The mythology of the Aryan (Proto-Indo-European) people was most clearly a solar mythology. It was solar, masculine and virile. The term virile is to be found in many Indo-European languages and can be traced back to the PIE *wehros. The term can be found in many of the writings of Baron Julius Evola (1898-1974). Let us read what Baron Evola has to say about the word:
"Vira is a term with the same Latin root vir, which does not describe an ordinary man (homo), but rather an eminent man. The term denotes a manly and 'heroic' nature (vira is sometimes used as a substitute for 'hero'), which is essentially determined by the rajas guna." (The Yoga of Power. Tantra, Shakti, and the Secret Way.)
The vira is thus a superior and virile man. He is dominant and has an inherent superiority over both weaker men and women. The vira has a special energy or force called viriya, derived from the same PIE root:
"For this reason, the texts speak also of a special strength beyond knowledge, of a 'superior and powerful energy' (viriya), which differs from the normal human energies and which alone works the miracle of 'liberation of the will by means of the will'; it provides the strength for endurance and allows of advance toward supreme liberation." (The Doctrine of Awakening. The Attainment of Self-Mastery according to the Earliest Buddhist Texts)
"According to the polyvalence of the technical terminology of Tantrism and hatha yoga, however, the same word virya can also designate the male seed, which in a more general context connects with the theory that to man as such, owing to the simple fact of his manhood, or purushmatra sambandhibhih, has been granted the potential to attain the supernatural completion of himself." (Eros and the Mysteries of Love. The Metaphysics of Sex)
Now it should be obvious to the vast majority of my readers that the vira, an exceptional man is by necessity a tiny minority and indeed when one considers the abject state of 'manhood' today we see that the typical male is a metrosexual, devoid of masculine energy, a parody of man with his handbag, waxed hair, skin moisturiser, make up and obsession with showering every five minutes. The metrosexual is the marketing man's dream for he is void of race and to a large extent gender. More often than not he is also a product of the modern middle classes (the mercantile class) and has a university indoctrination, trained not to think independently but to chant the mantras of his puppet master. Not surprisingly the average 'white' male with his lack of masculinity is not attractive to the female of the race, who at the same time has been trained via the media (most notably television and sluttish women's magazines) and schooling to behave in a masculine way. She has been indoctrinated into falsely believing that she is the 'equal' of man, that she has the same capabilities which to my readers will no doubt be viewed as an absurdity and rightly so.
By contrast the unseen hand who is directing the media in the west is encouraging a masculine negro type to be the preferred mate of the Nordic woman. It is only the 'white' male who has been emasculated. I know of no other race which has been targeted by this pernicious propaganda. The negro and 'white' woman are now depicted as the intelligent and courageous ones whilst the 'white' male is portrayed as stupid and lacking in courage. If this were any other race or gender being targeted in this way there would be cries of 'racism' and 'sexism'.
The latest piece of insanity by the outgoing Prime Minister David Cameron in permitting women to become combat soldiers will no doubt damage the long term health of women and in some cases cause chaos in the trenches. Those female soldiers who are not given to sluttish behaviour or assuming that they are the equal (or even the superior) of man or are not lesbians (and there are plenty of those to be found in uniform) will be in my view, and it is only a personal opinion, a minority. Why any woman would wish to assume an occupation that is the preserve of a man as soldiering obviously is, is beyond my comprehension. Nature has developed the female to be the bearer of the race and her strength is in this capacity, something which few men would wish to undergo. By the government pursuing a policy of pushing more and more women into the labour market it is interfering with the dynamics of family life and is hell-bent on further devaluing the role of man as master of his hearth.
At this juncture let us examine the etymology of the word 'husband'. It is derived from Old English husbonda which in turn is derived from Old Norse husbondi which can be broken down into two separate elements; hus-'house' and bondi-'one who has a household'. So it is clear that our ancestors, both Christian and pre-Christian viewed the man as the master of the hearth, and not the woman. This is nature's way and it is or was OUR way until it was undermined in the 1960s.
No doubt my opponents will quote a handful of exceptions to this rule, namely female monarchs of the past but these women only rose to prominence due to the lack of a male heir or in times of dire necessity where typical roles assigned by gender may need to be temporarily deviated from. But these examples are only a handful and this should only apply in times of dire necessity. One only has to look at the occasions when women are handed supreme authority. I am thinking in particular of Elizabeth I, queen of England 1558-1601. She was like many queens, a tyrant who had no qualms about the shedding of blood, innocent or not. Mary I, queen of England 1553-1558 executed 300 protestants at the stake. We have the more recent examples of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1979-1990 who divided British society and destroyed the manufacturing base of the country, suppressing the miners' strike with great brutality. Now we have a second female Prime Minister in Theresa May who openly models herself on Thatcher-or at least encourages the comparison. She has said in Parliament that she would be ready to give the order to press the button that would unleash a nuclear holocaust and murder millions of innocent people. THIS is what happens when you place a woman in charge of an organisation or a country-they try to outman the men and appear more 'macho'.
Man is no longer the master of his hearth, appearing to take the lead from television advertising he now wears a pinny and does the baking for his family when instead he should be the hunter-gatherer. It is the role of the wife to keep his household in order using the authority of her husband. This is why even today in debased marriage ceremonies where women are encouraged no longer to 'obey' their husbands, the father still gives away his daughter even when she has already been deflowered by the groom! It is an echo of recognition of the former authority of man over his household which includes his wife. For this reason in most western countries the wife and the children assume the surname of the man. It is an indication that they are his property.
This my readers is what society in the west is like in the 20th and 21st centuries but this should not be the way of those who subscribe to a folkish Weltanschauung. We must restore the correct relationship between males and females and restore the ancient Aryan order of caste.
Let us consider what Baron Evola has to say about this development:
"The emancipation of women was destined to follow that of the slaves and the glorification of people without a caste and without traditions, namely, the pariah. In a society that no longer understands the figure of the ascetic and of the warrior; in which the hands of the latest aristocrats seem better fit to hold tennis rackets or shakers for cocktail mixes than swords or sceptres; in which the archetype of the virile man is represented by a boxer or movie star if not by the dull wimp represented by the intellectual, the college professor, the narcissistic puppet of the artist, or the busy and dirty money-making banker and the politician-in such a society it was only a matter of time before women rose up and claimed for themselves a 'personality' and a 'freedom' according to the anarchist and individualist meaning usually associated with these words. And while traditional ethics asked men and women to be themselves to the utmost of their capabilities and express with radical traits their own gender-related characteristics-the new 'civilisation' aims at levelling everything since it is oriented to the formless and to a stage that is truly not beyond but on this side of the individuation and differentiation of the sexes." (Revolt Against the Modern World, )
Man must take the initiative in claiming his mastery over the hearth. Once again he must choose a suitable mate for his daughter, perhaps giving her a choice from a prearranged selection. By not doing so and instead trusting his daughter to make this decision herself (and thus ignoring the capricious nature of the female) he is abrogating his rights and responsibilities as a father. He is risking the pollution of his bloodline via either miscegenation or the mating with a man of inferior type such as a drunkard, alcoholic, a criminal or one who is workshy. Both men and women must once again understand that they are not the owners of our genes but their custodian. It thus behoves us to ensure that we fulfil the trust of our ancestors and future descendants.