web analytics

Category: Feminism

Categories
Feminism Film

Breaking

Bad, 2

I had promised a critical review of the series, but the YouTuber who reviewed it on his channel, which Mauricio transcribed and linked to in my midnight post, already covered the essentials. So, aside from this one, I won’t be posting any more articles: I’ll limit myself to saying a few things about some episodes from the first and second seasons of Breaking Bad.
 

Episode 2

In the first subversive message against Aryan sanity, we see Walter having breakfast with his family, who judge him with their stares. Remember that the right path would be to share meals in a Syssitia, not a nuclear family, but rather an extended family. Without the proper Männerbund restoring Aryan culture is impossible (women aren’t creators of great civilisations).

This lack of manliness, stemming from eating with a woman and a disabled lad instead of soldiers, is reflected in Walter having to kill a dangerous Hispanic man in Jesse’s basement. Walter first sees a knife, a hammer, the guns and a plastic bag but he doesn’t dare do anything because, like the rest of Western men, he’s feminized (compare Walter to Earl Turner from William Pierce’s novel).

Then there’s a funny scene. Walter tells Jesse that, to put the body of another dangerous non-white in two plastic containers to dissolve it with chemicals, they have to put the limbs in one container and the torso in the other: dark humour!

But in the second subversive message we see that Walter was expecting a baby girl, according to the ultrasound. What an idiot given that Walter Jr. is disabled and, in a normal world, the father should yearn for a male heir to replace the idiot (those values no longer exist in the degenerate West). Skyler, pregnant, confronts Walter and scolds him for smoking marijuana at Jesse’s house (remember that Walter dies of cancer). That probably wouldn’t happen in a Spartan home.

It was hilarious to see that when Jesse drags the already smelly corpse of the gook guy who tried to kill him, the body bangs its head on the steps as it’s carried down, and the ultimate dark humour came when the bathtub melted as the body dissolved because Jesse didn’t follow Walter’s chemical instructions. It made me laugh big time! But before that Jesse told Walter, “It’s obvious [Walter’s wife] wears the pants in the family.”
 

Episode 3

“Murder is wrong,” Walter writes during his internal struggle because he doesn’t dare kill the dangerous spic, who is tied up in Jesse’s basement. Is it possible to reclaim the Old US with such Christian morality? Then, Walter calls his wife to check in because it’s late and he hasn’t arrived, as if implying that she’s the one in charge. It’s inconceivable to become a Nazi with Americans like that. Of course, Walter coughs because cancer is eating him alive, but there are countless husbands who behave like that, even without cancer.

But then Walter regains his manhood and commits his first direct murder: he finally kills the Hispanic guy. How many of those who blog on racialist forums would commit such an act?
 

Episode 4

In the first scene after the episode’s introduction Walter is eating with his wife, his brother-in-law Hank, and Walter Jr. Part of the feminization of men—and this must be iterated—is the absence of a Männerbund. In a virile culture, there would be something similar to the laws of Lycurgus: forcing warriors to eat together to build the martial patriarchy. Instead, this bourgeois meal between two couples and a disabled son can only diminish the man’s warrior potential. Of course, the US has long been beholden to Judaism, and the only martial act permitted in that culture is defending Israel’s interests, but that is diametrically opposed to an Aryan culture and already changing among zoomers.

Watching the family scene in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, poolside on what appeared to be a relaxing Sunday, I thought to myself: What would the diners of a Spartan Syssitia (or its SS incarnation in Germany) be discussing at a table? Surely they’d be joking in the crudest way possible! Remember that Lycurgus ordered an effigy of the god of laughter to be placed in the dining halls of every Syssitia: coarse humour among warriors that would scandalize any little woman who dared approach such a place! Walter’s family is the opposite, and what’s worse is that white nationalists don’t even want to live together to create the necessary bonding within a small community of warriors (each Greek Syssitia consisted of relatively few men so that the bonds of friendship would be quite strong).

In contrast, upon hearing Walter and his brother-in-law talking on that family Sunday with their wives, the priest, preoccupied with the sacred words, can’t help but think that those families are talking rubbish—precisely because there are women present! (Remember that women infantilize everything because, psychologically, they are “between man and child” as Schopenhauer said.)

After revealing to his family that he has cancer, in the next scene we see Walter Jr. listening to degenerate music in his bedroom with headphones. After his family comforts Walter, in the following scene we see Jesse with two of his buddies: pure white trash. The priest has no interest in preserving people like that, but this white trash seems to be the current norm unlike, say, Norman Rockwell’s paintings (the image of Americans I was left with as a child watching old movies with my family).

The next toxic scene is that the oncologist, who charges five thousand dollars for a consultation and is one of the top ten in the country, is Black: typical of Hollywood, Netflix and HBO subversion.
 

Episode 5

There’s only one good scene when we see Walter with his family and Hank’s, saying he prefers quality of life to the misery of chemotherapy which would only prolong his life with terrible side effects.

Then comes a toxic scene, almost at the end: Gretchen, the Jewess wife of another Jew, Elliot Schwartz, takes pity on Walter and wants to help him financially. Walter, who needs a lot of money for his treatment, goes back to Jesse’s house and asks him, “Do you want to cook?”
 

Episode 6

Walter’s chosen alias for dealing with drug traffickers is mentioned for the first time: Heisenberg, in honour of the German who should have built the atomic bomb for the Third Reich. Now bald from chemotherapy, Walter has lost his fear of death and dares to go after the most dangerous Mexican distributor in town.
 

Episode 7

For the first time we see what would become the iconic blue methamphetamine that would make “Heisenberg” famous in the drug world.
 

Episode 8

Skyler scolds Walter for suddenly wanting to make love to her in the kitchen. On the other hand, Walter is becoming a man by dealing with tough thugs like Tuco, from the Juárez Cartel. But the screenwriter makes it clear that around his wife Walter behaves like a child: something that reflects today’s culture. Then there’s a scene with Hank and his own wife that also shows the crazy extremes of today’s feminism (I wouldn’t let a woman treat me the way this DEA agent did).
 

Episode 9

Walter and Jesse aren’t men yet. For a minute, they had Tuco Salamanca and the disabled Hector Salamanca, ruthless drug lords, at their mercy and they didn’t pull the trigger. This pair of white “heroes” wouldn’t work in the revolutionary times to come.
 

Episode 10

Nothing to report here except that feminism continues in the final scene, with Walter and Skyler in bed, Skyler not even letting Walter kiss her (compare it with the rape of the Sabine women: the foundation of Rome).
 

Episode 11

The episode begins with a subversive message: Walter tells Jesse in a small supermarket that he can’t cook right now because his wife worries if he’s gone for more than twenty minutes. Then there’s another subversive message in Walter’s breakfast scene with Skyler: the same old pandering! A great humiliation for the man.

What we see on Netflix are anti-role models par excellence, a true inversion of values: secular neochristianity taken to its apotheosis. Throughout the episode, the pregnant Skyler mistreats her husband. After Tuco’s death, all these family scenes are a tremendous anti-climax to Walter’s previous bravery with the Mexicans. And the heterosexual fag still apologizes! Can you imagine these anti-Spartans reclaiming all the territories occupied by non-Aryans in the US? “I love you,” Walter tells his wife: something we should never say to a woman.

 

Episode 12

Tough cop Hank has similar problems with his wife but l am fed up with these family dynamics and must stop here.

Categories
Degenerate art Feminism Film

Breaking

Bad, 1

What I said in yesterday’s post means that, from now on, I must take off the gloves on this site and start throwing hard punches at those to the left of the Nazi: whites in general and white nationalists in particular.

I’ve been looking at ratings pages for the most popular television series. Breaking Bad came out on top in several of the lists.

If Breaking Bad has the reputation of being the best series, that means it is a portrait of the American psyche of the 21st century, as novels such as Ben Hur and Uncle Tom’s Cabin were in the past (I was one year old when the movie Ben Hur, starring Charlton Heston, hit the big screen). Just as these novels completely sold out to Christian ethics were supertoxic to the Aryan DNA of Americans of yesteryear, so are all the Netflix and HBO series today. But let’s focus on just one, presumably the best.

Remember that in the final essay of On Beth’s Cute Tits I critically reviewed each of the 73 episodes of Game of Thrones (GoT) because of the crazy feminism of that famous series. Although I had already written an article about Breaking Bad in September 2022, I will now do the same thing I did with GoT with each of the 62 episodes of Breaking Bad. I am doing this because I have realised that only the punches of hatred in my writings cure me of depression (remember the words of Colin Ross, who coined the expression trauma model: “The best antidepressant on the market is anger”).

The first episode of the first season of Breaking Bad is titled:
 

Pilot

The first toxic message appears at the beginning of “Pilot”. Walter White, the main character, tells his wife Skyler White in a video he records that she is the love of his life. Remember that Savitri Devi said she would despise a man who put her before him. A real man shouldn’t idolise his wife. It was precisely unconditional love that made my father believe the slander my mother spread about me (eventually, because he believed those lies, he murdered my soul). A real man can love his wife, but never idolise her. A true man loves his race, and his primary bond should be with other men—Männerbund—and his firstborn son, who should inherit his worldview, scale of values and property.

Walter White’s only child, Walter Jr. (“Flynn”), who was born with cerebral palsy, would have been euthanised in Sparta. In the first episode, in addition to his wife, Walter also addresses a message to his son in the opening scene of the video, as before committing suicide he planned to send his family a video as a posthumous farewell message. That is the second toxic message of the episode: to love defective offspring because Christian ethics prevent us from performing the most basic euthanasia, something that the pagan Hitler wanted to transvalue with his Aktion T4 programme.

The following family scene shows that Walter Jr. is even a little shit. If Christianity prevented me from euthanising him as a baby, I would disown such a creature and let the female raise him without a penny from me. But of course: Americans, including the misnamed white nationalists, live under a culture, government and laws inspired by Judeo-Christianity, not the pagan Greco-Roman world.

Authorisation drafted and signed in October 1939 by Hitler for the euthanasia programme. The Spartans would be proud!

In the following toxic message, we see Walter White teaching a mixed class: boys with girls. This is a modern aberration: Boys should be educated to wage war (exterminate Neanderthals) and girls to procreate warriors. The reason American racialists don’t want to see the obvious is that, in reality, they don’t care about their race (see the book linked above that includes my critical essay on feminism).

We see the following toxic message at Walter White’s birthday party, where women and men are mixed. This didn’t happen in more civilised times, when men and women only mixed liberally at balls intended for finding a partner to comply with the 14 words (as in Jane Austen’s England). All the women at the party at White’s house have been empowered in the ethnosuicidal American society of our century (one or no children per woman, etc.), when in a normal world it is the man who chooses how many children he will have.

Hank Schrader is Walter’s brother-in-law and a member of the DEA. We see the next toxic message at the same party, where we see for the first time that Gomey, Hank’s right-hand man, is Hispanic: someone who should never have been an American citizen; and if there are millions of Gomeys in the US we owe it to the damn Christians.

In the next toxic message, we see Skyler masturbating her husband Walter in their marital bed while Skyler is busy on her laptop: a distraction. In a normal world, serious instruments would only be used by adult males, say, the heads of households of ancient Greece with the right to vote.

In the next toxic message, after Walter is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, we see Skyler scolding him because her husband used a credit card, presumably, for lab tests (the woman ignores he has cancer). In a normal world, only men would be in charge of family finances.

We see the next toxic message when Walter White and Jesse Pinkman, the second most important character in the series, begin cooking methamphetamine for the first time in the desert, far from the madding crowd. But the director chose degenerate music for the scene, inspired by the anti-music of blacks. That anti-music perfectly represents the corrupt soul of contemporary white men: not just gringos. When Walter flees in the van after chemically knocking out a gook and a spic who wanted to kill him, we hear niggers’ rap as background music. In the final scene Walter makes love to his wife with degenerate music, but this time apparently composed and played by white people.

It’s truly incredible how overt anger heals a depressed soul (something that applies not only to the fictional Walter White, but also to the author of these lines)!

Categories
Blacks Feminism Homosexuality Newspeak

The word ‘racism’

Hadding Scott wrote a very important article about how, in the late 19th century, the term originated without the derogatory meaning with which it is used today (see Scott’s piece: here). These are my two cents:
 

______ 卐 ______

 

The critique of language is the most radical of all critiques.

If we don’t uproot from our vocabulary the Newspeak of the anti-white West—keep in mind that when all great European civilisations were at their apex the word ‘racism’ didn’t exist—, we won’t even be able to start discussing the issues.

According to George Orwell, the objective of Newspeak is social control. ‘Newspeak’ is propagandistic language characterized by neologism, euphemism and the inversion of customary meanings.

The 4th century of the Common Era, during the reign of Theodosius, witnessed the consolidation of power of the bishops in the Roman Empire after the premature death of Julian the Apostate. Those unconverted to the new religion became second-class citizens. A new word was coined, ‘pagan’ to label the adept of the millenarian Hellenic culture. Once created the Newspeak those stigmatised as ‘pagans’ were persecuted and destroyed ).

If we translate the term racist back to Oldspeak, just as ‘pagan’ only really meant the common adept of classical culture, we will see that ‘racism’ is a code word for ‘pro-white’. But after the Second World War it has been weaponized to become a term that induces guilt among whites.

Detecting this psyop together with other epithets is pivotal in the process of de-brainwashing whites. Besides the most obvious words—‘Islamophobe,’ ‘xenophobe,’ ‘transphobe,’ etc.—, below appears a short sample of Newspeak terms translated back to Oldspeak:

‘Affirmative action’ – Blacks stealing our jobs.
 
‘Anti-Semitism’ – The belief by gentiles that Jews may be criticized like any other group.
 
‘Civil rights’ – Untermenschen and spoiled white women have more rights than Übermenschen in the New World Order.
 
‘Diversified workforce’ – Much fewer white males are to be hired or promoted.
 
‘Disadvantaged’ – Unqualified and can’t speak English, German or another Aryan language, so give them money.
 
‘Equal treatment and opportunity’ – Fewer opportunities for the Aryan folk.
 
‘Historic grievances’ – White people ended slavery, human sacrifice in the American continent and cannibalism in tribal societies.
 
‘Homophobia / gay bashing’ – The healthy revulsion by Lot for Sodomite or Gomorrahite behaviour.
 
‘Human Rights Commissions’ – Inquisitions denying free speech. Thought Police that enforces liberal political doctrine.
 
‘Immigration’ – Race replacement. Genocidal levels of immigration.
 
‘Interracial relationship’ – White women having non-white babies. Also called racial engineering or soft genocide of white people (just see the ads advertising mixed couples throughout the city of London!).
 
‘Misogynist’ – Anyone who disagrees with the racially-suicidal empowerment of the feminists.
 
‘Multicultural enhancement’ – Destroy all European cultures.
 
‘Politically correct’ – Fines and/or jail for anybody not sufficiently ‘woke’ and following the New World Order.
 
‘Respect and tolerance’ – Surrender. ‘Tolerance’ for millions of immigrants means demographic genocide for whites.
 
‘Culture of Hate’ – Anything pro-white.
 
‘Woman’s choice’ – Abortion and genocide of millions of white babies.

Nevertheless, and despite all that has been said above, ‘racism’ might be a term mostly used not by our enemies but by us! (Tom Metzger’s tactic). Hadn’t values been inverted by Christianity and its bastard son, liberalism, racist attitudes would be considered a great virtue, as Nietzsche saw:

Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favoured, against ‘race’: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

If the transvaluation of values advocated by Nietzsche were to take place throughout the West, ‘racism’ would be considered the greatest of virtues. Therefore—

Umwertung aller werte!

_________

Postscript: To see how this piece looked in the old incarnation of this site click here, although links of that PDF are now broken.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Feminism Nature Patriarchy Real men

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!).

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Feminism Real men

Tough replies

by Eduardo Velasco, 1

Regarding the article I translated yesterday, below I include some comments from Eduardo Velasco’s defunct site and Velasco’s responses that appeared under the pen name of ‘NT’ (Nordic Thunder). The comments I now translate into English date from December 2008 to March 2010. The thread is so long that it will take me many posts to translate Velasco’s responses to commenters on his articles. The ellipses mean that I have omitted many paragraphs from the commenters, which can be read in full in the original language (here). On Velasco’s old site—
 

Juan commented:

I think that humans suck, they educate their children one way up to a certain age and then they take care of corrupting them (including the parents). I don’t see the day when the end of the world will come and put an end to this hypocritical race.
 

NT (Velasco) replied:

To talk about ‘humans’ is to generalise. To give you an example, I often hear things like ‘HUMAN BEINGS are curious beings because they are capable of creating art, cathedrals, philosophy and music, but they are also capable of performing ablations, cannibalism, etc.’

Wrong. Let’s talk properly: ‘There are human beings capable of building cathedrals and blah blah blah (let’s call them A) and human beings (let’s call them B) capable of creating Marilyn Manson etc.’ As good racists, we should wish that the ‘end of the world’ (which will be nothing but a new beginning, a full stop) will take away all the B’s and keep the A’s. People who are carriers of a higher potential in their blood must survive.
 

A woman commented:

It’s scary to think that there are people like you, intellectually deformed, and with such an inferiority complex that you can’t take on other ways of looking at things. Vagina envy is what you have and a horrible fear of being found out as vulnerable and stupid as you really are. I hope no woman ever loves you, (nor any man) and that you never procreate.
 

NT replied:

Haha.

But where the fuck do you think you’re going with that loud and annoying orchestra in a Nazi blog, you dumbass? Aren’t you afraid of being mocked from head to toe? What do you think, that this is Maria Teresa Campos’ set?

Watch out: the brave, 45-heeled, stainless steel, the pure survivor gets scared of us, and that’s why she enters a patriarchal blog to kick, to tantrum, to get hysterical and to piss on the floor.

You’re right to be scared, you stuck in the ’60s and out of touch with the real world because, with the thing that’s about to hit the West, I’d be scared too if I were an ugly, hairy, bitter, masculinised, fanatic-pathetic feminist trucker, frustrated by her sterility, childless, ‘culturally’ nurtured on tabloids and other oestrogenic swill, and with no chance of ever being taken care of by a guy who dresses down to his feet.

Vagina envy, yes… similar, perhaps, to your camouflaged, subconscious phallus-phobia-morbid phallus envy, quite superior to your little clit?

Your ‘hopes’ are in vain, you pity-worthy little twerp, but I, on the other hand, wish you luck ‘surviving’ in the torrent of testosterone about to be unleashed. Remember, you still have time (if you’re under 45 and not ugly, which I highly doubt) to get fit, diet, exercise, wear pink, snag a guy to take care of you, give birth, cook and scrub, before Islam puts a burqa on you. You’ll never be able to compete with those 20-something girls now, who kick the shit out of you, but hey, you screwed up when you had the chance, so pass on getting on our backs, okay?

Here’s a picture of your beloved ideological acolyte, Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin, who brags (!) about having been raped. [link added]

What more could you want, you arctic sperm whale!

What a sack of gelatinous shit. I couldn’t even shake her hand if she pulled a kilo of Viagra, 8 gallons of beer, 37 litres of Afrodiasiac, 20,000 mg of intramuscular testosterone enanthate, 38 consecutive Spanish National Team victories over France and 88 years in prison.

Hey, I think I know why that cetacean became a feminist.

Because no guy paid any attention to her and of course: she started hating men, tired of seeing how they flirted with female specimens as the Gods command, tired of seeing lovebirds couples and tired of seeing happy mothers pushing a trolley with 2 babies.

Go survive somewhere else, you bitter and soured seal.

Thus spoke NT.
 

Gonzalo commented:

That ‘vagina envy’ thing really got to me XD…
 

NT replied:

Ernesto Milá’s blog is a mine.

I interpret this in the sense that the times of real crisis and violence are going to end with this estrogenic bubble of sanitary towels with wings, which we have the imbecility to call ‘Western civilisation’.

Contrary to the deluded feminists, who believe that we live in a patriarchy and are moving towards a matriarchy, I maintain that we have been living for decades in a pestilent and unnatural matriarchy that nullifies the virile element and that the difficult times will lead us headlong to the establishment of an iron and totalitarian patriarchy.

Categories
Feminism Film Patriarchy

La Belle et la Bête


This film, Beauty and the Beast was released when the Allies were perpetrating the Hellstorm Holocaust on the defenceless German people.

It’s been so many years since I saw it on the big screen, that I only used to remember when Belle’s father enters the Beast’s castle and we see how the torches with human arms light his way; as well as the ending, the couple’s ascent, as the audience applauded (something very rare in cinema theatres). Yesterday when I saw it again, in French and with subtitles in my native language, I remembered some things, but many others I had forgotten.

Although I hadn’t seen it for decades, the reason I included it in my list of 50 films that influenced me is because what I do remember perfectly well is my interpretation. I thought, for many years, that this fairy tale symbolises women’s sexuality. At first glance, our urges seem bestial to little women. But under the sacred institution of marriage, the beautiful one begins to realise that behind the animal lies a prince, and then they can live happily for the rest of their lives. In other words, only from the moment Belle can assimilate sexual relations with a Beast like us, can she ingratiate herself with Nature.

Without mentioning that movie, The Double Flame, a book that has been translated from Spanish into English, the Nobel laureate in literature Octavio Paz, who was my neighbour before he died, talks about how the ‘red flame’ of the horny male becomes a ‘blue flame’ over time in a couple’s relationship. But let’s do some history.

There are multiple variants of La Belle et la Bête. Its origin could be a story by Apuleius entitled Cupid and Psyche. The first published version of La Belle et la Bête was by the French writer Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve in 1740, although other sources credit Gianfrancesco Straparola with recreating the original story as early as 1550. The best-known written version was a much-abridged revision of Villeneuve’s original work, published in 1756 by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. The first translation was made into English in 1757. Although there are many variants of the story throughout Europe, Beaumont’s version is the most famous and is the basis for almost all subsequent versions or adaptations.

It is a story that has circulated throughout Europe for centuries, both in oral and written form and, more recently, in film adaptations. In addition to the interpretation I was left with in my soliloquies (how women’s sexuality works), the fairy tale can also be interpreted as the love of a father, who adored Belle above her sisters, with pure paternal-filial love. But besides the fact that the girl perceives sexuality as something perverse, any man who feels a sexual desire for such an innocent creature can only be a beast.

The above-mentioned 1946 French film, directed by Jean Cocteau, is the first film version of the 1757 tale of the same name and is recognised as a classic of French cinema.

This adaptation adds a secondary plot, with the appearance of a villain: a suitor of Belle’s named Avenant. He intends to take advantage of Belle’s visit to her father to kill the Beast and steal his riches, while Belle’s sisters, the villain’s accomplices, delay Belle’s return to the castle. When Avenant enters the magical pavilion, which is the source of the Beast’s power, he is struck by a fiery arrow from the statue of the Roman goddess Diana, which transforms him into a beast and reverses the curse of the original creature.
 

1:50 pm update

I just reread some passages from a disciple of Jung that are worth including in this entry. On pages 137-138 of Man and his Symbols by various authors (first published in 1964), under the heading ‘Beauty and the Beast’, Joseph Henderson said:

Girls in our society share the masculine hero myths because, like boys, they must also develop a reliable ego-identity and acquire an education…

I saw an example of this in a young married woman who did not yet have any children but who intended to have one or two eventually, because it would be expected of her…

She had a dream at this time that seemed so important she sought professional advice to understand it. She dreamed she was in a line of young women like herself, and as she looked ahead to where they were going, she saw that as each came to the head of the line she was decapitated by a guillotine. Without any fear the dreamer remained in the line, presumably quite willing to submit to the same treatment when her turn came.

I explained to her that this meant she was ready to give up the habit of “living in her head”; she must learn to free her body to discover its natural sexual response and the fulfilment of its biological role in motherhood. The dream expressed this as the need to make a drastic change; she had to sacrifice the “masculine” hero role.

As one might expect, this educated woman had no difficulty in accepting this interpretation at an intellectual level, and she set about trying to change herself into a more submissive kind of woman… A universal myth expressing this kind of awakening is found in the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast…

The story can be said to symbolize a young girl’s initiation—i.e. her release from her bond with the father, in order to come to terms with the erotic animal side of her nature. Until this is done, she cannot achieve a true relationship with a man.

Compare this wise psychoanalyst with the anti-motherhood shit that the System tells young women these days.

Categories
Feminism Film

Downton Abbey revisited

Since I can’t tolerate watching films or television if a non-white actor appears, I recently re-watched the seasons of Downton Abbey. About the first season of this English series I had already written something in 2013, and about the movie they made in 2019 I also wrote something. Recently I even posted a picture of two actresses from Downton Abbey within the series categorised ‘Aryan Beauty’. I was very naive in 2013 but by the end of the seasons I understood Downton Abbey’s bad messages better.

When I wrote what I linked above about the 2010-2015 TV series, and 2019 film, I omitted that in some TV episodes they mentioned Hitler. Those were times when he was imprisoned for his coup attempt, before he was released. Needless to say, mentions of Hitler and his followers even before he came to power were all very negative!

Instead of the English understanding that they were facing the rise of the greatest psychogenic emergency that History has ever witnessed (read the book of which yesterday I only quoted the final sentences), Downton Abbey saturates us with all sorts of frivolous and inane activities of the 1920s jet set, including horse racing, car racing, fowling, fox and deer hunting; cricket, superbly elegant dresses, restaurants for the rich, castles for the English nobility, impressive mansions and lastly a ball or formal dance party before the king.

But the overall message of Downton Abbey, both TV and film, is to show in a benign light the transition from patriarchy to so-called women’s liberation in England. Now they have even made another film. In this second, 2022 sequel of Downton Abbey, the Earl of Grantham even tells his daughter that she is now at the helm; that she is now the captain of the estate we see below!

Highclere Castle, used for the interior
and exterior filming of Downton Abbey.

If Aryan children were in my care they would never see such a thing on television or at the cinema. It is sad to say, but a priest of the sacred words like me can’t have fun with the prolefeed provided by the System.

For new visitors to this site: If you want to know why feminism is a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the white race read this book, or if you just want to read one of its chapters, see pages 99-116. If you are interested in English culture or English films, Jane Austen’s novels represent the world before the feminist psychosis that is exterminating white people—and will exterminate them for good unless a revolution revalues all western values.

Instead of Downton Abbey I would recommend a couple of films: Sense and Sensibility (1995) and Pride and Prejudice (2005).

Categories
Feminism Sex Tom Holland

Dominion, 39

Or:

How the Woke monster originated

On 5 October 2017, allegations about what Harvey Weinstein had been getting up to in his fourth-floor suite at the Peninsula broke in the New York Times. An actress meeting him there for what she had thought was a business breakfast had found the producer wearing nothing but his bespoke bathrobe. Perhaps, he had suggested, she could give him a massage? Or how about watching him shower? Two assistants who had met with Weinstein in his suite reported similar encounters. Over the weeks and months that followed, further allegations were levelled against him: harassment, assault, rape. Among the more than eighty women going public with accusations was Uma Thurman, the actor who had played Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction and become the movie’s pin-up. Meanwhile, where celebrity forged a path, many other women followed. A campaign that urged women to report incidents of harassment or assault under the hashtag #MeToo actively sought to give a voice to the most marginalised and vulnerable of all: janitors, fruit-pickers, hotel housekeepers. Already that year, the summons to a great moral awakening, a call for men everywhere to reflect on their sins, and repent them, had been much in the air. On 21 January, a million women had marched through Washington, DC. Other, similar demonstrations had been held around the world. The previous day, a new president, Donald J. Trump, had been inaugurated in the American capital. He was, to the organisers of the women’s marches, the very embodiment of toxic masculinity: a swaggering tycoon who had repeatedly been accused of sexual assault, who had bragged of grabbing ‘pussy’, and who, during the recently concluded presidential campaign, had paid hush money to a porn star. Rather than make the marches about Trump, however, the organisers had sought a loftier message: to sound a clarion call against injustice, and discrimination, and oppression wherever it might be found. ‘Yes, it’s about feminism. But it’s about more than that. It’s about basic equality for all people.’

The echo, of course, was of Martin Luther King. Repeatedly, in the protests against misogyny that swept America during the first year of Trump’s presidency, the name and example of the great Baptist preacher were invoked. Yet Christianity, which for King had been the fount of everything he ever campaigned for, appeared to many who marched in 2017 part of the problem. Evangelicals had voted in large numbers for Trump. Roiled by issues that seemed to them not just unbiblical, but directly antithetical to God’s purposes—abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights—they had held their noses and backed a man who, pussy-grabbing and porn stars notwithstanding, had unblushingly cast himself as the standard-bearer for Christian values. Unsurprisingly, then, hypocrisy had been added to bigotry on the charge sheet levelled against them by progressives. America, it seemed to many feminists, risked becoming a misogynist theocracy. Three months after the Women’s March, a television series made gripping drama out of this dread. The Handmaid’s Tale was set in a country returned to a particularly nightmarish vision of seventeenth century New England. Adapted from a dystopian novel by the Canadian writer Margaret Atwood, it provided female protestors against Trump with a striking new visual language of protest. White bonnets and red cloaks were the uniform worn by ‘handmaids’: women whose ability to reproduce had rendered them, in a world crippled by widespread infertility, the objects of legalised rape. Licence for the practice was provided by an episode in the Bible. The parody of evangelicals was as dark as it was savage. The Handmaid’s Tale—as all great dystopian fiction tends to be—was less prophecy than satire. The TV series cast Trump’s America as a society rent in two: between conservatives and liberals; between reactionaries and progressives; between dark-souled televangelists and noble-hearted foes of patriarchy.

Protestors summon men to exercise control
over their lusts–just as the Puritans had once done.
[This image & footnote appear in Holland’s book—Ed.]

Yet the divisions satirised by The Handmaid’s Tale were in truth very ancient. They derived ultimately, not from the specifics of American politics in the twenty-first century, but from the very womb of Christianity. Blessed be the fruit. There had always existed, in the hearts of the Christian people, a tension between the demands of tradition and the claims of progress, between the prerogatives of authority and the longing for reformation, between the letter and the spirit of the law. The twenty-first century marked, in that sense, no radical break with what had gone before. That the great battles in America’s culture war were being fought between Christians and those who had emancipated themselves from Christianity was a conceit that both sides had an interest in promoting. It was no less of a myth for that. In reality, Evangelicals and progressives were both recognisably bred of the same matrix. If opponents of abortion were the heirs of Macrina, who had toured the rubbish tips of Cappadocia looking for abandoned infants to rescue, then those who argued against them were likewise drawing on a deeply rooted Christian supposition: that every woman’s body was her own, and to be respected as such by every man. Supporters of gay marriage were quite as influenced by the Church’s enthusiasm for monogamous fidelity as those against it were by biblical condemnations of men who slept with men. To install transgender toilets might indeed seem an affront to the Lord God, who had created male and female; but to refuse kindness to the persecuted was to offend against the most fundamental teachings of Christ. In a country as saturated in Christian assumptions as the United States, there could be no escaping their influence—even for those who imagined that they had. America’s culture wars were less a war against Christianity than a civil war between Christian factions. [a war between Christianity and what, on this site, we call ‘neochristianity’—Ed.]

In 1963, when Martin Luther King addressed hundreds of thousands of civil rights protestors assembled in Washington, he had aimed his speech at the country beyond the capital as well—at an America that was still an unapologetically Christian nation. By 2017, things were different. Among the four co-chairs of the Women’s March was a Muslim. Marching through Washington were Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews. Huge numbers had no faith at all. Even the Christians among the organisers flinched from attempting to echo the prophetic voice of a Martin Luther King. Nevertheless, their manifesto was no less based in theological presumptions than that of the civil rights movement had been. Implicit in #MeToo was the same call to sexual continence that had reverberated throughout the Church’s history. Protestors who marched in the red cloaks of handmaids were summoning men to exercise control over their lusts just as the Puritans had done. Appetites that had been hailed by enthusiasts for sexual liberation as Dionysiac stood condemned once again as predatory and violent. The human body was not an object, not a commodity to be used by the rich and powerful as and when they pleased. Two thousand years of Christian sexual morality had resulted in men as well as women widely taking this for granted. Had it not, then #MeToo would have had no force.

The tracks of Christian theology, Nietzsche had complained, wound everywhere. In the early twenty-first century, they led—as they had done in earlier ages—in various and criss-crossing directions. They led towards TV stations on which televangelists preached the headship of men over women; and they led as well towards gender studies departments, in which Christianity was condemned for heteronormative marginalisation of LGBTQIA+. Nietzsche had foretold it all. God might be dead, but his shadow, immense and dreadful, continued to flicker even as his corpse lay cold. Feminist academics were no less in thrall to it, no less its acolytes, than were the most fire-breathing preachers. God could not be eluded simply by refusing to believe in his existence. Any condemnation of Christianity as patriarchal and repressive derived from a framework of values that was itself utterly Christian. [bold added—Ed.]

‘The measure of a man’s compassion for the lowly and the suffering comes to be the measure of the loftiness of his soul.’ It was this, the epochal lesson taught by Jesus’ death on the cross, that Nietzsche had always most despised about Christianity. Two thousand years on, and the discovery made by Christ’s earliest followers—that to be a victim might be a source of power—could bring out millions onto the streets. Wealth and rank, in Trump’s America, were not the only indices of status. So too were their opposites. Against the priapic thrust of towers fitted with gold-plated lifts, the organisers of the Women’s March sought to invoke the authority of those who lay at the bottom of the pile. The last were to be first, and the first were to be last. Yet how to measure who ranked as the last and the first? As they had ever done, all the multiple intersections of power, all the various dimensions of stratification in society, served to marginalise some more than others. Woman marching to demand equality with men always had to remember—if they were wealthy, if they were educated, if they were white—that there were many among them whose oppression was greater by far than their own: ‘Black women, indigenous women, poor women, immigrant women, disabled women, Muslim women, lesbian, queer and trans women.’ The disadvantaged too might boast their own hierarchy.

That it was the fate of rulers to be brought down from their thrones, and the humble to be lifted up, was a reflection that had always prompted anxious Christians to check their privilege. It had inspired Paulinus to give away his wealth, and Francis to strip himself naked before the Bishop of Assisi, and Elizabeth of Hungary to toil in a hospital as a scullery maid. Similarly, a dread of damnation, a yearning to be gathered into the ranks of the elect, a desperation to be cleansed of original sin, had provided, from the very moment the Pilgrim Fathers set sail, the surest and most fertile seedbed for the ideals of the American people. Repeatedly, over the course of their history, preachers had sought to awaken them to a sense of their guilt, and to offer them salvation. Now, in the twenty-first century, there were summons to a similar awakening. When, in October 2017, the leaders of the Women’s March organised a convention in Detroit, one panel in particular found itself having to turn away delegates. ‘Confronting White Womanhood’ offered white feminists the chance to acknowledge their own entitlement, to confess their sins and to be granted absolution. The opportunity was for the rich and the educated to have their eyes opened; to stare the reality of injustice in the face; truly to be awakened. Only through repentance was salvation to be obtained. The conveners, though, were not merely addressing the delegates in the conference hall. Their gaze, as the gaze of preachers in America had always been, was fixed on the world beyond. Their summons was to sinners everywhere. Their ambition was to serve as a city on a hill.

Christianity, it seemed, had no need of actual Christians for its assumptions still to flourish. Whether this was an illusion, or whether the power held by victims over their victimisers would survive the myth that had given it birth, only time would tell. As it was, the retreat of Christian belief did not seem to imply any necessary retreat of Christian values. Quite the contrary. Even in Europe—a continent with churches far emptier than those in the United States—the trace elements of Christianity continued to infuse people’s morals and presumptions so utterly that many failed even to detect their presence. Like dust particles so fine as to be invisible to the naked eye, they were breathed in equally by everyone: believers, atheists, and those who never paused so much as to think about religion. Had it been otherwise, then no one would ever have got woke. [pages 528-533, bold added—Ed.]

Categories
Conservatism Feminism Racial right

On silly Ann Coulter

A couple of days ago, on The Occidental Observer, Ann Coulter was annoyed by these words of Nick Fuentes: ‘Hitler is great, women should be forced to marry young and have children.’ Doesn’t Ann realise that in Jane Austen’s very decent world, women were forced to marry because they couldn’t inherit property? Doesn’t she realise that, by virtue of those values, the British Empire became so powerful?

Ann Coulter is certainly not a racist. She’s an asshole like the rest of the Republicans that ignore what Ludwig Klages said in Cosmogonic Reflections #25 about mankind and race: ‘We must draw a sharp distinction between the man who sees the world as divided between the “human” and the “non-human,” and the man who is most profoundly struck by the obvious racial groupings of mankind (Nietzsche’s “masters”). The bridge that connects us to the Cosmos does not originate in “man,” but in race.’

That is what I call genuine spirituality (in contrast to the ‘spirituality’ that the Jewish authors of the New Testament have drummed into our heads). In the second chapter of Savitri Devi’s book, which will be available as a PDF the next month, we read some prescient passages on how it is that the Christians of the 1930s had an intuitive knowledge that made them see that National Socialism was nothing less than the paradigm that replaces the old paradigm: the Jewish god by an Aryan God. Thanks to the Nick Fuentes / Ye scandal, nowadays we see some of that debate even in discussion threads among Christians, such as this Occidental Dissent thread, where a certain Dicarlo said:

I don’t agree with you, Brad [i.e., Hunter Wallace, who mocks Ye et al]. We’re losing because the jews have unlimited money, and control every platform where Whites need to get out the truth. They have shut down our ability to get out the truth. You might as well advise, never say “jew”. :rolleyes:
 
There’s nothing cartoonish about Adolph Hitler or the Third Reich. Their mortal enemy is the exact same enemy Whites face today, the jews. Of course there is a problem that most Whites have been lied to so much and drummed down to a point where the truth means nothing to them. We can only soldier on. George Lincoln Rockwell was right!
 
It doesn’t matter what you tell the normies—those who don’t want to think or know, the jews and their completely controlled media sources are going to lie, cover up, distort, over and over about any topic Whites bring up. Your criticism of praising Adolph Hitler, or the WW2 topic, is just a result of repetitive jew demonization of it [emphasis added]. There is no proper approach to wake up the White normies. All one can do is keep telling the truth about what the jews are doing and have been doing since Rome.

Since Rome… I wonder if Dicarlo has been reading this site, e.g. our excerpts from David Skrbina’s book?

Categories
Daybreak (book) Feminism On Beth’s cute tits (book)

On Beth’s Cute Tits – 2022 edition

The following are the first pages of the latest edition:

FOREWORD

As a Sanskrit saying goes, from the corruption of women all evils follow. And as I have shown in many articles on my website The West’s Darkest Hour, feminism goes hand in hand with a thoroughgoing feminisation of the Western male. Both are two sides of the same coin: a folie en masse that has been destroying the fair race throughout the West. Feminism’s third wave began with the sexual revolution of the 1960s that has caused the disintegration of the family and the fall in birth rates due to the emancipation of white women from all family responsibilities. But in this compilation we will also talk about the first and second waves, which explain the third and which long precede what happened in the 60s.

Feminism, ‘the great destroyer’ as William Pierce called it in an interview abridged for this book, has been corrupting whites ever since Nietzsche complained that Europeans were beginning to abandon the institution of marriage. George Lincoln Rockwell said something similar in a passage of one of his books, also reproduced here. Today’s suicidal ethos among whites cannot contrast more with the pamphlets that the SS gave to its soldiers so that they could procreate abundantly with their wives or Aryan lovers. Unlike the West of today, Hitler’s Germany was a very healthy society. (After I finish putting this book together I will start quoting some passages from those pamphlets on my website, including Sieg des Waffen, Sieg des Kindes.)

Instead of National Socialism what we see in the United States is a small group of diligent pro-white advocates often referred to as white nationalists. Rarely do their proponents declare intellectual war on feminism. One exception is Roger Devlin, whose seminal article on the subject is reproduced here. Some white nationalists are so incredibly obtuse that in the comments section of ‘A Breakthrough Year’, a December 30, 2015 piece of The Occidental Observer, Devlin had to say:

When I began writing and talking about sex in racialist circles a few years ago, even some very intelligent people did not understand the relevance of what I was saying to their concerns. The relevance is, of course, that races reproduce sexually. Feminism in all its aspects is as much an attack on our race as Boasian egalitarian dogma, and the same struggle must be waged against both. Like the Soviet Union of old, the contemporary West is a regime built upon lies, and cannot survive once those lies are brought into open and general contempt.

To expose the lies here I also reproduce a couple of casual comments in my website; some texts authored by Andrew Anglin who runs The Daily Stormer, what Lord Kenneth Clark said in Civilisation, and the words of a MGTOW man who uploads videos under the controversial pseudonym of Turd Flinging Monkey. John Sparks studied animal behaviour with Desmond Morris at the Zoological Society of London. Here I reproduce some excerpts of Sparks’ Battle of the Sexes.

This book comprises eleven texts, of which I am the author of the first, the last and a brief note about Pride & Prejudice. The title is inspired by a passage from Morris’ The Naked Ape. That essay, ‘On Beth’s cute tits’, also alludes to the character from the series The Queen’s Gambit, which according to Netflix has been its most popular limited series. The longest essay in this book is my critique of HBO’s most popular series, Game of Thrones, which also promotes feminism.

My final words on ‘The Iron Throne’ summarise my diagnosis about the aetiology of the fair race’s darkest hour.

César Tort (Editor)

Now that I was reviewing several of those articles for the 2022 edition, I was struck by the article that gave the book its title: one of the most important essays I have written in my blogging career. I believe that anyone who wishes to save the Aryan race from the coming extinction should read it.

The PDF of this edition is available here.

I will now add the above image to the featured post.

 

______ 卐 ______

 

Since I’m offering all of my work for free, I’d appreciate it if those who like it would contribute to keeping us working hard. Remember that in addition to PayPal, we also have Bitcoin and Monero accounts.

Bitcoin: 3DwpjCaGwycbeQB554h99ej5eLyMYRHcxf

 
 

Monero: 47r35PSQCusfRPPXE8nngVP mfWenWsb9KJJwhBtmVMzF Gv1JjTs6znuXJErURnyNKA7 Q3CgpwjGm8goHwAEpPgTx Dc2EnHa