Alex Linder, scourge of the synagogue, scribe of the damned, last true witness to the clarity of fire in an age of smiling decay, has passed into shadow.
Before there were podcasts, before dissident Twitter threads, before the algorithm played gatekeeper to speech, there was VNNForum: ugly, unfiltered, untamed. It was not polite, it was not hopeful, and it was not safe. It was a clearing in the poisoned woods, where men came to speak aloud the truths that shattered their lives.
It was was on VNNForum, among threads black with rage and bright with forbidden logos, that some of us saw the world as it truly is. It was there, two decades past, that I first glimpsed the contours of the void. Names like @KarlRadl flickered like dark sentinels in that space, cutting through illusion with diamond-bladed contempt.
Through it all, Linder held the center like a pyromancer. He was not there to comfort; he was there to burn. He built a pyre, and on it, he incinerated the lies of the Levant with a clarity so severe it scorched the eyes of a generation raised on half-truths. For that, he was demonized, harassed, exiled from society; and yet he never stopped. There was no grift, no “rebrand,” no pivot to YouTube monetization.
He published The Aryan Alternative when it meant something to print heresy. He quoted Mencken not to sound clever, but because he meant it; because like Mencken, he saw through the American delusion: its Puritan moralism, its democratic fraudulence, its saccharine pieties masking a merchant’s rot. Linder stripped it bare.
And the cost was everything.
The enemy erased him from polite memory. They will not mourn him. They will not speak his name.
But we will.
Because he stood when others knelt; because he told the truth when it had no market value; because he said “Jew” when the rabble huddled behind the euphemism of “globalist.” He chose to be hated rather than be false.
He dies like so many of our prophets: poor, mocked, defiled. He will be cited by no think tank, footnoted by no historian; yet he will live longer than the whole parade of conservative cowards who called him “too much.”
He was too much: too sharp, too clear, too honest for this age.
So let this be sung in the ruins:
Alex Linder stood alone.
Alex Linder named the Enemy.
Alex Linder never knelt.
And for that, may his name be etched in iron while the world of lies rots beneath its own weight.
“Why so hard!”—said to the diamond one day the charcoal; “are we then not near relatives?”—
Why so soft? O my brethren; thus do I ask you: are ye then not—my brethren?
Why so soft, so submissive and yielding? Why is there so much negation and abnegation in your hearts? Why is there so little fate in your looks?
And if ye will not be fates and inexorable ones, how can ye one day—conquer with me?
And if your hardness will not glance and cut and chip to pieces, how can ye one day—create with me?
For the creators are hard. And blessedness must it seem to you to press your hand upon millenniums as upon wax,—
—Blessedness to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,—harder than brass, nobler than brass. Entirely hard is only the noblest.
This new table, O my brethren, put I up over you: Become hard!—
As I recently said in the comments section of my latest posts, I would never have been so abrasive in my criticism of white nationalists—mere charcoal—if they had behaved like Alex Linder: a true diamond. In a very unique way, throughout my blogging career I have interpreted Linder’s advice, “Attack the conservatives!” to mean that today’s racial right ideology is basically conservative, not revolutionary; Christian, not anti-Christian; feminized, not truly Aryan. Therefore, they must be attacked.
Here are the articles on this site in which I tried to choose Linder’s words that best reflect his thinking, which evoke my favourite passage from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, quoted above as an epigraph to this small tribute to the now deceased Man:
I was informed that Alex Linder has passed away (see an eponymous site here and the sad news on X here).
If our friend Jake has a backup of the WDH Radio Show from June 2, 2017 when Joseph Walsh, Jake and I spoke with Linder about the Christian Problem, it would be great to link it in this obituary. It’s the only recording that features Alex Linder, Jake and yours truly in a podcast (remember: the 2017 recording was gone when SoundCloud deplatformed us).
Update: Link to the backup of that episode of the WDH Radio Show is here! (see first comment below). Also, like us Linder was an exterminationist.
“The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea or arrest the propagation of it, unless one is ready and able ruthlessly to exterminate the last upholders of that idea even to a man, and also wipe out any tradition which it may tend to leave behind”.
Physical distortion and mental malformation are the direct result of two thousand years of bad-breeding: that is to say, of mongrelism, of democracy, of equality… Christian-ism, originating in the despairful and fallacious philosophy of a crucified wanderer (suffering from acute morbus sacer) is now developed into an organised and world-wide conspiracy of clericals, politicals and decadents directed en masse, with Jesuitic cunning against all the primitive and heroic virtues.
Our clean-skinned ‘heathenish’ ancestors with all their vital forces unimpaired, were really the nobler type of animal. We on the other hand, with our corrupt, irresolute, civilised hearts, our trembling nerves, our fragile anaemic constitutions, are actually the lower, the viler type—notwithstanding the baseless optimism that courtly rhymers drivel into their ‘Heirs of all the ages’, etc.
No people can long retain hardihood and independence, whose minds become submissive to a false ideal.
Blessed are the strong for they shall possess the earth—Cursed are the weak for they shall inherit the yoke. Blessed are the powerful for they shall be reverenced among men—Cursed are the feeble for they shall be blotted out.
Blessed are the bold for they shall be masters of the world—Cursed are the humble for they shall be trodden under hoofs. Blessed are the victorious for victory is the basis of right—Cursed are the vanquished for they shall be vassals forever.
Blessed are the battle-blooded, Beauty shall smile upon them—Cursed are the poor-in-spirit, they shall be spat upon. Blessed are the audacious for they have imbibed true wisdom—Cursed are the obedient for they shall breed creeplings.
Blessed are the iron-handed, the unfit shall flee before them—Cursed are the haters of battle, subjugation is their portion. Blessed are the death-defiant, their days shall be long in the land—Cursed are the feeble-brained, for they shall perish amidst plenty.
Blessed are the destroyers of false-hope, they are true Messiahs—Cursed are the God-adorers, they shall be as shorn sheep. Blessed are the valiant for they shall obtain great treasure—Cursed are the believers in good and evil for they are frightened by shadows…
Blessed is the man who hath powerful enemies, they shall make him a hero—Cursed is he who ‘doeth good’ unto others, he shall be despised.
Blessed is the man whose foot is swift to serve a friend, he is a friend indeed—Cursed are the organisers of charities, they are propagators of plagues. Blessed are the wise and brave for in the struggle they shall win—Cursed are the unfit for they shall be righteously exterminated [emphasis by Ed.].
Blessed are the sires of noble maidens, they are the salt of the earth—Cursed are the mothers of strumous tenderlings for they shall be shamed. Blessed are the mighty-minded for they shall ride the whirl-winds—Cursed are they who teach lies for truth, and truth for lies, for they are abomination.
Blessed are the unmerciful, their posterity shall own the world—Cursed are the pitiful for they shall receive no pity. Blessed are the destroyers of idols, for tyrants shall fear them—Cursed are the famous wiselings, their seed shall perish off the earth. Thrice cursed are the vile for they shall serve and suffer.
Contrast this with an orthodox Sermonette—one that is repeated every seventh day, in thousands of sacred sanctuaries by consecrated black-robed clericals, who have been specially trained from boyhood to weepfully, unctuously rehearse the same with upturned eyes and skilful snuffle or in classic diction, sounding, sonorous, nay! Sublime—as suits the occasion.
‘This is the expression of an authoritarian state –not of a weak, babbling democracy [like the American one]–, of an authoritarian state where everyone is proud to obey, because he knows: I will likewise be obeyed when I must take command’.
—Speech at Nuremberg, September 14, 1935 (see Savitri’s Memoirs pages 172-177 to fully grasp this point).
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!).
You are a case of supreme intellectual perversion. They should hire you at Libertad Digital or COPE.
NT (Velasco) replied:
Oh, yes, my dear Pedrito-ito-ito, I am a pervert, a very perverse pervert, and even the Antichrist himself would do well to hire me and have me at his side when the time comes. Cuchi cuchi cuchi cuchi, the pervert is coming to tease you!
If you have no sense of spelling, at least you have a sense of humour… very flat, that’s for sure.
Okay.
And now fuck off from my blog to the Paris metro at 3 am to preach how much you like the good vibes of the multi-culti movement.
Your failed, lapsed, ageing, wrinkled, atrophied and malfunctioning generation has uneventfully ended its insipid, grey and pathetic reign, OK? So face it. You have no ability to influence or participate in an issue or have art or part.
The future world belongs to the young, and I’m sorry to tell you that the young don’t give a shit about your pacifist, hippiesque, sedative rubbish. We care about other, nobler things (like, for example, ourselves).
Modern youth have much higher goals than your leftist bubble. Like, for example, fucking, partying, getting drunk, getting high, fighting, making money, buying stuff, sinking into the most hedonistic material joy and living comfortably.
No kidding, those petty and abject aspirations are much loftier and more logical goals than the pathetic, tiny, anaemic motives of the modern 30-50-year-old bourgeois, and they constitute a positive change.
We have made some progress, yes. Now real physical drives, based on biology and base instincts, have taken the place of an abstract entelechy preached by four half-witted Jews. The next step is higher instincts.
Progre-shitheads = Bruaaaaaaaaargh (retching, cramping and, finally, vomiting). Go to your graves, poor shadows of yourselves.
Pedrin said:
Let me get this straight. You have an emotional schizophrenia that perverts your thinking. And your skill for rhetoric and sophistry (clearly visible to the eyes of those who read you) makes you even more gone.
Ok, I agree with you that the recycled bourgeoisie (read progressives) is trash. But your hatred of it makes you only think with your left (look at you, left) brain hemisphere.
NT replied:
Schizophrenia is not telling truths like American fists, but (for example) calling each other Pedrin by day and Natasha by night. Stop with the ad hominem attacks and concentrate on arguments like in the biological quality post.
You’re not a progressive, good for you.
My advice to you is to wander through my blog without renouncing to wave your flag of morbidity, breathing deeply and inhaling the perverse vapours emanating from my perverse schizophrenia emanating from my left hemisphere. After Nietzsche and Jung, my blog may become the cornerstone of your irreversible Nazification.
Pedrin said:
[Long comment quoted below by Velasco:]
NT replied:
Look at Daoism (Taoism) and Confucianism. Ethos and pathos. Pure dualistic thinking, and therefore false and shallow.
You lightly dismiss two extremely ancient and profound doctrines. Taoism is, so to speak, a jewel. No philosophy has reached even a fraction of its knowledge of the human body, its hidden springs and techniques of inner alchemy (Hinduism and Buddhism are comparable). Dualism is not synonymous with simplicity. There are dualisms of conciliation or separation, and there are interesting examples in both cases. Manichaeism is 100% dualistic and yet I consider it to be extremely profound and complete.
All the vigorous macho men I’ve known were at heart pussies on the psychological level.
I get the feeling that’s what the weak in character and body try to tell themselves to overcome the trauma of not being that way. So ‘deep down’ they were pussies. Did you explore the cerebral cortex of each of them to come to that conclusion, or were you perhaps guided by prejudice? Did you slap each of them on the ass to see if they would let out a ‘ha-ha’? Was Achilles a pussy? Leonidas? El Cid? So what are you proposing? That instead of vigorous macho men we should be weak damsels? What’s wrong with being a vigorous macho man? Is it better to be like a Zerolo? What would Nietzsche or Jung think of Zerolo? Hmm, I’m intrigued, pal…
Violence for violence’s sake is an armour.
Yeah, tell that to Attila, Genghis Khan or Tamerlane, and see what they say.
First of all, the most insecure children are precisely those who have felt little maternal warmth. It is indispensable in the first years of life.
I never said otherwise, read well. The maternal-filial bond materialised in the cord and breastfeeding is important in the first years of life. But at a certain age, the child must be emancipated from that influence. In societies as far apart as Sparta and the chivalric orders of the Middle Ages, that age was 7.
In patriarchal society, the consummation of this symbiosis is prevented, the mother-child dyad is ripped away to create mindless warriors.
At 7, the symbiosis is more than complete, and a prolongation of it would produce a spoiled and capricious child. On the other hand, if Leonidas is a ‘brainless warrior’, well… we need more ‘brainless warriors’!
Don’t confuse matriarchy with matristics. There have never been matriarchies (where women rule), that is an anthropological aberration. There have been matristic societies, which is different.
Anthropological aberration? Male chauvinist! We’re all equal and blah blah blah. Just kidding. We use different terms. I call gynecocracy what you call matriarchy, and I call matriarchy what you call matristic.
It is in patriarchy that women rule in the pussy that hides behind the warrior, and where the manipulative woman appears.
Examples? Bullshit, this archetype of the manipulative woman appears in matriarchies, in pseudo-patriarchies (Jews, Gypsies, Islam) or in already decadent patriarchal societies (Sparta, Rome). See the case of the Roman Poppea Sabina, or in the Sultanate of Women during a certain phase of the Ottoman Empire.
Very documented and flowery everything you say, but they are falsehoods, contradictions, and shallow thinking.
The good thing about having an opinion is that it’s free. Or as ZP would say, ‘I’m glad we disagree, that’s the greatness of democracy, ñaña’.
But I don’t believe in democracy. You think you’re right, I think I’m right and, in the end, only one of us is right.
(Needless to say, that one is me, and the other is you: the one who is barking, braying and yapping.)
Pedrin said:
[…] [Omitted by Ed.] And I would like to know what is a ‘pure’ patriarchal society and what is the ‘pure’ race for you, and from this I can criticise it. I know what the Aryan race is, but where is the purity of the Aryan race? It seems to me that as Plato was looking for the highest good, you are also looking for an ideal that does not exist. What is a pure Aryan? I don’t quite understand.
NT replied:
If you think that aggressiveness is only for defending yourself, fighting for females, food or territory, you don’t know yourself. Aggressiveness and violence are perfectly healthy and perfectly natural, and a man who doesn’t have them is a sick disgusting creep.
If you want to know what a pure patriarchal society is, read this post.
If you want to know what the Aryan Race is… you’ve gone to probably the only place in Spanish where this is explained understandably, so I don’t know why you’re not wandering around the blog (particularly in the ‘Nordicism’ topic) or scratching your head.
An Argentinian said:
Nordic: if you are as manly, violent and phallic as you say; if you would like to clash swords against the flesh of others and taste the blood of the defeated; if you would like to be led in a political direction by kicking the boots of uniformed men in the ass… Why don’t you go live in Cuba?
If you are so handsome, post a picture of yourself so that your schoolmates and your parents (who probably don’t know that you have this idiocy in your head) know about the reading you resort to for recreation. We are in the 21st century, and we have to have a more critical vision than those who came before us. Get rid of your prejudices and find your true voice. Don’t be left with the first impression of power or violence. Underneath the mask is the true face of control and aggression.
NT responded:
Please point me to the exact spot where I say I am ‘violent and phallic’ and that I want to taste the blood of my enemies (you’re out of your mind pal, ha ha) or all the nonsense you just said.
So think before you write, you oaf.
And what schoolmates? I haven’t been to school for a long time, and when I was in high school, I was a skinhead and my whole fucking town knew I was a Nazi, besides my parents.
Yes, this is the 21st century, the century of the cowardly, mechanical, ant-like, unnatural, degenerate and ungodly man. You understand I look back to times when life was pure, man almost perfect and justice simple.
You are invited to read this blog. You, a Judeo-Christian morbidly curious about Nazism, you repressed Argentine Nazi. 🙂
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.
I have decided to suspend, at least for the time being, quotes from Might is Right because of what Ragnar Redbeard says in my last post on the subject, starting with these words (‘Though, the survival of the strongest is the logic of events, yet personal cowardice is the great vice of our demoralized age’) to the end of that post.
While what Redbeard says is true, I detect a big problem: the soft totalitarian world we live in.
In the darkest hour of the West (a euphemism for the darkest hour of the white race) we cannot go out fighting. It is impossible to imitate, say, those tales of Prince Valiant that I read in the Sunday papers as a child.
We live in a world that rather resembles a scene from Paths of Glory when Colonel Dax and his soldiers cannot even get out of the trench because of the machine-gun fire that falls like a downpour on anyone who dares to stick his head above ground.
This is the reality in which we live even with peaceful demonstrations like the one in Charlottesville. The System mercilessly crushes dissent: first with its Antifa, then with police and months or years later using the courts to punish (illegally, as the demonstration was peaceful) those nationalists who went to Charlottesville.
In a totalitarian world, it makes no sense to talk about physical courage, as long as the enemy is so powerful that there is no way to wage an external jihad to weaken him.
But the enemy is not so powerful as to prevent internal jihad… If we cannot wage external jihad at all, it is time for internal jihad: as I said to Jamie a month ago in the context of apostatising from Christianity.
The reason why, at least for the moment, I don’t feel it makes sense to keep quoting Redbeard every other day is because his book was written when external jihad was still possible. For example, when Redbeard published Might is Right Hitler was a child, and when this Austrian grew up he fought both internal and external jihad.
In the darkest hour for the white race, we can only fight internally. The good news is that Muslims consider internal jihad greater, spiritually, than external jihad. To distinguish it from Islam, I call the struggle with oneself the priesthood of the holy words.
