web analytics

Category: Patriarchy

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Patriarchy

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 4

by Eduardo Velasco

 
Author’s conclusion

European culture as a whole is eminently patriarchal, but even within the West, I believe I can observe the clash between patriarchal and matriarchal mentalities, expressed in the nations possessed by these concepts. Thus, France and Italy, as modern nations, traditionally represent a soft and decadent mentality tending towards matriarchy, while Russia, Germany, England, and the United States represent the more patriarchal and aggressive tendency.

Within our civilisation, it is obvious and undisputable that the two principles are in debate and that patriarchy has been slowly being overturned in favour of a pseudo-matriarchy for some time now.

It also seems obvious to me that patriarchal societies are superior and more advanced than matriarchal societies and, especially, have much greater potential. There is simply no point of comparison in terms of achievements and superiority between the ridiculous pacifist matriarchy and the glorious, all-conquering patriarchy. For me, it is enough to glance over mythology, or to read The Iliad, to feel deep sympathy for authentically patriarchal societies, besides the fact that patriarchy is inevitably associated with Aryan or ‘Indo-European’.

Editor’s Note: Real men (‘Yang’), not the white trash we see today throughout the West—except for the Russians who, in Ukraine, are now fighting the globo-homo ‘Empire of the yin‘.

As a sign of the ‘Oedipus complex’ that plagues our civilisation, we have the passions and fears that the word ‘fascism’ arouses in the modern world. What communists, socialists, progressives, democrats and the like hate and fear from ‘fascism’ is the organising severity of a patriarchal society that puts everyone in his place.

What do I think the future of this issue might be? The present abortion of matriarchy is doomed to disappear as soon as the slightest turmoil is unleashed. On the one hand, it has produced a weak society incapable of defending itself and will be overwhelmed by those who have not fallen prey to its scourge (e.g. Islam). On the other hand, the current pseudo-matriarchal society is doomed to extinction for the simple reason that those who profess it don’t preach the need to have children, falling into the most immense contradiction, for a society that believes it is indisputably in possession of the absolute truth (like the current one), should preach offspring to eternalise itself and ensure a future at all costs, in the face of societies that think differently, which are the majority. Over time, his surrealistic utopia will lose ground to the merciless harshness of the times to come, and will eventually be replaced by a patriarchal reaction more in tune with the reality of the world and of man, which is the need for abundant and strong offspring.

The awakening of the white race will, of necessity, be accompanied by a reworking of the old Aryan patriarchy. Sorry to spoil your party, oh herd of decadent Loewe-scented cattle, but the subnormalities are over and so much of what you took for granted is over. There will come a day when you will have to fight to the death just to enjoy the 1% of goods that now seem normal to you! Your disgusting promiscuity, your mental vacuity, your superficiality and your stilted bourgeois sophistication will be extirpated and woe betide you if you cry, stamp your feet or call Superman. Considering the past decadence and the catastrophic situation in which the race—which is the only thing that matters in this world—finds itself thanks to your repellent moral and spiritual baseness, the coming reaction must be exactly the opposite.
 

By way of Appendix: The peoples of the north and the ‘civilisation of the mother’, from Adriano Romualdi’s La Question d’une Tradition Européenne:

The emergence of a European physiognomy from the mists of High Prehistory took place in the fifth millennium b.c.e. This event was accompanied by a spiritually significant choice: the rejection of the ‘Mother Civilisation’ and the affirmation of the Indo-European Urvolk (‘original people’, German) as an essentially virile and patriarchal community.

The Neolithic, the age of the first agriculture and the first settlements, the age in which families become tribes and tribes become villages, is inaugurated on the European continent with the penetration of the Eastern and Mediterranean elements. These are the Thessalian Sesklo-Dimini cells, heirs of the near-eastern communities that spread up the Danube and proliferated throughout Central and Balkan Europe. This is the so-called Danubian culture, with its banded pottery (Bandkeramik), rough wooden hoes and large collective houses. This culture conveys its spiritual message through small figures depicting a naked female deity. She is Mother Earth (Gê Metêr), the Great Mother of harvests, the dispenser of fertility who holds the keys to life and death. She is the naked goddess, whose kingdom extends from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, Crete, Malta and beyond. Throughout Western and Atlantic Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles, the dagger-wielding goddess also appears in megalithic engravings. The Eurasian and Euro-African sky of the Mother penetrates, through the Mediterranean race with its Lybian, Ligurian, Iberian and Pelasgic proliferations, to the heart of the European continent.

However, the Mother’s domain does not extend as far as northern Europe. This is the region around the southern Baltic, the area of the beech, yew, birch, and spruce; the area of the wolf, the bear, the salmon, the beaver; the territory that linguistic geography presupposes for the Indo-European Urheimat (‘original home’, German). It is also the territory of the Nordic race where, from the beginning of the 5th millennium, local groups of hunters and fishermen, heirs of the Magdalenian community of the Ice Age, reorganised themselves into a new agricultural culture alien to the world of the Danubians and the Great Mother.

The Norse megalithic culture, with its great stone tombs bearing witness to a firm political and gentile structure, together with its two offshoots, the culture of globular amphorae and the culture of chorded pottery, constitute the original matrix of the Indo-European languages and are responsible for a violent transformation that will affect Europe and vast regions of Asia.

From 3200 b.c.e. onwards, the whole of central, eastern and Balkan Europe was raided by the Northern Peoples. The Globular Amphorae Culture and the Stringed Pottery Culture, departing from their headquarters in the Germanic plain, invade the peaceful communities of the Motherland with their hammer axes, transforming the archaeological picture as far as Greece and Ukraine.

Significantly, this irruption was accompanied by the irruption of solar symbols. The Swastika was born, the oldest example of which appears on a ceramic from the Globular Amphorae Culture found in Poland; the radiated cross and the squared discs, with a dot in the centre or surrounded by rays, were born.

This is a vast symbolic range that finds its greatest flowering in Troy, the frontier city between Europe and Asia, marking the passage of Indo-European peoples into Asia Minor. The Swastika, the primordial symbol of generation and the resurrection of light is associated with the first appearance of the Indo-European peoples in the heart of the fourth millennium, and only fifteen hundred years later it reached India and China.

In the heart of Anatolia, the tombs of Alaja Hüyük, as a prelude to the future splendour of the Hittite kingdom, show us, alongside hammer-headed pins of the northern barbarians, banners decorated with swastikas and other solar symbols. One of these banners features a large stag in the middle of two smaller bulls. We are witnessing the subjugation of telluric, southern, maternal symbolism.

The bull, a symbol of the blind generative force, linked to the ideology of fertility, crudely represented alongside the naked goddess in the most archaic European agricultural cultures, is contrasted with the deer, the animal of the hunters of the North, Seelentier des nordischen Menschen (‘animal of the soul of Nordic men’, German) and, according to Weisweiler, ‘animal of the Arctic civilisation’.

The deer is significantly associated with the symbolism of the sun and light:

Den Sonnenhirsch sah ich von Süden her gehen
Seine Füsse standen auf der Erde
aber die Hörner reichten zum Himmel

These verses of The Edda are illustrated by several prehistoric figures, starting with those from Valcamonica, in which the stag’s horns are stylised in the form of a sun disc.

Similarly, it is significant that in Ireland, when the Celtic element meets the aborigines of Iberian stock, the stag and the bull play a central role in the sagas. Where the words oss, dag and ag, which in the Leinster saga name the stag, in the Ulster saga have come to mean bull.

Behind this clash of symbols, behind the spread of the battle-axe peoples and the spread of the Indo-European languages, lies an event of great spiritual significance.

The paternal principle is pitted against the ‘Mother Civilisation’; Olympian virility against the taurine and maternal myth of fertility; the ethos of the ‘societies of men’ against the enthusiastic promiscuity of ancient Matriarchy.

The echoes spread throughout Europe, where more than a thousand years later, Doric and Latin migrations would create the premises of the classical view of life. But, even more, the effects of this sudden expansion of the Nordic, white and Indo-European stock are felt in the most distant centres of irradiation: on the plateaus of Persia and the threshold of India.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Feminism 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 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
Eduardo Velasco Patriarchy

Tough replies

by Eduardo Velasco, 3

Sigfrido said:

I found the whole exposition about the controversy between matriarchy and patriarchy very interesting. Although I am not a Nazi, I quite agree with what Nordic Thunder said. The illiterate and pseudo-historical feminist had to jump in and start spouting her cretinous nonsense! Progressives and degenerates pathologise the patriarchal worldview, describing it as ‘psychopathic thinking’.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Aryan also feels compassion, but it is pure and healthy compassion for the woman, the child and the old man who are attacked by cowardly criminals.

What he doesn’t feel is compassion for the subhuman or the degenerate; for individuals like those who killed poor Sandra Palo or Marta del Castillo—unlike the progressive or the trashy Catholic, who betray the true heroic Christianity, who gloat in the defence of the criminal and the coward.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s interpolated note: As in the United States, in Spain the nationalist and racially conscious folk aren’t atheists but generally Christian. Following my metaphor of ‘The Wall’, it is not enough to cross it as the Germans of the last century did. It is now urgent to continue, after crossing it, to travel north to the cave under the great Weirwood tree to watch the real history of those who wrote the New Testament, and to watch also the first centuries of Christendom. This is a step that, unlike Eduardo Velasco, neither nationalist Spaniards nor nationalist Americans have dared to take!

______ 卐 ______

 
In The Iliad a touching scene is described between two magnificent exponents of the Aryan world (Phrygian-Trojan in one case, Achaean in the other). I refer to the scene in which Achilles pities the weeping and venerable Priam, returning to him the corpse of his son Hector.

By the way, Nordic Thunder: I found your book on Sparta very interesting. Do you plan to publish it in PDF, or better yet in paper? I know of a publisher who might be interested.

Best regards!
 

NT (Velasco) replies:

It is perfectly licit to feel compassion and protection towards our fellow human beings (without going any further, the dozens of whites who, every day, are raped, assaulted, murdered or robbed all over the West), while that false compassion towards degenerates, criminals or Woody Allens of life, plays against the laws of the preservation of the Species, because they are counter to natural selection and mean anti-eugenic behaviour.

Since I was a child I was deeply moved by that tremendous scene in which the noble old man Priam humbly begs the very murderer of his son to return his body to him so that he can give him a proper funeral. Achilles, who had killed hundreds of people as well as mistreated Hector’s corpse, feels his heart give way to the chilling tears of the grieving King, and fulfils his pleas with solicitude.

I’m glad you appreciated the book, colleague. I don’t know how I could convert it to PDF, but it would be interesting to do it and post it on the blog so that people could download and print it at their leisure. As for publishing it on paper, it would also be a very interesting option that I’d be perfectly willing to do. I’m all ears if you have any suggestions.[1]

Regards!
 

Sigfrido said:

As Stoddard said, the problem is that the criminal, the subhuman, multiplies. The dysgenic measures of the system make this aberration possible.

Since I mentioned the case of Marta del Castillo, the latest news says that the main suspect raped her and then killed her. I would beat the shit out of those bastards, and then put them on a military plane and drop them without a parachute over the Atlantic! Of course, the progressive scumbags will continue to defend the ‘human’ nature of these vermin.
 

NT replies:

Stoddard and so many other American, English and German eugenicists warned us that the lower classes (we are talking about a biological criterion, not an economic one, although they are related to a certain extent) are less intelligent, less healthy, less pure and with fewer resources reproduce faster than the upper classes who have a precious genetic inheritance to pass on. This is precisely due to the compassion translated into aid for the dregs of society (immigrants, pseudo-gypsies) while the social nucleus that has built these advantages doesn’t benefit from them. It is taken for granted that they must make a living without any help from this sinister anti-State.

What makes me laugh at these compassionate-Pharisee progressives is that if it was their little girl who had been outraged by a sick pig, they would be the first to stand at the front row of the trial with a muzzle on, foaming at the mouth and screaming for ‘DEATH PENALTY’.
 

Sigfrido said:

Eugenicists like Stoddard, Lundborg, Günther, etc., were right. The subsidies to the trash (who can’t even be described as poor, since they are lumpen) facilitate the multiplication of the biological waste, while on the other hand, the high taxes and the polluting progressive ideas make the most valuable not breed as they should.

The other day I heard that filthy, deformed, pro-green spawn, María Antonia Iglesias, viciously attacked those who demanded life imprisonment for the canis in Seville who killed Marta. She said that asking for that is ‘inhuman’. I am disgusted by these bitches who pity subhuman bipedal vermin!

I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to participate in Adecaf’s La Comunidad del Diálogo. It is a forum set up by some Catalan NRs. I disagree quite a lot with their NR ideas but they are good people, well-educated and there are also others of different ideologies, including Nazis. It’s the only real forum on the net, and nobody gets banned.
 

Arbmon said:

Here’s a link to a page of a chick who thinks matriarchy is cool. Ha ha. It shows the ultimate matriarchal society, where they live like primitives. [link]
 

NT replies:

There’s a comment posted before mine on the page you just put up. Don’t miss it:

I can’t believe it! Now I see why matriarchy never prospered. In those societies they are all a bunch of mediocrities and conformists. Only pleasures and promiscuities reign; war, ambition, sacrifice, honour, hardening and heroism are unknown. Men are cowards, very happy to be subordinates and ignore the dignity of responsibility, pampered weaklings. That’s how things would be if women ruled: a happy but rotten world.

 
Suevo said:

What’s your opinion of the Basque matriarchy?
 

NT replies:

Well, the Basque matriarchy thing is relative, because the Basques already have enough miscegenation, but they were originally a pre-Indo-European people who were indeed matriarchal. The man went to live with the woman after marriage.

I think that these sinister matriarchal-lunar reminiscences have a lot to do with modern Basque terrorism. Those pre-Indo-European ETAs are a bunch of obsessed and repressed neurotics, and the Basque problem is not a political issue, it is a racial issue.

In the Basque Country, we often have the best and the worst of the country. On the one hand, non-Aryan vestiges such as pathetic separatism and its ugly language, and on the other hand we have brave Basques who are worth their weight in gold, such as Blas de Lezo (18th century) or Josué Estébanez (the comrade who defended himself against 60 thugs in the Madrid metro).

Matriarchy is a cancer that is being revived in this era of pacifism and miscegenation. Still, it is not solved by simply eradicating it but by going to its cause, which is the mixing of blood. When a racial policy of selection makes the blood of the Aryan invaders predominate again, matriarchy will be a thing of the past.
 

Anonymous said:

An example of an Indigenous tribe here [Argentina and Chile] could be the Mapuche people. They are matriarchal and the Spanish and then the Criollos didn’t try to exterminate them. They are still here. I think that with the looks that they mostly tend to give to those who are not of their ethnicity, they give you the evil eye. The truth is that they are nothing like the European matriarchies, the Mapuches were warriors and in fact ‘mapuchized’ many other tribes that were patriarchal. […]
 

NT replies:

Well, you have simply placed a matriarchal order above no order. I place patriarchal order above matriarchal order. Both the Mapuche and the Indian tribes of the Southern Cone (and the whole of the Americas) were unevolved peoples and far inferior to the European invaders. Let’s look at examples of the matriarchy you describe [not quoted in this translation of that Spanish thread—Ed.].

I don’t give a damn about those villages. I address myself to peoples of White Race and aggressive, expansive, solar and heroic culture where courage, the Army and triumphant death are the cornerstones of existence. No wonder patriarchy prevails over matriarchy through military conquest with guns and torches in hand, while matriarchy prevails over patriarchy through miscegenation and decadence.

Fortunately, the harshness of times to come will bring about a revival of the Aryan Patriarchy.

____________

[1] Velasco’s book has been published. See the image at the top of this post. You can read our Spanish-English translation of that book here.—Ed.

Categories
Eduardo Velasco Patriarchy

Matriarchy

vs. Patriarchy, 1

by Eduardo Velasco (*)

 
Since the New Age along with The Da Vinci Code, feminist-Marxist propaganda and so on, have poisoned this terrain and vilified patriarchy, I proceed to reconquer it.

What is matriarchy in the first instance?

Matriarchy is not a society ruled by women—that is, a gynarchy or gynecocracy—as deluded feminists insist on demonstrating. Such societies rarely occurred, and are very exotic exceptions, in the most primitive, backward and weakest peoples of the world, such as in the Amazon or Indonesia. And if we do not find gynarchies in the modern world, such societies perished at the hands of logically stronger, struggling, non-gynocratic societies. Matriarchy is thus a society in which the predominant influence on the collective character of the people is feminine. The peculiarity of the society as a whole has more affinity with femininity than masculinity, all the spotlights are directed at women, and there is a distinct odour of spiritual oestrogen in the air.

Matriarchy originally corresponds to ancient primitive societies and what Julius Evola calls ‘Mother civilisation’. We are talking about peoples who are generally decadent, spiritually and physiologically exhausted or depressed, where the primacy of religious worship corresponds to Mother Earth—the Great Mother—and where material enjoyment, pleasures, luxury, voluptuousness and opulence are worshipped. Priority is given to compassionate, pious, conciliatory and charitable instincts. The rule to follow is ‘enjoy’, and the result is promiscuous behaviour in every sense. Hedonism or the notion of ‘a brave new world’ is typically matriarchal.

Where can we find traces of matriarchy? In the pre-Aryan inhabitants of Europe, and the Eastern races. For example, in the Etruscans, the Vascons, the Pelasgians or the Minoans, or in areas of Celtic influence where the pre-Indo-European character came to predominate. Even in the Ottoman Turks, in their fat, drunken, retarded or perverted sultans, in the inordinate influence that some of their concubines, or their mothers, came to wield.

What is patriarchy? Quite the opposite. If matriarchy is free will and promiscuity, patriarchy is organisation, ritualism and discipline.

What happened when patriarchal societies met matriarchal societies? There was war. And—oh surprise—the patriarchal invaders triumphed every time, despite being generally fewer in number. Patriarchy violently burst into history, brought by Aryan invasions. Thus, if the Danubian Culture and related settlements around the Mediterranean, in the East and the British Isles, were matriarchal, on the other hand the Mound Culture, the Urnfield Culture, the Volga Battle Axe Culture, the Baltic cultures, the Nordic Megalithic Culture, the Globular Amphora Culture and the Corded Pottery Culture, were patriarchal, and are associated—oh surprise—with the expansion of the Nordic Race.

Intolerance against matriarchy was probably the first religious intolerance and the first fanaticism which our ancestors learned to acquire in the Iron Age. Aryan mythology itself preserves remnants of the immense struggle which our Race waged against the sinister matriarchal cults, remnants of which we shall examine later. In their decadence, the Aryans absorbed some of the customs of the subjugated peoples—that subtle, sticky, disgusting, soft, hedonistic, pacifistic filth with which atriarchy infected Aryanity even before Christianity.
 

Matriarchy: religiosity and worldview

The source of life is seen as exclusively water and earth. In the matriarchal religious cosmogony of Nature, vegetation is not born because it is watered by Heaven and guided by the Sun (and, naturally, sheltered by the Earth), but exclusively pushed from below by chthonic forces from the underworld. In the same vein, earthquakes are seen as the wrath of the Earth.

The primacy of religious worship belongs to Mother Earth, and everything in matriarchal society has a chthonic orientation. Calendars are based on the lunar cycle and the menstrual cycle it represents. Matriarchal symbols are telluric and tend towards the lunar, the aquatic and the underworld. Curved rather than straight lines abound. Examples are labyrinths, rivers, lakes, caves, snakes, swamps, stars and night.

As examples of typically matriarchal divinities, we have Cybele, Persephone, Demeter, Astarte, Tanit, Gaia or Isis. Such goddesses are often complemented by a castrated male companion (who reminds me very much of today’s pantywaists), such as Osiris or Attis, in an aberrant and unnatural religious cult.

Matriarchal priestesses are hetaeras who offer ‘sacred prostitution’ services and who are in the business of accumulating money. The priests are often eunuchs, like the priests of the Temple of Ephesus, those of Cybele, those of Astarte or as in the Mysteries of Attis.

The dead are buried, whereby they are symbolically returned to the womb from which they are considered to have emerged. In both Greece and Rome, the commoners (descendants of pre-Indo-European matriarchal peoples) were precisely called ‘sons of the Earth’ as opposed to the dominant castes, who were of Hellenic (Greece) or Italic (Rome) Indo-European origin and called themselves ‘sons of the Gods’. The underlying matriarchal philosophy was ‘from the Earth you came and to the Earth you shall return’, thus denying any ascension, any higher essence linked to Heaven and any accountability for our actions. It is such a philosophy that invites ‘enjoy, for life is short’, and acts as redemption for the minds of those who are incapable of obeying any dictates from above.

Places of religious worship used to be caves, areas deep in the earth’s matrix. There is a cult of evil ritual sacrifice, particularly the morbid sacrifice of a pure and innocent victim. Thus, in Phoenicia and Canaan, the newborn firstborn was burned alive, and something similar happened in Carthage. The Etruscans were fixated on the sacrifice of an adolescent male, and the Jews on the sacrifice of Aryan children or robust adult specimens.

Grotesque art forms predominate: disproportionate masks, totemic demonic figures, the butchery of human sacrifice or orgiastic scenes of eating, drinking, fucking and sleeping. The very ancient ‘Venus’ figures are the archetype par excellence of the ‘Great Mother’ in whom these people saw their ideal of fertility and femininity. The songs of matriarchy are laments (think of Arabian desert music or flamenco).

A picture is worth a thousand words: the Venus of Willendorf, a matriarchal idol of the Danubian Culture. Just like a fitness model or a Greek goddess, eh? Sperm whale dimensions, sagging tits, no face, and hips as wide as the Strait of Gibraltar. A testament to the ‘bucolic’, ‘peaceful’ and ‘harmonious’ primitive matriarchal culture so admired by today’s intellectual progressives.
 

Patriarchy: religiosity and worldview

The memory is preserved of the invasion of a minority and heroic people over a far more prolific people, but little is given to fights of honour. In mythologies, we remember a struggle of a heroic and virile element against a telluric element, as in the cases of Apollo against the serpent Python, Hercules against the two serpents commanded by Hera, Theseus against the Minotaur, Indra against Vitra or Thor against the serpent Iormugand.

The hero Hercules (called Heracles Misogenes), typically Aryan, is always fighting against the forces commanded by Hera ever since, as a newborn, he strangled two serpents that Hera sent to kill him. We are often told that these myths have to do with a simple ‘social evolution’ that led from matriarchy to patriarchy, but the reality is that they are related to the invasion of a patriarchal people (the Aryan) over a matriarchal people (the Ugrian, the Dravidian, the Semitic, etc., as the case may be) and the imposition of the triumphant patriarchy over the defeated matriarchy.

Heaven represents the world of spirit and light. The Sun (serene sky, light) and the storm (lightning, rain, angry sky) are seen as the source of life. The Earth is not disregarded or omitted; on the contrary, it is integrated into a system of Earth-Sky interaction in which the predominant role is played by the Sky, and in which the intermediate product is the natural world of green vegetation and red blood. The Aryans were not unaware of the importance of the telluric and Mother Earth. Demeter, Persephone, Gaya, Erda and Mat Zemya bear witness to this.

The primacy of religious worship belongs to Father Sky, and everything in a patriarchal society has a celestial (‘Olympian’) rather than an earthly orientation. Calendars are based on the solar-heroic cycle of birth, zenith, sacrifice, death and rebirth.

The main symbols of patriarchal societies are phallic, celestial, warlike and solar. Examples are the Swastika, the mountain (made into a holy place like Japan’s Mount Fuji or Sparta’s Mount Taigeto, or even the abode of the Gods, like Mount Olympus), the fire, the tree, the banner, the flag, the Sun, the Celtic Cross, the wheels, the eagle, the horse, the Lightning (considered the destructive counterpart of the creative power of the Sun), the hammer, the double axe, the sword or the spear. Straight lines take precedence over curves. The best example of this is the runic alphabet and the runic-derived Greek, Latin and Cyrillic capital alphabets, as well as the ancient Templar alphabet.

The main patriarchal divinities are warrior representations of male fighting, virility and fertility, even of subtle but certain rebellion (Prometheus, Hercules, Siegfried). Thor, as the god of thunder, rain and storms, wielder of the hammer and scourge of ‘giants’ is probably the best example of male divinity of celestial fertility and struggle against the Cthonic forces. Likewise, the gods of patriarchal pantheons are ruled by a Heavenly Father. Examples of typical patriarchal gods are Odin, Tyr, Zeus, Apollo, Apollo, Ares, Mars, Teutatis, Taranis, Thor, Dievs, Perun and Perkunos. The Latin name Jupiter (originally equivalent to Thor in his role as the wielder of thunder) comes from ‘Father God’ (Dyaus Piter). However, the patriarchate also has important female divinities: Phrygia, Athena, Minerva, Artemis, Diana and Dievana are typical Patriarchal goddesses, aloof, serene and full of austere dignity.

The origin of the priestly castes, where they exist, is in the warrior aristocracy. Priestly functions are often performed by kings, military captains, clan patriarchs, heads of families or first-born sons of the family line. Personal magic is considered a feminine affair, and power over the earth and matter is considered a man’s business. Likewise, priestesses in patriarchal societies (as opposed to matriarchal hetairas) are virgins, as were the priestesses of Artemis in Sparta, the Pythia of Delphi or the vestals of Rome.

The dead are cremated, which symbolically implies that their bodies are consumed and their spirits ascend from Earth to Heaven—to the world of the spirit. Sovereigns or heroes are deposited inside tumuli, mountains or pyramids, i.e. celestial monuments of vertical matter which, in their purifying ordination, are raised to Heaven, with the subconscious idea of preserving them in the earthly bosom to return at a future time of greatest need. It is well borne in mind that death is not the end, and that our actions will decide the future of the dead in the Hereafter. The Hereafter itself is not conceived as a peaceful and happy paradise, it is conceived as a place where old comrades-in-arms, blood brothers and ancient patriarchs of the Race await, and where the struggle is eternal.

The places of worship were originally mountain tops—as among the ancient Iranians—or places where there were dolmens, menhirs and other vertical and ‘phallic’ signs. Later, burial mounds, pyramids and temples were erected, which were conceived as the material envelope of the spiritual idea: the material shell of the sacred spiritual fire.

In art, sobriety and a tendency towards realism and idealism prevailed. There is a tendency to depict scenes of sport, hunting and war—in other words, of effort and heroism. In architecture, the celestial orientation is evident: monuments related to Heaven (dolmens, menhirs), obelisks, columns, pyramids, domes, towers, triangles and so on.

The cult of sacrifice in patriarchal societies is centred on the notion of duty, asceticism and effort, especially on the battlefield. The fallen in battle are elevated to divine status and become objects of worship.

____________

Note of the Editor: This article was originally published on November 11, 2008, when Eduardo Velasco didn’t yet post his entries in the Evropa Soberana webzine, but in Velasco’s (also defunct) Nordic Thunder webzine. A copy of the original article in Spanish taken from web.archive.org can be read here.

Categories
Feminism Film Metaphysics of race / sex 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
American civil war Film Patriarchy

Gone with the Wind

I have already written on several occasions about this 1939 film, the third on my list of 50, and here I would just like to copy and paste what I have said in past years.

Above, we can see the image of the carpetbagger scene in Gone with the Wind, a war that freed the Negroes and occurred at a time when there were no Jewish-owned mass media and even before mass Jewish immigration began. (Oh, Judeo-reductionist racialists who don’t want to see that, in addition to the JQ, we have a Christian problem…!)

In a couple of those opera-type theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a kid and then as a teenager. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression on my youthful mind:

– Throughout the film, from the opening scenes in Georgia, women’s outfits duly concealed the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the dresses of the Southern beauties; and I don’t just mean Scarlett and the feminine elements of her family, but Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women. Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave again in the future ethnostate! (the actress who played Melanie died three years ago at the age of 104!).

– At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is interrupted by the declaration of war, all the women are taking the obligatory nap (except Scarlett, who escapes to the upstairs bedroom) while the men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman would have a say in such matters.

– Even after she is widowed, Scarlett is called ‘Mrs Charles Hamilton’, in the sense that her reputation remains in the shadow of a man who died in uniform.

– Similarly, following the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices carry out a night-time raid on a shanty town after Scarlett, driving alone, is attacked by Negroes resulting in Frank’s death. Needless to say, on this night the wives of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature.

– Once married to Rhett Butler, ‘Captain Butler’ was always greeted first by pedestrians in the street as he strolled with Scarlett. She, faithfully at her husband’s side on these street strolls, was only mentioned after pedestrians greeted Rhett.

– Let us never forget Scarlett’s marital rape when Rhett lifted her in his arms and said, ‘This is the one night you’re not going to throw me out’.

In those luxurious cinemas of yesteryear, when I was young, the film depicted wholesome Western mores, before values were corrupted and completely reversed in our darkest hour. I even remember that my mother, who wasn’t racist at all, felt compassion for the Southerners in the scene where the carpetbagger we see in the image above appears, and we both resented the presence of the black singer who took advantage of the situation. That must have happened about forty-five years ago in one of those theatres.

Categories
Feminism Film Manosphere Music Patriarchy

Walk of punishment

‘Walk of Punishment’ is the third episode of the third season of HBO’s fantasy television series Game of Thrones, and the 23rd episode of the series.

‘I want you’, poor Stannis said to the witch Melisandre on the beach, almost begging her to stay with him instead of going on a boat in search of someone to sacrifice. One might think that women cast a spell on us. But as some of the MGTOW have noted, that isn’t the case. It is our desire to possess them that makes us annul ourselves at their whim when we are in heat.

Of course, this wouldn’t happen if we had patriarchy like Republican Rome, when women were treated as property. And even in a softer patriarchy, like what we read in Jane Austen’s novels, no stupid laws had been enacted regarding marital rape. We only make a fool of ourselves when we empower them and give up the power with which Nature endowed us to the degree that we allow ourselves to be handled like puppets. That wouldn’t happen if the West regained its judgment and transvalued its values if not as far as the Roman world, at least as the values in Austen’s world.

In the episode Melisandre sees with open contempt the lust of poor Stannis. Declarations of love don’t work. We give them the power to say ‘no’. A king like Stannis Baratheon who can’t control the woman who was always by his side—compare him with the way his brother Robert Baratheon treated women—is not a true king.

In Astapor, on the other side of the world, we heard a dialogue between Jorah and Dany about war. The theme of the sword always reminds me of how feminised white nationalists are:

Jorah: You know what I saw? Butchery. Babies, children, old men. More women raped than what you can count. There’s a beast in every man, and it stirs when you put a sword in his hand.

Dany then scolds his two loyal advisers, Jorah and Barristan, when they advised her not to sell one of her dragons in exchange for an army of mulattos. The scene represents a very bad message for the white viewer. And the irony is that Emilia Clarke, the actress who played the role of Dany in all seasons, has a very feminine character in real life; so much so that she had difficulties filming scenes in which she appears as a dragon-woman in full command of her leader personality. But that’s the point of Game of Thrones: to reverse male-female roles in the perennial campaign of the media, government and universities to brainwash the white man. Dany’s dialogue with the mulatto woman Missandei, the translator she just got in Astapor while trying to sell one of her dragons, epitomises the feminist message:

Dany: And what about you? You know that I’m taking you to war. You may go hungry. You may fall sick. You may be killed.

Missandei: Valar Morghulis.

Dany: Yes, all men must die. But we are not men.

Missandei smiles. But in the penultimate episode of the last season, during the war of the bitches Dany and Cersei (note that the most powerful were queens, not kings), the latter orders Missandei be beheaded in front of Dany. But back to the episode ‘Walk of Punishment’, in the scene at Littlefinger’s brothel the Jewish director manages to keep the viewer from craving any of his white whores. I can imagine if the Germans were in charge of the cinema instead of the Jews. What would whites be watching now on the small screen?

The degenerate music of the end credits is the final insult, after Locke cut off Jaime Lannister’s hand (in the novels Locke is a cruel man sworn to House Bolton, considered by Roose Bolton as his best hunter). Again, if the Germans had won the war what music would we hear in the end credits of films today?

Categories
Feminism Liberalism Patriarchy Rape of the Sabine Women

Baelor

‘Baelor’ is the ninth and penultimate episode of the first season of the HBO medieval fantasy television series Game of Thrones. As I did in the last entry, I won’t be reviewing everything that happens in it but I use the episodes to express my philosophy: in this post, what I think about the psychosis suffered by the white race, including those who claim to defend it. Thus, I will focus on a single scene in Baelor.

Lady Catelyn appears before the feudal lord Walder Frey, the head of House Frey and Lord of the Crossing (a bridge) to negotiate the crossing of the troops of his son in their war against the Lannisters, who are about to execute Ned Stark. Although Lord Frey is an old man (the actor who played his role was known for playing Argus Filch in Harry Potter), he still maintains a very active role in managing his household.

After the West collapses, the white man will find himself at a crossroads. Both paths will lead to the return of patriarchy, as feminism is but an astronomical and massive psychotic breakdown that cannot be sustained for more than a century (the group that suffers from it is extinguished as their women cease to breed). The Jew Lawrence Auster was right in saying that liberalism, in the sense of the principle of non-discrimination that includes antiracism, feminism and sexual orientation is the most destructive ideology of all times.

Well then: before the crossroads of the two roads that lead to the return of patriarchy, the white man will have to decide what form of patriarchy will return: if his white women will belong to the Muslims of Europe and the blacks of America, or if the Aryan finally regains his sanity and reclaims them for himself.

In the episode Lord Walder Frey, opposite Lady Catelyn Stark, grabs his wife’s buttocks and then spanks her when he goes to negotiate privately with Lady Catelyn. After clearing a room full of his descendants, Lord Frey addresses the surprised Catelyn with these words:

‘You see that? Fifteen, she is. A little flower [licking his lips in lust]. And her honey’s all mine [chuckles]’.

In my soliloquies I call that delicious honey a Caperucita, and it is a shame that the supposed defenders of her race don’t see the naked truth of what Catelyn replied:

‘I’m sure she will give you many sons’.

A decade ago, when I still subscribed to white nationalism, I didn’t understand why some of their articles left me depressed. It didn’t take me long to realise that many nationalists had betrayed their principles by subscribing to at least some form of feminism. Ten years ago I reproduced the response of a critic of Alex Kurtagic since the latter dared to label ‘defectives’ those from the racial right who didn’t subscribe to feminism. Looking back, it seems clear to me that the only defective was Kurtagic himself, who like me was raised in Latin America. Now I can say that except for Andrew Anglin white nationalists continue to blind themselves as to how we should treat women.

If the white man chooses the right path when he reaches the crossroads, after the Day of the Rope he won’t behave like the men of Murka II in Covington’s fiction (see ‘Freedom daughters’ in my Daybreak). Since the pendulum has swung to the extreme left its inertia will carry it to the extreme right, and if whites wake up the warlords, the new Walder Freys, won’t be the exception but the rule. And even if the white man chooses the wrong path women will still be subdued, but this time like the Muslim women I saw the year I lived in Manchester.

Part of the feminisation of the white man lies in not wanting to even fix his own bedroom. Before killing the enemy he must control his women, at least through an internal transvaluation of values as the police would stop any actual transvaluation. He who doesn’t fuck won’t fight and many white nationalists don’t do it because, as good neochristians they are, they believe they should ask permission.

Sex is to be taken as the feudal lord Frey took it, at least in the most primitive stage of civilisation: what looms again after the collapse. There is already this situation with the massive rapes of Caperucitas in the UK, but the System only allows non-white wolfies to eat them.

Much of the revulsion I feel for white nationalism lies in that they tolerate this reversal of values. The critic of feminism, Roger Devlin, speaks like a conservative; not like the MGTOW people do and much less as I speak. A man who in one of the forums in which Devlin discusses would talk like Walder Frey, licking his lips while imaginarily savouring a Caperucita, would be annihilated by the thousands of Kutragics that swarm today’s racialism, and they would not answer any of the most elementary realities about the subject of feminism that I have linked so many times on this site.

That’s why I will continue to say that white nationalism is a fraud, and that to recover our lands we must first wage a great internal jihad that allows us to think as we were before, even in medieval times: as Martin’s prose about the lands of Riverrun.

Categories
Civil war Feminism Hate Patriarchy Racial right Roger Devlin

On Roger Devlin

Not long ago, in ‘Andúril: the broken sword’, one of my essays that appear in Daybreak, I complained about a video by Jared Taylor with these words: ‘Finding ourselves on the brink of a civil war or rather an anti-white, exterminationist war that gets closer and closer to Ward Kendall’s novel Hold Back This Day, Taylor gives counsel like getting married, having a good job, and trying to do politics without overtly revealing our true colours’.

Something similar happened yesterday to me while listening to an interview of F. Roger Devlin about Incels (who was annoyed by the Nazi salutes headed by Richard Spencer in that famous 2016 video because, according to Devlin, the alt-right shouldn’t endorse National Socialism). Although the interview was good, especially Devlin’s insights about feminism, he is the typical alt-right intellectual who, as we have seen, more than a ‘white nationalist’ is actually an American nationalist. (The term white nationalism suggests fighting a civil war to create a nation only for Aryan Man, something that the alt-righters don’t recommend openly.)

By the end of the interview, Devlin advises the same that Taylor recently advised: to get a good wife. The advice is quite dishonest because Devlin himself concedes in the interview that the laws of our time make it very hard for the white man to get properly married. For example, the divorce industry hasn’t been challenged, let alone eliminated along with the stupid laws that prevent males to have sex with their wives whenever they want, etcetera. Without the normal state of civilisation, patriarchy, marrying bitches that steal our children in courts and a law that commands you to send them money while she’s living with another guy is insane.

I think in the comments section I’ve already mentioned the case of a very, very Catholic family, friends of my mother since she was in Grammar School. One of their members, married to a traditional Catholic woman, after a severe illness the woman put him in an asylum and she stayed in his house with their daughter. The man is younger than me and is already committed in an asylum! His late parents were so Catholic that the Opus Dei folk were their clients. (Incidentally, they are a white family: the image of the many blond nephews of this guy now come to my mind when they were kids.)

That family proves that what Devlin said by the end of the interview is wrong. Even if you marry the most traditional girl, under the current laws the bitch can betray you to the degree that—as happened to our friend—not letting him attend even his own daughter’s wedding! The poor man stayed in the asylum during the wedding! When not long ago we visited him at the asylum, this very Catholic man came up that, despite everything, he should never hate…

The repulsion I feel for anything related to the American racialist movement can be summed up in one sentence: like this man they don’t want to hate, let alone fight. Just compare Devlin’s stance to Robert Morgan’s recent comments that I’ve collected on this site. It is more than obvious that, like Taylor, Devlin and the rest of the American racialists are held back by Christian morality. If Devlin & Co. didn’t subscribe to Christian ethics but National Socialism, they would know that only a bloody revolution could bring us back our women.

As long as male racialists don’t amalgamate their soul with the spirit of The Turner Diaries their whole movement will remain a women’s club.