to feel deep sympathy for authentically patriarchal societies, besides the fact that patriarchy is inevitably associated with Aryan or ‘Indo-European’.
As a sign of the ‘Oedipus complex’ that plagues our civilisation, we have the passions and fears that the word ‘fascism’ arouses in the modern world. What communists, socialists, progressives, democrats and the like hate and fear from ‘fascism’ is the organising severity of a patriarchal society that puts everyone in his place.
What do I think the future of this issue might be? The present abortion of matriarchy is doomed to disappear as soon as the slightest turmoil is unleashed. On the one hand, it has produced a weak society incapable of defending itself and will be overwhelmed by those who have not fallen prey to its scourge (e.g. Islam). On the other hand, the current pseudo-matriarchal society is doomed to extinction for the simple reason that those who profess it don’t preach the need to have children, falling into the most immense contradiction, for a society that believes it is indisputably in possession of the absolute truth (like the current one), should preach offspring to eternalise itself and ensure a future at all costs, in the face of societies that think differently, which are the majority. Over time, his surrealistic utopia will lose ground to the merciless harshness of the times to come, and will eventually be replaced by a patriarchal reaction more in tune with the reality of the world and of man, which is the need for abundant and strong offspring.
The awakening of the white race will, of necessity, be accompanied by a reworking of the old Aryan patriarchy. Sorry to spoil your party, oh herd of decadent Loewe-scented cattle, but the subnormalities are over and so much of what you took for granted is over. There will come a day when you will have to fight to the death just to enjoy the 1% of goods that now seem normal to you! Your disgusting promiscuity, your mental vacuity, your superficiality and your stilted bourgeois sophistication will be extirpated and woe betide you if you cry, stamp your feet or call Superman. Considering the past decadence and the catastrophic situation in which the race—which is the only thing that matters in this world—finds itself thanks to your repellent moral and spiritual baseness, the coming reaction must be exactly the opposite.
By way of Appendix: The peoples of the north and the ‘civilisation of the mother’, from Adriano Romualdi’s La Question d’une Tradition Européenne:
The emergence of a European physiognomy from the mists of High Prehistory took place in the fifth millennium b.c.e. This event was accompanied by a spiritually significant choice: the rejection of the ‘Mother Civilisation’ and the affirmation of the Indo-European Urvolk (‘original people’, German) as an essentially virile and patriarchal community.
The Neolithic, the age of the first agriculture and the first settlements, the age in which families become tribes and tribes become villages, is inaugurated on the European continent with the penetration of the Eastern and Mediterranean elements. These are the Thessalian Sesklo-Dimini cells, heirs of the near-eastern communities that spread up the Danube and proliferated throughout Central and Balkan Europe. This is the so-called Danubian culture, with its banded pottery (Bandkeramik), rough wooden hoes and large collective houses. This culture conveys its spiritual message through small figures depicting a naked female deity. She is Mother Earth (Gê Metêr), the Great Mother of harvests, the dispenser of fertility who holds the keys to life and death. She is the naked goddess, whose kingdom extends from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, Crete, Malta and beyond. Throughout Western and Atlantic Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles, the dagger-wielding goddess also appears in megalithic engravings. The Eurasian and Euro-African sky of the Mother penetrates, through the Mediterranean race with its Lybian, Ligurian, Iberian and Pelasgic proliferations, to the heart of the European continent.
However, the Mother’s domain does not extend as far as northern Europe. This is the region around the southern Baltic, the area of the beech, yew, birch, and spruce; the area of the wolf, the bear, the salmon, the beaver; the territory that linguistic geography presupposes for the Indo-European Urheimat (‘original home’, German). It is also the territory of the Nordic race where, from the beginning of the 5th millennium, local groups of hunters and fishermen, heirs of the Magdalenian community of the Ice Age, reorganised themselves into a new agricultural culture alien to the world of the Danubians and the Great Mother.
The Norse megalithic culture, with its great stone tombs bearing witness to a firm political and gentile structure, together with its two offshoots, the culture of globular amphorae and the culture of chorded pottery, constitute the original matrix of the Indo-European languages and are responsible for a violent transformation that will affect Europe and vast regions of Asia.
From 3200 b.c.e. onwards, the whole of central, eastern and Balkan Europe was raided by the Northern Peoples. The Globular Amphorae Culture and the Stringed Pottery Culture, departing from their headquarters in the Germanic plain, invade the peaceful communities of the Motherland with their hammer axes, transforming the archaeological picture as far as Greece and Ukraine.
Significantly, this irruption was accompanied by the irruption of solar symbols. The Swastika was born, the oldest example of which appears on a ceramic from the Globular Amphorae Culture found in Poland; the radiated cross and the squared discs, with a dot in the centre or surrounded by rays, were born.
This is a vast symbolic range that finds its greatest flowering in Troy, the frontier city between Europe and Asia, marking the passage of Indo-European peoples into Asia Minor. The Swastika, the primordial symbol of generation and the resurrection of light is associated with the first appearance of the Indo-European peoples in the heart of the fourth millennium, and only fifteen hundred years later it reached India and China.
In the heart of Anatolia, the tombs of Alaja Hüyük, as a prelude to the future splendour of the Hittite kingdom, show us, alongside hammer-headed pins of the northern barbarians, banners decorated with swastikas and other solar symbols. One of these banners features a large stag in the middle of two smaller bulls. We are witnessing the subjugation of telluric, southern, maternal symbolism.
The bull, a symbol of the blind generative force, linked to the ideology of fertility, crudely represented alongside the naked goddess in the most archaic European agricultural cultures, is contrasted with the deer, the animal of the hunters of the North, Seelentier des nordischen Menschen (‘animal of the soul of Nordic men’, German) and, according to Weisweiler, ‘animal of the Arctic civilisation’.
The deer is significantly associated with the symbolism of the sun and light:
Den Sonnenhirsch sah ich von Süden her gehen
Seine Füsse standen auf der Erde
aber die Hörner reichten zum Himmel
These verses of The Edda are illustrated by several prehistoric figures, starting with those from Valcamonica, in which the stag’s horns are stylised in the form of a sun disc.
Similarly, it is significant that in Ireland, when the Celtic element meets the aborigines of Iberian stock, the stag and the bull play a central role in the sagas. Where the words oss, dag and ag, which in the Leinster saga name the stag, in the Ulster saga have come to mean bull.
Behind this clash of symbols, behind the spread of the battle-axe peoples and the spread of the Indo-European languages, lies an event of great spiritual significance.
The paternal principle is pitted against the ‘Mother Civilisation’; Olympian virility against the taurine and maternal myth of fertility; the ethos of the ‘societies of men’ against the enthusiastic promiscuity of ancient Matriarchy.
The echoes spread throughout Europe, where more than a thousand years later, Doric and Latin migrations would create the premises of the classical view of life. But, even more, the effects of this sudden expansion of the Nordic, white and Indo-European stock are felt in the most distant centres of irradiation: on the plateaus of Persia and the threshold of India.
Categories
Wagner
Categories
Matriarchy
vs. Patriarchy, 3
by Eduardo Velasco
Matriarchy: Society and Idiosyncrasy
Matriarchy is distinguished by hedonism, promiscuity, concupiscence, indulgence, narcosis, passivity, laziness, drunkenness and an overloaded, opulent, baroque sensuality.
Everything is permeated with ‘free will’.
Spiritual influence belongs to the matriarchs. Women have a disproportionate influence on society through sexual suggestion and by monopolising the upbringing of children away from their fathers.
Things are kept quiet for fear of offending. Ambiguity and ‘political correctness’ are born.
Value is placed on material possessions and wealth.
Leisure time is mainly taken up with dances, feasting, parties, orgies, acrobats and dancers.
Embellishments, make-up, dresses, colours, luxury, well-being, spices and dyes are valued.
Matriarchy pampers the weak. Peaceful and weak collectivities flourish, too rooted in their piece of land and unable to conquer, explore, pioneer or endure uprooting and loneliness. The archetypal matriarchy is a timorous, docile, humanitarian, anti-heroic, pacifist and pusillanimous society. Peace is extolled and everyone fornicates with everyone. ‘Make love not war’ is a very typical neo-matriarchal slogan.
The spineless man is appreciated for his docility. The cowardly and weak are protected as one of the group. No one has the right to punish or reproach, authority is dissolved.
Everything that preserves life and tends to make life more bearable for the weak is valued. Harshness is removed, and everything is softened. The goal is the enjoyment of a long and pleasurable life.
In matriarchy one tends to enjoy quietly and uncompromisingly and catches pleasure on the fly as soon as it presents itself, in a rather pseudo-tropical mentality. The ‘playboy’, the ‘dandy’ and the fat man are typical products of the matriarchy, and impossible in a real patriarchal society. The pursuit of easy pleasure sets the tempo of matriarchal peoples.
All life is sought to be protected and preserved, even if it means isolating it from the harshness of the real world. Well-being and comfort are sought.
Greetings are elaborate and promiscuous. Manners are nervous, there is a tendency towards indiscretion, groping and getting too close to the interlocutor. Their voices are raised in absurd situations, but they are afraid to shout when the situation calls for it.
As Julius Evola said, matriarchy is a carrier of egalitarian social forms of anarchist or communist character. Ants and bees live in pseudo-communist matriarchies. The ‘Mother Church’, with its manhood-castrated priests, is another matriarchal figuration, however much it may shock the fans of The Da Vinci Code.
Dogmatic, utilitarian and materialistic rules and precepts are obeyed.
The lazy laughter of corrupt women and spineless men, the indulgence and the pampering, the mocking, sad and empty look of the weak, the coughing of the sick, the whining, the depressions, the inconstancy, the capriciousness of over-pampered children, the whining of the bereaved, the inbreeding, the wailing of the disconsolate, the aberration and neutralisation of powerful and vital instincts are characteristic of Matriarchy and a society deprived of order and the influence of fighting men.
Patriarchy: society and idiosyncrasy
Patriarchy is marked by effort, struggle, will, purpose and action, and is distinguished by asceticism, self-control and sobriety. Women are excluded from state or decision-making processes (see the Senate of Rome or the Germanic Thing), and it is the men who mould the new generations to their whim, although it is taken for granted that a man is usually not complete until he has a complementary female spirit by his side to inspire him and bring him some magic.
Everything is imbued with order, ritualism, severity and simplicity. In India, the Aryan invaders call their dark-bred enemies ‘those without rites’.
In patriarchy, the man dominates the family. There is always some sort of supreme patriarch, leader, king or emperor. Children are made to grow up with their duty in mind to take over power from their parents’ generation. The first-born predator of power is the hope of the future and gives character to his society. Social hegemony belongs to the young, vigorous, aggressively impulsive warrior who thirsts for power and to make his mark on the world.
Things are said up front and almost crudely (think of the modern Baltic and Slavic countries). Fights and duels of honour abound.
Value is attached to value itself, and material possessions are only valuable insofar as they express status (as arms, shields, armour, horse and plundered booty once expressed the position of the military caste). Likewise, great value is placed on that which is difficult to achieve, that which is within the reach of the select minority.
Leisure time is occupied mainly with sport, hunting, study, religious meditation and military training, resulting in people who are athletic, warlike, vigorous, spiritual, predatory and ready for anything.
Simplicity, coarseness, naturalness, austerity and toughness are valued. This results in Spartan lives of constant hardening.
Patriarchy pampers the strong and directly worships war, courage, daring, risk and heroism. Severe and aggressive societies flourish, tending to invade, conquer and possess new lands, under the mentality that ‘might makes right’. Patriarchy is thus the system capable of giving birth to heroes through a patriarchal life. Pioneers, explorers, restless and searching men, brimming with ambition and the will to power are forged.
The cowardly, the docile, the useless and the mannered are hated to death. Boys despise girls and girls fear boys.
Boldness, honour and courage are valued. Violence, harshness, force and even brutality are respected. It accepts risk with morbidity, plays with death and pain, and flirts with discomfort, stress, horror and fear, thinking that it strengthens men. A life of honour and glory is valued, even if it is very short (this choice is condensed in the brilliant Greek figure of Achilles). Heroism and sacrifice are worshipped, even if it means a life of suffering and toil. Eugenics, comradeship, the sacredness of the teacher-pupil relationship, mors triumphalis and euthanasia are ideals of the patriarchal mentality.
Pleasure and luxury are regarded with extreme suspicion and treated with great care, or even banished. Discipline, asceticism, self-control, will, training, haughty, rustic, aggressive and military character take their place. The phenomena of soldiering and militarism, as well as athleticism, are typical products of the long-term social action of patriarchy. This gives rise to imperialist peoples who glorify war. Feminist Marilyn French states (Beyond Power), not without some revulsion on her part, that patriarchy is a system that gives pre-eminence to power over life, control over pleasure and dominion over happiness. We might add that patriarchy also gives importance to control over emotions, feelings, suffering and pain (children are told that ‘men don’t cry’), and to power over the earth and matter.
It seeks to harden and strengthen life by exposing it to discomfort and thus shielding it against future bad experiences. The most representative phrases of this mentality are ‘it is for your own good’ and ‘you will thank me in the future’. Struggle and ascension prevail over the pursuit of pleasure.
In patriarchy, greetings are sober and simple. There is a tendency towards discretion, simplicity and static and solemn manners, almost martial in their runic rectitude. Patriarchy is influenced by the philosophy and way of doing things of the männerbunden (‘men’s societies’, or armies), which are one of its hallmarks and cornerstones.
Patriarchy carries hierarchical social forms of a fascist character, in which order decides everything. State and empire are originally patriarchal institutions. In the animal kingdom, just as ants and bees are close examples of matriarchy, wolves live in a quasi-patriarchal system, ruled by dominant males who renew themselves over the generations. The entire pack participates in the training and apprenticeship of the pups, and the fathers expel the offspring from the home once they have reached sufficient maturity to earn their living.
Principles and codes of honour are obeyed which have their origins in the world of spirit and ideas and which unquestionably have a long-term practical purpose. The best examples of patriarchy: the barbarian Aryan societies (such as the ancient Dorians or Germanic), the ancient Iranians, Vedic India, the Greeks, the Romans, the ancient Japanese, the traditional strands of today’s Western civilisation or the very society that was emerging in the Third Reich—especially in the Hitlerjugend and the SS—as well as the Prussian militaristic mentality of all epochs.
The shouting of fervent troops, the sternness towards women and children, the clattering of horses’ hooves, the blood spilt on the snow, the warlike ardour of young men, the weapons, the glorious idealistic art, the fire and bronze, the glitter of metal, the clatter of black boots, the military parades, the chanting and the roar of artillery and rifles are the glorious manifestations of the Aryan patriarchy.
A YouTube video is worth a thousand pictures: Viking prayer to family, lineage, ancestors and death, taken from the film The 13th Warrior, in which a patriarchal Nordic people face a prolific and sinister matriarchal people (Antonio Banderas, you suck!).
Eve (1885). Oil on canvas by Anna Lea Merritt.