The Nine Noble Virtues, extrapolated from the Norse texts, are a set of pagan

values first codified by John Yeowell and John Gibbs-Bailey in 1974; both men were acquaintances of the late, great Sir Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists.

The Sixfold Goal was codified by American professor of Germanic studies Dr Stephen Flowers in 1989.


The Old Testament, IE the Jewish part of the Bible is very clear about not worshipping idols and not producing graven images of God. The crucifix is meant to be both of these things. So where does the symbol of the crucifix come from?

It can’t have been made by Jews who converted to Christianity, because the Jews would have been aware of the Mosaic laws that would condemn the making of a crucifix, so it must have been an idea that the pagans, most of which were Roman, who converted to Christianity brought with them, and I’ll tell you where from.

Jesus in The Passion of Christ,
with one eye closed

The crucifix, and indeed the entire event of the crucifixion, is taken from pagan myth. Óðinn, the chief god of the Norse pantheon, is parallel to Jesus. Jesus, just like Óðinn, was the pure incarnation of God consciousness, had one eye, travelled the known world and was hung on a tree.

Óðinn is the one-eyed god, as in the Norse myths Óðinn sacrifices one of his eyes in order to attain knowledge of sacred runes by drinking from the well of Mímir, the Aesir god who lived at the bottom of the World Tree, Yggdrasil. Mímir is Óðinn’s uncle, the brother of the Óðinn’s mother, Bestla, the frost giantess, for the record.

Like Óðinn, Jesus is also portrayed as missing one of his eyes and often mentions the significance of eyes. The Bible mentions “an eye for an eye”, “taking the plank out of one’s own eye before taking the splinter out of another’s” and this scarcelessly referenced quote which is clearly a parallel to the story of Óðinn.

Matthew 6:22, King James Version:

“The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Jesus is often portrayed either
with one eye or a wonky eye

Also, like Jesus, the paternal origins of Óðinn aren’t thoroughly fleshed out in the myths that have survived to this day. Like Jesus, Óðinn has a father figure in the role of Borr, just as Jesus has Joseph. However, neither of these characters are very well clarified in myth and little is known about Borr. Oðinn, along with his brothers Vili and Ve, are also craftsmen like Jesus, who’s dayjob was carpentry. Óðinn and his brothers were involved in crafting the first humans.

Óðinn also has one eye

Óðinn, like Jesus, also symbolically and voluntarily sacrificed himself, though Óðinn did so on a tree not a cross, though the essence and intent remains the same.There are lots of other parallels between pagan myth and Christianity, such as the role of Mary as the holy virgin and her parallels with the goddess Freyr, also the role of the baby Jesus who is said to “shine like a light” just like Óðinn’s son, Baldr. Here is a passage from Havamal, detailing the sacrifice of Óðinn.

“I know that I hung on a wind-rocked tree,
nine whole nights,
with a spear wounded, and to Odin offered,
myself to myself;
on that tree, of which no one knows
from what root it springs.

Bread no one gave me, nor a horn of drink,
downward I peered,
to runes applied myself, wailing learnt them,
then fell down thence.” 

A Norse pagan crucifix featuring Odin

In the death of Óðinn, he is pierced with a spear, bearing parallels to the death of Jesus, who is also pierced by a spear by one of the Roman soldiers.

This one is just a wild theory I came up with, but may well be true and serve as a  further parallel between Jesus and Oðinn: Wolves in folklore, I believe, are meant to represent Jews; Oðinn was killed by a the Fenris wo!f, Fenrir, whilst Jesus was condemned by the Jews, specifically the Sanhedrin. Allow me to elaborate:

In medieval and ancient Europe, there have been many cautionary, and some might say “Anti-Semitic” tales written with subliminal messages aimed at warning children against Jews. Though I am not passing any judgement on whether or not it is true, there are legends that abounded in medieval Europe of Jews kidnapping European children and engaging in human sacrifices. See the Wikipedia page here on these accusations:

As a result, it is my view that tales such as Red Riding Hood, The Boy who cried Wolf, Rumpelstiltskin and countless others are all intended as references to Jews which is probably why in recent years left wingers have tried very hard to replace them with new children’s books, like the 2016 book My Little Feminist. That’s by the by for now though.

The red cap worn by Little Red Riding Hood goes way back to
the Roman pagan cult of Mithras, and also way back even to the
Germanic tribes that fought at Teutoburg forest in 9AD. The red
cap symbolises the bloody caul that some babies are born with,
the “Crown of Thorns”, so to speak.

Red Riding Hood is an ancient tale that can be traced back to pre-Christian Europe. In Red Riding Hood, the young girl goes to visit her grandmother’s home and is stopped by a wolf on the way who asks Red Riding Hood to pick some flowers for her grandmother. In the meantime, the wolf goes to the grandmother’s house and eats her. Traditionally in pagan society it was the older women who were the witches and keepers of knowledge, and so the wolf (the Jew) eating the old lady I believe symbolises Judeo-Christian culture devouring European culture and knowledge and also alludes to the many Medieval tales/rumous of Jews kidnapping Gentile children, practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. Further evidence that Little Red Riding Hood is related all the way back to the pagan Norse myths is her headware, which closely resembles the Phrygian cap worn by the Cult of Mithras in ancient Rome and also to the ancient Germanic tribes.

The Big Bad Wolf is portrayed as a
black wolf that preys on children

The black wolf in Red Riding Hood seems to be etymologically linked to the Big Bad Wolf and to the Fenris wolf of Norse mythology. In Norse mythology, the mighty Fenris wolf that devoures the moon is prophesied to kill Óðinn at Ragnarokr, just as the Jews were prophesied to kill their own Messiah, Jesus.

To further illustrate my point that 90% of medieval tales, and even some ancient tales like the one of the Fenris wolf are allusions to the idea of Jews killing enlightened people or killing children, I will unpack the story of Rumpelstiltskin. In the story, a miller lies to the king that his daughter (a barely post-pubescent girl) is a skilled seamstress, the greatest in the land, in fact, and can spin straw into gold, all in the hopes that the King will take his daughter’s hand in marriage. The King then locks the daughter in a room with a loom of straw, and asks her to spin it into gold by morning. If she succeeds he will marry her, if she fails she will be killed.

When the daughter is full of despair, an ugly, imp-like creature of short stature with a long nose appears and says he can produce the gold in exchange for the girl’s necklace, as Jews have a reputation, rightfully or not, of being able to produce gold bettern than anyone else. The King is impressed when he finds the room full of gold but asks the girl to repeat the feat in a large room. The imp, I believe symbolising a Jew, appears again in the room and spins the straw into gold in exchange for the girl’s ring.

On the third day, the King is again impressed but asks the girl to repeat the feat one more time. The imp/Jew again appears but the girl is in despair because she has nothing to pay him with. The imp, who is crafty, says to the girl that he will weave the gold anyway. Afterwards, the imp then demands some payment, but the girl says that they never agreed to any payment. After this, the tales vary as to exactly what happens, but traditionally the imp is said to have raped the girl as payment and, before leaving, says he will return to take the daughter’s first-born son, his child. The idea of Jews stealing children is a prominent anti-semitic theme in medieval culture.

Rumpelstiltkin, rightly or wrongly, is a walking medieval Jewish stereotype, as most medieval European myths were intended to worn Gentiles to avoid making deals with Jews or from approaching Jews  such as in the tale of Rumpelstiltskin, who is a perverted greedy rapist who cons the miller’s daughter of her virginity.

In summary of this article, I hope it has been useful in clarifying a few points in relation to European mythology and how it relates to Christian religion and illuminates the meanings behind a few of the aspects of European myth that are difficult to decipher. This article isn’t meant to reflect my opinions, but merely the objective facts from which I implore the reader to study further and decide what they think the truth really is. From examining the myths, it is my view that Jesus was a reincarnation of Óðinn, or Jesus and Óðinn are incarnations of something else, but either way they are one and the same. Jesus, like Óðinn and many others was an enlightened figure, a reflection of God Consciousness / Brahman and wanted to do away with the ungodly laws created by the Talmudic Jews of the time and shone a mirror to the NWO control system, which is exactly what paganism is all about.

Please stay posted if you want to read more material like this in future, I typically write a post per day.

C.A., author.

Author of National Geographic: Susan *Goldberg*

The issue is dedicated entirely to promoting the anti-scientific notion that race as a term has no correlation to genetics and is merely a man-made construct. The article goes on to accuse the white people of unreasonably opposing mass-immigration and apologizing for the “racism” of the NG magazine in the past.

The issue features several pages dedicated to pictures of white people marrying coloured people, for reasons I’m yet to understand.

The Out of Africa theory is described on Wikipedia as follows:

“H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. The “recent African origin” model proposes that all modern non-African populations are substantially descended from populations of H. sapiens that left Africa after that time.”

Anyone with anyone respectable level of experience in the field of anthropology or genetics knows that the Out of Africa theory, as far as compherehensively explaining  the origins of all humans, goes against the scientific evidence. The only reason then that I can think of that the Out of Africa theory still has so many academic proponents is that the fields of academia have become criticically politicized.

Richard Dawkins, professional Atheist shitstirrer, with Jewish
TV leftist shitstirrer Bill Mayer.

The Out of Africa theory first became the prevailing theory of evolution within the scientific community around 2000. It is really very interesting that the Out of Africa theory, the idea that all races of the Earth are merely recent albino immigrants from Ethiopia, was written coinciding with the modern, very really outouring from Africa? I don’t think that can be seen as a coincidence. The pseudoscientific theory has become a primary weapon for in the justificiation of massive levels of Third World immigration into Europe and the left’s degradation of European cultural autonomy and distinction. It has become a favourite black supremacist tool.

Here are several pieces of evidence that debunk or at the very least highly discredit the Out of Africa theory:

1. Graecopithecus freybergi

The oldest remains of human ancestors were found in Greece and in Germany, which last time I checked wern’t in Africa, though you’d be forgiven for thinking it looking at the state of their large cities. The remains of the Hominin which is known as Graecopithecus freybergi are 7.2 million years old. So for humans, or particularly European humans, which of these is more likely? We evolved from the human ancestors found in Europe, or humans went out of Europe down to Africa, pratted around there for a few million years, turned black and then went back up into Europe again? The latter sounds a bit far fetched to me.

Out of Africa proponents wouldn’t like this
French exhibit very much.

This is from the Wikipedia page on Graecopithecus:

“An examination of the detailed morphology of molar teeth from two fossils of G. freybergi published in 2017 suggests that it was a hominin, that is sharing ancestry with Homo but not with the chimpanzees (Pan). This would call into question the prevailing belief that pre-human hominids originated in Africa, though others are sceptical of the claims.”

 And why are they skeptical of the claims? Because it means they’ll have to come up with another false justification of mass African immigration?

2. Ouranopithecus macedoniensis

Another hominin, known as Ouranopithecus macedoniensis, was also unearthed in Europe and is an ancestor of modern humans. There have been three finds of the hominin so far, all of which have been found in Northern Greece which, though starting to look more and more like Africa, isn’t Africa.

Ouranopithecus macedoniensis is approximately 8.7 million years old, 1.5 million years older than Graecopithecus freybergi.

3. Other unusual findings in Asia and Australia which contradict the theory

The earliest tools in the world, though we have no idea who made them yet, were found in Australia, which isn’t in Africa.

There were also developed and sophisticated pigmy people living in Java in Indonesia that were making tools as early as 400’000 years ago. Homo Floriensis was not related to Africans or to Homo Sapien remains of any kind. These “Hobbit people” died out fairly recently, around 12’000 years ago. If it was indeed a wave of sophisticated Africans that brought civilization to the world, how do Out of Africa proponents explain Homo Floriensis and if there were sophisticated humans living in Indonesia 400’000 years ago then why should we imagine they weren’t living elsewhere, like in Europe?

Nothing against African people, but the African supremacy pseudoscience has to end for the sake of all peoples of the Earth. Its time
to put the idea that Africans were the first civilized humans, the first humans at all, or leaps and bounds above European or Asian to bed once and for all.

Health and happiness! Heritage before Hedonism!

C.A., author.


The Tajik people of Tajikistan, a small country in Asia just West of Pakistan, are direct descendants of the Indo-Europeans and the Aryan wave.

Most Tajiks speak Persian whilst others speak different dialects or languages of the Indo-Iranian family. Most Tajiks were converted to Islam by the Arabs to the South, though they all used to practice Zoroastrianism.

Groups like the Tajiks, Persians and Kalash people break the reenforced concept of the Middle East as an Arab, totalitarian, Abrahamic wasteland bereft of extant culture or civilization. I can only hope for their continued survival. Things aren’t looking good at the minute though as emigration to the West, encouraged by our heartless capitalist and globalist government means that men are leaving Tajikistan for our doll money and leaving Tajik women unmarried.

Boys from Tajikistan

Arabs were not there first, Indo Europeans were!

The peoples and nations of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan and India are Indo-European to the core and have, like us Western Europeans, been forced in many places to assimilate with Judeo-Christian or Muslim invaders.

The Aryan people of the Middle East have been demonstrated by genetic studies to have pure Indo European steppe ancestry and are direct descendants of the Yamnaya.

The girl pictured here is from the Kalash tribe of Pakistan, so never let anyone say a bad word about Pakistanis! The Kalash even still practice animism and Indo European paganism.

Do not copy writings without expressed permission from the author (C.A.).

Many people now fail to realise that there was a time before the Latin script was used in Britain, in Scandinavia, in Eastern Europe and in Siberia amongst other places. Due to Christianization, which was brought about forecfully predominantly by manipulative Southern European and Jewish immigrants, the old priestly pagan class, the only people that used the old scripts regularly, was ousted from influence and the imposters imposed their own script, the Latin script.

Within the space of several hundred years, the carefully crafted and spiritually significant indigenous alphabets were cleansed from use. What’s the big deal? Why are the other scripts important?

Hopefully you can see what I mean
about the geometric simplicity of Runes.
These have been drawn on isometric graph paper.

In the Ogham script, the original Celtic alphabet, each symbol can be drawn on a grid of isometric graph paper, as can the Norse runes. This is different to the Latin script as indigenous scripts contain no letters with round edges such as B, C, D, G, J, O, P, Q, R, S and U. The isometric grid is very much like the energy grid, the “Web of Wyrd”, so to speak.

It may come across as idiotic if you haven’t read any of my work prior to this, but the native alphabets increase the potency of the written words because they are written in a way which corresponds to the way the eye likes to view thinks, not only writing. It is geometrically satisfying and hence enhances the connection between the mind, which is functions like a socket waiting for the right kind of “plug”. If you try and plug the wrong type of plug into a socket, you won’t get a connection, which is to an extent the issue with Latin type because we are too busy trying to read it to be able to experience the intended potency of the written word.

This isn’t merely true for writing, the brain gets pleasure from all kinds of geometrically satisfying forms such as classical architecture, nature (as all things in nature are constructed according to the Golden Ratio, 1.618), and people. The attraction to geometric forms is the reason asymmetrical people are considered less attractive (myself with my cock eye included). In terms of writing systems, Latin script is ugly and ought to be done away with. Not to mention that Runes and Ogham are much clearer and easier to read as well as easier to write than Latin script.

The Celtic Ogham:

Languages like Gaelic appear to make very little sense, at least phonetically, when written in Latin text. You wouldn’t learn to speak Chinese without knowing how to write it, so why do it for Gaelic?

Ogham traditionally consists of 20 letters, though another 5 were added for clarifying diphthongs like ea, ie, ae, etc. Ogham should be written from right to left or from bottom to top.

Here is the alphabet:

The fifth set (aicme) are optional.

And another one I made myself:

Sigu Heil furi Oðinn.

Hail victory for Odin.

As I said earlier, demonstrated on the diagram is the Ogham written starting from the bottom. V and R share the same symbol in Ogham because they are phonetically the same in Gaelic, so the script helps one to learn the phonetics of the language.

The script is also clearly more simplistic than Latin yet is visually satisfying. Ogham fell out of mainstream use after Ireland’s Christianization in the 6th century by Saint Patrick.