MacDonald on nordicist science

Adapted and abridged from Kevin MacDonald’s foreword to the 2011 book Raciology by Vladimir Avdeyev (read MacDonald’s entire review here or here).


Philippe Rushton once commented that science moves forward, continuing to gather data and refine its theories—with one important exception. A century ago, there was a robust Darwinian science of race differences, from differences in head shape and cranial capacity, to differences in intelligence and behavioral restraint. However, this young science was nipped in the bud.

But not because it was displaced by a new, powerful, empirically-based theory. Rather, the demise of racial science came about because of intellectual movements dominated by ethnic Jews and tightly linked to the political Left—the topic of my book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in 20th-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Kindle edition now available).

This was a case of science being replaced by ideology—an ideology designed to oppose the idea that Europeans were in any way unique or superior. Ultimately, it was an ideology that rationalized the decline of Europeans and their culture that we see all around us today.

The new ideology decreed that humans were infinitely malleable creatures of their culture. It eventually became defined by the view that “race does not exist.” Franz Boas, the high priest of the new cult, was a strongly-identified Jew and committed Leftist. His famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was very effective propaganda weapon in the cause of eradicating racial science.

Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (pdf), physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz, while not quite accusing Boas of scientific fraud, find that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. (See summaries here and here). They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end race-realist views in anthropology:

While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.

As a result of the massive success of this Leftist onslaught, the science of race differences languished. Whatever truths it had uncovered were forgotten.

In Raciology, the Russian journalist Vladimir Avdeyev resurrects the vast tradition of research on the physical anthropology and psychology of race differences. His book is an exhaustive summary of research in the field from the 18th century to the present. It includes a great many summaries of the research of individual scientists, many of whom have been virtually forgotten.

But Raciology is far more than a compendium of research. It also vigorously defends the idea that, as Avdeyev puts it, “the problem of race is the nerve center of world history.” It is intended to influence how people think about race in the context of history and current events.

Several themes recur throughout Raciology.

Race is overwhelmingly the result of biological inheritance, not cultural programming.

Beginning with Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, this body of theory and research proposed that the biologically-based racial characteristics of Whites have led them to be originators of superior cultures. The White race evolved in the north of Europe and spread south and east to be the main force behind the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome, Egypt, India, Persia, and the Hittites.

The ancestral type of the White race—called the “Nordic” race originally by Joseph Egorovich Deniker—is characterized by blond hair, blue eyes, light skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic (long-headed) skull with a well-developed prefrontal area (the area of the brain associated with intelligence, impulse control, and decision making).

Houston Stewart Chamberlain may be considered paradigmatic of a theorist who proposed that northern Europeans are a superior people.

All outstanding peoples that appeared starting in the 6th century in the role of true deciders of the fate of humanity as founders of nations and creators of new thinking and original art, were mainly of German origin. The creations of the Arabs stand out for their short duration; the Mongols only destroyed but they created nothing; the ingenious Italians of the Middle Ages were all émigrés, or of the north which was saturated with Lombard, Gothic, or Frankish blood, or they were Germano-Hellenes of the south; in Spain, the creative element was the Visigoths. The awakening of the Germans forms the foundation of European history, for their worldwide historical significance as founders of a completely new civilization and a completely new culture. [Introduction to The Foundations of the 19th Century]

Nevertheless, Avdeyev notes that, despite Chamberlain’s views on the centrality of the Germanic peoples, he advocated a union of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples in defense of the White race. Indeed, a theme of Raciology is that “the scientists of Germany well understood that the differences between the Germans and the Russians were extremely insignificant.” In fact, Avdeyev notes that Russians have a higher percentage of light hair and eyes than the European population generally.

Naturally, the idea that Whites had superior traits went along with eugenic ideas of racial betterment. In the words of German racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther, quoted by Avdeyev, the question is “whether we have enough courage to prepare a world for future generations, [by creating a race] that has purged itself in racial and eugenic terms.”

Geneticist Fritz Lenz, writing in 1934, viewed creating and maintaining a superior race as the ultimate struggle:

Undoubtedly, one may lead our race to such an ascent and flowering like it has never achieved before. But if we lose heart, our Nordic race will utterly die… Before us stands the greatest task of history.

That is, active efforts must be made to preserve the best elements and to rid the race of detrimental elements by discouraging reproduction of those who are prone to criminality, low intelligence, or psychiatric disorders. Avdeyev expresses the fundamental goal of eugenics as follows:

Our main goal is crystal-clear: the creation of a new, super-perfected White Race, the moral and physical degradation of which has reached its limit.

Compare American writer Lothrop Stoddard, writing in 1920:

The eugenic ideal is… an ever-perfecting super race. Not the “superman” of Nietzsche—that brilliant yet baleful vision of a master caste, blooming like a gorgeous but parasitic orchid on a rotting trunk of servile degradation, but a super race, cleansing itself throughout by the elimination of its defects, and raising itself throughout by the cultivation of its qualities.” [Lothrop Stoddard, Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man; emphasis in original]

However, despite the great flowering of culture emanating from Europe, and despite the knowledge that Europeans and their culture dominated the planet, there is also a pessimism that pervades this literature—the idea that White racial elites tend to become eroded over historical time because of admixture with lesser types.

It was common among these thinkers to assert that the depletion of the Nordic racial stratum accounts for the decline of Greece, Rome, the Hindus, the Persians, and other Nordic civilizations. For example, Ludwig Woltmann:

The blonde element of the people defines its cultural worthiness, and the fall of great cultures is explained by the dying out of this element.

Eugen Fischer:

[In Greece] the death of the families of fully-vested citizens and the admission of the descendants of slaves and the aboriginal population as citizens, led… to collapse. Rome died of race mixing and the products of degeneracy.

And finally, Otto Reche, writing in 1936:

That which we call “world history” is in essence nothing more than the history of the Indo-Germans and their achievements; the powerfully rousing and simultaneously tragic song about the Nordic race and its idealism; a song which tells about how the strength of the race did what seemed impossible and reached for the stars, and how the strength quickly dried up when the “law of race” was forgotten, when the Nordic man ceased to preserve the purity of his blood and strongly mixes with races [that are] less gifted in cultural terms.

The psychological traits attributed to Nordics are principled moral behavior and idealism, high intellect, inventiveness, and, in the words of Gustav Friedrich Klemm, a proclivity to “constant progress” and science:

Members of that race most often strive for the unknown, for the sake of a pure idea, driven by the thirst of knowledge, and not self-seeking interest.

[Here MacDonald extensively summarizes his views on the handicaps of Nordic individualism before Semitic collectivism and ends his review thus:]

Raciology is a most welcome development. The anti-racial theorizing of Boas and his followers continues to overshadow the current era. Such views are in their essence political movements against European peoples masquerading as science, designed to disarm Europeans—to make them defenseless against the onslaught of other peoples and cultures.

The reality is that the racial science that thrived in America until the 1920s and in Germany until the end of WWII coincided with an era of racial and cultural confidence among Europeans. It occurred at a time when Europe dominated the planet and was spreading its people and culture to all corners of the world.

On the other hand, the assault on this body of research has coincided with an unprecedented retreat of Europeans, not only from outposts like South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), but even in Europe itself, which is now being overrun by non-Whites. Countries like the United States and Australia that that were at least 90% European in 1950 are undergoing demographic transitions which predict that Europeans will be a minority with a generation or two.

During this ongoing disaster of European retreat, racial science has remained undeveloped and largely forgotten. It is to be hoped that a resurgence of racial science as outlined in Raciology will be part of a general resurgence of the European peoples. It is certainly a step in the right direction.


  1. Chamberlain’s quote above hits the nail about what today we might call “Nordicism”. He wrorte:

    All outstanding peoples that appeared starting in the 6th century in the role of true deciders of the fate of humanity as founders of nations and creators of new thinking and original art, were mainly of German origin. The creations of the Arabs stand out for their short duration; the Mongols only destroyed but they created nothing; the ingenious Italians of the Middle Ages were all émigrés, or of the north which was saturated with Lombard, Gothic, or Frankish blood, or they were Germano-Hellenes of the south; in Spain, the creative element was the Visigoths. The awakening of the Germans forms the foundation of European history, for their worldwide historical significance as founders of a completely new civilization and a completely new culture.

    Remember also what Otto Reche said above.

    • Excellent quote. Very true.

      I have read through your section on Nordicism and agree.

      What then, do you think the English/Irish/Scottish Celts and other White/Aryan type people should do? Should they leave the breeding to the true Nordics of Sweden, Norway, Iceland etc?

      This is an actual question, I’m not mocking you…. Same thing with the North Americans of Celtic decent. Should we even bother trying to find a partner and having kids? There seems to be a push in the NS movement to have more white kids – but is there any point if they’re not Nordic?

      Should Alpine/Celtic type woman still have kids but only with Nordic partners? Or should there be a big effort to find and pair Nordic types together? Should Alpine/Celtic type men and women still marry but the women only be impregnated by Nordic genes, even if the Nordic male is married to a Nordic female? (Or should there be no marriage and the community raise the Alpine-Female x Nordic-male offspring?).

      As you mentioned, NS people should be prepared to let their genes die out if they are less then the nation.

      In Northern Europe it is obviously easier for Nordic types to pair up…. Anyway, I apologize if you have already answered this somewhere, I didn’t read every Nordic article.

      Actually, that is a question as far as what to do with the Mediterranean types as well…. Or 1/8th Asian or Hispanic females or whatever.

      I ask you as you have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the future and the social structure.


      • Welcome to this forum, Sapere, and thanks for your questions.

        I tend to consider English/Irish/Scottish Celts of Nordish type phenotypically. The use of the term “Nordid” is being used to distinguish what popularly is called Aryans from the clearly miscegenated Mediterraneans.

        For instance, I have had heated discussions with “Creole” (no Amerind blood in your veins, only Iberian) nationalists in Mexico who insist that they are pure whites.

        I believe that they are deceiving themselves, since quite a few Iberians have been contaminated (what pejoratively I am calling now “mudbloods”).

        The whole point of these series about Nordicism in this site is to debunk those pious WNsts that are ultimately liberals: i.e., sensitive enough not to hurt the feelings of Mediterraneans—Meds like me, though unlike my creole friends I don’t fall into self-delusion.

      • There are many Meds who support Nordicism, but we do not think of ourselves as mongrels, because we (vast majority) are not.

        On Evola’s view of Italians and Germans:

        “While he extolled the ancient Romans and their virtues, he spoke pejoratively about his contemporary Italians. When I asked him what happened to those Roman virtues, he said they traveled north to Germany and we were left with Italian waiters singing o sole mio!”

  2. Ah, ok, thanks for the explanation re: Nordic types. Actually, the modern German seems to have some Alpine-type admixture and they are still a great nation.

    To be honest, when I went to school, the darkest people were a couple of Italians and Chinese. The Italians were clearly different, phenotypically, from the rest of us. Although, I am told there are some blonde Italians and Spanish.

    But the question still remains, should the Celtic/Red Nordic type try to ‘upgrade’ to the White Nordid type? Should mixes try to upgrade?

    You have probably seen this, the interesting new racial classification. (link)

    (LOL, ‘mudbloods’ – the Harry Potter series was so obviously against the ‘evil’ white/blonde aristocratic ‘purebloods’ in favor of mudbloods and race traitors. Brainwashing.)

    • Your remaining question is legit, of course, but I am not prepared to answer it (our racial expert Theoderich might want to say something).

      You might be interested to know that the Iberian guy I mentioned got extremely upset a few months ago at the article you linked because it discriminated redheads against pure nordids.

    • P.S. have you seen this about the Potter films?:

      • Ah, interesting! thanks :) I can’t remember much about the plotline but I remember sympathizing with the Slytherins/Purebloods. I wondered why they couldn’t just be allowed to stay separate from the mudbloods. With the new ‘muggle’ types bringing their modern culture into the old fashioned magic world, the old world was losing their ancient culture. I wasn’t awakened at the time but I thought it was too bad the purebloods = evil.

    • Consider the time shift for Europe guys, until I can read and answer you, maybe 2 days passes. Now to you, sapere:

      1. When i say read ES [Evropa Soberana] i mean read it carefully (!). The Nordic phenotype is a mix between RNs and WNs, redheads are also Nordic. (Just look at the top of the site you linked above !)

      2. That most of the Celts are originally redheads is just a stereotype (only their small upper class was). The British “Celts” (Irish and Scottish) are greatly from Germanic origin and there theirs Nordic-looks come from. It’s just unknown or suppressed history:

      – The Viking settlement – Isles and coastal areas
      – The Caledonia Normans – Scotland
      – The Anglo-Norman colonization – East Ireland
      – The Plantations of Ulster – North Ireland

      The real British Celts are the darker people you see often in the sparely-populated areas of West Ireland, Wales and Southwest-England.

      3. The Nordics are nowhere the majority of the population, in the Netherlands and North Germany they are maybe 30%, in South Swede maybe up to 40%. It’s surely irritating that a lot of women today, like in decadent Rome, color their hair. So look more at the males.

      4. To preserve the Nordic race is enough to do what F.K. Günther and the NS have done, spread the “Nordic thought” (Der nordische Gedanke, also a book by Günther), the idea that Nordics should only marry with each other.

      Naturally the other whites should have children, i think the policy in NS Germany was good, to encourage people to marry a partner who is “artgerecht” to them. (art = species, gerecht =just/justly)

      • Thanks so much for the reply :)
        Thinking about it again, most of the women I know are very proud when they have a blonde, blue eyed baby and brag about it a lot. If any are born with brown hair it’s not quite the brag fest.
        I think all whites instinctively want lighter.

  3. The 6th Century AD is rather late in Western history, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Minoan Greek civilizations were already ancient before the first Indo-European speakers appeared in history in the early to middle Second Millennium BC, and racially these civilizations were created by brunette Mediterranean peoples. The beginnings of Western science, mathematics, high art, religion, literature, law, and moral consciousness were all pre-Indo-European. The Indo-Europeans were sufficiently impressed with the pre-Indo-Europeans they found to assimilate their material and spiritual culture and to blend with them genetically as well, to the point that today Indo-European and pre-Indo-European genes and culture are just ingredients in modern European man.

    It is false to claim that Indo-Europeans are uniquely culture bearers, since when they arrived on the historical scene they were relative barbarians compared to Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Minoan Greeks. It is arbitrary to identify ourselves solely with our Indo-European ancestors, particularly since they thought well enough of their elder brother peoples to assimilate their cultures and genes.

    • From Pierce's Who We Are (just on the subject of Nordic invasion precedes rise of Classical Civilization; Middle East pages unquoted below):

      Greece was invaded by Greek-speaking Northerners several times during prehistory. Those who arrived in the period 2,100-1,900 B.C. founded the great Mycenaean civilization, which flourished from the end of the l6th century until about 1,200 B.C.

      Homer, whose Iliad and Odyssey describe Mycenaean Greece, refers to the Greeks, or Hellenes, inclusively as “Achaeans.” In fact, however, the Achaeans were only one of the Hellenic tribes which were in Greece in Mycenaean times.

      Aeolians and Ionians

      In addition to the Achaeans, who occupied most of the Peloponnesus (the southern peninsula of Greece, in which Mycenae was located), there were the Aeolians and the Ionians, who occupied other portions of the mainland, many of the Aegean islands, and the west coast of Asia Minor. The Ionians, in particular, settled in Attica and were the founders of Athens.

      These tribal divisions apparently predate the arrival of the first Hellenes in Greece, and it seems likely that the Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians invaded the Aegean region separately, over a period of several centuries.

      And there were also the non-Greek Pelasgians, the Mediterranean aborigines, who occupied the lowest stratum of Greek society and substantially outnumbered the Hellenes in Mycenaean times. As pointed out in the last installment, the Mycenaean Greeks were influenced culturally by these Mediterraneans—and, as time passed, racially as well.

      Divine-Born Heroes

      In the late 14th and early 13th centuries B.C. more Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans arrived, coming westward across the Aegean in ships. They were Homer’s “divine born” heroes, the fathers and grandfathers of the warriors who sacked Troy about 1,250 B.C.: golden-haired Achilles, the sons of Atreus, and the other princes and kings of the Iliad. They settled in Greece, founded dynasties, and lived in a manner remarkably like that of northern Europe’s feudal lords more than 20 centuries later.

      A couple of generations after the fall of Troy—exactly 80 years afterward, according to Greek tradition—a new group of divine-born warriors swept down on Greece, this time from the north. They were the Heraclidae, the supposed descendants of the blond demigod Hercules, and with them came the Dorians, the last of the major Hellenic tribes to reach the Aegean region.

      Dorian Invasion

      The Dorians, who had settled in central Greece a few years earlier, proceeded to conquer the Achaeans, occupy the Peloponnesus, and extinguish Mycenaean civilization. But, in so doing, they prepared the way for the rise of a new civilization which would greatly surpass the old one.

      The Dorian invasion was actually a more complex phenomenon than the preceding lines might suggest. It involved repeated interactions with other peoples on a protracted journey which, although generally southward, included a number of detours, loops, and rest stops. And their legendary leaders, the Heraclidae, had already been south once before, prior to the Trojan war.

      It also involved the displacement of other peoples, and it came during a period when lesser Greek-speaking tribes were undertaking invasions of their own to the south. Displaced Achaeans, Aeolians, and Ionians migrated to new areas, sometimes displacing those people already there and sometimes amalgamating with them.

      Blond but Rude

      The Dorians were blonder than the Achaeans they conquered, but that is only because the Achaeans had been mixing with the Mediterranean aborigines for several centuries before the Dorians arrived; originally the two tribes had been of the same racial composition.

      But the Achaeans were certainly more civilized than the rude, new arrivals from the north, and it was 400 years before Greece recovered from the cultural shock of the Dorian invasion. When the civilization of Classical Greece bloomed in the seventh century B.C., it comprised some elements of the old, Mycenaean culture and some which were the consequence of the social, political, and demographic changes wrought by the newcomers.

      Dark Age

      The four centuries between the Dorian invasion and the flowering of the literate Classical civilization are referred to by most historians as “the Dark Age,” for much the same reasons that the period between the fall of Rome, more than 15 centuries later, and the flowering of Mediaeval civilization is also called “the Dark Ages.”

      In both cases a people of an older civilization, who had begun to succumb to racial mixing and decadence, was overwhelmed by a more vigorous and racially healthier but culturally less advanced people from the north. And in both cases a period of gestation took place over a dozen generations or so, during which a synthesis of old and new elements, racial and cultural, occurred, before a new and different civilization arose from the ruins of the old.

      Historians’ Bias

      Unfortunately, most historians tacitly assume that the records of political and cultural activity which have come down to us from periods of civilized literacy provide all the data needed to yield an understanding of the historical process. The state of development and degree of organization and complexity of city life are taken as a yardstick by which to evaluate the significance or historical importance of a particular period. And if one’s standards of value are geared to such things as the volume of commerce, the gross national product, or even the intensity of scientific, literary, and artistic activity, such a yardstick may seem, at first glance, to be proper.

      Racial Values

      But there are other standards of value, such as those of the National Alliance, which differ somewhat from the customary ones. For it is not in the external forms of organization and activity of a people that we see the most important criteria for making a judgment as to the significance of a particular period, but rather in the actual racial constitution of a people and in the dynamic processes which, for better or worse, are influencing that racial constitution.

      Although the basic racial constitution of a people is always intimately related to that people’s achievements in commerce, science, industry, art, politics, and warfare, still the two sets of criteria can lead to fundamentally different evaluations of a given historical period.

      This is a consequence of the fact that race building and decay are usually strongly out of phase with civilization building and decay.

      Rise and Fall of Races

      Thus, the long ages between the periods of maximum civil activity—ages which the historian customarily ignores as being of only slight importance—may very well be periods of the greatest interest from a standpoint of racial dynamics.

      It is, of course, true that the periods of maximum civil activity are precisely those which yield a maximum of written records, artifacts, and the other raw materials from which the historian builds his tale. But relative abundance of evidence should not be interpreted as equivalent to relative historical significance, regardless of the historian’s value criteria.

      The record of the rise and fall of pure races constitutes the primary history of mankind, and the rise and fall of civilizations occupy a place of secondary importance. This statement may seem self-evident to those already accustomed to looking at history from a racial viewpoint, but it is by no means generally accepted by historians today. Until it is, much historical writing will continue to be flawed in a fundamental way.

      • William Pierce was a racial genius of the highest order. His knowledge, insight, and ability to see things very clearly, -past, present and future- was simply astounding.

    • More germane to what you say above is this passage from the same book:

      Oriental Bias

      But there is more than the rational involved in the conventional reaction to the Azilian symbols. A bias in favor of the Middle East as the “cradle of civilization” has been so strong for so long that it dies hard, even in the face of the rapidly mounting proof that many of the arts of civilization —although not cities themselves— had their origins in Europe rather than in the Middle East.

      Part of this bias was originally religious in nature and stemmed from the veneration formerly attached to the Old Testament by Europeans. Jewish mythology, of course, locates the Garden of Eden, whence man and his culture supposedly spread over the earth, in the Middle East.

      Also, the oldest cities quite clearly were in the Middle East —the ruins of Jericho, for example, date back some 9,000 years— and there was an understandable tendency to assume that a higher intellectual and cultural level existed in the teeming cities of the Middle East than in the scattered villages of Europe in the millennia following the close of the Ice Age. Thus arose the archaeological presumption, ex oriente lux (light from the east), which saw the Middle East as a brightly glowing center of cultural innovation, from which new inventions and ideas spread out like illuminating rays, eventually reaching even the most backward areas of Europe.

      Whether the 9,000-year-old Azilian alphabet stones are meaningless daubings or man’s first writing can only be decided after a great deal more archaeological research into the Mesolithic period has been done. Uncovering Mesolithic artifacts in Europe is much more difficult than finding Neolithic artifacts in the Middle East, where population densities were 100 times greater. But what is already certain is that many cultural innovations which had formerly been attributed to the Middle East actually were European in origin.

      I’d recommend your reading the whole book before commenting here again. It looks like we have just opposite POVs and you don’t know ours.

      • 1. Pierce admits that the Indo-Europeans were less culturally advanced than the pre-Indo-Europeans.

        2. Pierce asserts without evidence that the pre-Indo-Europeans were racially and culturally decadent when the Indo-Europeans arrived on the scene.

        3. Because Pierce can’t deny that the pre-Indo-Europeans were more civilized than the Indo-Europeans, he asserts that racial values are more important than civilizational values, but he does not establish the racial superiority of the Indo-Europeans. He just assumes that.

        4. The subsequent cultural achievements of Indo-Europeans do not prove their superiority, since Pierce never tires of reminding us that they mixed their blood with earlier, more civilized European populations. Pure Indo-Europeans were certainly very cute and sexy, but on their own, the contributed very little to civilization.

        5. In the second quote about Near Eastern civilization, Pierce treats urbanizaton as an independent variable from civilization, which is a highly dubious notion. High population density, urbanization, and consequently plentiful artifacts are all signs of highly productive, organized, societies. Absent such signs, we have to assume that such civilizations did not exist.

        6. Piece ignores the fact that even advocates of the “light from the (Near) East” view accept that Near Eastern man first evolved in Europe, then spread East. The Minoans, Egyptians, and Meopotamians are offshoots of the European race. But that does not alter the fact that high culture evolved in the Near East and moved West.

        7. Pierce can cite all the wonderful evidence of European ingenuity in the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Ages that he wants — and far more evidence has come to light since he wrote — but there still is no evidence of advanced civilization, science, etc in Europe in those periods.

        8. Pierce does not mention that Paleolithic, Neolithic, and most Bronze Age Europeans were not Indo-Europeans, so their cultural achievements are not Indo-European cultural achievements.

        I thought very highly of William Pierce until I read WHO WE ARE. It was a very disappointing, disillusioning book. It is a web of sophistries in support of an arbitrary preference for the Indo-European/Aryan/Nordic subrace, which is probably extinct, instead of the living European race, which if facing extinction and very much deserves to be saved.

        A cancer cell is a part of a body that does not serve the larger body but instead grows as if it were a separate and self-sufficient organism, until it kills its host then perishes itself. Nordicism — thinking of the Nordic ingredient of our race as a separate race — is a kind of intellectual cancer that needs to be scraped out of White Nationalism before it kills our movement and our larger race.

      • Pure Indo-Europeans were certainly very cute and sexy, but on their own, the[y] contributed very little to civilization.

        Utter nonsense. It was precisely because they being cute and sexy that the Indo-European Aryans created such a great civilization over the ruins of the conquered Mediterraneans in Hellas, as the blogger in Evropa Soberana has demonstrated (his translated articles from Spanish have been reproduced in this site). And exactly the same can be said of Republican Rome.


        The Greeks were enthusiast physiognomists, interpreting the character and personality of an individual from the physical features, especially of the face. Few have seen it, but the Greek statues were made with that knowledge in mind and therefore represent not only a beautiful body, but a beautiful body that also carries a beautiful soul.


        The Greeks, perhaps above any other Indo-European peoples, gave immense importance to the racial aspect: beauty, fitness and biological quality as a presentation card which connects closely with the cult of the body and sports, something typically Greek. The ideal beauty of the Greeks, without any doubt, was Nordic (precisely to distinguish themselves from the aboriginal, conquered people): Apollo, Adonis and Paris, three famous male idols for their beauty, were described as Nordic-looking. As for women, the most beautiful of all time, the legendary Helen of Sparta (later Helen of Troy and, even later, Helen of Sparta again): white, blond and blue-eyed like “Golden Aphrodite,” the goddess of love.

        / end quote.

        Nordicism — thinking of the Nordic ingredient of our race as a separate race — is a kind of intellectual cancer that needs to be scraped out of White Nationalism before it kills our movement and our larger race.

        It is the exactly the other way around.

        We who believe in the legacy of the pioneers in racial studies mentioned by MacDonald above, that culminated in National Socialism, need to separate ourselves from white nationalism as it is an intellectual cancer that is both: part of the solution and part of the problem that is destroying the white race, insofar as many Meds are non white and WNsts see no problem with interbreeding with mudbloods (yes: I am a kind of Voldemort and you Harry Potter—see what Sapere said yesterday).

        In other words, it is people like Johnson et al who want us to believe that brown Meds are white, as I said in my previous entry, what must be considered the infected ram that must be separated from the sheep. The tragedy is that most WNsts have been infected with Johnson-like anti-nordicism, even regular commenters in this blog who are now saying that brown players of the Italian team of the Football Cup are white.

        WN is completely bunk, and not only because of their anti-nordicism but because of the reasons I explained yesterday to Johan Hoeff in the other thread.

        What you completely fail to notice Heath Rutherford is that you and anti-nordicist WNsts think in ways completely at odds with the people that Evropa Soberana quoted in another of his essays (so you see it was not only Pierce):

        Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882)

        F. Nietzsche (1844-1900)

        Madison Grant (1865-1937)

        Karl Weinländer, published in Nuremberg in 1933

        Hermann Gauch (1899-1978)

        Hans F. K. Günther (1891-1968)

        Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

        Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946)

        Walther Darré (1895-1953)

        Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945)

        And the whole SS doctrine itself. In other words, it is the Harry Potter WNsts so reluctant to discriminate against the mudbloods the ones who are the freaks, not the SS men.

        The blogger Evropa Soberana concludes his untranslated essay: “Este ideal de belleza nórdica como representante de la herencia más atesorada de un pueblo es común a todas las épocas y todas las civilizaciones indoeuropeas” (“This ideal of Nordic beauty as representative of the most treasured heritage of a people is common to all eras and all Indo-European civilizations”).

        And there’s the rub, since Med cultures not based on physical beauty are of no interest for me and my 14 words. This was exactly the very first impression I got when visiting Madrid for the first time in my life in November 2008, a subject of my next book (in Spanish of course).

      • Chechar, Rutherford is talking about pre-Nordic Europeans i.e. the real Mediterraneans and not the fake “Mediterraneans” who are Whites who have Afro-Asiatic blood. Why do you lump the two together like that?

      • Yes, I know there’s a huge difference between the two. But sometimes he seems to be speaking in high terms of ancient Middle East cultures which were tainted with non-Caucasian blood as if they were superior to our Greco-Roman civ, and that bothers me.

  4. You may find this interesting:

  5. There’s definitely a Nordic-Germanic psychological type, which can be contrasted with that of the Celts, Slavs, and Mediterraneans, who all seem more similar to one another. A sort of radically axiomatic mindset. Very high potential from it, often used poorly. Hitler and Cromwell were two sides of a coin there.

    This mentality seems partially biological, as it manifests itself in radically different circumstances among Nordic/Germanic stock. I wouldn’t think it’s caused solely by the prevalence or absence of mongrelization, since Celts and Western Slavs should be of a similar purity.

  6. If Nordics are the most superior Whites, then we are truly screwed, since today’s Nordics are probably the most slavish, effeminate, and degenerate Whites. And I say this as someone who’s tall and has blond hair and blue eyes.

    • For the Nth time, you et al are confusing an extremely infected software (the Scandinavian mind in our century) with the hardware (they’re still the great reservoir for the Aryan gene).

      It is incredible that visitors repeat this category error, confusing apples with oranges, over an over again. Did you miss my pics of LOTR’s Théoden in the other thread illustrating it?

      • But why have Scandinavians embraced suicidal and ethnomasochist ideas so enthusiastically? Not even today’s “Germans” are as batshit crazy as the Swedes or Norwegians. There must be something inherent in Scandinavians that renders them susceptible to Jewish programming, moreso than other Whites.

      • Difficult to answer. There was a regular WDH visitor from Brazil (not Larry) who specialized in biological approaches to white suicide. He used to put useful links that now I’d take more seriously.

        My educated guess is that it’s a mixture of factors. Have you read the excellent paper by MacDonald (he allowed me to reproduce it in The Fair Race) on “white pathology”? IMO this + Christian axiology = lethal brew for pure whites.

        That’s why the most important thing in our time is the Nietzschean revaluation of Christian / liberal values back to our Indo-European heritage. (See also the articles by Manu Rodríguez in this site.)

    • There is naturally a psycho-racial factor directly linked to the Nordics. The merciless irony of history is that the traits that made the Aryans so great in the past, makes them so weak in a decadent age.

      [Just quoted from the part of the article above that Cechar didn’t post in abridged version]

      “I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in Raciology. (…)

      Lenz argued that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection (…) the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups.

      Europeans are therefore less ethnocentric than other groups—which makes them susceptible to being subverted by groups with a strong sense of in-group solidarity. (…) Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism. (…)”

      To sum it up: Individualism, small-family, novelty-seeking and activity, sense for freedom and justice, state-organization and order; stand against: Collectivism, clan-mentality, passivity and materialism, sense for criminality and self-justice, state-hatred and clan-egoism (but unfortunately these values make you successful today …)

  7. Chechar has made it clear that his Nordicism is an aesthetic fetish for an extinct people. Nordicism is mental masturbation — when it is not masturbation masturbation. Such views are useless for White Nationalists, who wish to save the existing white race from extinction.

    Gobineau, Hitler, et al. were simply wrong about Nordics/Aryans/Indo-Europeans. Aside from some aesthetically pleasing genes, they contributed little to modern European man that they came up with on their own. The Myceneans so admired the Minoans that they adopted practically their whole material and spiritual culture. The Classical Greeks were full of admiration for the Egyptians and other older, more civilized peoples.

    Nordicists admire the Greeks for their looks, which is superficial. Why do they not admire their humility when faced with superior cultures and their desire to improve themselves?

    • Superior? Are you saying that the civs which flourished in the Middle East were superior to the Greco-Roman civ?

      The Myceneans so admired the Minoans that they adopted practically their whole material and spiritual culture.

      Obviously you have not read my book El retorno de Quetzalcoatl, translated in my Day of Wrath. Their religion certainly involved sacrifices, even human sacrifices.

      As to your depreciation of beauty, you have also missed the very essence of Day of Wrath: only the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute (which can only be understood after assimilating within our psyches the fourteen words).

      • Agamemnon was Greek. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to the gods for favorable winds.

        Beyond that, why is human sacrifice a litmus test for civilization or the lack thereof?

        An if it is, then the Egyptians and Mesopotamians are ultra-civilized, since human sacrifice ended there in very early times, whereas the Romans ritually murdered conquered generals and kings well into the Common Era.

      • And of course your beloved tow-headed Hellenes simply threw unwanted babies away. The Phoenicians at least valued children enough to sacrifice them to the gods. They didn’t just discard them like rubbish.

      • Semitic-offering-to-molechYour POV is either (1) monstrous or (2) you simply have read zero of my writings about infanticide. What Carthaginians did was pure and monstrous evil and sadism (and I am glad that the Romans did not left stone upon stone of their city); what the Spartans did on the other hand was discarding defective babies who would be a burden to the state (I myself would euthanize a defective baby of mine). There’s a gulf between what the Semite Pheoenicians did and what the Aryans did. From the article “Infanticide” that I wrote for Metapedia:

        Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificed infants to their gods. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns. It is estimated that child sacrifice was practiced for centuries in the region. Plutarch (ca. 46–120 CE) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. Writing in the 3rd century BCE, Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.

        I’ve added an entry on child sacrifice among one of those cultures you say was superior to the Greco-Roman—a must-read for those who are really interested in looking directly to my eyes:

      • P.S.

        “Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to the gods for favorable winds.”

        It is true that the image of Medea hovers over childhood in antiquity. But in post-Homeric Greece it was already unusual to kill grown-up children as Medea did.

      • Spartans were not the only Greeks to practice infanticide, and infanticide was not just eugenic. Unwanted babies were simply discarded like rubbish. Which is worse: throwing babies in ravines because they are not valued or sacrificing them to the gods? Which attitude presupposes a greater value on human life?

      • Obviously you are a total newbie for this blog and/or my writings. Exactly the opposite is the truth! The fact is that non-Aryan child sacrifice was far more monstrous than infanticide among the Greeks and Romans who abandoned their babies. Here is a crucial passage of my book Day of Wrath:

        Above I said that Plutarch, Tertullian, Orosius, Philo, Cleitarchus and Diodorus Siculus mentioned the practice of the burning children to Moloch in Carthage, but refrained from wielding the most disturbing details. Diodorus says that every child who was placed in the outstretched hands of Moloch fell through the open mouth of the heated bronze statue, into the fire. When at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. Agathocles defeated Carthage, desperate and immersed in the most abject magical thinking the Carthaginians began to burn their children in a huge sacrifice as a tactical “defense” before the enemy. The sources mention 300 incinerated children. Had I run a career of film director, I would feel the obligation to visually show to humanity their infamous past by filming the massive red-hot bronze statue while the Greek forces besieged the city, engulfing child after child, who would slide down to the bottom of the flaming chimney. In addition to Carthage, the worship of Moloch, whose ritual was held outdoors, was widespread in other Phoenician cities. He was widely worshiped in the Middle East and in the Punic cultures of the time, including several Semitic peoples and as far as the Etruscans. Various sacrificial tophets have been found in North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, outside Tyre and at a temple of Amman.

        Terracotta urns containing the cremated remains of children, discovered in 1817, have been photographed numerous times […] The Carthaginian tophet is the largest cemetery of humans, of boys and girls in fact, ever discovered. After the Third Punic War Rome forced the Carthaginians to learn Latin, just as the Spanish imposed their language to the conquered Mexicans. Personally, what most worries me is that there is evidence in the tophets of remains of tens of thousands of children killed by fire over many centuries. I cannot shudder more over imagining what would had become of our civilization had the Semitic Hannibal reached Rome.

        Lately I have had contact with a child that a couple of days ago has turned six years old; who loves his mother very much, and physically resembles me. I confess that to imagine what must have felt a Carthaginian boy the same age when his beloved dad turned him over the imposing bronze statue—to imagine what must have felt for such an astronomical betrayal when he writhed with infinite pain in the fiery furnace, moved me to write this epilogue […] every time I run into stories of a sacrificed firstborn it is hard to avoid them touching my inner fiber. In the final section of this work [Hojas Susurrantes—not yet translated] I’ll go back to my autobiography, and we shall see if after such grim findings mankind has the right to exist.

    • I’m not really sure who to believe. It would take a few decades of research to develop the best possible understanding and even then you might not know for sure. Chechar has certainly made a case that should not be lightly dismissed though. If he’s right, the consequences could be significant.

      HBD DOES tell us that national character is real and heritable and that there are significant genetic differences between Europeans, even though we’re quite a bit more closely related to each other than we are to the other races.

      We’re currently in an era of unprecedented danger, where evolution (of a sort) is happening more rapidly than ever before due to the easy availability of rapid transit. It is entirely possible that certain European population groups may effectively cease to exist in unmixed form. In this context I mean unmixed with other Europeans. Either way, it’s basically the end of that nation and that unique combination of behavioral traits that we call “national character”.

      So an obvious solution to the Meds vs Nords debate presents itself. Keep the various European nationalities genetically separate as much as possible and see which group excels more, once Europeans have sovereignty over their own countries again. Call it a friendly competition.

      • Fair enough.

    • # Heath Rutherford

      (Also answering the other comments you made here and in the other section)

      As you not share many premises with me (and Chechar), and not let you convince by the quoted scholars, it’s hard to discuss with you (we just tell each other our viewpoints).

      So let me turn the discussion more in the direction of the last 1500 years and modern history. The connection between the declining of the Nordic elites across race-mixing and war, and the declining of the Nation as whole is also easy to see in this era.

      Portugal turned from the richest nation of the 15th century to the poor mulatto-state we know today in only 100 years. Spain, from the most powerful nation of the 16th century to a greater Portugal in also 100 years. France from the cultural and political leading nation of Europe in the 17th century, to a country of second importance in the 19th century.

      And even today the leading nations of the White world are the US, UK and Germany, the countries with the largest amount of Nordics. When other Whites are as equal as the Nordics, or even better, why Italy, France and Russia with their corruption and low economy look like banana republics compared to Switzerland?

      • Arthur Kemp’s “Portuguese are mulattos” morality tale is ludicrous. Were Portugal’s leaders — its kings and aristocracy, its generals and sea captains, its professors and prelates — miscegenated with blacks?

        Of course not.

        Then miscegenation — if it existed at all in Portugal — is not the reason for Portugal’s decline in world affairs. Because miscegenation among olive pickers and fishermen does not bring down a highly stratified society ruled by ruthless, guileful, and far-sighted white aristocrats.

        Portugal got off to a strong start in the age of exploration, but its population was too small to compete with the Spanish, English, and Dutch in the race to colonize the globe.

        Sam Dickson has been claiming for years that Arthur Kemp has been a secret agent working for the other side since he first emerged on the nationalist scene in South Africa. If this is true, it would explain why MARCH OF THE TITANS seems designed to divide whites and make movement people look like morons by repeating simple-minded nonsense like the Portugal story.

      • Exactly. Blaming miscegenation for degeneracy is a horrible historical analysis; it’s the effect, not the cause of degeneracy. The reason Western Europe is in decline is not due to race mixing, that has nothing to do with the real problem, it’s just the effect.

        How can race-mixing cause decline unless it occurs within the ruling caste or middle class? That has rarely if ever occurred on the European continent.

        Europid race-mixing, which precipitated collapse has only occurred outside Europe. South and Central America, Ancient Egypt, perhaps India.

      • “Sam Dickson has been claiming for years that Arthur Kemp has been a secret agent…”

        This is pretty paranoid. And Kemp was not the first to hypothesize the Portugal mess but Ray Smith in 1971:

      • Have you been to Switzerland? It is not a conspicuously “Nordic” country. And certainly Italy and France are not banana republics compared to Switzerland, which, by the way, has large French and Italian populations. Russia, Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine have very blond populations, yet they are quite backwards by comparison to, say, France or Italy. Indeed, the Indo-European homelands of Eastern Europe (the Baltics to Ukraine) are the most backward parts of Europe, and have been throughout history.

      • I don’t claim that Kemp is original, just that he has an eye for promoting divisive and ludicrous claims.

      • Indeed, the Indo-European homelands of Eastern Europe (the Baltics to Ukraine) are the most backward parts of Europe, and have been throughout history.

        I am no expert on Slavs but quite a few of them suffered genetic alterations after the long Asiatic invasions into the womb of the Caucasian peoples. My next entry will repost a long article by Evropa Soberana that might throw some light in some of these alterations. (He’s the real expert on this subject, not I.)

      • @theoderich

        The very groups you critique comprise some of the wealthiest areas of Switzerland.

        Your comment is not well research, the Swiss are part Italian and French genetically and linguistically. Most Swiss speak German, but they are not of ethnic Nordic stock; the hegemony of the Germanic language is the result of northern conquest in the Middle Ages.

        Switzerland is an ethnic and cultural amalgamation of different Europid ethnic types. This is not a blue-eyed blonde haired nation. Calling Italy and France banana republics verges on lunacy. Russia, that Slavic enclave or semi-Nordics, is indeed a hellhole.

        More Nordic lunacy and fantasy …

      • P.S. regarding my 11:21 pm comment

        25Here’s an advance of the article I just mentioned.

        Armenid genetics’ distribution by country. Darker are the countries with higher quantity and/or purity of Armenid heritage. One thing that might surprise about this map is the similar level of armenization in North Africa and Southern Europe—and the eastern countries you mentioned.

      • @Chechar

        You need specific scientific data to make your arguments, not color-coded maps which show Russia being the same color as Africa and India being the same color as Germany. Without specifics you can claim anything.

        If you have a theory on race, it needs to be stated in genetic terms or exact phenotypic terms, or it is nonsense.

      • Didn’t you read my comment? I said this PS was a fractional advance of a long article I am adapting for WDH.

      • A map of Armenoid genetic markers, broken down in terms of countries, does not constitute proof of genetic mixing. It just shows the location of Armenian and other Armenoid communities. Russia has Armenoids because Armenia was part of the Russian empire.

        The crudity of this map is shown by the fact that Siberia has the same color as European Russia and the Caucasus, although obviously Armenoid genes are not evenly spread across all those time zones.

        If there is genetic admixture in Russia, is is with Mongols. It is over-stated, in my opinion, because Russia has tens of millions of perfectly white people.

        But Russia was ruled by a part-Tatar Tsar, Alexander Godunov, at the end of the 16th century. And when race mixing reaches the very top of a society, then it is reasonable to think that lower echelons are mixed as well. (Most of Russia’s rulers were not descended from native Slavs, but from Vikings.)

        Russia’s backwardness is probably attributable to the Mongol conquest, which left some Mongol blood. But perhaps the worst legacy was Mongol cruelty and despotism.

      • Beyond the crudity of the map, Armenians are highly intelligent and energetic people. Their presence certainly would not explain why Russia is backward. Indeed, they may be one reason why it is not even more backward than it already is.

      • Yea, I have read the Europa Sob.; it seems that his insinuation is that a certain haplogroup from Anatolia is especially prevalent in Meds, making their DNA non-white, but facial features look white.

        His argument about Red Nordids is of interest, but the rest is pieced together with no central theme or conclusions … . I doubt he has a science background.

        If I showed that article to a geneticist, they would laugh at all of the irrelevant anecdotes he includes to *make his point*.

      • I think you want to misunderstand me, so you can make arguments on points i never said.

        1. “the declining of the Nordic elites across race-mixing and war”
        I never mentioned the under-class Med population in these countries and race-mixing also includes other whites, and the war factor is always great.

        I Portugal and Spain not only declined cause of race-mixing, also theirs best men, the Nordic elite, emigrated to oversea. The Dutch where not largely greater than the Portuguese, why the Dutch with a handicap of 100 years behind the Portuguese took over East India ?

        II After the Revolution and Napoleon, the massacre of the Nordic nobility, France since 150 years the greatest nation of Europe fall fastly behind England and Germany and get humiliated 1871 by Germany. Aren’t the whites all equal ?

        2. “How can race-mixing cause decline unless it occurs within the ruling caste or middle class?” Decadency firstly begins with the elites, and than spreads to the masses, in ancient Rome decadent behavior among the elites is known in the 2th century BC, while it reached the masses not before the 1th century AC. The analogy of today would be the decadency of the ancien regime in the 18th century and today in the 21th we have a “new normal”.

        3. Are you kidding me ? Switzerland is with 73% nearly all German, and many country parts are really Nordic, because they are isolated. I understand now, you want to say me that the progress of the country mostly depends on the other 27% of the population, but what is with the other full Germanic countries ?

        4. Blonde is not Nordic, the Slavs are nearly nothing Nordic, and it’s also known that the small elites are descendants from the Vikings, like the famous Rurikovich dynasty.

        5.”If you have a theory on race, it needs to be stated in genetic terms or exact phenotypic terms, or it is nonsense.” The phenotypes i mention like the Nordic are exactly defined. Also the Med phenotype is already a transition from to the Oriental type. You believe in the geneticists because they say that all Europeans are whites and also the Turks, while the anthropologists will say you the opposite.

        6. In all you concentrate on details while you avoid to answer my central question: Why are today and in the latest history the Nordic countries the leading ones, when whites are all equal and even other races like the Armenids built up civilizations, as you say ?

      • I don’t believe that all whites are equal. I think Germans are clearly superior to Slavs, Meds, Franks, and Anglos. The subgroups under the Germans are not that far apart in terms of achievement.

        I’m actually a supporter of Nordicism (genetic pool of Germanic tribes in North-Central Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, etc. …), as stated numerous times. I acknowledge that this genetic pool is the creme de la creme (best of the best) of the white race.

        Additionally, I would agree that Northern European countries are more economically productive than Med countries as part of their ‘Protestant work ethic’. But the difference in terms of GDP between North and South is not huge.

        What I am not a supporter of:

        1) Accusations that Meds (outside of specific areas) have a comprised genetic pool. There is NO science to back it up, so Nordicists use genetics they don’t understand to grasp for straws.

        There is not a living geneticist alive who would concur that mainstream Italians (outside of Sicily) have any more than .5% foreign DNA. This is not a fact that can be debated.

        Not liking Meds is one thing, but to call them non-white and construct theories to justify the assertion is pathetic.

        2) The assumptions that the ‘Nordic elite’, throughout history, and that potentially ruled Greece and Rome, automatically incorporates the gene pool of everyone with blonde hair and blue eyes.

        The specific racial stock, which was potentially responsible for the great European dynasties of the past was Doric-Achean or proto-Scythian. This is the stock that was potentially the foundation for Greece and Rome, not Anglos, Celts, Irish, or blonde Franks.

      • What I am not a supporter of: 1) Accusations that Meds (outside of specific areas) have a comprised genetic pool. There is NO science to back it up, so Nordicists use genetics…

        Not only outside Sicily or Greece. I said above I’m planning to write an autobiographical book that starts with my impressions of what I saw the first day I visited Madrid: most Spaniards are clearly not Aryans. That’s the whole point.

        And since my mind starts to build his thoughts and motivations after the 14 words (see above) it goes without saying that quite a few Iberians are of no use for my ultimate goal (see the last pages of Day of Wrath)—racial purity is paramount.

        Tu put it in extremely brutal terms, do you honestly believe that in the coming wars I would risk my life for the hairy balls (ie., genetic material) of that brown football player you claim to be white? Gimme a break. Those testicles are of no interest for our higher goals. I would fight only for those whose sperm carries the info to create the “girls on the rocks” that Parrish was so fond of painting in times when the Americans still treasured their Nordish blood.

  8. The problem with ancient civilizations is that being a pleb in an ancient city actually sucked pretty bad. Hunting was better than agriculture if you could bring in enough game and fend off your enemies. Barbarians usually only became “civilized” when they conquered the civilized people or were forced out of their preferred lifestyle.

    I’d sooner look at the last 500 years and work back from there.

    • Oops, Theo’s already there.

    • Yeah, that’s on of the questions we discuss here:

      Do the “Barbarians” (Aryans) became civilized when they conquered a civilized people or did they found the civilization by conquering a mass population and being the upper-class of it ?

      I believe that the historical facts are quite clear, that all civilizations were founded by the Nordic upper-class. In the ancient Greek decadency theory the “Barbarians” are a people of pure race and customs while the civilized people (like the Asiatics) are decadent and weak, the Greeks saw themselves as the best mix of this extremes, strong and cultured.

      • Your points become laughable when you state things like Meds are a transitional ‘oriental’ phenotype. Very scientific. The science behind what you are saying involves the frequency of haplotype J2, found commonly in Italians, which can be traced back to Anatolia … Turkey. But this merely proves association, not lineage or mixture, especially when you consider that each significant Med group (Greeks, Spainards, and Italians) has its own unique halotype ‘outlier’ which supposedly proves it is non-European.

        In other words, the same genetic data that is used to show that Italians are have non-white DNA because of their J2 haplotype, is not present in the Spanish. So you would have to find a different non-white source for each Med group to have migrated from.

        And … haha, yes, those Italians and Spaniards look like Turks, so they most be the same! Only Turks have identifiable mongoloid DNA and Asiatic haplotype groups on BOTH X and Y CHROMOSOMES, which no geneticist would deny.

        And your assumptions about Switzerland are, again, WRONG.. the same Lombards and Celts who occupy most of the genetic make-up of Northern Italy, share their genetic make-up with the Swiss. Milan is a majority Germano-Celtic enclave.

      • # MisterDeustch

        I) “Protestant work ethic”, only Calvinism has a real work ethic but all people wider this to all protestants since Weber made this theory.

        II) The term “White” is not defined, i did not said that Meds are not “White”, only that all “Whites” are mixed forms of the Nordics.

        III) Right, the Hellenes and Italics, were own tribes that emigrated from North, and the todays Nordic have not the 100% same blood. But all Nordics are from the same gen pool in South Scandinavia, so there are really similar to each other.

        IV) I don’t speak about genetics here, i speak about phenotypes (looks). You confront my theory by saying: “And … haha, yes, those Italians and Spaniards look like Turks, so they most be the same!”

        As i say above i think that “Whites”(/Meds) are only a sort of mix of the Nordics so they are many ways to race-mix the Nordics to a Med (morphological the Nordics and Meds are really similar to each other).

        You also prove this with your comment:

        “that each significant Med group (Greeks, Spainards, and Italians) has its own unique halotype ‘outlier’ which supposedly proves it is non-European. (…) So you would have to find a different non-white source for each Med group to have migrated from.”

        The outliers are mainly the non-white source.

        V) As i mentioned in another comment to you, even when you look at the Y-Haplogroups, Italy has in average 40% non Aryo-European-haplogroups (Again visit Eupedia). Also on that site you will see that the Swiss and North Italian are really different.

      • Ultimately, we can agree that we do not agree ..

  9. Have a look at this racist map:

    • A map that colors Bostwana, Germany, and France the same obviously proves nothing about race, does it?

    • Another Map –

      In northern European habitancies there is a high prevalence of NP types, Non-Narcissistic A and PA types are common in Middle-Eastern areas; matings between non-aggressive and non-aggressive types tend to produce “hybrid” NA and NPA types. And these types are common in Mediterranean regions. Indeed, only in certain Mediterranean regions of the world (except present-day Colombia) are NPA types common, such as Italy, much of France, Berbers, Ashkenazi/Israelis and other places.

  10. Meds are def.more mixed than Northern Europeans. Look at a map, how could it not be so.?

    Dodecad Ancestry project has a spreadsheet with autosomal DNA percentages for each group:

    It goes into a lot of sub-groups but I’ll keep it simple and list only a limited number of broad categories.

    Sicilians at 17.6% South West Asian (Jew / Arab), 80.7% “Aryan” (for lack of a better term, NW Euro + Med + West Asian)

    Northern Italians at 9% South West Asian, 91% Aryan

    Spaniards at 5.6% South West Asian, 0.9% West African, 92.3% Aryan

    Portuguese at 7.9% South West Asian, 1.3% West African, 87.9% Aryan

    Greeks at 15.1% South West Asian, 84.8% Aryan, but with West Asian rather than Med or NW Euro as the largest Aryan component.

    French Basques at 0% South West Asian, 98.5% Aryan (other components look like noise)

    French at 4.1% South West Asian, 95% Aryan

    Germans at 3.6% South West Asian, 96.2% Aryan

    Norwegians at 0.4% South West Asian, 98.2% Aryan, 0.7% Arctic

    Russians at 2.6% Siberian, 5.9% South West Asian, 90% Aryan 0.6% Arctic

    Etc. These aren’t always based on the largest sample sizes and they’ll vary for each individual, but the patterns are very clear and fit very well with what should be expected based on looking at a map.

    • Basques are “Aryan”? Do words mean nothing anymore?

      • It seems not …

      • Aryan doesn’t mean much that’s for sure. That’s why I clearly defined how I was using the term.

        West Asian + Med + NW Euro components are very closely related and can be lumped together as “European”, but the problem with using that term is that the West Asian component present in almost all European except Basques and Sardinians originates in West Asia, not Europe.

        Basques are actually purely NW Euro + Med, without the West Asian component present in virtually all other European population groups, probably as a result of Indo-European invasion.

        It seems silly to define European-ness based on the 5-8% of our DNA that is West Asian / Indo-European and ignore the 80% plus that is NW Euro + Med.

    • You totally miss the point. And again no specifics and no understanding of DNA.

      Just your ‘pinion.

      Africa … Asian … Italians … blah blah … mongrels … QED!!!

      Greeks and Italians have Anatolian origin DNA, however, they do not have Turkish DNA. There is a big difference, because ALL Turks have specific admixture dating back thousands of years with Mongoloid and West Asian tribes not present in the Italian or Greek genetic pool. The Turks, if they are to be consider a unique people, have a genetic markers (most notably GEN-Y J2 and some mDNA) shared with the pre-Italic Etruscans, but those genetic markers must have come PRIOR to admixture acquisition, or else the rest of the Turkish DNA would be shared with Italians and Greeks, which it is not.

      And more stupidly, you assume that SW DNA is not white … well I’m not sure if your genius level Nordic IQ is aware of the genetic research which ties modern Germans to the Scythian region. Scythia is north of the Black Sea, and the Anatolian region Italian J2 genetic markers comes from is Southwest of the Black Sea.

      There’s a big question over whether the Scythians migrated northwest from Germany/Britain to Scythia, or vice versa. Regardless, the genetics indicate that there was movement back and forth five to ten thousand years ago.

      So these two groups, the Germans and Italians, both have ‘Southwestern DNA’, perhaps a hundred miles away and you want to make a case that this makes Meds non-white?

      • ^I don’t mean to necessarily indicate that certain proto-Germans originate from Scythia (although that is possible), only that they certainly occupied the region centuries ago.

      • Very technical. Impressive. But what do you think of my Mexican (i.e., mestizo or swarthy Iberian) friends who shove under my nose genetic studies to demonstrate they’re still “whites”?

      • @ Chechar

        Your friends aren’t using real science.

        I agree that certain Iberians, mestizo SA’s, Sicilians, and Portuguese are not white. DNA tests show this conclusively.

      • South West Asian DNA reaches highest frequency in Arabia and seems to be clearly non-European, spread by Arabs and Jews.

        Look at the map of the frequency of South West Asian DNA.

        I would not be comfortable regarding this as a white component, otherwise we would need to classify Saudis as white.

        Most European groups have some minor level of SW Asian DNA from mixing with Jews, but some have a much higher frequency than others, 15% vs 3% for example, indicating more extensive contact with Muslim Arabish types.

        Yes, individuals within population groups will exhibit different frequencies, but one can still speak in statistical terms.

        P.S. Anatolian DNA is primarily West Asian, rather than South West Asian, so would not be counted against Italians and Greeks, except to the extent that they may have picked up SW Asian DNA from mixing with Anatolians who were mixed with Semites..

      • @ Van Phauc

        Nice try.

        Your reply confirms my suspicions that you don’t know anything about genetics, besides perhaps content of a wikipedia page.

        Speaking in generalities is your only rebuttal, which is, of course, a concession of ignorance towards the subject.

      • The spreadsheet is pretty clear and the project it comes from is well regarded.

        It is apparent you haven’t examined it and that you have no idea what you’re trying to criticize; your points have been one non-sequitur after another.

        As such, it would be a waste of time to continue.

  11. “After the Revolution and Napoleon, the massacre of the Nordic nobility, France since 150 years the greatest nation of Europe fall fastly behind England and Germany and get humiliated 1871 by Germany. Aren’t the whites all equal ?”

    This is history reduced to Nordicist fairy tales by axe-grinding cranks.

    How was it that Germany was defeated in two World Wars? Was it because of race-mixing and the massacre of a Nordic aristocracy? There are other factors in history besides race.

    • Of course there are other factors. But many WNsts don’t want to acknowledge the lethal effects of The Ring (economy over Principle) + Christianity. That’s why we need something better.

    • At least Germany lost against England and the US who are also quite Nordic.

      There are other factors in history but there is a great trend towards race, on race depends nearly all, the quality of population and state.

      I see our different Weltanschauung is concluded from the opposite premises we believe in and these are fully irreconcilable. So to sum up and end the discussion here:

      I with the 19th racialists scholars and the NS movement, believe:

      1. The Aryans (/Nordics) are the orignial race, the
      “Whites/Europeans”, only a different mongrelaziations of them.

      2. The Aryans are the force of civilization from the earliest history until today.

      In contrast to this you believe:

      1. The Whites/Europeans are an own and original race, the Nordics and others are only an offshot of them.

      2. In early and ancient times there were many races and people that built up civilizations.

      So you have to deal with this question:

      – as a WN you probably are who believes that whites are racially superior, why they weren’t they also superior in early, ancient, medieval times?

      They could not develop so fast in some 100 years, that they from one, of various civilized races how you say, in Westeurasia, raised to world domination in the 19th century.

      You do not need to answer because the only solution you have is that you make vague “culture” arguments, that are nearly impossible to counter. Ultimately, history will show who was right.

      • Your comments are great, theoderich; they only need a little syntactic revision but I understand it perfectly from someone who has English as a second language. Cheers.

      • Thanks Chechar, I really prize your opinion. Also I already noticed before that you edit my comments, I appreciate it !

  12. I’ve been following your blog, which I consider very interesting, and I think there are some contradictory posts. In particular, those related to the Iberian or Spanish. Lately I see you mean to them as “non-white”. But in your comments about the conquest of Mexico en XVI century, for example, you used to assure that they were/are “white”. In a specific question I asked you about it some months ago you said “some Iberian are white”. Maybe you should determine this issue more properly. Thank you.

    • Yes, you are right: I should be more specific.

      Generally speaking—and I can only claim things regarding a year I lived in Gran Canaria and months in Barcelona—I would say that there are real nymphs there, really perfect Aryan females at least phenotypically. But not in the high proportion of “nymphs” I witnessed in Houston, Texas when I lived there for a couple of years. This is all subjective, granted; but Nordish beauty is always my standard to measure pure whiteness in my mind.

      Compared to Amerinds of course all Spaniards look white (Pedro de Alvarado, the one who started the massacre during the most sacred festivity for the Aztecs, was so blond that the Mexicas called him Tonatiuh, their Sun god).

      • What year(s) did you live in the U.S.? Was it just Houston?

      • 1985-1988 in Marin County in California; 1996-1998 in Houston.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: