This Addenda adds additional material
to the main site, The West’s Darkest Hour,
which will be frozen until I finish writing my book, From St Francis to Himmler. Since this “sticky post” is merely informative
comments have been disabled for this entry.
This Addenda adds additional material
(Translated opening pages from the 3rd
volume of my autobiographical trilogy)
Stefano di Giovanni: St. Francis
denies his earthly father.
This painting in the high altar of San Francesco,
Borgo Sansepolcro, shows him breaking off his
relationship with his father and renouncing his
patrimony, laying aside publicly even the
garments he had received from him.
If in the future one would say that the crucifixion of a soul describes my deepest being, he would greatly err. In reviewing my previous book, I was surprised that, what I most identified with, were the pages about my most beautiful memories with my sister. The true César is not the tragic César but the happy César with his family in the house of the street Palenque. Already something of that César was glimpsed in the second third of the first book of this series, in which I stopped the narrative just before arriving at my adolescence. Now I will have to retake the autobiography where I left it in the middle book of Hojas Susurrantes.
The problem with this new project is that very serious situations are unfolding in the world. So serious that it is not even clear that I’ll finish it. I do not know when the dollar will collapse and, therefore, the shelter that at the moment I have in the cursed house [this refers to a section in a previous book of the trilogy]. If international confidence in the dollar devalues soon, I will not finish it. In fact, I’m kind of living on the slopes of the Vesuvius without knowing exactly when it’s going to explode. Furthermore, the white race commits suicide at an accelerated pace. A book like this one would only make sense if the Aryans recover from their suicidal passion to the degree of founding an ethnic state where someone like me, who connected the dots to place the trauma model on solid footing, flourishes posthumously. But we cannot know if the Aryans are going to be saved, so the sense of all my work hangs by a thread.
The reason that makes me go back to the linear autobiography of the type of La India Chingada is that, I realized, the psychosis and iniquity in my family was no more serious than the psychosis and iniquity of Westerners in general. Consider for example what I say about the mental health of my sister and the incredible psychological dissociations of my father in Exterminio. Are not they a microcosm of what is now happening in the West? And the same I can say of the steamrolling haughtiness of my mother. To give a single example: when I wrote Exterminio Donald Trump was still a candidate, among many, of the Republican Party. Today a month has passed since he assumed the position of President of the United States. The string of lies, insults and even paranoid delusions that the national and foreign media are throwing at his figure evokes in me the war my mother fought against me in my teens.
The times that I am living are suffering the most serious moral crisis and of aesthetic values; of crazy policies in fiat currencies that will soon collapse, and even an apocalypse of energy devolution by the depletion of oil in the coming decades. How can I focus in my life when the world around me is falling apart? Well, if there is something that justifies a third volume, it is that this book could offer more clues that the evil that destroyed me, my sister and my cousin, and the evil that is destroying the West, is the same.
Thus, my present mind orbits around two suns. When I wrote the first draft of Hojas Susurrantes I orbited around only one: the toll that causes parental mistreatment in their children. Then, I ended up waking up to the real world by discovering the literature of white nationalists thanks to the internet. Now my mind orbits around a binary system of suns: national socialism has joined the cause of childhood.
In Exterminio I mentioned many times the book I compiled, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, which contains articles by several authors. In that compendium I present each section with an essay coming out from my own pen. If we order chronologically my spiritual odyssey we would read it like this: Hojas Susurrantes, The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, Exterminio and the one I begin now, De san Francisco a Himmler.
Of the articles of The Fair Race the most important is the book-review on Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947. The author of Hellstorm has published essays in a webzine for white nationalists. I must say that the primary reason I find myself writing this book, rather than doing political activism, is that white nationalists do not want to organize. In the chapter “Tres Puentes” of my previous book I explained my criticisms of white nationalism: critiques so important that I must iterate and expand them.
In an entry in my blog that I left hanging for a long time I had come to the conclusion that liberals, conservatives and white nationalists are heading for the abyss. An Irishman whom I talked in London told me that even the pro-white movement seems to be carried away by the irresistible death wish suffered by contemporary whites. The metaphor I used in the blog entry is that the liberals are driving the train into the abyss; the conservatives are simply trying to slow it down, lightly stepping on the brake here and there to hinder the liberals’ ways. Although off the train, white nationalists are headed in the same direction, but at a much slower pace: they go on foot.
For the sake of clarity, let us compare the values of the white nationalists with the true defenders of the Aryan race:
• Hitler and the National Socialists organized a political party: the first step to make a difference in the real world. The cyber-based movement of white nationalism, on the other hand, refuses to leave the homely comfort zone.
• The Germans clearly defined their ethnicity as Germanic, including Austria, the Scandinavian and Low Countries, Switzerland and even parts of the old Soviet Union; Hitler even dreamt of sharing the world with the Anglo-Saxons. Those who advocate white nationalism, on the other hand, are either openly anti-eugenicists and anti-nordicists, or do not care about nordicism at all. Like the conservatives of the Republican Party who treat mestizos as equals, in order not to offend Mediterranean sensibilities they refuse to recognize that the standard of whiteness is the Nordic type. Many have no objection to granting the amnesty to the whitish population in Europe who have dirty blood, even if that means the eventual mongrelization of the true whites. This is why I say that nationalists are going on foot toward the abyss.
• Hitler and his closest friends abandoned Christianity, a religion of Levantine inspiration that only weakens the Germanic peoples. Many white nationalists, unable to apostatize from the religion of our parents, proclaim their religion candidly and have been blinded about the toxicity of the Galilean cult.
• National Socialists, including Catholics and Protestants, renounced Christian ethics and became pragmatic Nietzscheans. White nationalists, on the other hand, are frightened by history, for example the legitimate will of the Germans to conquer those Slavs who had handed over their country to the Bolshevik Jews. (If a Reich existed today, the same could be said about the legitimacy of conquering the Judaized United States by this hypothetical German empire.)
• Hitler and the National Socialists took sexual polarity as something to be taken for granted. Like all militarist cultures, the Germans subscribed to patriarchy and no woman was admitted to the leadership class. The men of white nationalism, on the other hand, have become unrecognizably feminized. Many have no problem with either the feminism that has been wreaking havoc on their race or the sexual degeneration that originated in the 1960s. For example, the National Socialists had an absolute will of biological fertility. The feminized nationalists have no problem accepting that women make careers; that they enter their conferences, or that they practice an ethnosuicidal natal control.
• The National Socialists simply and directly pursued the fulfillment of their duty to the point of dying heroically for the fate of their race. Like the Roman Republicans their ethos was severe, stoic and brutal. White nationalists, on the other hand, live under the illusion of the American dream and the childlike pursuit of universal happiness. Like the imperial Romans of the time of Nero and Caligula, the nationalists are hedonists. They lack the Teutonic spirit of tribal sacrifice. The saying “We don’t stand a chance unless our men become killing machines and our women birthing machines” sounds like anti-music to their ears. None wants to sacrifice himself for the 14/88 words. Who wants to become a bloodthirsty soldier or literally force our spoiled women to become birthing machines? With the exception of the late David Lane, who keeps in his heart the legend of the rape of the Sabine women who gave birth to the virile republican Rome?
• From time immemorial, the number-one enemy of the Aryans has been materialism, the inexorable thirst for riches without looking after their race. Keep in mind, once again, the history of the white race by William Pierce published in The Fair Race. Because of that corrupting power of the “One Ring” Hitler and the National Socialists subscribed collectivism, honor, hierarchy and militarism always in harmony with the aesthetic impulse of the Aryan soul. In the forums of white nationalism, on the other hand, one does not read much criticism of the greatest factors of white decline: capitalism and Christianity. They mention the Jews a lot, but not the mercantile societies that degenerated into a consumerist materialism: the most corrupting thing for the Aryan soul for any honest reader of history.
• The National Socialists pointed to fascism, war and conquest. Just read the Führer’s various pronouncements about his projected empire, and even my quotes of what Francis Parker Yockey tells us in “From the Editor’s desk: Materialism” in The Fair Race. White nationalists, on the other hand, seem to sympathize with democracy; the human rights proclaimed by the French revolutionaries, and with pacifism. Even the nationalists who can be considered secular make the sign of the cross when spotting the ideologue of Aryan militarism.
• In his table talks, Hitler constantly spoke of the most beautiful European architecture, painting and classical music. All of this was omnipresent in the plans of what the Reich was to be after the consolidation of his conquests. At the same time, the Nazis recognized the problem of cultural degeneration in general and degenerate music in particular (remember the chapter “La Traición Musical” in Exterminio). White nationalists, on the other hand, are amused by the negro-American phenomenon of rock and the filth that the Jews make us see on television and on the big screen.
Having pointed out the nine points above, let us remember that in Exterminio I said that George Lincoln Rockwell and William Pierce were not white nationalists, but that they followed the Hitlerian spirit. For example, they had no Christian scruples about people of color and Jews. Rockwell even formed a Nazi party in the US and mocked the precursors of white nationalism with these words: “They never, never get out into the public, into the streets, and reach the masses with an inspiring and driving masculine movement, which alone can win the hearts of the masses! They pass literature and talk only to each other.”
Rockwell was killed in 1967 and Pierce died a natural death. At present, in white nationalism there is no real resistance against the massive migration of non-whites and the forced fraternization with them, resulting in Aryan genocide by miscegenation. As even Pierce did not dare to form a party, his torch went out after his death in 2002. And although Rockwell was the last true National Socialist of the West, due to his premature death by murder he did not leave a legitimate heir either.
Being a Nazi means forming a fascist and overtly racist party in Europe or North America: something that the erroneously called white nationalists—as their behavior does not lead to a white nation—will not dare to do. Trying to summon these bourgeois who almost never leave the internet destroys the moral of the priest of the fourteen words. Unless these cowards become brave, I must do something else. Without any Aryan group that offers real resistance to the system—that is: to form a party like that of the heroic Rockwell—I have no choice but to write these annotations to my previous books: the pair of volumes where I already said the essential.
But before doing it one last word about white nationalism, sometimes called Alt-Right or alternative right in the neighboring country of the north. The biggest problem with their exponents is that they have not realized that their race is their nation. Had they realized it, they would have repudiated the founding ideology of their “nation” and would do something similar to what Jews have been doing for decades: denouncing the Hellstorm Holocaust that claimed more lives of innocent Germans than the alleged Jewish holocaust. Eisenhower, Stalin and Churchill, who ordered that Holocaust after the war was over, ought to be considered the greatest Satans not only of the twentieth century but of Western history. If white nationalists knew that their race is their nation they would have sympathized with the true martyrs, their German cousins, and would have been reporting the Hellstorm Holocaust every morning, midday and evening until the West wakes up.
They don’t do that, even remotely!
I would go even further. Since the Germany of the Third Reich represented the great awakening of the Aryan consciousness, every nation that declared war on Her must be destroyed. And indeed: after the Second World War the white and mestizo countries that had entered combat against the Axis are sinking demographically: the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand , South Africa (the punishment for the whites of that nation cannot be clearer), Brazil, Mexico (the Indians who declared war on the Reich), Colombia, the Philippines and Cuba. My hatred for these and the other countries that have been swallowing the propaganda of the Lügenpresse and the Judaized United States, is immeasurable. For the same reason I will be asked why, if this new book is an annotation to the other two, instead of writing it I don’t try to form a party even though I am not an Aryan. The answer is that I do not have funds even to emigrate from the country of the Indians.
Had the West not suffered the social revolutions of the nineteenth century, primogeniture would still exist. However destructive my father was, as was also the father of St Francis, I would have inherited his house and the school. I would have sold the goods and gone abroad. In this hypothetical scenario, along with some American comrades I could pay the manufacture of Nazi uniforms to march against the Federal Reserve in Washington. We would hold pickets warning that the monetary policy of the Jewess presiding over the Fed—identical to the policy of her predecessor, another Jew—will make the dollar hyperinflate to oblivion. With the money of that hypothetical inheritance I would also try that the facts about the Hellstorm Holocaust become better known in Germany. But I have no inheritance or sponsor for the most elemental political activism. I may continue to have youthful ideals in my fifties, but with my scarce resources I must resign myself to the humble trade of writing.
Thus, even though in my autobiography De san Francisco a Himmler I wanted to orbit only around the cause of the children, I will not be able to do so. Due to my new center of gravity, trying to prevent the fair race from perishing, the treatment of children becomes almost irrelevant. Only the Aryans are capable of social engineering to put a genocidal halt to these mistreatments and the torment of the animals, as I’ve fantasized in Exterminio. Or better said, only a few Hyperboreans can develop the perfect empathy that leads us to Utopia.
I have been following what Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, Hunter Wallace, Andrew Anglin and Stefan Molyneux are saying about the recent Milo scandal—respectively, here, here, here, here and here. (Update of February 25: Millennial Woes’ recent video—here—is the best comment I’ve seen on Milo from a white nationalist.) I’d like to take issue with them and specifically with Johnson, who wrote today:
Milo’s defense of what basically amounts to classical pederasty—in which teenage boys take up with adult men—is highly misleading. It might have been normal in ancient Greece, but it is certainly not the norm among homosexuals in the modern West.
Nationalists apparently have no clue about what classical pederasty really was in the Greco-Roman world. At least I’ve tried to explain it (see my collection of articles mentioning pederasty: here). In a nutshell, Greco-Roman pederasty was infinitely less degenerate than what is accepted homosexual behavior in today’s West.
This does not mean that I am defending Milo. The Hollywood orgy he attended with “very young boys,” presumably thirteen-year olds, was obviously destructive for the poor kids and it has nothing to do with classical pederasty.
And this does not mean either that I want classical pederasty in our times. In dark and perilous times we need hypermorality. See for example my translation of the mini-book on Sparta. Unlike other ancient Greek cities, militarist Sparta apparently did not promote pederasty.
What I find bothersome about the Milo scandal is that the commenters are alienated from the spirit of the ancients, and this also refers to westerners in general. Recently at The Occidental Observer some authors have been trying to educate their readers about the importance of the classical world to save the race (see e.g., here and here).
Westerners, including nationalists, are in a bad shape precisely because they have become completely alienated from their roots. Incidentally, after I post this entry I’ll relocate my “From St Francis to Himmler” below my sticky post: the girl on the rock. It nails white nationalism.
Last year a friend recommended me the great work of William Gayley Simpson, Which Way Western Man? that can be read online. Simpson lived 99 years and wrote that huge work, of 775 pages, throughout most of his life.
I have read some chapters of Which Way Western Man? and was impressed that, before the internet age, Simpson managed to move from an altruistic Christianity to a stance in which he defended Hitler. I will not read the whole book. It is a mixture of disparate writings. One of the earliest dates from 1930, the chapter dedicated to Jesus; another, his already racist view on life, of 1977.
Simpson could have become a B-type bicausalist, blaming Christianity even more than Jewry, since after his Franciscan stage he became a fanatical reader of Nietzsche. For example, on page 18 of Which Way he says about his Franciscan venture: “It was full of Christian pity. It is no less than a crime against life when the superior is sacrificed to the inferior… the kind of thing the great scholar and musical authority Schweitzer did for years in the jungles of Africa”.
This seems to vindicate what I have said about Albert Schweitzer. In another confession, hundreds of pages later (on page 499), we see how Simpson’s Christianity was involved in what Nietzsche calls the inversion of values:
In fairness to myself and to my reader, I must remind him that I approached this question, forty years ago, very definitely from the equalitarian side. In my student days, and for the nine years of my Franciscan venture that followed, with a belief in “universal love” and an outlook on life very like that of St. Francis of Assisi, I quite ignored race, and discounted it. Wherever I went, in our South as in our North, in the Orient as in my own country and among my own kind, I met men as I found them, and valued them for the worth that I sensed in them as individuals, without regard to their race, their nation, their family, class, or any other feature having to do with their origin or their associations. Provided that there was health of body and mind on both sides, I even openly declared my readiness to sanction racial intermarriage.
But it was my Christian tradition and my ignorance that spoke thus.
Let’s jump other hundreds of pages forward. On page 708 Which Way contains a passage summarizing the English Revolution in a couple of paragraphs:
In the reign of Charles I, King of England from 1625 until he was beheaded in 1649, the Jews had already been outlawed from English shores for about 350 years. Driven out of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, many of them swarmed into Holland, where they soon made Amsterdam the financial capital of the world. Meanwhile England, without any Jews, had prospered mightily, had come to be known as “Merrie England,” had produced Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age, and had destroyed the Spanish Armada; and by the time of Charles the First was showing signs of that expanding vitality that was to make her the greatest empire-builder in all history. This caused the Dutch Jews to lust for readmission to English soil, inasmuch as no animal makes so desirable a host for parasites as one that is healthy and growing. Cromwell came into a collision with the king that developed into a civil war.
He required money and all things needful for his army. The Jews agreed to be the suppliers on condition that, should he come out on top, he would have the ban against them lifted. In a few years the king’s head rolled, and Jews, mostly from Holland, swarmed in. Within two generations, they became the dominant financial power in the land and, as we have already seen, the Bank “of England” was set up, which, with its acknowledged privilege of enjoying “the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing,” became the model for all the central banking systems with which the Western world was gradually saddled.
On pages 755-6 Simpson responds to a liberal in such way that he should be cited today:
The very men of whom you have been at such pains to make mock, even in our universities —Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, H.F.K. Guenther—yes, and Adolf Hitler and Lincoln Rockwell, too— we will gather up from the scrap heap where you have thrown them and done your best to bury them, and we will wash them clean that they may be seen in a true light for what they were, and will set them up before us as our exemplars, our teachers, our heroes and our inspirers.
Although Simpson never surpassed his bicausalism type-A, it is worth reading, in 762, how he portrays the Jew:
But in any case, so long as we retain control over our own society, we must establish it as our undeviating and relentless aim to make and to keep our people homogeneous. The Jews, of course, to their last gasp, will resort to their utmost cunning and marshall all their strength to bring any such effort to naught. For they know full well, as already observed more than once, that it has been only by maintaining an attitude of abhorrence toward all mixing with aliens that they have survived the centuries and have come to be the power in the world that they are today. And they are no less aware that the only means by which they can keep a creature of our size in leading strings to them is to get us to swallow the poison that they themselves keep so far away from, until we become a race of enfeebled, fawning, mixed-breed curs.
In that same page Simpson even vindicates nordicism: a taboo subject for the white nationalists of today:
Also, with homogeneity as our goal, we must sternly shut our doors against all immigrants who are not White. Indeed, in my own judgment, we should be wise to reject even those White people who do not stem from the countries of northwestern Europe.
It is a disgrace that books like this one, published in 1978, have not been reedited, translated and found in the bookstores of the West.
Editor’s note: Irmin Vinson, the author of an important book on Hitler, has commented on the latest Star Wars film, recently reviewed by Richard Spencer and Greg Johnson (here and here). Italicized sentences come from Johnson himself. Vinson wrote:
On Spencer! On Johnson! My inclination is to vote for neither, and to avoid watching the movie as well. Sorry to sound obnoxious, but it seems bizarre to me that two grown men, both of whom read great books and can spell big words correctly, are babbling away about a children’s movie, a worthless piece of pop entertainment that was deliberately conceived as an attempt to multiracialize a revered film franchise.
We know that racial hostility toward us has shaped both of the new Star Wars films. That should be enough to keep white nationalists far away from them. Even when they were innocuous politically, Star Wars movies were never worth the trouble of learned analysis. The only justification for watching this particular movie would be to analyze its racial politics and to encourage others to stay away from any movie theater screening it.
If I had to vote, I would choose Spencer, since he eventually gets around to the real political purpose of this latest piece of anti-white propaganda. I figured it out without actually seeing it, which wasn’t difficult. As a Radix reader pointed out over at YouTube, if anyone desperately needs to watch this film, it will eventually be available on a torrent. Hold your breath for a while, and then get it for free. Think of your theft as a minor act of rebellion against people who hate us.
In short, casting non-whites in Star Wars is not the same as putting them in stories like King Arthur or Robin Hood.
In both cases the multiracial casting would be an attempt to remove us from, or marginalize us within, our own popular culture.
Many people have sentimental feelings about the original Star Wars movies. I don’t myself, but many people do. Today those old movies seem far too white in the eyes of liberal multiracialists and Jews. Hence the multiracial casting. If we are so weak that we tolerate being removed from our own popular culture, then they are more than willing to do it to us. It is part of their deliberate campaign to immerse us in a popular culture that embraces and promotes the demographic changes currently underway throughout the West. We could end their propaganda simply by refusing to pay for it, but they’re confident that we won’t.
The creators of the new Star Wars movies are hoping that twenty years from now young viewers from 2016 will have the same sentimental feelings about non-white Star War characters that older viewers today have about Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. They do not want white film heroes for our future; they want non-white heroes. Unfortunately they have, at the moment, the media power to make their wishes a reality.
I can’t see any reason to be pleased by a film that carries so sinister a purpose. If the film is good, then its qualities are bad for us and good for all those who favor the destruction of the West. It would be great if Rogue One turns out to be a box-office disaster. I’m crossing my fingers.
Go see the film. Then come back and apologize for this obnoxious sperging.
Why should he waste his money paying a Jewish studio for the privilege of watching a multiracialist children’s movie? We’re not talking about Touch of Evil here; the movie under review can be nothing more than a high-tech, CGI-intensive version of an old Flash Gordon serial, with Asians and Negroes playing roles previously assigned to Europeans.
“I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.
Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Recent films about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler). Recent films about ancient Rome, such as Gladiator and HBO’s series Rome, have done the same (e.g. Russell Crowe). Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?
Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.
A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).
Scholars today recoil at this pre-1960s consensus. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, written in 1996, scoffs at the “undoubtedly dubious racial theories underlying much of this reconstruction,” but offers no theory to replace it, conceding only that “the origin of the Greeks remains a much-debated subject.” The Penguin author makes this startling admission, however: “Many of the ideas of racial origins were developed in the 19th century and, although they may have had some foundation in historical tradition, archaeology or linguistics, they were often combined with more dubious presumptions.” The author fails to list these dubious presumptions. Beth Cohen, author of Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (2000), asserts that the Thracians, distant cousins of the Greeks, had “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Ancient Greeks.”
In fact, there was a good basis for the 1911 Britannica to write about blonds in Thebes. Thebes was the leading city of Boeotia, a rich agricultural region in south-central Greece. Fragments from an ancient 150 BC travelogue describe the women of Thebes as “the tallest, prettiest, and most graceful in all of Hellas. Their yellow hair is tied up in a knot on the top of their head.” Pindar, a fifth century Theban lyric poet, refers to the Greeks as “the fair-haired Danaoi,” using a poetical name for the Hellenes. Likewise, in his Partheneia, or “Maiden Songs,” the seventh century BC Spartan poet Alcman, praised the beauty of Spartan female athletes, with their “golden hair” and “violet eyes.” He also wrote of Spartan women with “silver eyes,” meaning light gray. The seventh-century BC Greek poet Archilochus praises the “yellow hair” of one of his lovers, and Sappho — also of the seventh century BC — writes of her “beautiful daughter, golden like a flower.”
As late as the fourth century AD, Adamantius, an Alexandrian physician and scientist, wrote in his Physiognominica, that “of all the nations the Greeks have the fairest eyes,” adding, that “wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see tall men of fairly broad and straight build,… of fairly light skin, and blond.” Several centuries of mixing had presumably changed the racial character of many Greeks, but blonds still survived, and Xanthos, which means “yellow” in Greek, was a common personal name.
Professor Nell Painter of Princeton, author of The History of White People (see “Whiting Out White People,” AR, July 2010), complains that “not a few Westerners have attempted to racialize antiquity, making ancient history into white race history.” She points out that the Greeks often painted their marble statues — “the originals were often dark in color” — that the paint wore off over time, and Europeans mistakenly concluded from the white marble that the Greeks were white.
Yes, the Greeks painted their statues, but the originals were not dark. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, from the Greek city of Knidos, was the most famous and most copied statue in the ancient world. Hundreds of copies survive. Experts have determined from microscopic paint particles that Aphrodite was painted blonde. The Romans had their own name for this goddess, Venus, and likewise her “cult images” were ubiquitous and “painted with pale-coloured flesh and golden-blonde hair” (see Joanna Pitman’s On Blondes, 2003).
Phidias’ masterwork, the Athena Parthenos, stood in the Parthenon for nearly 1,000 years until it was lost, probably in the 5th century AD. When American sculptor Alan LeQuire set out to make a faithful copy for the full-scale Parthenon replica in Nashville’s Centennial Park he modeled it on descriptions of the original work. The 42-foot-tall Athena, unveiled in 1990, has light skin, blue eyes, and golden hair. (Note of the Editor: see detail of this image above.)
Many small terra-cotta figurines from Greece of the fourth century BC have survived with traces of paint. They show light hair, usually reddish brown, and blue eyes, as do larger statues from the time of the Persian Wars in the early fifth century BC. Even a cursory examination of ancient marble reliefs, statues, and busts reveals European features. Many of the faces could just as easily be those of Celtic chieftains or Viking kings.
There is more evidence of the appearance of the Greeks. Xenophanes, an Ionian Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC, was amused to note that different peoples believed that the gods look like themselves: “Our gods have flat noses and black skins, say the Ethiopians. The Thracians (despite Prof. Cohen’s observations above) say our gods have red hair and hazel eyes.” Indeed, a fourth century BC fresco of a Thracian woman, found in the Ostrusha Mound in central Bulgaria, shows distinctly red hair and European features.
The Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) called Troy the “land of fair women.” According to the Roman historian Diodorus Sicilus, who lived in the first century BC, the Egyptian god Set had “reddish hair,” a color that was “rare in Egypt, but common among the Hellenes.” Plutarch (46–120 AD) tells us that while the Theban general Pelopidas (d. 364 BC) was campaigning in central Greece, he had a dream in which a ghost urged him to sacrifice a red-haired virgin if he wished to be victorious in the next day’s battle.
Two racial types
There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type. These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all, and who built an impressive civilization on the island of Crete. The Pelasgians, which is the name later Greeks gave to the pre-Hellenic population of mainland Greece, were also dark. They tended to have black, curly hair and olive-shaped eyes. Their type is plainly visible on many Attic (Athenian) vases, and has lead some scholars to conclude that all Greeks looked as they did.
Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek — the linear A inscriptions of the Minoans have still not been deciphered — so the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley. According to Greek national myth, the Hellenes were descended from Hellen (not to be confused with Helen of Troy), the son of Deucalion. Hellen had sons and grandsons, who correspond to the four main tribal divisions of ancient Greece: the Aeolians Achaeans, Ionians, and Dorians.
Scholars today tend to dismiss such myths but they would not have survived if they had not been generally consistent with the long folk memories of ancient peoples. In this case they point to what classical scholars have long believed was a series of Hellenic descents upon mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The first Hellenes to arrive were the Ionians and Aeolians; then a few centuries later, the Achaeans, and finally the Dorians.
The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek. Linear B, which began to dominate Cretan culture around 1500 BC, has been deciphered and found to be an early form of Greek. Around the year 1200 BC this culture, known as Mycenaean, collapsed; its cities were destroyed and abandoned, and Greece entered a 400-year Dark Age. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions probably played a part in the destruction, and later Greeks attributed it to invasions from the north. Waves of Hellenic warriors swept down and burned the Mycenaean citadels and became the ruling race in Greece. They also sacked the city of Troy, and Homer’s Iliad is about them. They also seem to have snuffed out much of Mycenaean culture: Greeks stopped writing, and abandoned the arts, urban life, and trade with the outside world.
We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again. It recounts events some four to five hundred years earlier. Although we think of the poem as being about the Greeks, Homer’s warrior heroes belong to the Achaean nobility, which suggests that it was the Achaeans who overthrew Mycenaean civilization, not the Dorians, who would descend upon Greece and displace the Achaeans a hundred years later. Archeology confirms this supposition, for Troy was burned around 1200 BC, and the traditional date for the Trojan War is 1184 BC. The Dorian invasion is dated by various ancient historians at 1149, 1100, or 1049 BC.
There is good reason to think that Homer was recording stories handed down during the Dark Age. He was a bard who lived in Ionia, a region on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey, and if he were making the stories up he would have claimed that the heroes were Ionian. Instead, he sings praises to the light-haired Achaean nobility: Achilles, their greatest warrior, has “red-gold hair,” Odysseus, their greatest strategist, has “chestnut hair,” his wife Penelope has “white cheeks the color of pure snow,” Agamede, a healer and expert on medicinal plants, is “blonde,” and King Menelaus of Sparta, the husband of Helen, has “red hair.” Helen, likewise, has “fair hair,” and even slave girls are light-skinned: “fair-tressed Hecamede,” “fair-cheeked Chryseis,” and “blonde Briseis.” This is significant, for if even some of the slaves were blond it would mean the Nordic type was not unique to the Achaeans, that it was present elsewhere in the Aegean world.
Homer (and Pindar) describe most of the Olympian gods and goddesses as fair haired and “bright eyed,” meaning blue, grey or green. The goddess Demeter has “blond” or “yellow hair,” as does Leto, mother of Apollo, who is also described as “golden haired.” Aphrodite has “pale-gold” hair, and Athena is known as “the fair, bright-eyed one” and the “grey-eyed goddess.” Two of the gods, Poseidon and Hephaestus, are described as having black hair. As noted above, Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves.
It was the Dorians, the last Greek invaders, who ended Achaean rule and probably provoked a mass migration of Aeolian and Ionian Hellenes — no doubt including Homer’s ancestors — across the Aegean Sea to the coast of Asia Minor. The Dorians who settled in the fertile valley of the Eurotas in the southern Peloponnesus were the direct ancestors of the Spartans of the classical age, and they claimed to be the only pure Dorians.
Werner Jaeger, Director of the Institute of Classical Studies at Harvard, writes:
“The national type of the invader remained purest in Sparta. The Dorian race gave Pindar his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent, which he used to describe not only the Homeric Menelaus, but the greatest Greek hero, Achilles, and in fact all the ‘fair-haired Danaeans’ [another name for the Achaeans who fought at Troy] of the heroic age” (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 1939).
The classical Greeks made no claim to being autochthones, that is to say, “of the earth,” or the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, they took pride in being epeludes, the descendants of later settlers or conquerors. Two notable exceptions were the Arcadians and the Athenians, whose rocky soils presumably offered little temptation to armed colonizers. The historian Herodotus (484-420 BC) recorded that the Athenians were “a Pelasgian people [who] had occupied Attica and never moved from it,” as were the Arcadians. Language lends support to this view, for both the Athenians and Arcadians spoke unique dialects. They learned Greek from the northern invaders but retained Pelasgian elements.
Thus, classical Greece was a fusion, both cultural and racial, of these two types of whites. Some city-states, such as Thebes and Sparta, were predominantly Nordic. Others, such as Athens, were predominantly Mediterranean, and still others were mixtures of the two.
The Roman patricians
Nell Painter, author of the above-mentioned History of White People, finds it “astonishing” that the American Nordicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) argued in The Passing of the Great Race (1916) that the Roman nobility was of Nordic origin, yet there is good evidence for this view. There are many lavishly illustrated books about ancient Rome with examples of death masks, busts, and statues that clearly depict the Roman patricians not simply as Europeans but as northern European.
R. Peterson’s fine study, The Classical World (1985), which includes an analysis of 43 Greek, and 32 Roman figures, is persuasive. Dr. Peterson explains that the Romans painted their death masks to preserve the color, as well as the shape, of their ancestors’ faces. Blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexions are common. A good example of racial type is the famous portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, which dates from the fourth century BC. Brutus’ face is identifiably Germanic, and so is the color of his eyes. The sculptor used ivory for the whites and blue glass for the pupils. Or take the famous marble head of a patrician woman from the late first century AD, which is often included in illustrated surveys of imperial Rome to demonstrate the fashion for curled hair. Her features are typically northern European: a delicate, aquiline nose, high cheekbones, and a face angular and long rather than round. Another classic example is the famous fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii, which shows four women undergoing ritual flagellation. They are tall, light-skinned, and brown-haired.
There is also evidence from Roman names. Rutilus means “red, gold, auburn” and stems from the verb rutilo, which means “to shine with a reddish gleam.” Rufus, meaning red, was a common Roman cognomen or nickname used for a personal characteristic, such as red hair. The Flavians were an aristocratic clan whose family name was derived from flavus, meaning golden-yellow. The Flaminians were another noble family whose clan name came from flamma, meaning flame, suggesting red hair.
According to Plutarch, Marcus Porcius Cato had “red hair and grey eyes,” Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the general and dictator, had “blue-grey eyes and blond hair,” and Gaius Octavius (Augustus), the first Roman emperor, had “bright eyes and yellow hair.” Recent analysis of an ancient marble bust of the emperor Caligula found particles of the original pigment trapped in the stone. Experts have restored the colors to show that the demented ruler had ruddy skin and red hair.
The love poetry of Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid, (43 BC to AD 17) offers much evidence of the color of upper-class Roman women during the early years of the empire. That Ovid ascribes blond hair to many goddesses — Aurora, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, and Venus — tells us something about the Roman ideal of beauty; that he describes many of his lovers the same way tells us that the Nordic type was still found in imperial Rome. “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned,” he writes in his Amores of 15 BC, but “brunettes make marvelous lovers too.” He admires the contrast of “dark-tresses against a snow-white neck,” and adores young girls who blush. One of his favorite lovers is “tall” with a “peaches-and-cream complexion,” “ivory cheeks,” and “bright eyes.” Another was a “smart Greek blonde.”
So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races. The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes — Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti — who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.
What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery. Protracted internecine war was devastating. The Hellenes lost relatively few men in their two wars with the Persian Empire (490, 480-479 BC), but they were decimated by the ruinous series of inter-Hellenic wars that followed. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) pitted Athens and her subject Ionian cities against the Spartan Dorian confederacy. That was followed by 35 years of intermittent warfare between Sparta and Thebes (396-362 BC), which pitted Nordics against Nordics. These wars so weakened the Greek republics that they fell under Macedonian rule about 20 years later (338 BC), bringing to an end the classical age of Greece.
Money was, as always, a racial solvent. Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”
The Roman experience was similarly tragic. All of her later historians agreed that the terrible losses inflicted by Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) were minor compared to the horrendous losses Rome inflicted on herself during the nearly 100 years of civil war that followed the murder of the reforming Tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.
Immigration was the inevitable backwash of imperialism as slaves, adventurers, and traders swarmed into Rome. Over time, slaves were freed, foreigners gave birth to natives, non-Romans gained citizenship, and legal and social sanctions against intermarriage fell away. By the early empire, all that was left of the original Roman stock were a few patrician families.
The historian Appian lamented that “the city masses are now thoroughly mixed with foreign blood, the freed slave has the same rights as a native-born citizen, and those who are still slaves look no different from their masters.” Scipio Aemilianus (185–129 BC), a statesman and general of the famed clan of the Aemilii, called these heterogeneous subjects “step-children of Rome.”
One hundred and fifty years later, Horace (65–8 BC) wrote in Book III of the Odes:
Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs
Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.
The last Roman writers therefore came to see their own people as both morally and physically degenerate. The subtext of Tacitus’ (56-117 AD) ethnological treatise Germania is a longing for the northern vigor and purity the Romans had lost. He saw the Gauls and Germans as superior to the Romans in morals and physique, and Roman women shared this admiration. Blond hair became the rage, and German and Gaulic slave women were shorn of their blond or reddish-brown hair to make wigs for wealthy women. By the time of Tertullian (160-225 AD), so many Roman women were dying their hair that he complained, “they are even ashamed of their country, sorry that they were not born in Germany or Gaul.” In the early second century AD, the satirist Juvenal complained of the dwindling stock of “the bluest patrician blood,” which is a figurative phrase for the nobility, whose veins appear blue through their light skin.
Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves. In both Europe and America, patriotic young men slaughtered each other in terrible fratricidal wars. In North America, the descendents of slaves are the majority in many great cities. Both continents have paid for imperial ambitions with mass immigration of aliens. Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?