The face of Classical Europe (II)

Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?


Translated from Evropa Soberana


Recently I was called names on VNN forum as a result of my criticism of anti-Nordicism in my previous post. Isn’t it ironic that the signature-legend of VNN’s admin states that the Jews must be exterminated while, at the same time, some of the forum’s senior members want to grant amnesty to the mudbloods in Europe?

Hopefully this abridged translation from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana, which could be read together with the first installment about the phenotype of Greeks in Classical Europe, will throw more light on why anti-Nordicists are deluding themselves.


Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?

The Latin malus [“bad”] (beside which I place mélas, Greek for “black”) might designate the common man as dark, especially black-haired (hic niger est), as the pre-Aryan settler of the Italian soil, notably distinguished from the new blond conqueror race by his color.

—Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals

The Roman case is virtually identical to the Greek case. This YouTube clip contains the first minutes from the series Rome, where fighting between Gauls and Romans is recreated. The series had tremendous blunders, great nonsense, and several lies and BS in abundance. But the atmosphere was curious, as was the march of historical events, the legions in action, the splendor of the imperial palaces, the goings-on in the alleys of Rome, etc. One of the protagonists of the series was a centurion, the one with the whistle.

He was blond.

But how can you be so fascists so Nordicists, so Nazis so anti-Teresa-de-Calcutta, as Eurocentric and racists as these media? If you had a minimum of culture (like me) you should know that the Romans were of Mediterranean phenotype (like me)—and so on.

Things like these I have heard more times than you can imagine. And similar poppycock we continue to hear even by people who, by their admiration of Rome, obviously have read something written by these sober and tough soldiers who were the Romans, right?

In this article the testimonies from the handwriting of the real Romans are presented. Forget the movies and the illiterate pundits and let the sources explain us how Romans saw themselves.

The first Roman emperors as an example of patrician racial types

We will examine the phenotype of the first Roman emperors, who were representative of the race of patricians, the Roman nobilitas, i.e., the ruling aristocracy. What interests me is not so much to demonstrate the presence of Nordic blood in the upper Roman class (which is easy), but mainly to show that the Nordic blood in Rome was also inextricably linked to the notion of divinity and of noble descent. Some passages are originally in Greek. This is because Greek had great prestige as a cultured, poetic and philosophical language, and there were many Romans educated in that language.

• Augustus, the first Roman emperor, was “blond” (subflavum) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus), and had “blue eyes” (glauci) according to Pliny (Naturalis Historia, XI, CXLIII):


He had clear, bright eyes, in which he liked to have it thought that there was a kind of divine power, and it greatly pleased him, whenever he looked keenly at anyone, if he let his face fall as if before the radiance of the sun (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Divus Augustus, LXXIX).

• Tiberius had “gray-blue” (caesii) eyes according to Pliny (Naturalis Historia, XI, CXLII).

• Caligula had a “blonde beard” (aurea barba) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Caligula, LII).

• Claudio had “gray-white hair” (canitieque) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Divus Claudius, XXX), and “gray eyes” (γλαυκόφθαλμος) according to Ioannes Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCXLVI).

• Nero was “blond or redhead” (subflavo); had “gray-blue eyes” (caesis) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Nero, LI), and descended from a family named after their light pigmentation.

Of the Domitian family two branches have acquired distinction, the Calvini and the Ahenobarbi. The latter have as the founder of their race and the origin of their surname Lucius Domitius, to whom, as he was returning from the country, there once appeared twin youths of more than mortal majesty, so it is said, and bade him carry to the senate and people the news of a victory, which was as yet unknown. And as a token of their divinity it is said that they stroked his cheeks and turned his black beard to a ruddy hue, like that of bronze. This sign was perpetuated in his descendants, a great part of whom had red beards. (Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum: Nero, I.)

• Galba had gray-white (μιξοπόλιος) hair according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLVIII) and blue eyes (caeruleis) according to Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum: Galba, XXI).

• Vitellius was “redhead” (πυρράκης) and had “gray” or “blue” eyes (γλαυκός) according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLIX).

• Vespasian had “gray-white hair” (πολιός) and “wine-colored eyes” (οινοπαης τους οφθαλμούς), although it is unclear whether this refers to red wine (brown) or white wine (green) according to Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLIX).

• Titus, according to Wilhelm Sieglin (1855-1935) in Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 109, was “blonde”.

• Domitian was “blond” (ξανθός) and had “gray or blue eyes” (γλαυκός) according Malelas (Chronographia, X, CCLXII).

• Nerva was “gray-haired” according to John V. Day (Indo-European Origins).

• Trajan had “golden hair” (caesaries) according to Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 109). But let us not forget that Trajan was not Roman but a Spanish with Celtic blood, and therefore we should not take this into account when trying to define the phenotype of the Roman patrician aristocracy.

• Adriano, from a noble Roman family established in Hispania, was “dark-haired” (κυανοχαιτα) according Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 112), and of “gray or blue eyes” (γλαυκόφθαλμος) according to Malelas (Chronographia XI, CCLXXVII).

Interestingly, despite being described as “dark-haired,” on his statue there are traces of gold paint on his hair and beard. Formerly, the statues were painted according to the colors of the original “model”. His facial features correspond to the Nordic type.

• Antoninus Pius had “gray-white hair” (πολιός) and eyes “the color of wine” (οινοπαης τους οφθαλμούς) according Malelas (Chronographia, XI, CCLXXX).

• Lucius Verus had “blond hair” (flaventium) according Sieglin (Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 110).

• Commodus had “blond hair” (ουλόξανθος) and “blue or gray eyes” (υπόγλαυκος) according Malelas (Chronographia, XII, CCLXXXIII).

Therefore, we find that:

• Of the 18 emperors from Augustus to Commodus, 9 had blond or red hair, 5 had gray or white hair, of 3 we have no way of knowing the hair color, and only one (Adriano) was described as dark-haired.

• Of the 18 emperors from Augustus to Commodus, 9 had blue or gray eyes, 2 had eyes of “the color of wine” (whatever that means, let us take it as brown), and of 7 we have no record as to the color of their eyes.

Many emperors came to power in their advanced years, with already gray or white hair. However, many were even so described with light eyes. If we had records of their appearance when they were young, it is likely that a significant proportion of them had light hair. Of the 9 Emperors with light hair, we know that at least 5 had clear eyes, and of the other 4 we know nothing about the color of their eyes. Of Tiberius, for example, we know nothing about his hair, maybe because he was bald when he came to power. And the same applies to Otto, who shaved his head and wore a wig. Nor do we know anything about the physical aspect of the “philosopher emperor” Marcus Aurelius, father of Commodus and a first-class sovereign. Many other emperors (as Julius Caesar), without being blond, were tall and had a very fair complexion, ruddy, or rosy.

From Commodus on I renounce to provide more emperor descriptions because:

1 – those individuals who began ascending to power were not of Roman origin, and therefore their phenotype cannot tell us anything about the genetic legacy of the nobilitas of Italian and patrician origin.

2 – miscegenation was already quite advanced; lineages of patrician origin having lost their meaning. At that time it was common that women of Roman high society should shave the manes of Germanic slaves to fix their blond-hair wigs.

The gods, the Italics, the patricians and the origins of Rome

Let us go back around 1200 BCE and transport ourselves to Italy. At that time, Central Europe was a buzzing propagating zone for the Indo-European stock. From what is now Germany, of a semi-barbarous proto-civilization of the iron age, flowed migrant groups in all directions. These waves were of the Celts, the Hellenes, the Illyrians and the Italics (also called italos or italiotas).

At that time, the Italics, probably with some confederate Illyrian groups as in the case of the Dorians, broke into Italy.

They were a people who, in contrast to the native inhabitants of Italy, were patriarchal rather than matriarchal; ruddy rather than swarthy; that cremated their dead instead of burying them; that brought with them a whole pantheon of gods and heroic warriors, spoke an Indo-European language, yielded a war cult and whose symbology was a lot more oriented to heavenly than earthly symbols.

Italics were the settlers of sites such as the Villanovan Culture. Subsequent “civilian” conflicts that feminist history has termed as “matriarchy vs. patriarchy,” and what is left in mythology regarding the heroic struggle of the Indo-Europeans against the native, telluric bodies (like snakes) actually refer to a spiritual confrontation triggered by the arrival of a small, aggressive and martial people that did not mix with the native population and struggled to dominate the area.

Under a rigid religious ritualism, on April 21, 753 BCE the heads of some Italic clans founded the city of Rome. For two centuries, Rome lived under the despotism and tyranny of the Etruscan kings, heads of a degenerate civilization that practiced sacrificial rituals, orgies, matriarchy, homosexuality, luxurious opulence, pedophilia, decadent entertainments, etc. The Etruscans came from Asia Minor, styling themselves as rasena (“chosen,” as the Jews) yet their legacy, which only represented the decline of something greater than themselves, meant that they were a doomed people.

The situation of the Roman tribute to Etruria lasted until, in 509 BCE, the Romans rose against the Etruscans and expelled the Etruscan king, Tarquinius Superbus, from the lands. Legends want to portray that this Italic insurrection—a “holy rebellion” against the pre-Indo-European; of patriarchy against matriarchy—was motivated by the rape of Lucretia, a beautiful and virtuous woman of Roman family at the hands of Sextus Tarquinius, son of the Etruscan king and raunchy as all his people, as opposed to the Puritan morality of the Latins.

Lucretia committed suicide by honor and, this being the straw that broke the camel of the Roman patience, the patriarchs began a rebellion against the Etruscans that led to the overthrowing of the Etruscan kings, the founding of the Roman Republic and the systematic eradication of almost all Etruscan memory. (Comparable only to the “genocide” and the complete destruction of Carthage, the mortal enemy of Rome, considered as the reincarnation of Etruscan and oriental spirit, whose fields were cast in salt so that nothing would grow there.)


Recreation of Rome during the Republic. Pay attention to the shape of the boats, so reminiscent of the Scandinavian drakkar.

With the expulsion of the Etruscan power two praetors (later consuls) who held the vacuum of power were named. It was therefore founded the Roman Republic, marked by social struggles between patricians (nobles) and plebeians.

At that time, the original Populus Romanus was divided into 30 curiae (tribes or clans), whose origin was lost among the Italic peoples before the invasion. The curiae were headed by patres (parents) of the gens (family), that is, the founding fathers of the clan and of each family that composed it. Each gens or family was considered descendant of a genius or semi-divine patriarch, who was worshiped on the household as protector idol of the house and their descendants.

If we assimilate the fact that to the Romans a gens or family was a whole social, state, military and religious institution, we may understand the importance of the geniuses and patres as leaders of this small imperial cell, that corresponded to social, political and military leadership as well as leading positions in the characteristic Roman religious worship, where Jupiter is confused with the State, the patriarch, the Senate, the Legion and the family. No wonder, then, that they were regarded as semi-divine and of very high wisdom.

The patres were those who gave their name to the breed of the patricians, namely those belonging to the system of families and clans: the aristocracy, the first nobilitas, which differed from the plebs or plebeians—the people outside the Italic clans. At first, the male patricians were the only Roman citizens, the members of the Legion, the only ones who could be senators and enjoyed all the rights and duties traditionally associated with Roman citizenship.

Later, after the “universalization” and “cosmopolitanization” of Rome during the Empire, the patricians came to form an aristocracy over the other peoples of Italy, encompassed by the plebs. The patricians as social class, and among them the patres as heads of households, are probably the most exalted expression of patriarchy and patriotism itself of the Indo-European, in opposition to the narcotic matriarchy of the pre-Indo-European peoples of Europe, already decadents and altogether “civilized”.

We now turn to the patricians and Roman gods from the point of view of the phenotype, after seeing the first Roman emperors, mostly patrician.

• Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138-78 BCE), Roman consul and dictator, of patrician descent, had blond hair, blue eyes and a ruddy complexion:

…for his golden head of hair gave him a singular appearance, and as for bravery, he was not ashamed to testify in his own behalf, after such great and noble deeds as he had performed. So much, then, regarding his attitude towards the divine powers. (Plutarch, De Vita: Sulla.)

What was the rest of his figure appears in his statues, but that fierce and unpleasant look of his blue eyes was still more terrible to stare at because the color of his face, being noted at intervals so ruddy and red mixed with his whiteness, and it is even said that he took his name from that, coming to be a nickname for the designated color. Thus, a teller of Athens taunted him with these lines: “If you knead a blackberry with flour, you have the portrait of Sulla.”

Marcus Porcius Cato the “Censor”, better known as Cato the Elder (234-149 BCE), the pronouncer of the famous saying Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam (“Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed”) in every speech, had reddish hair according to Plutarch:

As for his outward appearance, he had reddish hair, and keen grey eyes, as the author of the well-known epigram ill-naturedly gives us to understand: “Red-haired, snapper and biter, his grey eyes flashing defiance, Porcius, come to the shades, back will be thrust by their Queen.” (Plutarch, Cato the Elder.)

• Poppaea Sabina (30-65 CE), the wife of Nero, famous for her beauty all over Rome, was very white and redhead.

We note that the Romans, like the Greeks, saw light pigmentation as a sign of the “divine” or “supernatural”. Some may interpret this that light pigmentation was rare among the Romans. But considering naming conventions, it is clear that the light features were quite common among the patricians. According to Karl Earlson:

Once they had reached a certain stage in their lives, the patricians earned their additional name (cognomina), which was often based on their physical appearance. The name Albus indicated light skin; Ravilla, gray eyes; Caesar, blue eyes; Flavius, blonde hair; Rufus, red hair; Longus, tall; Macer, a slender constitution. All these names were common among the patricians.

Thus, the Latin author Quintilian, in Institutio Oratoria (I, IV, XXV), notes that a man named Rufus or Longo has that name for his body characteristics: he is high or redhead. Plutarch (Coriolanus XI) states that two men, one redhead and one swarthy, could be distinguished because the first would be called Rufus and the second Niger. Aelius Spartianus, in Historia Augusta (II, IV), suggests that the Caesars earned their name from the fact that the founder of his gens had blue eyes (oculis caesiis). The lexicographer Sextus Pompeius Festus, in De verborum significatu (CCCLXXVI ff) states that the name Ravilia derives from “gray eyes” (ravis oculis), and the name Caesulla from blue eyes (oculis caesiis). Julius Paris, in De nominibus Epitome, VII, provides examples of names of women that, he says, have their origin in the pigmentation of those who held them: Rutila (red hair), Caesellia (blue eyes), Rodacilla (pink complexion), Murrula and Burra (red hair or ruddy complexion).

I have provided all these quotations to show that these names were not purely arbitrary but were, in fact, based on physical characteristics; and that these features were not uncommon among certain strata of Roman society.

Even where the patricians had almost disappeared, the Romans had memories of the old patres as the semi-divine beings who arrived to Italy, founded Rome, “Romanized” the peninsula and bequeathed the patriarchate to those lands, together with a strong mentality and a durable and effective political system that lasted for centuries. The ancient ancestors of the patricians were still considered in Rome as a common heritage to be proud of.

Karl Earlson summarizes how he follows Sieglin’s findings as to the pigmentation of the patricians and their identity as a breed:

Wilhelm Sieglin [in Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums, 1935] compiled the list of the Roman patricians whose names indicate light hair. He provided the following list: 7 Flavi, 20 Flaviani, 10 Fulvi, 121 Fulvii, 27 Rubrii, 26 Rufi, 24 Rufii, 36 Rufini, 45 Rutilii and 13 Ahenobarbi. This completely disrupts Sergi’s claim that: “The Romans also had their Flavi, indicating that people with fair complexion were rare and required a special name, but does not indicate that the Germanic type was considered aristocratic or dominant” (Sergi: 1901, 20). In fact, such people were not scarce.

Sieglin also determined that among the families Iulii, Licinii, Lucretii, Sergii and Virginii, the name Flavius was very common; Rufi was often seen among the families Antonii, Caecilii, Coelii, Cornelii, Geminii, Iunii, Licinii families (often also the Flavii), Minucii, Octavii, Pinarii, Pompei, Rutilii, Sempronii, Trebonii, Valgii and Vibii; Rufini was common among the gens Antonia, Cornelia, Iunia, Licinian, Trebonia and Vibia. Sieglin notes that this list could certainly be increased in the light of further research.

Besides all this, Sieglin also compiled a list of 63 blond or red-haired Romans. Many of these individuals were patricians. He also found references to 27 blond divinities (including Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Diana, etc.) and 10 blondes in heroic personalities.

Man makes the gods in their own image. These blond gods speak of the racial nature of the early Romans. (In the Aeneid, Virgil refers to Mercury, Lavinia, Turnus and Camilla as “golden-haired.”) His list of blonds includes Aeneas, the mythical ancestor of the Latins (also blond was his son Julo or Ascanius), Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome; Augustus, the first Roman emperor, and even Roma: which symbolized the city of Rome.

While most of Sieglin’s historical figures of light hair were patricians, most the 17 swarthy Romans in his references were commoners or freedmen.

On the disappearance of the patricians and the mestization of the original Romans

What happened to the patricians? They faded with time. In the numerous conspiracies and intrigues of the Empire, it was common that after the formation of two opposing parties and the victory of one over the other, the winner assassinated the head of the enemy party, his family and all the families related to him. (The strong destroy each other and the weak continue to live, as George Bernard Shaw maintained.) These calamities greatly decimated the patrician class. If we add the ongoing miscegenation in the majority of plebeian population, the immigration of slaves from Syria and the provinces of Asia Minor, Egypt and Africa, as well as the bleeding of the patrician stock over the battlefield, we may realize why the patricians did not last too long during the Empire, given the dysgenic situation. John V. Day wrote:

In a journal about the West and its future, it is fitting to end this article by briefly recounting the fate of the Roman upper class. Among Indo-European peoples, the Romans offer an especially useful example because they left masses of records, enabling later historians to determine what became of them. The evidence found in ancient texts implies that this class descended largely from Indo-Europeans who had a decidedly northern European physical type, although that isn’t something one reads in modern books about Roman history [emphasis added]. In Rome, though, the upper class was always a tiny minority. Instead of protecting its interests, it allowed itself to wither away. Consider a bleak statistic. We know of about fifty patrician clans in the fifth century B.C., but by the time of Caesar, in the later first century B.C., only fourteen of these had survived. The decay continued in imperial times. We know of the families of nearly four hundred Roman senators in A.D. sixty five, but, just one generation later, all trace of half of these families had vanished.

If we in the West want to avoid a similar fate, we must learn from Indo-European history. (*)

In the time of Julius Caesar we know 45 patricians, of which only one is represented by posterity when Hadrian rises to power. The Aemilsi, Fabii, Claudii. Manlii, Valerii and everyone else, except the Comelii have disappeared. Augustus and Claudius ascended 25 families to the Patriciate, and by the reign of Nerva all but 6 have disappeared. Of the families of nearly 400 senators registered under Nero in 65 CE, trace has been lost about half of them in times of Nerva. And the records are so complete that it can be assumed that these statistics represent quite accurately the disappearance of the male lineage of the families concerned. (Cf. Tenney Frank, “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire,” American Historical Review, Vol. XI, 1916).


Were the Romans, then, blond?

ancient_romanIt all depends on what you mean by “Romans”. The original Romans did not descend from the original inhabitants of the Italian soil, but of the Italics (italios or italiotas or as you please to call them) and probably also of Illyrian groups, namely, Indo-European invaders who entered Italy from the North, what is now southern Germany. These early invaders—from whom the Latins descended (considered the most influential and who eventually gave their language to the Empire), the Sabines (considered by Plutarch “a colony of the Lacedaemonians,” i.e., Spartans), the Umbrians, Samnites and all patrician clans that founded Rome and the Republic—were indeed mostly Nordic, and also formed the basis of the political and military elite of the Empire.

However, in the later Rome these groups formed an aristocratic minority ruling over a mob of pre-Indo-European origin and, later, even Semites and black slaves. This ended up in interbreeding between all these groups. Over time, the numbers of the dominant Nordic caste withered, and with them their strong patriarchal, sober and authoritative influence in favor of the dissolution of the Empire: expressed in its cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism and proliferation of slaves.

The rest of the history of the post-Roman imperial splendor and their great men, we already know. It is set in a decadent agony, punctuated by binges, parties, orgies, wine snobbery, false sophistication, acrobats, gays, stupid fads, obesity, blond wigs made from hair stolen from Germanics, mongrels, pacifists, emboldened slaves, “liberated” women, Christian zealots and a corrupt bourgeois which reneged of their homeland.

The ghost of ancient Etruria, killed by the ancient Latin Patriarchs, had reborn. Before these decaying monsters, which had nothing to do with the demigod patricians or their rude peasants and patriotic soldiers, the Germanic “barbarian” was really an authentic, pure, hard, strong, noble, idealistic, simple and brave hero, in whose blood awaited the hidden forces of the Indo-European humanity, ready to give birth and germinate in the next millennia of European power.

In short, it has not been argued that all Romans were of Nordic type. It has been argued that the Nordic blood prevailed among the Italic invaders, the ancestors of the posterior dominant Roman aristocracy, the authentic Roman citizens, who imposed their ethos throughout the Empire and spread their spirit, marking the “Roman style” with a distinctly Nordic stamp.

“Are the Germanics a healthy and natural people that will overcome the decadence of the Romans?” —Tacitus, Germania.


See also a previous article about the subject of:

Saying the truth about race throws even white nationalists into fits.”

(*) John V. Day, Ph.D., is the author of Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence (The Institute for the Study of Man, 2001).

Enemy mine

Make no mistake: Wikipedia is our enemy.

I was officially retired from the wiki but now that I tried to say something in the talk pages of the wiki articles on Aztec and child sacrifice I followed the recent contributions of one of the editors with whom I had a terrible discussion some years ago, which led me to the wiki article “Racism”.

WikipediaYes: most wiki editors are real goners and we know it is useless trying to discuss with them. The Judeo-liberal trick of their site lies in what they call the “reliable sources” policy, which means that you cannot quote alternative media or even the intellectuals, scholars and historians that the anti-white establishment marginalizes. While trying to edit wiki articles you got to stick to the sources that had obtained the System’s imprimatur, especially articles dealing with race, ethnic conflict or the subversive tribe.

Metapedia, which I quoted here, has nailed Wikipedia. But I would love if a contributor of The Occidental Observer deconstructed, point by point, the ridiculous wiki article on racism.

Johnson’s doublethink

Greg Johnson has visited this site quite a few times since I published “Johnson’s amnesty.” Instead of accepting defeat he has now published a scholarly article by Ted Sallis with his hatnote: “The following essay is one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far.”

It is difficult to rebut the obvious sophistry of Sallis precisely because the piece is scholarly and, although I took a biology course at the Open University in my forties, I am no expert on genetics. It is easier to point out to Johnson’s incredible doublethink, as in this comment:

“White” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown.

Wow! This redefinition of “white,” that the most radical anti-white leftist would wholeheartedly embrace, means that Johnson is asking us not to make any substantial distinction between those Southern Mediterranean mudbloods and the purest Scandinavians!


(A pure white Nordid.)

Would Johnson agree of a marriage between a pure Nordid, let’s say the sister of the young man of the pic, and a brown Sicilian to bring to the world cute coffee-and-milk kids? And what would be the next step? Massive Sicilian immigration into Scandinavia because according to Johnson both are “whites,” thus mongrelizing away—and this time forever—what is left of the pure Nordids?


(A brown Sicilian man. Sicilian mongrelization with Whites started since the Semitic Carthaginians dominated the island.)

Johnson’s definition of “white” deserves inclusion in my Dictionary of Newspeak. As to the other commenters of Sallis’ piece, I stick to what I implied in “Johnson’s amnesty” about the Counter-Currents commentariat: they still seem totally ignorant about the new racial classification (see last line).

In another comment of the same thread, Johnson said:

“Ancient admixture is OK. That is simply part of our identity, not something extraneous to it… As for recent admixture, lines must be drawn.”

Doublethink! Ancient Spaniards mixing genetically with the Moors and the Semites during centuries 8th to 15th was “OK” but today, regarding the identical mixing taking place in Spain (or France), lines must be drawn? Right? Johnson again:

The further back the admixture, the greater the chance that the alien genes have washed out.

Johnson has not visited the Iberian Peninsula. Has he? In my most recent visit to Spain I was annoyed that some Spaniards didn’t look to me like white at all, nor did some of them acted white, thought white, and fought white (in spite of the fact that some of the purer Spaniards do). There has been no washing out of the Arab and Semitic genes since the 15th century certainly: eight centuries of miscegenation left a permanent mark among all Iberians (actually, a permanent mark on myself!).

Read the first installment of the truly scientific article “The New Racial Classification” before you give some credit to what Johnson just tagged as “one of the most important pieces published at Counter-Currents so far…”

Johnson’s amnesty

“White Nationalists treat Mediterraneans like Republicans treat Mestizos.”


In “Dies Irae” I responded to Greg Johnson’s bashing of Pierce’s novels, especially The Turner Diaries, and I exposed him as the pseudo-Nietzschean that he is. (Warning: that article is very strong meat indeed, not for the faint-hearted.) Now Johnson is bashing Pierce again but this time Pierce’s last book, Who We Are. He didn’t do it in writing but in a segment of his recent audio interview of Matt Parrott. In about minute 40 of the interview Johnson started to talk about “genetic purity and white identity,” and in minute 41:30 he began his anti-Nordicist tirade speaking about what he calls “weird forms of purism”:

My attitude is that we… should just have an amnesty for all remote past miscegenation. Because the really important thing… is to preserve our race as it exists right now.”

Since Johnson has in mind the miscegenation that took place in historical Europe through the millennia, he is omitting the crucial question: are, say, brown-looking Sicilians “white”? Pay attention to his words that I italicized below:

“…save the race as it exists… rather than being caught up in the past; and caught up in weird forms of purism.

There’s a kind of fallacy in this statement. Is Johnson implying that every European individual before the mass immigration of recent decades is per definition “white”? Is he asking us not to see the phenotypic difference between, say, a modern Greek that looks like a Turk and the hyperborean nymphs that make me mad? What about the Frenchmen and Frenchwomen who have nigger blood in their veins? Let me rephrase a bit from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:


(French women with non-white blood.)

According to official French statistics, some three million of North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (Take note that this happened before the Second World War and the Morgenthau Plan to exterminate the Germans.) Kemp’s point is that a significant minority miscegenated with women like those in the pic, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. But apparently, Johnson is not a believer of the one-drop rule: once you are descendant from a Negro you cannot be considered properly White.

Johnson continues his anti-Nordicist speech in his interview of Parrott:

One example of weird kind of purism is in this book by William Pierce called Who We Are, which I have been briefing thru. This book basically is a warrant for genocide—if you will—a brief for genocide, of whites by whites!

Has Johnson read the mini-book about Sparta, originally written in Spanish, that I recently translated? Or Kemp’s? Or Who We Are with due attention (“…which I have been briefing thru”)? The moral of these books is that you simply cannot coexist with non-Aryans or use a class of non-Aryan servants because, in the long run, quantity overwhelms quality. The blond Spartans decayed after the Peloponnesus War precisely because they had not expelled non-Aryans from their conquered territories: a hypothetical prophylactic measure that makes white nationalists like Johnson and liberals shrug in horror!

What Pierce wanted for ancient Greece, which outside Sparta had a substantial amount of Asian and North African half-bloods, is analogous to having expelled the Amerinds to a corner of the continent as the English-derived peoples did in America. The non-Spartiate Helots could have been whiter than the Amerinds, yes: but tolerating them and even darker peoples inside their lands caused the extinction of the Aryan Greeks (see the link to Pierce’s chapter that I baptized as “White suicide in ancient Greece” at the end of this post). Johnson continues:

Pierce basically wants to do [it] by identifying himself as a Nordicist… Everything is blond hair and blue eye and his attitude about say Greeks is that the Dorians invaders should have exterminated all these darker cute white people so they didn’t mix with them. So my attitude is that there were people in the past who were Dorians or Aryans of various sorts. They do not exist any more. They are just ingredients now in what we call white people today. Anglo-Saxons don’t exist anymore. The Anglo-Saxons tribes which landed in England—they are just ingredients in the modern Englishman.

I don’t know shorthand and had difficulties with my laptop to easily rewind the interview after minute 44 but still managed to catch Johnson phrases such as: “If we are concerned with preserving Americans, English, Greeks…” and his mocking for what Pierce, Kemp and others considered “the terrible miscegenation.” Johnson also claimed that we must get “out of that mentality,” and that it is “impractical” to do an “insidious distinction among whites today” (my emphasis).

The same old fallacy again: assuming that all ancient Europeans were, per definition, “white.” In another moment of the interview Johnson says he is concerned about the miscegenation of today but not about the miscegenation of yesterday.

He is simply begging the question. The question is that precisely because in the past white peoples were utterly unconcerned about mongrelization that we have mongrels today. The question is whether or not the French descendants of, say, the women in the above pic should be considered whites or not. Pay attention how in the above quote Johnson mentions the modern “Englishman” together with the modern “Greeks” as if both could be plainly considered “whites.”

When Johnson finished his speech Parrott mentioned his distant drop of Indian blood. But that’s different. A distant drop of Amerind blood does not invalidate your whiteness as some black drops do. See for instance Andrew Hamilton’s article, “Whiteness, blurring.” I believe Hamilton is on the right track as to where drawing the line. Curiously, most commenters of that article published at Counter-Currents subscribe Johnson’s anti-Nordicist stance so common in white nationalism today.

White blurring aside, the issue of this post is people that are literally brown, like many Greeks and Sicilians or even some Southern Spaniards and Portuguese. They look brown: and by mentioning the modern Greeks in his interview together with the Englishmen Johnson seems to be using a handy doublethink to consider them white irrespective of what his very eyes are telling him.


(Felix von Luschan’s skin color chart.)

The doublethink mentality one sees in the comments section of Counter-Currents is exactly the kind of mentality that caused the problem centuries ago. Either white skin is white; olive skin olive, and brown skin brown, and black skin black, or we have entered the world of Wonderland.

When a humble commenter like me has to remind adults all-too elemental things that any toddler can understand—like colors!—something must have gone terrible wrong within the adult mind. Anti-Nordicist nationalists cannot refute us with facts just as liberals cannot refute the hard facts of race realism advanced by the likes of Jared Taylor. Like the liberals, what nationalists do is appealing to emotional non-sequiturs as to what is “practical” from the “political viewpoint.” The paramount issue about whether it’s OK to marry and have kids with, say, a Greek that looks like a Turk is treated with the same horror of what a leftist liberal would say. The leftist would label “racist” those who abhor the idea of seeing a daughter with mulatto grandsons. Would white nationalists call “Nordicist,” a pejorative term in their mouths, someone who would abhor the idea of having a daughter with Sicilian-like grandsons? If so, what about those who the media labels as “white” in the US? Is George Zimmerman a “White Hispanic”?

“Nordicism” is the white nationalist equivalent to “racism” in the liberal mindset. It might seem incredible but the stuff written a hundred years ago by American racialists like Madison Grant was un-infected with the virus of politically correctness as white nationalism is today. See the von Luschan chart. Isn’t it a no-brainer that human “white” skin is up to, say #15? Where do non-Nordicist nationalists draw the line, in which specific number?

Even if some would grant the lighter olive skin as still Caucasian, many so-called Mediterraneans fall into the numbers twenties of the chart. Harold Covington had a hilarious point recently when he said that quite a few modern Greeks “look like Mexicans.” And I find it rather incredible that for nationalists even of the revolutionary type not even the clearly brownish colors of the chart are to be considered “brown” anymore. If theirs and Johnson’s “amnesty” is conceded to them all what is the next step? What about the so-called White Hispanics in Johnson’s own town of San Francisco? Isn’t it so obvious that the line should be drawn somewhere in the second column of the chart (together with other factors, of course, like the shape of the cranium)?

But it is useless trying to discuss the matter with Johnson because he does not answer to honest criticism. In his site he has had a history of not letting pass the comments of those who present cogent critiques to his opinions.

Johnson controversies aside, Pierce was light-years ahead from contemporary racialists. He was the true spiritual inheritor of National Socialism for the American scene. Most, though not all, white nationalists are pigmies compared to him. Who We Are was his last testament and you will probably learn more brutal truth from that book alone than pursuing the diluted racialism so fashionable today. My purpose of translating texts from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana is precisely to warn English-speaking racialists about what we might call politically-correct white nationalism. It was precisely the sort of mentality that we see in this movement, if we contrast it with the purer American authors of yesterday, what led to a runaway anti-racism that is about to grant amnesty to millions of “White Hispanic” Mexicans and other non-whites in the US.

There is a strong trend of anti-Nordicism in the movement just as there’s a strong trend of anti-racism in the conservative movement. Ultimately, when compared to personalities like Grant or Pierce, white nationalists are closer to the conservatives. Here there are three must-reads that transmit the idea of why I believe that today’s anti-Nordicist movement is a dead-end:

• “White suicide in ancient Greece.” These are my excerpts from the tenth installment of Pierce’s Who We Are: A Series of Articles on the History of the White Race. It is telling that this entry has received zero comments as to date.

• “Why Rome fell.” These are my excerpts from Kemp’s appendix to his March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

• “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?” Yesterday I added all of my recent entry translations on the subject to Chechar’s so that this Evropa Soberana article may be read comfortably, starting with the first entry.


Parting word to the anti-Nordicists: Compare the so-called “Mediterranean” descendants of the Frenchwomen caught in the first pic above with the original phenotype of the handsomest ancient Greeks…

Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?


Translated from EVROPA SOBERANA


The German scholar Wilhelm Sieglin (1855-1935) collected all the passages of Greek mythology which referred to the appearance of gods and heroes. From among the gods and goddesses, 60 were blond and 35 swarthy-skinned. Of the latter, 29 were chthonic-telluric divinities; marine deities as Poseidon, or deities from the underworld. All of these came from the ancient pre-Aryan mythology of Greece. Of the mythological heroes, 140 were blond and 8 swarthy.

We have seen many instances of mythological characters, which is important because it gives us valuable information about the ideal of divinity and perfection of the ancient Greeks and points out that their values were identified with the North and the “Nordic” racial type. However, Sieglin also took into account the passages describing the appearance of real historical characters. Thus, of 122 prominent people of ancient Greece whose appearance is described in the texts, 109 were light haired (blond or red), and 13 swarthy.

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of the concluding chapter of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

All the great events of history have a racial basis. The very ebb and flow of history is understood only when it is seen that all of history is the result of racial or sub-racial shifts in power, of tribes or nations conquering others, of lands being occupied by different races, and racial conflict.

Once this common thread is understood, then history stops being a meaningless jumble of seemingly unconnected events, but welds into an obviously connected and predictable flow. With this knowledge, predicting the future on the basis of what is already known, is not that difficult.

This is particularly so in the light of the facts which have been overviewed in the previous chapter: the increasing numbers of non-Whites flooding Europe, North America and Australia will, without any doubt, lead to a change in the nature of the societies on those continents, which in turn will bring about a change in the nature of the civilization on those continents. That this will happen is without doubt: it is not even a question of debate, it is a simple fact.

What it means in practical terms is that Western European civilization—as it has been developing since the Late Paleolithic Age, some 27,000 years ago, will vanish and change into something else, a hybrid culture like that of present day India.

A civilization rises and falls along with its originating population: this is the great lesson of history which applies equally to any race in any country. Once the racial composition of a society changes, then that society itself changes.

The socio-demographic factors listed above are the most obvious indicators that the very nature of the White West is busy changing: it is becoming more violent; it is becoming poorer; and it is becoming more anti-White; it is becoming darker.
This is directly linked to the decline of the White people who originally made up that society, and their replacement by non-White newcomers foreign to the culture and civilization.

There are four ways through which a nation’s population can vanish:

1. Through obliteration in war;

2. Through their lands being swamped by labor-driven immigration;

3. Through physical mixing with newcomers; and

4. The second and third factors above combined with a decreasing birth rate amongst the original population.

Ancient Rome vanished because of the last three factors. Now exactly the same scenario is being played out in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Unless checked, the demographic trends show conclusively that Whites will be a minority in all three of these continents by the year 2100. After that, it is only then a question of time and Whites as a racial group will vanish completely.

The notion of an entire race disappearing may seem incredible: but it is not. There are in fact at least four distinct racial groupings which have already vanished as a result of being absorbed into other racial groups which have occupied their territory during the course of history. One of these four groups was a White subrace.

The White subrace known as the Mediterraneans, were the race who originally occupied much of Europe and the Middle East. These were the people who built the very first European civilizations, and then afterwards helped build the civilizations in the Mesopotamian river valley and in Egypt. On the European continent the Mediterraneans were absorbed for the greatest part into the Alpine White subrace; the Proto-Nordics and then the invading Indo-European Nordic subraces.

This absorption occurred with relatively little disruption to the growth of the European continental civilizations, as all the mixing components were all part of the broader White race. In the Middle East and Egypt, however, the Mediterraneans were absorbed into the Arabic/Semitic peoples and the African Blacks: through this process they lost virtually all genetic contact with the rest of the White race. The Mediterranean subrace of the White race has then already vanished, along with the culture it created.


Note: To read all the book, not only these excerpts, one must purchase a copy. It is no longer free online, not even the original drafts of the book that were once available.

Are Spaniards Aryans?

(& my take on Teresa of Ávila)

by Cesar Tort


Most of the television series I have been watching for critical review contain subtle and not so subtle anti-white propaganda. In a search to counter such traitorous series of the present century I also watched Teresa de Jesús, a mini-series premiered on Spanish television in 1984 that present the life of Spain’s great saint. Its dialogue is in Spanish but versions with English subtitles are available.

Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582) was a nun of the Catholic Church, a Spanish mystic and writer, and the founder of the Discalced Carmelites: a branch of the Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (or Carmelites). What struck me the most in the series is that many of the characters don’t look white at all, and in contrast with the obvious treason that I recounted in my previous post on The Hollow Crown the intention of the creators of the series was obviously different. The characters simply reflect the fact that many Spaniards are not real whites or Aryans.

See the important entry linked on the sidebar, “On anti-Nordicism.” If you want specifics about why most Spaniards are not pure Indo-Europeans let me say that the original Iberians, or iberos as we say in Spanish, men of the Aryan race, migrated from the Black Sea basin and went all over Europe up to the British isles, leaving a substantial proportion of people in the Iberian Peninsula which absorbed the previous inhabitants. Fifteen centuries before the Christian Era the Phoenicians and the Aryan Greeks (see the recent entries in this blog under the title, “Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?”) founded many colonies in the southern coastline, and with time merged with the original Iberians.


Six centuries before the Christian Era the Celts arrived, who also were Aryan, and fought with the residents of those lands but with time the Celts also mixed with them, giving birth to the Celtiberians. In the 6th century the Carthaginians (white Mediterraneans mixed with Semites) took over Cadiz and established some colonies. In 205 B.C. they were defeated by the Romans during the Third Punic War and expelled from the peninsula.

By that time the ethnic elements of the interbred peoples in the Iberian Peninsula were: autochthonous peoples (of unknown ethnic group?), iberos (Aryan Iberians), Aryan Celts, Phoenicians (half-bloods?), Aryan Greeks, and Carthaginians (half-bloods), producing a culture founded on the will of Celtiberians. In the first centuries of the Christian Era the peninsula would suffer further invasions from the Vandals, the Huns (non whites!), the Alans, and finally the Visigoths or Goths who proceeded from the occidental region of the Dniester River. Those were the groups that had arrived to what the Romans called the Hispanias by 409 A.D., when their empire was in the throes of agony.

The fall of the Roman Empire produced a gap in political, cultural and military power that non-whites occupied. From 713 A.D. the Arabs conquered most of the Iberian territory with the exception of the mountainous Asturias, the first Christian state that started the long period known as the Reconquista. Re-conquering the peninsula for the original Europeans would last no less than eight centuries, but this meant eight centuries of miscegenation with Arabs and Semites, both non-whites. The Moor occupation of this part of Europe ended in 1492 with the conquest of Granada by the Catholic Monarchs Isabella and Ferdinand. So many centuries of Muslim domination resulted in the peculiar phenotype of the peoples we see today in Spain, and explain why quite a few of them don’t look like real whites.

It is worth remembering that the mess started before. In the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow Aryans that dared to mix their precious blood with non-whites. Alas, the king of Hispania Recceswinth committed the greatest blunder in Iberian history: a blunder still unrecognized by Spanish intellectuals or historians but a gigantic blunder nonetheless. By converting to Christianity Recceswinth abolished the long ban on miscegenation (which reminds me the Spartan ban on miscegenation), which resulted in the subsequent mongrelization of the Visigothic Iberians. The decision of the king of Hispania allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as he professed Christianity, to intermarry with the Aryan Goths. Such failure of the nerve occurred just a few decades before these territories were invaded by the Moors.

It is not surprising to see, after eight centuries of unbeatable miscegenation, the formation of a superstitious culture that eventually would be called Spain. I must confess that the most incisive opinion I have ever read about Spain appears in the foreword to the printed version of Civilisation, the 1969 television series featuring Kenneth Clark:

Some of the most offensive omissions were dictated by my title. If I had been talking about the history of art, it would not have been possible to leave out Spain; but when one asks what Spain has done to enlarge the human mind and pull mankind a few steps up the hill, the answer is less clear. Don Quixote, the Great Saints, the Jesuits in South America? Otherwise she has simply remained Spain, and since I wanted each programme to be concerned with the new developments of the European mind, I could not change my ground and talk about a single country.

But what if even Cervantes, Spain’s great saints and the Jesuits were not so terribly cool from the viewpoint of racial preservation? What if the staunch Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, which produced Cervantes, the Saints and the Jesuits was uncongenial to white interests? These are the sort of questions that move me to say something about the 1980s’ television series of St. Teresa.

Racial phenotype of the actors aside, what struck me about these series is that its creators depicted Teresa as suffering from a typical hysteria; in her case, to the point of a catatonia she suffered as a young woman. What caused her hysterics will remain unknown, although it is interesting to read her autobiography. A copy in the original language that I have in my bookshelf says that Teresa confessed that she “was the most cherished of my father” (this comes from an English translation), and the very first words of her first chapter are: “I had a father and mother, who were devout and feared God.” Although only a very idealized parental-filial relationship appears in the first paragraphs of Teresa’s autobiography, I suspect that her psychosomatic illness attests to something that she, the so-called expert of the “Interior Castle” (the human soul), never confessed.


Whatever the dynamics of Teresa’s family it is interesting to see that even in these series, televised for a Catholic audience, Teresa is described by her sister nuns as pretending to be “the different one,” as always acting out her sufferings and psychosomatic ills. Some of the nuns interpreted her behavior as a trick to be the bossy of the nuns of the several convents she founded. Even Teresa’s hostile takeover of her original convent from the power of other nuns is depicted, albeit shown as something noble for the cause. As I have said, Teresa de Jesús has as its target group pious Catholics. So much that the (apocryphal) story of Teresa’s miraculous levitation while praying is recounted as historical, as well as an instantaneous flourishing of an almond tree at the end of her life (“Everything she touches turns into life”).

Teresa was a religious genius only in the sense that St. Francis was a religious genius. Both saints basically used theatrics big time to act out their emotional issues and gather large followings; followings that eventually reformed monastic orders.

My Catholic father, who insufflated in me a love for St. Francis during my adolescence, was totally wrong in his statement that “the only supermen are the Saints.” I would say that Christianity has no saints in the sense of psychologically integrated, or truly emergent, individuals (William Pierce is what presently I regard as the closest specimen of the archetypal “overman”). In Teresa de Jesús for example the so-called saint is depicted as fairly tolerant about the New Christians, or Conversos with Jewish blood, while other Spaniards of the series are presented as suspicious about those rich merchants of dubious origins. Also, Teresa’s most famous vision in which an angel pierced her heart with a golden spear, in-out in-out delivering the poor woman into an ecstasy, has all the marks of an erotic sublimation in the mind of a celibate nun.

The last episode contains an epilogue describing what happened in this primitive culture after an agonic Teresa died. Hunting for relics fanatic religionists cut her hand, one of her fingers, an arm and an eye, thus mutilating her dead body. It surprised me that the creators of the series described such post-mortem atrocities, some even perpetrated by the dignitaries of the Church, as something sublime and noble.

The reformer of the Carmelite Order was canonized forty years after her death, and in the century when we were born Teresa was even named a “Doctor of the Church” by Pope Paul VI. Here in Mexico I recently visited a property of the Carmelite Order and their wealth impressed me. As I have said elsewhere, as to white interests is concerned Spain’s Counter-Reformation experiment in Europe and the Americas was “an utter disaster”

Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?

– XXVI –

Translated from EVROPA SOBERANA


Odysseus, king of Ithaca, Achaean hero at Troy and protagonist of Homer’s Odyssey, is generally considered as swarthy. However, this can be tempered. Although he is described as white skinned and “dark bearded” in The Odyssey, his hair is hyakinthos, i.e., color of hyacinths. Traditionally this color was translated as “brown” but it was also said that the hyacinths grown in Greece were of a red variety. If true, that would make Odysseus red-haired.

Odysseus in any case differs from the Greek hero prototype: tall, slender and blond. It was described as lower than Agamemnon but with broader shoulders and chest “like a ram” according to Priam, king of Troy. This would be a more physical type of a Red Nordid [for an explanation of this term search: here] than a typical white Nordid Greek hero. It should also be mentioned that Homer so used to call “blonds” the heroes that, in two lapses, he described Odysseus’ hair as xanthos in The Odyssey.

March of the Titans

Excerpted from March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp (pic: Kemp in a BNP meeting):

Australia and New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand were virtually unique amongst the European colonies in the sense that they were the only new lands to where large numbers of Black slaves were never imported. The result was a successful colony comprised overwhelmingly of Whites (with only a small fraction of original non-White natives) which established a record for stability and progress virtually unmatched in history.

“White Australia” policy started in 1856

The development of the mining industry saw for the first time the importation of non-White laborers: Chinese immigrants started arriving after the discovery of gold, and their appearance created alarm amongst the Whites. Eventually in 1856, the state of Victoria formally passed a law prohibiting Chinese persons from entering its territory.

The government of the colony of Queensland started importing Polynesians to work on sugarcane plantations in the early 1860s; a public outcry followed, and the Polynesians were quickly sent back and their jobs were taken by White workers.

The Victoria Chinese exclusion law was then taken up by every other colony in Australia, being extended to include all non-Whites everywhere. This policy of excluding all immigrants except those belonging to the White race became known formally as the “White Australia Policy” and had the overwhelming support of all the colonists.

It was precisely the common acceptance of the White Australia policy which finally drew the various colonies of Australia into political unity, as it underlined the need for common immigration laws.

Rapid progress due to population make-up

All the while, Australia continued to progress as fast as any other modern European country, despite the country only being as young as it was. Almost overnight, White European culture and technology was implemented in Australia and it soon became the superpower of the region, easily dwarfing its much-longer-inhabited neighboring islands.

The rapid rate of Australia’s growth—given its relative youth—is possibly one of the most powerful arguments that can be made for the racial interpretation of history and of how environment is not the overriding factor. There are many Third World lands with greater natural resources, particularly in Africa, which have been inhabited for far longer than Australia, yet they are woefully behind the latter country in development. There can be only one explanation for this differentiation—namely the nature of the population, and not the environment.

Internally, Australia’s racial population make-up hardly changed during the first part of the 20th Century—only Whites were allowed into the country, and this policy combined with a natural reproduction rate created a steady increase of the numbers of Whites.

Homogeneity, key to stability

Australia’s development is notable for its stability, in stark contrast to every other part of the new world settled by White colonists. The key difference between Australia and the Americas or Africa, has been the massive degree of homogeneity amongst the inhabitants of Australia. It has never caused the Australians to become involved in horrendous civil wars nor to face the social unrest and racial violence that has dogged all the other settlements.

The development of Australia into a modern First World country contrasts dramatically with the progress of colonies in South America: although the settlements in South America preceded those in Australia by hundreds of years, Australia is nonetheless far more developed than almost all of South America.

If time, geography or other environmental factors were the sole determinant of the development of a society, it would be fairly logical to assume that a colony dating from approximately 1500 (for example Cuba) would be more developed than a colony dating from approximately 1800 (Australia).

The fact that the levels of development in these two countries differ so vastly can only be ascribed to the populations of these regions, and to no other factor. This is particularly so if it is borne in mind that, by any measure, Australia is a far less hospitable place than most of South America.

This stability has allowed Australia to develop as fast as any nation on earth: and the country is classed as First World even though in reality it was only created during the early part of the 18th century—truly a remarkable example of the truth that a society is a reflection of the people living in it, rather than a product of the environment.

White Australia policy abandoned

In a move which has seen Australia’s non-White population surge in numbers, the White Australia policy was only formally struck from the statute books in 1966 by a Liberal party government under Robert Menzies: unofficially it remained in force well into the 1970s.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The birth of the United States of America

Although the United States did not emerge as a separate country until the end of the 18th Century, it assumed a massive, perhaps even dominating, role in world history from that time onwards. North America became as important as Europe in many senses: not least because it became, through occupation and natural reproduction, a new White heartland, mirroring the occupation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans some 7,000 years earlier.

By 1630, the Spanish, French, Dutch and English had all established colonies in North America: all except the French had found themselves waging racial wars against the Amerinds, who resisted the White settlers with methods which were by any standards cruel. This was the first time the Whites came into contact with the particularly nasty habit of scalping—the taking of the scalp of a defeated enemy as a trophy; a habit deeply ingrained in the Amerind culture of war.


The Amerinds living in these areas for the greatest part resisted the White settlements with violence. The last resistance to the Whites in New England came in 1675, when three Amerinds were executed by the White colonists for murder. An Amerind chief named Metacom led an alliance of Amerind tribes in fierce guerrilla raids on the colonists. The Whites replied in kind and a bloody tit-for-tat exchange followed until Metacom’s secret hideout was discovered and he was killed. The Whites then drove the majority of remaining Amerinds from New England.

Mass white immigration

As news of the colonies in the Americas, or the New World, as it became known, spread throughout Europe, there occurred one of the most incredible mass population movements since the Indo-European immigrations: hundreds of thousands of Whites from almost every country in Europe packed their bags and moved to the new territories.

Some were attracted by the opportunity of owning their own land—something impossible for common folk since the time of feudalism in Europe—while others wanted to escape the class system and religious conflict into which Europe had descended. Waves of Germans, Irish, Danes, Dutch, Swedes and others all started pouring into the colonies, even though they were still under the nominal control of England.

Racial consequences of the American wars with Britain

For the White population, the War of Independence was psychologically testing: of the approximately 400,000 adult white men who lived in the colonies in 1775, about 175,000 fought in the war, either as rebels or loyalists. Thus, husbands or sons from nearly half of all white families were part of the “shooting” war.

The American Revolution also carried with it clear racial undertones, not only in terms of the Amerinds. The open call by the British to Black slaves to rebel against the White Americans, and the raising and arming of all-Black armies for this purpose, served to alienate Blacks from the new republic: many thousands crossed into British North America with loyalist supporters to escape the slave-owning Americans whose republic they feared and distrusted.

The population growth in the American colonies was staggering: in 1700, there were around 250,000 people in the 13 colonies: by 1775 there were 2.5 million, a ten fold increase—of whom 567,000 or 20 per cent—were Black slaves.

About 250,000 Blacks had been brought into North America before 1775, but the total Black population numbered 567,000 on the eve of independence. Whatever else slavery may have done to the Blacks, it certainly did not kill them, as this population growth was virtually exclusively the result of natural reproduction.

The contrast with the situation in Portugal immediately springs to mind: in that European country only about ten percent of the population was Black, yet in America at its very founding, the figure was already 20 percent: why did Portugal vanish as a world power and America then go on to become a great world power?


The answer lies in the level of integration: in Portugal there was absolutely no segregation and mixed race unions were positively encouraged. In America, not only did the huge degree of racial alienation exist—but as a result integration was actively discouraged and, in many states, made punishable with prison sentences (many of these anti-miscegenation laws were only repealed in the 1960s).

Thus although America always had a larger Black population, it never absorbed this population into its mainstream society, as the Portuguese did: and the difference is marked, once again proving the reality that the nature of a society is determined by the nature, or make-up, of the people dominating that society.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers