web analytics

Author: C .T.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Patriarchy

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 2

by Eduardo Velasco
 

Matriarchy: The family and relations between the sexes

Individuals live in large common households, like prehistoric caves or the great houses of the Danubian Culture.

The procreation of large numbers takes precedence, which results in a repellent jumble. Subhuman matriarchy makes females the object of a cult of abomination, deformity, and promiscuity. Children are overpampered and overprotected, to the point of sapping their initiative and entrepreneurial spirit. Nowadays, we see children overloaded with coats, scarves, jumpers, gloves, and hats, even when it is clearly not cold at all. Mothers repress them when they show initiative or independence, an entrepreneurial spirit, or when they take risks.

As promiscuity is often such that no one knows who the fathers are, the family name is passed down through the mother’s side. Even in cases where there is marriage, the man often takes the woman’s surname and goes to live in the woman’s house, as was once the case among the Basques.

Families are not solid or defined. There are incestuous and endogamous tendencies. The environment encourages pederasty and rape, as in so many primitive societies today. Because of these practices, the deformed and defective abound.

Matriarchy is no friend of hierarchies, and everything tends to blur in the presence of the collective totem and the mass.

 
Patriarchy: the family and relations between the sexes

Individuals live in single-family homes.

Despite the importance of fertility and birth rate, the number of children is not important, but the quality of each child. This favours the emergence of strong families, eugenic selection systems and careful training and education methods. ‘Maybe few, but very good’, is the emblematic phrase of this mentality. In patriarchy, sons are treated as men from the time they are boys, while in matriarchy they are still pampered and treated as boys when they are still adults. Fathers and clan veterans seek ways of ‘manning up’ their sons through hardening initiations, and mothers have no say in this, for it is taken for granted that after a certain age (in Sparta and medieval European aristocracies, at age seven), the boy must be emancipated from female influence. Boys are allowed to run around, get hurt, get dirty and unclothed to grow up healthy and tough. Boys are encouraged to develop curiosity, fascination and respect for violence. It is especially in the ancient Aryan armies that the mentality of sacrifice, training, ceremony, fighting and dedication reaches its peak.

The ritual and solemn marriage ceremony is a patriarchal institution. The strong family, the clan, and the tightly knit community are patriarchal phenomena to the core. The wife takes her husband’s surname when she marries, and the children will have the father’s surname. There is a tendency for children to acquire the surname ‘son of’ about their paternity. This is evident in Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, with the adoption of surnames ending in –son or –sen, in Slavic countries with –vich or –witz, or in Spain itself, with the suffixes –ez.

With matriarchy one knows exclusively who the mother is. With patriarchy, the father and mother are known, and the cleanliness of the lineage is guaranteed as long as the patriarchal law is respected. The patricians formed the aristocracy of Rome. Patriarchy guarantees the purity of blood. Matriarchy guarantees its interbreeding. Deeply united families emerge and practically create their tradition and mythology, even in terms of divine ancestry. Pride in the lineage of the fathers, the zeal for purity of blood, and the desire to preserve the race—racism—flourishes. Loyalty, honour and restraint, i.e. the instinct of protection of the pure and spiritual essence, take root. The Aryan patriarchy is the only social system which considers that honour also has to do with women.

Patriarchy tends to form severe hierarchies and caste systems which are separated by genetic criteria, and which favour the distinction of the best elements and the concentration of power in their hands. Examples are the systems of socio-racial separation that arose in India, Iran, Greece, Rome and the feudal Middle Ages. Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia is a more modern example.

Categories
August Kubizek Lightning and the Sun (book) Racial right

The Lightning

and the Sun, 3

There are, to my knowledge, — unfortunately, — no records of Adolf Hitler’s childhood. And, enlightening as it surely is, the little one can gather about it from a conversation with his most sympathetic old tutor, Herr Mayrhofer, (who is still living in Leonding, near Linz, and whom I met twice) and the little he mentions himself in Mein Kampf (which is not an autobiography) is not enough to buttress such a definite (and unusual) view of him as the one put forth in the present study. The one apparently authoritative picture of the future ruler’s life and character, years before he ‘decided to become a politician,’ is to be found in the very good book in which August Kubizek — the one friend he had in early youth, — has related the story of his four years’ friendship with him, namely from 1904 to 1908.[1]

In those years — i.e., when he was over fifteen, less than nineteen, — Adolf Hitler’s main traits of character were already fixed, and visible at every step of his: in all he said or did. His scale of values was already that one which was, in later years, to set him apart from every political leader of our times. And the psychological (the real) basis of his philosophy the source of his unshakable faith in it, and the key to his whole career, — was already definite. In other words, the man he was to be — the Man he could but be, under the given circumstances, — had already taken shape and was, with the sureness of instinct, with a mysterious, inner knowledge, a logic of his own that baffled all human calculations, invincibly following the path of his tremendous destiny. And the features of the rapidly awakening personality were unmistakably those, and the unfailing, baffling logic, that, of a Man of the type I have, in this book, characterised as ‘against Time’: of an inspired, ruthless and realistic — extraordinarily far sighted — fighter for a Golden Age ideal, in the depth of our Dark Age.

And, were we able to trace the history of Adolf Hitler’s evolution further into those very early years which he describes as providing (from the standpoint of events) ‘little to remember,’[2] it is not only probable but certain that we would find, in him, up to the very beginning of his life, the self-same, deeply distinctive traits of character, the self-same fundamental aspirations — the same person. Such men as he are not, as so many people seem to think, the ‘product of circumstances,’ but predestined beings who use the given circumstances to the utmost, for a purpose which far exceeds the obvious, immediate aim of their action, or, to speak the language of ancient Wisdom, — and one is, ultimately, compelled to speak that language, — great free Souls,[3] no longer bound by the law of birth and rebirth, who choose to be born in the environment (within the race, the country, the social stratum) in which, and to grow into leading men and to struggle as such under the circumstances under which they are to act the most efficiently, in the highest interest of Creation. They are children and adolescents ‘against Time’ before leaving in history the mark of their passage as Men ‘against Time.’

One of the most noticeable traits of people ‘against Time’ — no less than of those I have described as ‘above Time’ — is that they fit nowhere in the world as it is; that their moral and aesthetic — and practical — standards: their conception of happiness and unhappiness, their idea of ‘success’ and failure, and of usefulness, in one word their values, and its, have nothing in common. And, from all that his friend A. Kubizek relates about Adolf Hitler’s adolescence in Linz, that appears precisely to have been the case of the future master of Germany, at that time a no doubt remarkably gifted but, in the estimation of cool-minded grown-ups, ‘unpractical’ youth, who had recently left the middle-school without completing the course of his studies, and nourished the ambition of becoming a great artist — a painter, or perhaps an architect — with little material prospects of fulfilling it, and who lived on his widowed mother’s meagre pension, and roamed about the streets — or the countryside — and occasionally went to the theatre (taking admittedly the cheapest seats,) and made gigantic plans and spoke — already — with compelling eloquence, — of things that interested nobody but himself, while other boys earned their living and helped their families, or were learning something ‘useful.’ ‘He just fitted into no social frame whatsoever,’ concludes A. Kubizek, after having tried to, analyse the reasons why his friend, despite capacities by far above the average, failed, even in subsequent years, to ‘get on’ professionally. ‘He had not the slightest ambition of securing himself a livelihood’ and of being comfortable. He did not wish to be ‘comfortable.’ He did not — and never was to — think in terms of comfort or of personal ‘happiness.’ What others called ‘enjoying life’ was something absolutely foreign to him. Nor could he ‘take things as they came’ and live lightly, free of worry, entirely within the present. He was, at a very early age, intensely aware that things were wrong in the world round him — wrong in every walk of life, in every domain of thought and action, from A to Z, — and he felt himself duty-bound to change them; not to change this or that in them, leaving the rest untouched, but to change them ruthlessly and radically, for they were radically wrong, and to build everything anew, according to principles different from those that had prevailed up till then.

And this was not a mere wish, a more or less vague desire or day-dream. It was a purpose that he pursued with ‘deadly seriousness’ and unfailing consistency, busying himself long before hand with the most minute details of his plans in every particular case, without for all that ever losing sight of the spirit and general lines of his creation as a whole, so much so that that ‘extraordinary seriousness’ and consistency — and merciless radicality — struck all those who knew him as the main trait of his character. He pursued it — nay, already in those years in which he was not yet politically active; already while he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern — with that feverish impatience which finds its expression in the words: ‘Now, or never’; with the haste inherent in all earnest action ‘against Time.’ And that impatience — that tragic awareness that ‘tomorrow will be too late’ — was to stamp his whole career as a ruler and as the Founder of the last true civilisation within the Dark Age. In it, in fact, lies the source and the explanation of Adolf Hitler’s most drastic — and most criticized — steps in later life and the sign that National Socialism, that most heroic of all reactions against our Dark Age, historically still belongs to this Age, while transcending its spirit.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s two cents:

…he himself still believed that art would remain, throughout life, his first and foremost concern….

It is here that the gulf between us and American white nationalism becomes apparent. As far as I know, the only American racialist who sensed any of this was Michael O’Meara: who wrote that only a new myth could save us. His readers in a racialist webzine didn’t understand a whit of this, believing that only by smearing data to the normies about race realism or the JQ could one modify the Aryan collective unconscious.

That is not possible for those who know how the mind works!

To use Jungian language, it is all about ‘touching the Self.’ And the royal path toward that direction is through art. Remember how Hitler loved Wagner’s art, or how Parrish’s paintings produced, in me, the eureka moment: This is what Creation (the Big Bang) was for!

The Greco-Romans also knew that displaying the Aryan nude on public thoroughfares through majestic sculptures manifested the Self in the form of the majestic Gods.

The Anglo-Saxon racial right, children of Bentham and not of sculptors, painters or poets, has no idea that what we need is a new religion: a new myth accompanied by a new art! Precisely for this reason all anti-art is a curse for producing the new Aryan awakening, which is why I don’t listen to racialist podcasts that start with degenerate music (to her credit, Uncle Adolf’s other admirer, Carolyn Yeager, never used degenerate music at the beginning or end of her podcasts).

____________

[1] August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfround [Adolf Hitler, Friend of my Youth] (Leopold Stocker Verlag, 1953.)

[2] Mein Kampf, p. 2.

[3] In Sanskrit, Mukta Purusha.

Categories
Audios William Pierce

Pierce

This is a postscript to my previous two posts about a dream I doubt will come true.

Either way, we’ll fight with what we have.

A contributor and I will be uploading audios on the topics that have already appeared on this site, in the hope that Aryan males will listen to us (especially young incels who have been marginalised by the anti-white Establishment of our day).

William Pierce passed away in 2002. Here is a sample of one of his radio programmes from that year. No one of Pierce’s calibre has been talking like this since the year he prematurely died…


Categories
Aristotle Neanderthalism

Aristotle

Yesterday a commenter emailed me about my previous post and I explained that, given the vision of my project (an audiovisual programme), only a wealthy sponsor could help us.

I explained that, given that my spoken English is too broken (unlike my written English whose syntax I can check calmly), I would need to speak in my native language and a dubbing expert with a British accent would translate my words into English (the person who sent me yesterday’s email is English).

The situation is complicated by the fact that my ambitious project would involve a daily show with another priest of the holy words. And that in turn would involve this other priest emigrating to the third world, where I live, so that the government of his country wouldn’t bother him. On top of that, he would need to be on a pension for life, while living here he would no longer be able to receive income from his home country!

It is hard to believe, but it is not easy to do something as simple as talking to someone, in one’s mother tongue, who thinks like one does.

Detail of the fresco School of Aristotle by Gustav Adolph Spangenberg.

Aristotle said that there are three kinds of friendship. The most elementary is, let’s say, the friendship we have with our cousins. The second would be something like conversing (just what I was doing a few decades ago in a café with some comrades, as I said on Tuesday). On the other hand, the deepest level of friendship is that of two friends whose virtue unites them (e.g., two priests of the four words).

Taking into account the third level, in previous decades I have never, ever in the country where I live had a true friend. As Nietzsche said: ‘There is comradeship: may there be friendship!’

But back to my dream. Two virtuous men talking about an infinite number of subjects, with dubbing so that young Aryans can understand us, is the idea I have. If we weren’t living in the darkest hour of the West, after all the decades I have been living in the most populous city in Latin America, that virtuous Spanish speaker with whom I could talk would have appeared by now. What gets me is that I have cousins who are whiter than me, with more elongated, Nordic-type skulls, and even blue-eyed blonds, but they don’t give a damn about the preservation of their blood.

As far as white nationalists north of the Rio Grande are concerned, in my dream programme I would be daily criticising their contradictions, of which I have already written at length on this site and won’t summarise them now.

A more modest project than having a show whose look—not content—would be as I said yesterday similar to the Peter Boghossian interview by David Rubin, would be to pay a printer so that our PDFs could once again be available as printed books.

But one fights with what one has. Such elementary things as a small publishing house and a daily show, including on Sundays, where two National Socialist virtuosos exchange views, may not happen anywhere in the world until after the convergence of catastrophes exterminates, at least, millions if not billions of Neanderthals!

Categories
Free speech / association

Dream

In March 1959, when I wasn’t yet one year old, George Lincoln Rockwell founded a National Socialist organisation in the US (see William Pierce’s splendid article on Rockwell).

Rockwell was assassinated when I was already nine years old. Tomorrow is the anniversary of his assassination, 25 August 1967.

Matt Koehl (right) at a commemoration in Arlington, Virginia, in 1997 for the 30th anniversary of Rockwell’s assassination.

Matt Koehl (1935-2014), Rockwell’s successor, moved the NS party to Wisconsin and subsequently founded the New Order.

Today I received the following statement from the current headperson of New Order:

Comrades –

I have just received word from our webmaster that our website has been deplatformed. As of 7:30 pm (Eastern time) August 22, 2024 it has been offline.

Specifically, the company that registers domain names has suspended our address. They gave a vague reason why, basically accusing us of extremism.

We are working to get the site back up. We do not know why our enemies have chosen this moment to attack us. All other NEW ORDER operations are unaffected.

More details to follow.

The System doesn’t tolerate Uncle Adolf’s followers, even in the First Amendment country! What the System does tolerate is a couple of normies, say Peter Boghossian and David Rubin, criticising the Woke Monster, as in this audio-visual interview I watched today.

When a European commenter visited me this month, we were planning what those of us who still carry the torch that Uncle Adolf left could do. I told him that the ideal would be to have an audiovisual show (say like Rubin’s) where two NS men comment on current affairs.

The problem, as always, is that such an enterprise requires huge funding, as well as emigrating to the third world (we saw what recently happened to the Englishmen who protested on the internet—Big Brother simply jailed them!). We would have to have a generous sponsor as we couldn’t have a job in Europe and at the same time be Nazis let’s say, on an Odysee channel. Otherwise… just consider Europe’s thoughtpolice or the egregious First Amendment violations in the US, like what happened to New Order yesterday!

Since we don’t have that funding, my dream of having a show hosted in the Third World (where the thoughtpolice cannot molest us) in the format of Rubin’s but with two Nazis talking about a thousand subjects will remain a dream. In an ideal world young Aryans, who are so demoralised by the System, should see that when two Nazis talk to each other what they say is reasonable.

The propaganda against Nazism is so ubiquitous that a normie couldn’t believe that this is possible: that hearing two Nazis talking to each other would be like listening to two normal guys.

For visitors who haven’t heard it, I invite you to listen to no more and no less than what Hitler’s normal voice sounded like, talking to other Nazis, in a covert recording made of them which was subtitled on YouTube here.

Categories
Racial right

Friends

Once again: during my walks, the only exercise I do, my best thoughts come to me. A few minutes ago I thought that my standard for a possible friendship is precisely the figure of Uncle Adolf. That’s why I will continue to quote Brendan Simms. Although ideologically this biographer is not our friend, his book contains much vital information about Adolf Hitler’s ideals as far as repudiating the golden calf is concerned. And the book by Richard Weikart (abridged here), another ideological enemy of ours, contains vital information about what Hitler thought about Christianity.

The German Chancellor was perfectly aware of what, in the comments section, I said on Wednesday about how harmful Christianity is to the mental health of the Aryan man; and the same can be said of corporate capital. Never mind that, during the Third Reich, New Testament exegesis would not have developed to the level it has in the 21st century (the most recent interpretive findings reveal that Jesus of Nazareth was not even a historical figure, just a character of the rabbis’ literary fiction).

If a contemporary white man is red-pilled on both issues—the toxicity of the religion of our parents and how Big Business is antithetical to Aryan preservation—we can be friends. Otherwise, we cannot and certainly not if, out of pride, one is reluctant to question religion or the economic system we live in.

If someone is already on Hitler’s level, it is much easier to convince him that the Jesus that Uncle Adolf imagined last century as a historical figure didn’t even exist. Likewise, if someone has already realised that corporate capital has no flag, so it is trying to globalise society and even mongrelise it, he has already taken the first step towards repudiating the project of the nation he was born into.

Who is willing to (1) repudiate Christianity and (2) the project of his nation (see this comment that six years ago, on 30 August 2018, to be exact, Edwin posted on this site)?

He who, in pursuit of the 14 words[1] is willing to take both steps, is my friend.

_________
[1] Equivalent to the four words in Latin: Gens alba conservanda est.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 44

Hitler flanked this rhetoric with a carefully calibrated propagandistic effort. He gave a speech at Bayreuth—Wagner’s city—in mid September 1923, and returned about a fortnight later to speak again. On that occasion, taking up the invitation of Winifred Wagner, the English­born wife of Wagner’s son Siegfried, he went to the Wagner shrine at Wahnfried. There Hitler spoke to the composer’s son-in-law, the racist political philosopher Houston Stewart Chamberlain, author of the best-selling Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, upon whom he made a very favourable impression. Hitler paid homage at Wagner’s grave. He also published an autobiographical text and a selection of his speeches under the title of Adolf Hitler: His Life and His Speeches. The name on the front page was that of his associate Victor von Koerber, but the real author was Hitler. He rehearsed his political positions, including his attacks on ‘Bolshevism’ and ‘international Jewish mammonism’, but pointedly deleted all negative references to the United States, most likely in order to encourage US toleration of a successful coup. The principal purpose of the book was to cast Hitler as the saviour of Germany. Koerber-Hitler spoke of him no longer as a ‘drummer’ but as ‘an architect who is building the mighty German cathedral’. No doubt drawing on his overtures to Bavarian Catholics, Hitler had himself styled as a messianic figure, whose political awakening was compared to the resurrection of Christ, and whose writings were a kind of holy writ.

On 26 September, on the same day as the end of passive resistance in the Ruhr, the Bavarian government announced a state of emergency. Kahr was made commissary general. That same day, too, Hitler signed a proclamation in support of a ‘Battle League to Break Interest Slavery’; pointedly, the main enemy was defined as international capitalism and the victor powers rather than the German left…

Despite the local demands on his time, Hitler made serious efforts to square international opinion. He gave an interview to the American United Press at Bayreuth in which he said that the Bavarian ‘masses’ would back him over Kahr and announced that he was ‘no monarchist and would battle against all monarchic adventures, because the Hohenzollern and Wittelsbachers would merely encourage separatist divisions’. Hitler also gave an interview to the distinguished German-American journalist George Sylvester Viereck, in which he claimed to be the only bulwark against ‘Bolshevism’ and revealed his territorial ambitions. ‘We must regain our colonies and we must expand eastward’, he argued. ‘There was a time when we could have shared the world with England. Now, we can stretch our cramped limbs only to the east. The Baltic is merely a German lake.’ At around the same time, he told an American newspaper of his plans for a ‘Monroe Doctrine for Germany’, the first time he articulated a theme which was to run through his entire strategy. In mid October 1923, he made a public statement in Corriere Italiano once again renouncing any German claim to South Tyrol, as a gesture to Mussolini. He was convinced that France would support a separatist coup, but seems to have believed that Britain and the United States would at least tolerate his own Putsch.

Categories
Racial right

Definition!

Today I was planning to post another installment on Brendan Simms’ biography of Hitler when, on my morning walk to buy groceries, I came up with the perfect definition of American white nationalism.

In various pro-white lectures Tomislav Sunić has said, and here I paraphrase him, that capitalism and Judaeo-Christian ethics are the double helix of the mental virus destroying the West (the JQ is merely a secondary infection of this primary infection).

So far, so good. But the Croatian intellectual has been too politically correct to confront his colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic. My position is analogous to Sunić’s, but I say things much more bluntly and brutally—like Eduardo Velasco’s tough comments, to whom I have dedicated my last few posts.

Behold my definition:

White nationalism is the art of ‘have it both ways’ or ‘have one’s cake and eat it too’.

In other words, the American racial right wants to save the white race without questioning Judaeo-Christianity or repudiating capitalism.

In Spain, there are several sayings equivalent to the aforementioned American idioms. For example, “No se puede silbar y comer pinole al mismo tiempo” (You can’t whistle and eat pinole simultaneously). The Spaniards of another time also used to say: “No se puede repicar y andar en la procesión” (You can’t ring the church’s bell and walk in the procession). And the following saying can be used even by non-Catholic Spaniards: “No se puede nadar y guardar la ropa” (You can’t swim and keep your clothes).

That is American white nationalism in a nutshell: the self-deceptive art of doublethink! People like Velasco teach us how to get out of that trap: how to transvalue our fallen values (fallen because of Judaeo-Christianity and Mammon worship) to the values of Sparta, Republican Rome and our dear Uncle Adolf’s Germany…

Categories
Painting Renaissance

Venus

Sandro Botticelli:
La Nascita di Venere, 1482-1485

Categories
Ancient Greece Ancient Rome Eduardo Velasco

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.