I’m still alone

One of the things that strike me when I say that I am speaking to myself is that some respond that they are listening to me, or that they have learned about anti-Christian matters thanks to this site. The reality is that that would be only one aspect of being accompanied.

A few days ago I quoted once again what Nietzsche said of Luther. This monk, instead of kneeling in Rome grateful for the transvaluation of visual values that had started at the very headquarters of Christendom, none of that impacted him, but returned to his dark Germany to write religious texts.

White nationalism is a basically American phenomenon. All major websites are American, not European. Europe died after World War II when two Judaised nations to the core annihilated it. But we should not blame Roosevelt’s US and Stalin’s SU one hundred percent, as both socio-political experiments were two branches that emerged from the same egalitarian baobab that began to engulf the West right after the French Revolution.

White nationalism being basically an American phenomenon, a descendant of the Calvinist Puritanism of the first colonists, is blind to the values that the Renaissance advocated: the plastic and visual arts. If we remember the texts of Evropa Soberana, a European from the westernmost part of Europe, for the Greeks and the Romans the beauty of the statuary and the temples, more than the texts—not all of them could read—was central. Remember what Greg Johnson said in the comments section of The Occidental Observer in 2012: ‘We need a regime that (1) bans pornography and (2) erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and athletes in every public square and crossroads’.

The texts of white nationalism, including the ones Johnson posts on his webzine, bore me (worst of all is the very verbose Unz Review whose admin is a Jew). They are a direct result of those who conquered the American continent, alienated in the Old Testament ethos and consequently inspired by Judaic legalisms and moralising rather than by the visual arts. Unlike these Judaised whites, what interests me is the beauty of nymphs, sylphs, and dryads (and it doesn’t bother me in the least that some pederasts include androgynous ephebes in the list).

Instead, the pundits of white nationalism, even those who have read Nietzsche, as little and prudish Luthers are blind not only to the beauty of the Aryan body, insofar their webzines don’t dream about it in every crossroad, but blind also about the squares that should inspire them to create the ethnostate. Remember ‘What Did Ancient Rome Look Like?’ that I embedded not long ago!

If I am alone it is because I have not been understood when I speak of the transvaluation. Perhaps many believe that I am still referring to texts or cold reason, when what I want is an ethnostate whose architecture resembles the Rome that appears in the aforementioned video.

The anti-white climate of our time is exactly the reverse of the dream of putting gorgeous naked nymphs and ephebes in every public square and crossroads. If contemporary racialists had already transvalued their values, instead of verbose texts that few read they would show in their webzines that beauty.

This is one of the reasons why I am not in the least concerned that the insane American negrolatres, and the blacks themselves, are smashing white male statues in America. All the statues knocked down by BLM and the antifa have been statues of clothed Christians: statues that had to be thrown away anyway after the Nietzschean revolution. What we need throughout the re-conquered West are thousands of completely naked pagan statues showing Aryan beauty in their full frontal glory.

To save the race, values must be revalued, and that means understanding things as inconceivable to American racists as what I said to European Vig these days in the context of how music would sound like if Christianity had not murdered our souls.

The Danaides

The Danaides is a 1903 painting
by John William Waterhouse
(Private collection)

Published in: on July 6, 2020 at 10:09 am  Comments (1)  

Ganymede and Zeus as an Eagle

Homer describes Ganymede as the most beautiful of mortals, and in one version of the myth, Zeus falls in love with his beauty and abducts him in the form of an eagle to serve as cup-bearer in Olympus.

Published in: on July 4, 2020 at 2:47 pm  Comments (1)  

Nymphes et un satyre

Nymphs and Satyr is a painting, oil on canvas, created by artist William-Adolphe Bouguereau in 1873. The piece is currently on display at the Clark Art Institute located in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Published in: on July 2, 2020 at 8:32 am  Comments (5)  

Indictment (1995)

Regarding my list of 50 movies that I recommend, this morning I was tempted to replace Elizabeth (1998) with Indictment: The McMartin Trial (1995). I didn’t because, twenty-two years ago, the beauty of Cate Blanchett (pic above) and the clothing of other women, almost at the beginning of the film, briefly portray the nymphs on this blog’s sidebar with real-life specimens (here, and Elizabeth with her boyfriend here). But the plot of Elizabeth is Hollywoodesque and doesn’t seem as relevant to understanding the dark hour as Indictment.

In the forums of white nationalism, and even in Metapedia, we are told that the expression ‘conspiracy theory’ is a Jewish invention. The reality is that there are some racially conscious whites who don’t subscribe the theories of staunch libertarians, like those of the flu truthers. Those reluctant to flip through Bugliosi’s JFK book, but who are interested in knowing why I despise conspiracy theorists so much, can do so by entertaining themselves with Indictment, and viewing it as the #51 movie of my list of favourite movies.

Indictment shows the incredible delusional level reached by some conspiracy theorists in the decade that Elizabeth was filmed: a witch-hunt that, in real life, destroyed the lives of innocent men and women.

Everything has to do with understanding mental illness, even the folies en masse, not from the point of view of psychiatry, which is a pseudoscience; but from the POV of my book Day of Wrath which explains the notion of ‘paleologic thinking’ to distinguish it from the more artstotelic forms of human cognition.

Published in: on April 25, 2020 at 12:04 pm  Comments (8)  

How did white women get their cute appearance?

(Brief answer: we designed them)

Peter Frost is a Canadian anthropologist. His main research interest has been the role of sexual selection in highly visible human traits, notably diverse hair and eye colors. Other interests include vitamin D metabolism in northern hunting peoples and gene-culture coevolution, such as genetic pacification due to the state monopoly on violence (reduction of propensity for personal violence).

Grégoire Canlorbe: You are best known for your claim that the most plausible origin for the light coloration of skin in Europeans is sexual selection rather than natural selection. Could you remind us of your argument?

Peter Frost: It’s not just light skin. It’s also the extraordinary variety of hair and eye colors. I prefer to begin with them because they are much less explainable by anything other than sexual selection.

Take hair color. Most humans have black hair and one allele for hair color. Europeans have over two hundred for colors ranging from black to blond. The conventional explanation is straightforward: As humans entered higher latitudes, with less solar radiation, there was less selection for dark skin and, consequently, an accumulation of defective alleles for pigmentation. So the number of hair colors grew as a side effect.

That scenario has two problems. First, the genetic linkage between skin color and hair color is weak. If we took all humans with black hair, we would have a group with the full range of skin colors. Second, millions of years are needed to accumulate that many alleles through relaxation of selection. Yet modern humans have been in Europe for scarcely 45,000 years.

Did Europeans get their hair colors from the Neanderthals? According to a study of five alleles for red hair, one of them seems to be an archaic introgression, but the others are of modern human origin. Even if we assume that all of the alleles for hair color had slowly accumulated during the long existence of the Neanderthals, the timeline is still too short—at most three quarters of a million years. Furthermore, even if they all had a Neanderthal origin, we would still need to explain how they reached their current prevalence. Europeans today are only 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal.

That’s not all. Eye color, too, diversified during the same 45,000 years. So two polymorphisms—for hair and eye color—have developed in parallel with different genetic causes and within the same limits of time and space. There must have been a process of selection. Something helped preserve those new colors and pass them on to subsequent generations.

That something, in my opinion, was sexual selection. It begins when too many of one sex have to compete for too few of the other. The latter are in a buyer’s market and can pick and choose among prospective mates. Conversely, the “sellers” are in a worse position and must market themselves as best they can. They succeed by attracting attention and holding it as long as possible, typically by means of bright colors.

Sexual selection is consistent with the evolution of European hair and eye color in four ways:

First, the European color pattern has become more developed in one sex. Specifically, hair and eye colors are more varied among women than among men, with infrequent colors more common among women and frequent ones less common. A UK Biobank study found that red hair is especially prevalent among women, followed by blond hair and light brown hair. Conversely, the same study found that black hair is three to five times less common among women than among men. The different eye colors are likewise distributed more uniformly among women. These sex differences seem to be due to the action of estrogen during fetal development. A Czech study found that face shape was more feminine in blue-eyed men than in brown-eyed men, as if a single factor had feminized both face shape and eye color.

Second, dark colors have given way to brighter colors, even though new dark colors could have been created. Hair is carrot red, not beet red. Eyes are light blue, not navy blue. Brightness increases visual impact, causing the observer to watch the image longer and keep it in memory longer.

Third, broad-spectrum colors have given way to narrow-spectrum, “pure” ones. A pure color has relatively few wavelengths and is restricted to a narrow slice of the visible spectrum. Such colors don’t happen by accident. They are unusual in the natural world and almost always serve to attract attention, either as a warning coloration or as a means to attract a mate.

Fourth, a single color has given way to a variety. A color grabs attention not only by being bright within a narrow slice of the spectrum but also by being novel. If a particular color becomes too common, it will be less novel and less attractive, and the pressure of sexual selection will shift to more unusual ones. A variety of colors will thus coexist and grow in number as more appear through mutation.

But why would sexual selection be stronger in Europe than elsewhere? Keep in mind that most Europeans did not look European until late in time, almost at the dawn of history. As late as the Mesolithic, pale skin and diverse hair and eye colors were confined to Scandinavia, the Baltic countries, and areas farther east. The oldest dating of blond hair goes back 18,000 years in central Siberia. We know all this from DNA in human remains. Inferential methods place the emergence of pale skin within the same time frame: 19,000 to 11,000 years ago according to one research team, and 19,200 to 7,600 years ago according to another. That’s more or less the last ice age, and long after modern humans had come to Europe. As a Science correspondent wrote: “The implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years.”

We still need more data, but it seems that the current European phenotype arose during the last ice age, some 10 to 20 thousand years ago, among hunting people who inhabited the plains stretching from the Baltic to Siberia. Their women were subjected to strong sexual selection for two reasons. First, men were fewer in number. In a hunting society, male mortality increases as hunters cover longer distances, and average hunting distance is longest in open northern environments. Second, polygyny was less frequent. Since men provided almost all the food, the effort of providing for a second wife and her children was impossible for all but the best hunters. With few polygynous men, and fewer men altogether, women were in a tough market—too many competing for too few. Even slight improvements in attractiveness could make a big difference.

Why didn’t the new phenotype survive in Siberia? First, the colder and drier climate kept human numbers smaller than in Europe, the Gulf Stream being too distant to exert its warming and moistening influence. So the effects of sexual selection could not survive and accumulate as much, especially when the population contracted at the height of the ice age. Other humans then moved in as the climate turned warmer. Nonetheless, as shown by ancient DNA, the new phenotype did persist in south-central Siberia as late as the fourth century. Its population base had probably become too small to ensure its long-term survival.

Final question: Why are Europeans diverse for hair and eye color but not for skin color? The reason may be a pre-existing sex difference that oriented sexual selection in one direction. In all human populations, girls become lighter-skinned during adolescence, with the result that young women are noticeably fairer than young men. A fair complexion was traditionally valued in women, who would make themselves even fairer by avoiding the sun, by wearing protective clothing, and by using face powders. This gender norm has existed across all cultures with one exception, albeit a big one: the tanning craze of Western women since the early 20th century. Thus, at least in premodern times, fairer women were preferred, and such a preference, under intense sexual selection, would eventually drain the gene pool of alleles for dark skin. This may explain the strange albino-like skin of Europeans.

This episode of intense sexual selection probably did much more than change hair, eye, and skin color. Those effects are the most obvious, and the hardest to explain otherwise.

Other effects might include changes in hair form. Hair form was originally thick and straight across northern Eurasia. It then diversified in Europe during the same narrow timeframe that saw hair and eye colors diversify. From being thick and straight it became thin with diverse textures. About 45 percent of Europeans now have straight hair, 40 percent wavy hair, and 15 percent curly hair. The cause was probably the same desire for novelty that created the palette of hair and eye colors. A novelty effect has in fact been shown in an Austrian study, which found that women tend to change their hair form to a less common one.


Read it all on American Renaissance.

Published in: on March 14, 2020 at 12:01 am  Comments (7)  

Painting of the day

Detail of Perdita by Anthony Frederick Sandys, circa 1866

Published in: on January 25, 2020 at 11:50 am  Comments (2)  

Pride and Prejudice (2005 adaptation)

In the early hours of the day after midnight, I began to watch once again the 2005 film Pride and Prejudice, based on Jane Austen’s novel. I felt really tired and had to suspend the function, already after two in the morning. I left when, advised by Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley struggles with himself to propose to Jane Bennet. Tonight I will see the rest.

Over the years I have talked about that movie, even since the old incarnation of this site. While what I said last week is true, that even seemingly benign films contain a subversive mustard seed that can grow, in this P&P adaptation there is no bad seed. It is a movie that may well have been filmed in a parallel world in which Hitler had won the war.

There are several readings we could make of the film. Personally, the actress who plays the blonde Jane represents, in flesh and blood, the ethereal nymphs that I place on the sidebar: the inspiration of David Lane. If there is something that I fail to understand in the white nationalist movement, it is this lack of praise for the most beautiful specimens of the Aryan race. I just do not get it. Eros’ force about women like Jane should, on its own, move millions of whites to Lane’s words. And I don’t mean only ‘That the beauty of the white Aryan women shall not perish from the earth’, but the consequence of Eros, lots of children: ‘We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children’.

The other issue is marriage. If ours is the darkest of all times, it is because they inverted values in everything related to sexuality and the reproduction of the Aryan race. Needless to say, salvation consists of transvaluing values as they were before, in the world of Austen. But with the exception of Anglin and Devlin, who, among the white nationalists, insists so much on the subject? This is one of the many reasons I don’t take the movement seriously. In Hitler’s Germany, on the other hand, the sacredness of marriage and Aryan reproduction was primordial.

As I said, tonight I will finish watching the movie where I left after midnight. Those who want to capture the spirit of this site, what moves me to write, will have to buy the DVD of P&P and watch it from time to time. The music of Dario Marianelli, the landscapes of bucolic England, and even the buildings—for example when Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth—should move the deepest fibre of the white man.

If you visit my Facebook or Twitter pages, you will find the same painting of Claude le Lorrain above the pages. It is known that the wealthy 19th-century English tried to bring the beautiful architecture of some paintings of le Lorrain (paintings that I contemplated during my last visit to London’s museums) to the countryside of the island. The building that served as a refuge from the copious rain for the future couple, when Mr. Darcy proposes to Elizabeth, is the perfect framework for the fourteen words (or twenty-eight, if we are to count the two meanings of the Lane words).

Art, architecture, Aryan beauty, Puritan sexual customs, the 14 words, good music (the very antithesis of what whites listen today), bucolic landscapes—it is all the same. Hitler, who sometime in his life wanted to be an artist, saw it clearly. When will white nationalists see something so obvious?

Merrie Melodies

If we remember a passage in The Fair Race (‘The Arab historian Ibn Fadlan, ambassador of Baghdad to the Bulgarians of the Volga, says of the Vikings: “I have never seen physical specimens so perfect, tall as palm trees, blond and ruddy-skinned”’) it is obvious that the other human races should not exist. If they exist for billions it is due to the counterproductive greed of the white man, so well portrayed in The Man Who Would Be King, where the inhabitants of Kafiristan seem apes compared to Sean Connery and Michael Caine. Both white greed and Christian ethics are behind the creation of the billions of non-whites currently flooding the globe.

Those who are familiar with Richard Carrier’s work will know that the strongest point of his argument is his analysis of the epistles of St Paul. The oldest texts of the New Testament, the Pauline epistles, do not mention an earthly Jesus but an exclusively heavenly one. St. Paul does not even locate the crucifixion of Jesus on earth! In recent days I have continued reading Carrier’s book and I came across a chapter on Clement of Rome and his epistle, which may have been written in the first century. Surprise: Clement also fails to speak, in so early writing, of an earthly Jesus. Apparently the stories that Mark and the other evangelists would write had not yet reached Clement’s ears.

The evidence that the central character of the New Testament is fictional is overwhelming to anyone who has read Carrier’s book, or seen the YouTube videos where he discusses with theologians who believe Jesus was a historical figure. How was it that, instead of the religion of the beautiful Hellenes, whites submitted to the Semitic religion of eternal fire for whites? (In the representations of old paintings of hell I do not see gooks or blacks but whites.) This reminds me that I took the expression ‘Fruitcake Hospital’, which I used in my previous article, from a program that I saw in the early 1970s in The Porky Pig Show, although I don’t remember which character was sent to the psychiatric hospital (huge buildings in those times, like the one we saw in Joker).

Many whites who have abandoned Christianity maintain in their minds a Christian residue, the belief in the immortality of the human soul. They do not seem to notice that, in doing so, they inadvertently join blacks and gooks as long as ‘Man is special’ and the rest of creation is treated as despicable creatures—as if a camel were the same as a spider! Such is the axiological by-product of those who maintain that only Man possesses a soul that survives death: the ultimate brotherhood with other races. (*)

Some white nationalists argue that the white race has always had a belief in personal immortality. What they fail to realise is that the obsession to save themselves from the eternal fire caused an unhealthy focus with the beyond that didn’t exist in the Ancient World, at least not among whites. The complete apostasy of Christianity not only implies abandoning Christian ethics, the crux of this site, but abandoning the obsession with the hereafter as well. Otherwise whites seem to me like that character from Merrie Melodies I saw as a kid who was sent to the Fruitcake Hospital.


(*) Oliver Sacks’ books are hilarious and also explain how the faculties of the supposed ‘soul’ can be damaged simply by accidentally injuring the human brain.

Published in: on October 22, 2019 at 11:41 am  Comments (20)  


The Greeks, and particularly the Spartans, studied ‘physiognomy’ to interpret the character, personality, and ultimately the soul of an individual based on physical features, especially of the face to the point that ugliness in certain Greek states was practically a curse. It was also believed that beauty and a willingness of the features should be an expression of noble qualities necessary for a beautiful body bearer, if only dormant. The creators of the Greek statues made them with that knowledge of the human face and the perfect proportions in mind, and therefore represented not only a beautiful body but also a beautiful body carrying a beautiful soul.

The blind rage with which the Christians destroyed most Greek statues indicates that they greatly feared what they represented, because in them the Hellenes fixed and settled, once and for all, as a goal and template, and ideal: the human type that Christianity would never be able to produce.

(Passages from one of Evropa Soberana’s essays in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour.)

Published in: on September 9, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments Off on Physiognomy