This a transcript for my the first video uploaded to the new YouTube channel, Embedded below:

Perhaps the best place to start this channel would be with an introduction to Traditionalism, and provide a somewhat crude whistle stop overview of what will be filled out in later videos comprehensively. As a precursor, I must state that Traditionalism encompasses a broad range of viewpoints, I will attempt to focus on the general premises agreed by most who espouse the position, and expand on the intricacies in later videos. My aim is to approach traditionalism and radical conservative viewpoints from a philosophical angle rather than a political one, as it seems that there is a real scarcity in that particular niche in regards to videos.

I will start with a brief historical background of what is meant by “Traditionalism”.

Though there were prior disturbances, such as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Great East-West Schism of the 11th century or even the decline of the Roman Empire and the onset of Christianity, it can be said that Traditionalism proper, that is to say an organised school of thought dedicated to radical conservative perspectives, first emerged in Europe as a result of a rejection of the 17th and 18th century cultural movement known as the Enlightenment, which espoused the doctrines of moral subjectivism, democracy, liberalism, individualism, republicanism, separation of church and state, equality and empiricism and/or scientific rationalism; “Liberte, egalite, fraternite.” as the French Republic put it.

This cultural shift was a result of the philosophy of Descartes, Rousseau, Voltaire and numerous others, and sought to restructure society from a collective to a mass of sovereign individuals, who exalted the “sovereignty of reason” above the sovereignty of God or the Crown. These philosophies provided the impetus for the English Civil War of 1642, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789 and later the Russian Revolution, which caused the brutal murder and deposition of many of Europe’s ancient ruling dynasties.

Perhaps the most disruptive innovations of the movement were Rationalism and Empiricism. These were respectively the view that all truth comes from reason, i.e. that which can be proven by logic, and the view that truth comes from that which can be observed. These were two prevailing but separate schools of thought which dominated the intellectual landscape.

There were, however, some who opposed these new developments for reasons we will come to shortly. They were known as the Counter-Enlightenment, led by Royalists, Romanticists and Aristocrats such as Francois Chateaubriand, Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and over in England Edmund Burke writing around the turn of the 1800s. Around the same time, you also had the Luddites who opposed the Industrial Revolution by destroying machinery in the English Midlands and Romantics such as William Blake writing poetry about the “dark satanic mills”.

Though Empiricism, truth from observation, fell out of favour after Immanuel Kant’s Critiquque of Pure Reason, rationalism, anti-monarchism and egalitarianism continued to be influential and inspired the ideology of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx from 1840 to 1890, which took Enlightenment views to their conclusion promoting a pure materialism which did away with any system which transcended man: demolishing all notions of class, gender, nationhood, and hierarchy, even portraying religion as an “opium of the masses”.

From then on philosophy was split into three primary camps:

  • the aforementioned Marxists
  • the “classical liberals”, who agreed with Marxists on opposing absolute monarchy, opposition to faith and the doctrine of equality but disagreed over the idea of individualism. Classical liberals argued for individual liberty and in favour of capitalism, whilst Marxism argued for the working class to work as one mind towards a common struggle. As a result, there was a schism between the two.
  • and finally, a particular group of successors to the counter enlightenment, now opposing classical liberalism on one side, and Marxism on the other. Writing at the turn of the 20th century, these were thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Giovanni Gentile and Oswald Spengler. The focus of this video, and my intention when I say Traditionalism, comes from a particular group of writers within this category, who came slightly later, writing in the 1920s to the 50s and are known as the Traditionalist School. The most influential of these were Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon and Julius Evola, and argued for a return to the roots of classical thought and a way out of the two aforementioned positions and an emboldened return to Religion, Race, Hierarchy and Metaphysics.

The Tenets of Traditionalism

With the historical background largely out of the way, we can discuss the principles of the Traditionalist School, and what I mean in future when I use the term Traditionalism:

  • Firstly, what makes Traditionalism so different from all other philosophical formulations and belief systems, and what makes it so difficult to understand, is it not concerned with what the modern world classifies as “proof” or “empirical evidence” because it does not draw its truth from the 5 senses, which are deceptive and subjective. Nor does not try and understand reality and devolve the meaning of life from the reason of “this world” but from Metaphysical truth, which transcends all notions of logic, reason or comprehension and come through Authority alone. Authority is the cornerstone, which comes from divine revelation and is then carried through tradition and protected and preserved by the aristocracy. This can seem quite disturbing and alien to those accustomed to the materialist, vacuous belief of our time that “seeing is believing”. My assertion is that “inheriting the truth is believing”. This is a return to pre-Enlightenment notions of the concept of truth which are eternal and global, which is a testament to their validity. A quick but important point to address the question “how do we know that what has been passed down to use is a true revelation?” and the short answer is that because the same truth is present in all world traditions therefore it is indisputable, or at the very least highly plausible. This point warrants a video proof all of its own.
  • Secondly, It is fundamentally and vehemently anti-materialist, not in the sense that it is against the world but denies the idea that the physical world of matter is “all there is”. Traditionalism asserts that the world as observed by man is merely a representation of the Absolute Reality, of which the human mind can only experience an abstraction due to its limited faculties. It derives this view from the work The World as Will and Representation by Arthur Schopenhauer, as well as Immanuel Kant and its interpretation of world religious texts, which brings me onto my next point.
  • Traditionalism asserts that many of the world’s religions stem from a primordial truth which existed before and exists within these traditions, known as religio perennis, or the Primordial Tradition. A religion is considered authentic if it does not contradict with the fundamental teachings of another and shares the same esoteric truth, more on exactly what this means in a later video.
  • Next is the notion of the Fallen Nature of Man. Since man is no longer ignorant due to the knowledge of good and evil, he in no longer innocent and is divided from God, in other words divided from an understanding of the nature of the Infinite. He is no longer a product of virgin nature but a product of himself. Humanity is not perfect, nor is it perfectible. Man is too volatile to be ruled by his instincts, and will always seek base pleasures, forbidden fruits and slavemasters which distract from understanding the Absolute Reality beyond the senses.
  • As such, liberalism and Marxism are insufficient because they deprive man of a hierarchy, which is required to employ a code of ethics to transcend this Fallen State and to assist man in returning to his primordial nature. The basics of this system are the same in all world religions, which Traditionalists espouse only differ by their external appearance and have the same function, being passed on unchanged through the generations. The spiritual “walking dead” amongst us must be directed upwards towards the truth by a system of ethics, guided by men who are less effected by the pull of sin, which directs us away from our true nature. This is an aristocratic ideology which is vehemently opposed to liberal notions of universal equality or “human rights”, because authority and hierarchy cannot be found independently of one another. This will also seem strange because there is no room for “subjective morality”, a truth invented by the individual for their own use. Instead, Traditionalism is aristocratic, anti-individualist and determined to raise the individual up towards regards rather than down towards the proleteriat as Marxism seeks to do.
  • The ultimate goal, therefore, is to become, so to speak, a “New Adam” through the use of the intellect or gnosis, a sixth sense if you will. It is the awareness and understanding of religious doctrine, known as mysteries. The word mystery actually comes from the Greek musterion, ultimately from Proto Indo European muo, meaning “to be closed”, meaning that only a select group could fully comprehend the depth of the allegory.

I will fill out the concepts I have discussed in this video in more detail. Please feel free to leave any questions about the subjects discuss in the comments below, and do let me know if you have any thoughts on the speed at which I have outlined these ideas.

I will end with a selection of quotes. Thank you for watching. Carpe diem!

The truths that allow us to understand the world of Tradition are not those that can be “learned” or “discussed.” They either are or are not. We can only remember them, and that happens when we are freed from the obstacles represented by various human constructions (chief among these are the results and methods of the authorized “researchers”) and have awakened the capacity to see from the nonhuman viewpoint, which is the same as the Traditional viewpoint … Traditional truths have always been held to be essentially non-human.

Preamble:

Three typical Northern European men,
more characteristic of the mesolithic era prior to the
 arrival of Arabic agriculture

In this article, I want to briefly go over what it was like to live in neolithic society in Europe and touch upon a broad range of elements from diet and married life to religion and royalty. This is only intended to be a brief primer and I will build upon the topics discussed here in later articles as I deem it necessary.

But first, what is meant by “Neolithic”? The neolithic era refers to the final stages of the stone age in Europe, between circa 7000BC and 1000BC. This is at present the furthest time period I have researched in extensive depth at may, unfortunately, be the latest time period that we can accurately reconstruct without heavy supposition.

The neolithic era was the era in which the European way of life changed forever. Rather than living a hunter gatherer lifestyle, Europeans (particularly in Southern Europe) began to mongrelise with Natufian Arabs who brought agriculture into Europe. It is important to remember that the quality of life during the neolithic era tremendously declined from that of the mesolithic, or “Middle Stone Age” which preceded it. Diet became much poorer and less varied, life expectancy likely declined with it and Europeans were much shorter in stature due to a combination of genetic factors and environmental changes. In my view, Arabic agriculture plunged Europe into a dark age from which we only recovered during the classical era, setting European society back several thousand years.

Despite the detriment of the neolithic era for Europe, I believe it is important to discuss it for several reasons. Firstly, it is the earliest we can reconstruct with reasonable accuracy at the present time and is hence a good place to start before going deeper into our true past. Secondly, it is I believe equally important to learn about where things went wrong so that we can learn not to repeat them but finally, despite their mistakes the neolithic era is still an important part of our European heritage and is in actuality much more interesting and developed than one would first assume.

Without further ado, lets begin.

The Macrotribes:

There were broadly speaking around half a dozen known language families (representing as I wish to call them, Macrotribes) in Neolithic Europe prior to the Indo European expansion from the steppes in present day Ukraine. There were likely also smaller clusters of languages especially in remote areas but these have since been lost to time unless we find new evidence of their existence.

These macrotribes were as follows:

A painting by Nicolas Poussin that to me really captures the
essence of the neolithic in Southern Europe
  • Northern Europeans (who spoke the reconstructed proto-Uralic) that ranged through Scandinavia, Western Siberia and Estonia. The main culture of these people is known as the Corded Ware culture.
  • The Iberians, who spoke dialects of the same language which belonged to the same family as Basque, the extinct Iberian language, Tartessian and also Anatolian.
  • There were the Caucasians who spoke the ancestor of modern Georgian, proto Kartvelian.
  • There were the people of modern day Germany of spoke a language of their own which heavily influenced the languages that came later. 
  • The people of modern day France, Belgium and Britain appear to have also been broadly one people, sharing a large amount of genetics, culture and possible a Celtic substrate language that influenced Proto-celtic that came later. That is a complicated issue though.
  • There were of course the Yamnaya people of Ukraine that spoke PIE; we know the most about this culture as it had taken over most of Europe by the 1st century BC. Most of the observations I will document in the following article are based on study of their culture in particular.

Life expectancy:

The life expectancy during this era is, despite various “scientific” claims, is not really known. We believe it was less than that of the modern day but this really can’t be confirmed. The main method of estimating the age of a skeleton at death is by looking at bone and enamel wear, but this is obviously not going to be accurate because one can find people who are in their 20s with worn out hip joints and people who are in there 60s with very little, so this method is frankly pseudo-scientific.

Also, looking at enamel wear is really pointless considering that diets could vary drastically between communities of people and even individuals. For example whilst the average tribe member ate mostly grains and bread, the Lord and Lady may have eaten vegetables and boiled meats.

Considering that cultures and languages could be very similar over large geographic areas, it is certain that there was trade and dialogue between neighboring tribes and probably even to a larger extent with geopolitical assemblies especially for important events like selecting a high king or uniting against a common threat.

Size of community:

An Iberian family during the neolithic era

Each tribe was essentially a large extended family of no more than several hundred individuals who mostly shared a common ancestor unless they were married into the tribe from and were from a neighboring community. The structure of the household was generally one family per household with the two parents, anywhere from 3-8 children and in some cases an older relative such as a grandparent. Older women took more menial jobs such as stirring food and also became spiritual leaders as they aged  and learnt the tales of their ancestors and the religious lore, being responsible for passing it forward. The older men would do the simple jobs in the field like minding the animals while the younger men did the labor intensive work and the children did jobs like egg collecting, finding firewood, or attending military training.

Members of the community who did not contribute and became parasitic (excluding the elderly who normally took on respected roles) were normally either exiled from the community or in extreme cases where the individual had severely damaged the community (such as damaging the community’s reputation, promoting immorality, or engaging in degeneracy) were executed. Typically, kings who became incompetent were executed in the same manner as it was impossible for a new king to be selected while the old king was still alive.

Royalty and Leadership:

On the death of the old King and Queen, a new king was selected from the best candidates in the community. As all people in the tribe were related it would not have made sense for the title to be inherited as everyone was in line! The challenges involved rhetoric, debating, riddles, physical feats, animal husbandry, and spiritual power. Once selected, the new King would then usually selected the lady he wanted to be his wife and Queen from among the unmarried women in the village as, typically, the king was a young man when chosen and had not yet married (men normally married after engaging in several military campaigns first, which could take years after their 13th birthday when they were eligible for militar
y service. The lady was normally significantly younger than the King but was no younger than 13.

Rather often, the King would select his wife from another tribe (we know this from genetic evidence) which was actually useful as it helped keep the gene pool of the tribe from stagnating and it prevented the spread of recessive disorders.

Often, the king would also have several wives. Typically this behavior would be frowned upon but in neolithic society the ratio of men to women was normally around 2:3 and hence there was a surplus of women who could not provide for themselves. The king would be expected to provide for these women himself either by marrying them or arranging a marriage with the leader of another tribe. Ergo, polygamy was acceptable under very specific circumstances.

Varg Vikernes did an excellent video on this topic:

Housing, Health and Community Maintenance:

Houses varied drastically from culture to culture, but were normally wattle and daub in the neolithic era as well as stone houses, and sometimes tent-like structures canvassed with animal skins. It would depend vastly on factors such as the availability of materials, the climate and cultural sophistication, not to mention the amount of time one had available. Below is an example of a rather luxurious wattle and daub house constructed in the Neolithic style:

Communities were normally built on a hill and/or near a water supply.

The previous habitat range of the gray wolf in red

The biggest threat to communities in the neolithic era was actually not war from what we can gather, but was actually wolf attacks. At one time, all of Europe was populated with wolves who would typically live at a distance from human encampments. However, under certain circumstances wolves would attack people. One instance would be wolves eating the livestock of a neolithic farmer and attacking a farmer who attempted to protect his flock of animals. If wolves had success in picking off livestock they would return and in greater numbers which could be threatening for the community’s livelihood. Wolves could also eat children who strayed too far from home or who were unattended. Wolves are generally too intelligent to risk attacking men directly and normally attempt to pick of the weakest prey possible.

Entertainment:

Clothing was one pleasure in a generally simple life. People owned a variety of outfits which were changed and washed regularly, normally on a weekly basis. It was typically part of a woman’s job to weave new clothing which would vary drastically in style from culture to culture but was often very well adorned. The best wives were normally selected from the women who had the best handicraft. Men and women alike wore bone and in some cases pewter jewelry including necklaces, brooches, torcs and bracelets that were sometimes inherited or collected during war as well as crafted locally.

A couple found in Brittany dated to circa 6000BC (early Neolithic)
wearing ancestral bone jewelry and shells

The day to day life was dull but there were regular religious festivals to keep people in good spirits and evenings after dark were typically free to have an evening meal, gather together to hear music, old stories and make tribute to the Gods. There would be festivals where dancing and drinking took place for the end of winter, start of summer, Easter month (no, Easter is not Christian) midsummer, end of summer, harvest (normally at Halloween) and midwinter (Christmas/shortest day of the year) just to name a few.

Hobbies including composing poetry, playing musical instruments, physical exercise and competitions, debating, listening to stories, and also even board games. Most board games were of course not built to last thousands of years but we can assume from evidence found in other areas of the world that Europe would be no exception in having board games such as Senet, Draughts, Go and Chess.

Hunting in neolithic Europe was rather rare, as agriculture had taken over making the practice rather obsolete. It was much easier to domesticate animals and slaughter them in captivity. However, competitions in hunting would often take place for the purpose of entertainment or for proving one’s worth and position in the tribe.

There is even evidence starting to emerge that ball games may have existed in the neolithic era, and sport certainly existed as a precursor to the Olympic games of classical history.

Signing off:

I hope you enjoyed this brief detour into our distant European past, and learn a lot about the lives of your ancestors. There will be more parts in this series added as time goes on and also as I myself uncover more. The most important thing to remain mindful of is that we are all continually learning and should keep this attitude towards our heritage at all times. 
The Neolithic was a tough time to be alive, certainly tougher than the present day and also certainly more difficult than the eras that came before it. To have the genes of those that survived flowing through your veins is a true honor and something to be proud of.
Heil to the blood which with every heartbeat murmurs the struggles of the distant past to this very day. Heil to our noble ancestors! Heil Europa!
Fuck industrialized agriculture! Revive the ancient forests and wilderness so we can once again live with nature! 

TRIGGER WARNING: This post contains triggers for fat lesbionic feminist losers who can’t get a decent husband. 

“Only Spartan women can give birth to Spartan men.”

I feel, although there is a lack of adequate role models on both sides, that females most abjectly suffer from an endless bombardment of mindless whorish prostitutes, lesbians or man-imitating blazer wearing career “women”. Choosing between these two disastrous alternatives is a false dilemma for women. I hope this blog post serves to provide some inspiration to young women and girls at a loss for an adequate sense of direction.

The reason I feel it important to mention the ultimate woman so early on in my blog, in regards to the preservation of Europe, is that having good women is the foundation upon which any future population can be built. It is the female that gives birth to the men that will change the world for the better. In European tradition also, it is generally the women who have been the keepers of traditional ways and customs, and would remember and recant to younger generations the tales, songs and incantations of old times. It is for this reason that nearly all people put to death in medieval witch trials were female.

It is only since the Christianization of Europe that the quality of European women drastically declined, and has plummeted even further as a result of secularisation. It must be said that the Christianized view of a woman’s role is approximately but not entirely correct.

Examples of European Alpha Females for the fair maidens who read the blog:

  • Boudica of the Iceni
  • Queen Gorgo of Sparta (wife of Leonidas)
  • The European Goddesses, of course!
  • Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates.
  • Gwenhywfar, wife of Arthur (Ignoring later Christian attempts to portray her as unfaithful)
  • The Amazons (a Greek tribe entirely comprised of warrior women)

Our ancestors relayed examples of archetypal women in the form of the European Goddesses. The one thing you will notice is that none of the European Goddesses are unmarried and that most have children. The Goddesses are not in of themselves absolute role models (like the relationship between Christians and Christ) but are in some ways useful resources. With that said, one must be cautious in granting too much credence to the myths in the form we have them today as it is quite possible that they have been tampered with and manipulated by Christians who wanted to discredit paganism.

Due to the compromise of Greece and Rome in the post-Homeric times (more to come in a later article), the best examples can be found in the Northern European religious tradition where stories were kept truer to their original form. Here is list of just a few female deities in the northern European tradition (Celtic, Germanic, Norse, Slavic):

History does not often record the deeds of women, for their deeds are most often the gradual, the necessary and the humble rather than the drastic and the wild, erratic throwing of the male mind. Both are necessary but one is simply more noteworthy. However, there are examples of great European women through the ages if one takes the time to look for them.

Instead of being recorded directly, the greatness of women is most strongly testified to in the quality of their men.

Sparta was undoubtedly the most superb example of European majesty that has survived into the history books complete. Although the Spartans themselves were not a literate people, we know much about them from second hand sources that teach us in depth what Sparta was like. Spartan men were renowned for being of unmatched quality, and the reason for this was attributed in small part to a combination of intense discipline and the Spartan women.

Much can be learnt about the perfect woman from the Spartans. Unlike in boy-loving and arabised Athens, in Sparta the girls were fed and educated as well as the young boys, albeit the boys was attend a military school known as the Agoge whilst girls would be raised for domestic positions. Girls also, again unlike Athens, engaged in physical exercise, particularly gymnastics and dance in order to be in good physical health for child bearing. Whilst boys and men learnt the more “brute force” skills of warfare, logic and mathematics, women were deemed (rightly so) more suited to the elegant crafts and arts such as dance, poetry, music, and WRITING.

Yes, you read that correctly feminists. Whilst amongst men the ability to write was considered a rarity, Spartan women learnt to read and write so that they could run errands and to write letters to their husbands and sons during wartime for moral encouragement.

What makes an attractive, traditional woman?


1: Not settling: Be picky about your future husband!

Do not be deterred if your traditionalist attitudes deter modern men or vice versa. This is how it is suppose to be. Focus on improving yourself first and foremost but do not expect that finding a good potential husband will be easy. You do not want to settle for a lowlife man that either expects you to cover your face with make up and “put out” for him or a man who on the other extreme is a lazy, worthless beta male who sends you out to do hard work because he can’t pay the bills.

An excerpt from Cornelius Tacitus’ Germania:

“The women live in a state of chastity well secured. If a women were to prostitute her person [IE to be promiscuous], a husband she could never find.”

2: Dress modestly: Perverts are not who you want to impress!

Dresses are the garment of choice for traditional women because they provide the greatest modesty and, it goes without saying, are the most elegant of garments for a woman. If you’re the kind of woman that walks around in skinny jeans, remember that you are essentially dressing in a manner that reveals exactly what your physique is like when you are not wearing clothes. Do not dress in a manner that will attract the wrong kind of attention. Good men will recognise that you dress well and compliment you for it. This a description of the clothing of women in Celtic Britain:

The women’s tunic was longer than the men’s; a leather or metal belt (sometimes a chain) was tied round the waist. The regional variation in fashion (as well as differences based on age and class) were more complex than the simple tunic. The boldly patterned dresses seen on vases from Sopron in Pannonia were cut like a kind of knee-length maternity dress from stiff material with bells and fringes attached. Tight-waisted skirts with bells in the shape of a crinoline are also depicted. An overdress with a V-shaped cut which was fixed at the shoulders with fibulae was found in Noricum. The chain around the waist had hooks for length adjustments, the leftover chain was hung on a chain-link in a loop. The links of this chain-belt could be round, figure-8 shaped, with cross-shaped or flat intermediate links, doubled, tripled, or more with enamel inlays (see Blood enamel). The so-called Norican-Pannonian belt of Roman times was decorated with open-worked fittings. A pouch was often hung from the belt on the right side.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Celtic_women

On a first century AD Celtic gravestone from Wölfnitz (de), a girl is depicted in Norican clothing. It consists of a straight under-dress (Peplos) which reaches to the ankles, a baggy overdress reaching to the knees, which is fastened at the shoulders with large fi

3: Learn to protect yourself and be physically fit:


It is essential that as well as men, and unlike in Christian tradition, women know how to fight and defend themselves and their family should the need arise.

Women across ancient Europe engaged in as much physical activity as men (much to the distaste of Arabized Athens and Rome, that treated their women like shit) and learnt self defence. Although it is initially a man’s job to defend his lands and family, a woman needs to know how to step when the time comes and is always prepared. Attend a self-defence class and focus on gaining strength in your arms, shoulders and back.
A note for safety though. If you are pregnant or are considering child bearing in the near future, do not do leg or stomach exercises, as having strong muscles in these areas can lead to complications during labour and more often than not results in a caesarian being necessary. Squats are the worst exercise a woman can do.
Do not be concerned about “being fat”. Women are supposed to have a larger body fat ration than men: anywhere between 18% and 32% is healthy. It is only if your body fat goes above this ratio or below that you should be concerned about your physique. Having too high a body fat ratio will lead to heart problems and a body fat that is too low will make it impossible for you to become pregnant as you will become infertile.

Boudica is probably the best known role model for pagan women taking up arms. After Boudica’s husband was killed by the Romans, she rallied the surrounding tribes in a march against the Arab Romans for blood and soil.

4: Striking the balance between respecting a man’s authority and knowing when to speak up:

Traditional women need to know when to respect a man and when to tell him to piss off. Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates, was renowned (even by Socrates) for her argumentative spirit and was known for speaking up during Socrates’ antics. 
Socrates was a notorious homosexual and paedophile (boy lover) in ancient Athens. Xanthippe would frequently have to deal with Socrates’ degenerate behaviour and once, after Socrates was sent a large and beautiful cake by the crooked politician Alcibiades, an admirer and student of his, Xanthippe destroyed the cake by treading on it.
Xanthippe was also a strict parent and devoted family woman. 

5: Be a spiritual and artistic leader:

As aforementioned, women are traditionally the keepers of old knowledge. Being creative is very womanly and a traditional woman should learn some form of art or craft. Taking up sewing is an easy and practical way of appearing more attractive to the right kind of men, as is making jewelry or writing poetry, learning a musical instrument or singing. If music is your thing, learn our old European ballads and songs and write some of your own glorifying your ancestors and the noble deeds of Europe. 

6: Loving children and family life:

Traditional women are not anti-children. It is in a woman’s nature to be maternal and to want to look after children and have some of her own if able. Do not be the kind of woman that thinks it will make her happy to put her career before family life. Real women always put family first. 
Studies have shown that women who have children are significantly happier than their childless counterparts:

https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_parental_happiness_curve

Women who do not have any children are losers. 

Glory to Europa! Heil to the indigenous peoples of Europe! Heil to a brighter day!

Understanding and rationalising a reverence for one’s heritage and indigenous traditions is really integral in understanding why one becomes a nationalist, conservative or ethnocentrist of any kind.

An apprehension towards outside influences on a culture or race, even if such influences are obviously incompatible to said culture, is denounced by modernists of all political affiliations in modern times as a phobia (originating from the Greek phobos, meaning “fear”). Liberals wish to diagnose a distaste for our own destruction through the dilution of our culture and blood as a mental disorder whilst content to characterise their own ideas, some of which include unhealthy sexual fetishes and lifestyles, as mere choices or even traits one is born in possession of despite the evidence against this.

What they do not understand is the very foreign people and ideologies they wish to defend do not reciprocate their positive sentiment. A visit to Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Leeds or South London after dark should clarify to a pasty liberal very quickly this most intense of realities.

In actuality, territorialism and conservationism, rather than being disorders, are an integral part of the way we have been designed and have proven their evolutionary worth in the grand Olympics that is natural selection. Does not a dog bark when a stranger walks through the gate? Do apes not fight opposing groups for defence or even dominance? Why do we seek to distance ourselves from the very nature that nurtured and created us? As a traditionalist, I am constantly looking for and finding congruence and patterns within different aspects of culture and even within nature, and this behaviour is no different. It is in the interests of our survival to be territorial, and not an irrationality to be done away with. Our instincts have been created through meticulous experience.

In this skeptic vain, I feel I was a traditionalist before I even knew what a traditionalist was. I have always been skeptical of that which is not immediately recognisable as sensible or logical, and rightly so. The history of our great continent has always fascinated me, and our fine native mythology and religion was an integral element of my upbringing, as should be the case with the upbringing of all children regardless of where they come from. I was imbued with a passion for masculinity, chivalry and tenacity. I grew up with a passion for animals and our fine European countryside, and was dismayed to learn of the harm we had done to it and found it hard to rationalise.

I have also had a very personal run in with multiculturalism. I myself am a mix of two modern European nationalities, British and Maltese. As a result of having parents of different cultures, and the disarray that this caused in my personal life, I grew a distaste for this arrangement before I knew of its extent. On a broader scale though, issues of race and sexuality did not enter into my mind until much later when I was unfortunately exposed to these realities. I never saw enough of immigrants, modernist deviants or “Socialist Yahoos” in my sleepy town for it to arouse my intellectual curiosity sufficiently for me to form an opinion.

With this view of xenoscepticism, if you will, established, I wish to clarify that I am not saying that ideas themselves ought not be exchanged between tribes, as they have been since unfathomably ancient times. However, what I stress is the medium by which the ideas are exchanged and  indeed the congruence of such ideas with the culture they are to be subsumed into.

We will get onto the subject of the Anglo-Saxons in a later post, but to touch upon them I believe they serve as a good example for how a culture can integrate into another culture without causing a catastrophic level of dissonance. The reason that nobody complains about Anglo Saxon immigration into the lands now known as England is that the Anglo Saxons and Celts shared a religion, many customs and a race. However, this “multiculturalism” did indeed cause some issues which I will return to in a future post.

In ancient times, European tribes met regularly each year at a moot closely resembling a parliament to discuss issues of mutual importance and to exchange ideas, goods, women and indeed to engage in one of the most important customs in European tradition: competition. The Olympic games was a comparatively modern leftover of this archaically European tradition which has been lost in modern sports.

The tradition of meeting to exchange ideas is one found across all Indo European cultures. One example was that of the Althing in Scandinavia. Though, comparatively modern in its creation, approximately 930AD, there are also Germanic traditions known as “folk moots” in Anglo Saxon England which had a similar purpose. We also knows that Celtic peoples on the British and Irish peninsula would exchange goods and wives with Galicia and Brittany in particular. Celts also had “moot hills” whereby announcements would be given and laws exacted. Being traditionalist does not mean being isolationist, but means being cautious in the embracing of new ideas, as the collapse of ancient Greek and Roman cultures teaches us all to clearly. More about that in a later article though.

Indeed, this communalism with one’s neighbors is traditional and ought to be embraced, but only within the confines of that which is in the best interests of the European peoples. Populations were only exchanged out of necessity, such as when the gene pool of a tribe needed replenishing with women from neighboring tribes to avoid incest. Ideas were only embraced if they improved (or seemed likely to improve) the quality of life of the tribe. The only time in which there were any significant changes to the structure of a civilization (such as the change seen in ancient Greece between Homeric times and the age of Socrates) was due to invasion. As recent DNA and archeological evidence can support, the mainland Greeks and Romans bear little similarity to their modern counterparts, mainly due to immigration from the Middle Eastern culture of Mycenae and North African Carthage/Phoenicia. As uncontrolled migration and ethnic dillution shook ancient Greece and Rome, levels of degeneracy increased which gradually lead to the hunger for wealth, power and sex that lead to the collapse of the Greek city states and later the split of the Roman Empire into the Western and Byzantine blocs.


The moral of that story: Community lovers rejoice, multiculturalists beware!

I think I will leave it here for now. If one was to find that this article contained interesting information, please stick around for more in the next few days and weeks. I think I’m going to enjoy this.

Heil Odinn! Heil Europa! Heil to our noble ancestors!