The role of women


When it comes to the role of women it seems as if we Europeans are in big trouble. We do not even know really what was in fact the role of women in our history, or in the pre-history, and certainly not in the nobility. The role of queens is quite obscure, and it is often taken, made up and used by some perverse feminists, others will let you clearly think they were just there to look pretty, to ally with the king of another country, produce an heir, and then because after all one is needed.
Concerning farmers, you will learn more or less that they had to pay to marry their daughters. After all that, they explain how everything is better now: women too are educated, they choose their husbands or better! Choose not to marry, they can work and not care for their children, they can regulate births themselves, dress as they want, etc..

Marvelous. The classical theory of evolution.

Except that they did not have to pay to marry anyone, the women simply received an inheritance when marrying, just like the son inherited the land. The tradition and the organization of society wanted the woman to receive household items of great value. It was thus also a way to combine the traditions and customs of both families, so that nobody feels aggrieved or uprooted.

But wait.
Nobles girls, what did they do?
They learned.

This is called “to have received an education.”




Since ancient times, the girls had to learn. An uneducated girl was not noble. Until recently it was, in the noble and bourgeois circles, expected that a woman could perfectly play piano and knew all the European literature. They had to master visual art as well. Ideally they should know several languages, and on the contrary to what we hear today (but this only concerns the modern and unhealthy philosophy and psychology of some smoky bars), it was normal, common, and very positive that a woman was able to hold long philosophical dialogues.

These occupations were under Louis XIV, for example, a part of the daily schedule of the Queen and the ladies.




But why do they say that the girls received an education only from the Twentieth Century? They really try to make you believe that, but in fact they have only received the same education as boys from the Twentieth Century. It is a completely different thing.

Before, apart the domestic or internal duties (as men learned the external duties), the girls learned about the ancient texts, traditions, and philosophy, and about the divine.
The higher their rank was, the more they should be educated, but this was the same with the boys. The farmers were not able to educate their daughters in the noble way, just like they did not have the opportunity to teach their boys hunting or to become a knight.




The role of queens which is little known (and which they really care little about today because they prefer the classic opposition stronger sex / weaker sex) was to preserve the past.
Since ancient Egypt, the role of noble women is directly linked to the divine, they are responsible for ensuring that the rites and traditions are respected. They are responsible for burying the dead, preparing rituals and studying the past. The woman is anchored by her instincts, her talents and passions in the past. This is Isis (the queen or noble woman) who search and pick up the pieces of the body of Osiris, and brings it to her brother Anubis to rebuild him, mummify him, to revive him.
This role is a summary alone. The woman gives birth and maintain.
Sophocles’ Antigone clearly explains this rôle too: Antigone die rather than let his brother unburied. She is directly linked to the divine who support her in this fight. The dead must be buried.




The woman gives birth to life, and is herself an image of the past. The queen of Egypt was Isis. Isis, as the queen, is committed to ensure that the legitimate descendant of the throne will get it. She is a guardian and an arbiter of values and traditions. Thus, as we know, the queens could and must be regents if the king was dead, and if the heir is a minor. This has a simple goal: to prevent someone powerful to take the throne and keep it. The woman, the Queen, must ensure that the rightful heir will succeed to the throne, whatever his age or his stature.

Even in the Bible, the woman brings the fruit of knowledge, and we understand thus why the Church has done everything to gag women… The same thing is happening today with the modern religion: modern science and psychology show the biological mother as a potential threat to the child, and it is better, they mean, to entrust the child to a nanny from a very young age (preferably a foreigner so that traditions are lost forever).
This is also why we hear so much about the pagan “witches” burned alive. They tried to keep and preserve the traditions and, responding to their deepest instincts, keep them as they were, and until death.

These were women who retained the ancient tales of Europe, and all the European traditions, telling them to the children and others, from generation to generation without losing a word. These were women who always decorated the house for Yule, and it is they who still do today. These were women who, for millennia, prepared the same honey cakes for the festival of Yule. Do you think this is only some details? In fact, this is totally wrong. Because these details and almost only these details give us the opportunity to go back in time to the Stone Age until the oldest religion that is, until the truth of our forebears.




Writing, which is considered a male thing, appeared with the extinction of the woman’s duty. The classic European tales got lost when they were written down. Before, it was no need to write them as they were told from generation to generation from women to their children and from queens to kings.

The writing was also a way for the Church to control what was told in the families. By developing books, through the monks, the Church sent finished stories, ready to read and tell. Rather than telling traditional stories, we ensured that families and especially women read the prescribed stories. It became usual to read the Bible at the evening. Thus, the book has killed the traditions, and the traditions have attempted to revive in books, through men, but told and portrayed by women who still knew them.




Of course, the Church has also used women to preserve and maintain its own traditions. However, it has never succeeded. Christianity was never entirely Christian, and almost all pagan traditions have been preserved until today. Slightly modified and mostly biased, but actually incredibly similar.

The woman can take up arms, but will never be an equal to the man, as the feminists would have liked, but she would only do so to defend the divine and the traditions. This is the case of the well known Joan of Arc, the modern Antigone, who saved the (divine) coronation of the right king. She acted in fact as a regent. Joan of Arc did not respond directly to the Church but to the divine.




The queens were patrons. They took care to control and choose the art. The Queen had to be from « good family » and well educated, not because it was pretty, but because her role was precisely to remember, understand, preserve, control, maintain and organize traditions.

This is also why any noble woman had to be educated in all arts. This is also why they always believed the young maidens, especially virgins, and this is why they could not contradict them. This faith, this love of God (the divine) was none other than a pure instinct dedicated to the past, ancestors, rules and traditions. If they were not busy with other interests (love), this instinct was considered as pure and divine. The virgins did not hear voices, they met their instinct.



The Church, by hunting and burning “witches” tried during its development in Europe, to get rid of the female problem, but it did not succeed. Faced with this failure, it said women were dangerous, it kept them locked and silent, and then it tried to make her its ally, but for that, the Church had to make huge concessions. Christianity was forced to be more European.


William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Childhood Idyll (w/o frame)


Today, they have forgotten this, but they moreover oppose the woman to the man, and the man to the woman, and they show the man as a torturer for women.

It is pointed out that the woman was called weaker sex. Weaker sex, yes, no doubt.
It is pointed out that the woman was under paternal guardianship and then under the guardianship of her husband. It is a way of seeing. Nobody is under guardianship within the meaning of slave. They are protected, it is quite different. The father and then the husband have the responsibility to protect the woman, the weaker sex, thus.
It is pointed out that the woman was considered as “the daughter of the man”: This is a biblical inversion, such as with the apple. They reverse childbirth to refuse to hear the voice of the woman who is, for the Christian church, in the first place a danger.

No, the woman was not a political entity, with few exceptions who had very specific reasons, or directly traditional (as Joan of Arc), no she was not made to rule, and yes, she was made to stay behind the man. Who would have put a woman in the front? It is not only a very unreliable tactic, but it is also a shame. The king is above all the army chief, and a female chief would not have frightened anybody.

Regarding the feminine passions, often maligned, is in my opinion a false trail. Of course the female passions can directly harm them, and are often incompatible with war and defense (the role of the king) in which the male passions (anger) are often a direct strength, but in fact, the passions to both sexes cancel and complete when they are joined.

The man assures the defense and protection of the past: the woman, who ensures that his anger is headed in the right direction. Indeed, what protects and nourishes the king, except his kingdom, his race, his traditions and his forebears? The woman takes care of the inside and the man of the outside. A being bringing these two qualities at once would not be as effective.

Today, however, the two entities are lacking. The world is neither male nor female, it is passion, harmful and weak, because both sexes, rather than allies in tight ranks are projected against each other, and that, in addition to let their passions escalate, are sublimating them dangerously.
It has been removed from the woman her most essential role to give all her interest to the passions that can attract her and that you all know. It has been removed from the man his essential role to give all his interest to the passions that can attract him.

The beauty of the woman and the passional importance it can have, is initially a tool to – beyond purely reproductive sexual attraction – ensure her protection and attract to the love of the past. If this beauty is used only for itself it is vulgar. Today, only this beauty (which is no longer one) is put forward. The woman should not live according to this beauty but use her beauty to her essential role.

The same concerns anger and ambition, the masculine passions and the importance it may take, it is initially a tool to – beyond purely reproductive sexual attraction – ensure the protection and defense of his companion, his family, his country, his race, his forebears and his past. If this anger and ambition are used only for themselves, they are vulgar. Today only this anger and ambition are put forward. The man should not live according to this anger and ambition, but use these passions to his essential role.

Of course, try to swap the two, as is sometimes the case today, is even worse. As explained in the man with wise eyes, the man should not be cute, he should not inspire pity. He must be hard and scary, and he must have a beard to show his age and strength, and to not look like a child as they want today. The woman, meanwhile, must never use her attributes to distract men, but rather to guide them. This is why she should not hide herself, but she should never be vulgar.




It is terrible to see some “pro-white” defending the fact that the white woman is first and foremost a free woman, and that she has the right to go around half-naked in the street if she wants. This is not why we fight, this is not freedom. We are not fighting for what they call “progress” we are fighting to save the heart of our forebears.