Choose your future spouse

The city of Sparta had forty-three temples dedicated to various Gods and twenty-two temples dedicated to the heroes (including those of the Iliad), whose deeds inspired the flourishing generations; more than fifteen statues of Gods, four altars and numerous funerary tombs. There was also a temple dedicated to Lycurgus, worshiped as a god. In a city the size of Sparta, the number of religious buildings was very noticeable.

In religious ceremonies, men and women—particularly those in the age of dating—attended, entirely naked as they did during the processions, the tournaments, the beauty contests and the dances. This already implies that the Spartans were not ashamed of their bodies, but that proudly displayed them whenever they could because they were robust, well-formed and harmonious. These events were festivals of beauty, Dionysian ceremonies in which the body was worshiped and beautified by effort and sacrifice. According to Plato, a beautiful body promises a beautiful soul and ‘beauty is the splendour of truth’.

The athletic custom of shaving the body hair and smear oneself with oil before a competition was of Spartan origin, although the Celts were given to body shave before battles. They sought thereby to extol the body; give relief, volume, detail, brightness and ‘life’ to the muscles, thus proudly displaying the result of years and years of gruelling physical training and strenuous efforts, probably to find the best partner and/or gain prestige.

The guilt and sense of sin that Christianity tried to impose in the field of body pride, made a man ashamed of the very things he was proudest. Judeo-Christian morality, by condemning hygiene, care, training and the preparation of the body as ‘sinful’, ‘sensual’ and ‘pagan’ gradually achieved that the European population—converted into an amorphous herd whose attitude to any hint of divine perfection was met with resentment and mistrust—forgot that their bodies also were a creation and a gift from the Gods.

For young people of both sexes such festivals served to become familiar with each other, because we think that Sparta was a city with few inhabitants; where, thanks to public ceremonies, everyone knew everybody by sight and was integrated into the popular. It was at these events where you watched and choose your future spouse.

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

Published in: on September 6, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (1)  

Balancing the eternal masculine

A soldier far from home, without a country, an ideal or a feminine image of reference—a model of perfection, an axis of divinity—immediately degenerates into a villain without honour. Conversely, if he can internalize an inner mystique and a feminine symbolism that balances the brutality he witnesses day after day, his spirit will be strengthened and his character ennoble. Sparta had no problems in this regard; Spartan women were the perfect counterpart of a good warrior…

In ancient Scandinavian meetings, as an example of the value of the feminine influence, only married men were allowed to vote. The man was the one who made the decisions, but it was assumed that he was not complete until he had at his side a complementary, feminine spirit, a Woman who could transmit certain magic every day, and inspired him with her reflections. Only then he was allowed to vote.

In practice, every marriage was a single vote. In the other Hellenic states the female presence was banished, thus unbalancing the mentality and behaviour of the warrior, and finally facilitating the emergence of pederast homosexuality. The whole issue of Spartan femininity was inconceivable in the rest of Greece.

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

The eternal feminine

Since prehistory, man-woman relationships have never been in such a psychotic state as they are today in the West. Those neophytes to the subject who have not read anything could start by means of an academic reading (Roger Devlin) or a crude reading (MGTOW). But here I would like to approach a question: How to treat women in the darkest hour for the white race?

Visitors to this site will be familiar with one of my guidelines for the priest of the fourteen words: ‘Speak only with Aryan males’. That does not mean that it is impossible to communicate with any woman. Visitors know that this site regularly quotes Catherine Nixey’s book about the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by Christians. Also, in the forums that defend the West there are a few women who also represent the exception that confirms the rule. A directive is only a directive, not an iron rule.

But in general terms it is almost impossible to communicate the most serious issues with the bulk of the female population. It is obvious that they come from Venus and we from Mars, and their PC Operating System is not exactly compatible with our Macs. That does not mean that we despise them. It means that the yin is not the Yang but its complement. I will explain it through my personal philosophy.

As some visitors know, I have written two thick autobiographical volumes (and I am writing the third one). Day of Wrath, the English translation of selected chapters of those two volumes, is partial in one respect. The translations are texts that appeal to the left hemisphere of our brain, texts that men are capable of understanding. But the autobiographical part of my two volumes is missing in Day of Wrath because it appeals to the right hemisphere. Those are texts in which women understand me better (and this site is for Aryan males).

No man among those to whom I have given them manuscripts from my first volume, Hojas Susurrantes, has understood me. But I’ve received very good feedback from a couple of women. With men I cannot communicate heart problems for the simple reason that they have not developed their soul well.

Years ago I mentioned the concept of the eternal feminine in this site and in the previous incarnation of The West’s Darkest Hour but did not explain it because it is a numinous feeling rather than an intellectual concept. A male balanced in yin and Yang could decode the double helix, Mars and Venus, from my books written in the language of Cervantes. But not everyone has developed his soul (among white nationalists, Tom Goodrich is the exception). Anima means in Latin soul. In the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal feminine in the unconscious of a man, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (To understand these concepts, see the illustrations on the anima in the illustrated book Man and his Symbols of Jung and his female disciples, or at least this diagram.)

The reason that among men we cannot communicate in matters that most concern our feelings is simple. To communicate those issues one has to cry sometimes and the feedback of s/he who listens to the tragedy must be at the emotional level, not through the cold and intellectual reason. Women can communicate with each other for the simple fact that it is common for them to touch each other, comfort themselves, cry a little and hug each other without an iota of lesbianism. But we heterosexual men cannot do that with another man (I for one even dislike my cousins wanting to hug me in public). Men can talk about very abstract issues, but communicating alone with a friend about intimate problems is not our strength.

In such parallel universes are men in matters of the heart that, when a man in deep depression tries to speak out with his best friend over the phone, the typical friend without empathy or genuine compassion tells him such idiotic thing that he is shocked when, a couple of hours later, he learns that the depressed friend has just committed suicide. It’s a story I’ve heard more than once.

So the nuclear content of my two books has not appeared on this site, nor will it appear. I know from experience that a tragedy becomes a non-tragedy in the ears of Neanderthal men because they have not sufficiently developed the soul that Jung talked about. In plain English, since we straight men cannot touch ourselves and cry as women do, we cannot communicate our most serious existential problems among ourselves. That is why Schopenhauer was correct in advising us to have a woman as a confidant of such problems. The stronghold of women, Schopenhauer observed, is the compassion that, according to the philosopher, is the highest of human virtues. Therefore, since the middle 1990s I have had a female friend with whom I can communicate the yin content of my mind. It is not recommended to be romantically involved with this confidant because that would cloud the relationship into other venues.

Now let’s go to the opposite case. Compassionate women, in general terms, are unable to understand the cold reasons of the manly intellect. Few have a developed animus. Animus means, in Latin, mind, intellectual powers or courage. In Jung’s analytical psychology, he alludes to the archetypal images of the eternal masculine in the unconscious of a woman, which form a link between the consciousness of the “I” and the collective unconscious, potentially opening a path to the Self. (Again, to understand the concept see the illustrations on the animus in Man and its Symbols.)

Given that the bulk of women do not have a developed animus, it is useless to make them dizzy with lots of Jared Taylor-type statistics on race realism. We have to tune into their wavelength. Bear in mind that I have been communicating with the aforementioned woman for a couple of decades, and I can say that Schopenhauer was right: I see things that she cannot see, and she sees things in life that I am unable to see.

All the intellectual content of the white nationalist forums is useless when talking to women, especially if they come from the left (the left perverts the natural compassion of white women). The priests of Lane’s words should only try to communicate something that appeals to their vanity, say: If I am in favour of the ethnostate it’s simply because I don’t want your beauty to disappear (through miscegenation). For these words to have a certain weight on the female in question, there may not be any romantic interest involved in the priest who pronounces them.

The italicised words above could even become a mantra, and it is the only thing that the priest of the 14 words is advised to say to the opposite sex, in case one of them challenges us to an intellectual discussion. Regarding Jung’s psychology I could philosophise a little saying that the ‘Absolute’ of Schelling and Hegel resonates with the Jungian ‘Self’ and, from the Faustian point of view, only the understanding of the eternal feminine will lead the white race to the Absolute.

Published in: on February 18, 2019 at 12:01 am  Comments (13)  

Faith of the Future, 7

by Matt Koehl

 

VII. The Faith of Adolf Hitler

Beyond its purely intellectual aspect, the revolutionary Idea of Adolf Hitler contains an added dimension, to which one must turn to discover the source of its ineluctable attraction—its compelling magic, as it were. It is from its sentient—its emotional—content that one must reduce the secret of its extraordinary mystique—just as it is here that one cannot help but perceive its nuclear potential as the mythos of a new age. For it is not by logic and reason that great, earth-shaking movements are impelled, but by the unfathomable force of suprarational faith subjectively felt by the adherents of such a movement.

In the arena of great world events, even the most rational of ideas must take on the character of subjective faith—or remain forever condemned to the realm of sterile abstraction. It must, in other words, proceed beyond the understanding of the mind to an appreciation of the heart. Only thus does it assume that mysterious and inexplicable quality which guarantees success.

If we examine the various individual features of the National Socialist idea—its views on such fundamental concepts as race, personality, the state, work, struggle and Nature, for example—we find that these do not, even when taken together, suffice to explain the curious fascination surrounding its manifestation. For that we must turn, ultimately, to the personality of its author. For in the person of Adolf Hitler, the Idea undergoes fusion into a transcendent whole which is greater than the sum of its parts. Only in a subjective appreciation of this phenomenon and what it represents does the Idea become comprehensible.

* * *

Who, then, was Adolf Hitler? What was he?

Certainly, he bore the attributes of any man. He had two natural parents. He had flesh and blood. He ate and slept. He grew up, went to school, and worked for a living. He formed friendships, had personal likes and dislikes, became angry, but also had a warm sense of humor. He experienced joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain. In other words, his were all the normal human experiences and emotions. He was, in fact, completely human.

Historically, of course, Adolf Hitler was something more. He was a great national leader and statesman. Where can one find a comparable instance of a humble man of the people rising—by sheer will, determination and genius in the face of every conceivable obstacle and odd—to leadership of a great nation, liberating it from alien domination, purging it of racial and moral decay, and building within it a regime of national unity and social justice?

Where was there a similar statesman who, singlehandedly, was able to halt the seemingly inexorable advance of Communism across the face of a continent? Where else was there a leader who was able to lift his country—a country defeated in war and burdened with unbearable reparations—up out of economic and social misery and restore it to a position of prosperity, dignity and pride, while other nations sickened in the throes of a Great Depression? Where in all of history was there ever a ruler who enjoyed greater popular support?

Yet, it is beyond his manifest role as an outstanding national leader and statesman, as well as his obvious humanity, that we must look to discover the essential person of Adolf Hitler. Specifically, it is in the domain of the extrahistorical—i.e., in that area outside the normal historical process—that we must turn to find the true identity of the figure who stood in our midst just a few short generations ago. For although his life’s work continues to exercise an ongoing effect, its real meaning cannot be disclosed through the usual investigations of historiography.

* * *

More than one observer has commented on a certain strange, compelling quality which seemed to emanate from the person of Adolf Hitler. Kubizek, for example, has described the remarkable incident on the Freinberg.[1] Others have reported similar, if less dramatic, experiences in their own personal encounters with Hitler. And not only did this mysterious quality manifest itself in such individual meetings, but before larger audiences as well. Even persons who were not German and not National Socialist have testified to the singular ability of Adolf Hitler to articulate the unspoken feelings and aspirations of his listeners as though he were giving utterance to their innermost thoughts and emotions.

Recalling a Hitler rally which she attended in 1930, one Social Democratic writer described the phenomenon in this way: “The audience was breathlessly under his spell. This man expressed their thoughts, their feelings, their hopes; a new prophet had arisen—many even saw in him another Christ…” [2]

That he was able to affect his contemporaries in this manner is in itself remarkable. What is even more extraordinary and amazing, however, is the ability of Adolf Hitler to exert a continuing charismatic effect on generations which were not even born during his mortal lifetime! He still seems to articulate our deepest, most heartfelt feelings and longings as Aryans. He seems to strike a flawless chord with our innermost being. When he speaks, there is an immanent awareness that we are actually listening to the sound of our own inner voice. So perfect is his relation to our racial psyche that it is as though he has become one with it. We have the feeling that here before us is the consummate expression of the collective unconscious of our race.

It is as though we are confronted by an awesome presence, by a timeless charisma. Indeed, there is a certain enigmatic aura surrounding the figure of Adolf Hitler which seems to transcend all barriers of time and space. When we mention his name, we sense that we are speaking of more than a historical phenomenon; we allude to something which is eternal and infinite. We have the feeling that we are referring not only to the past, but to the present and future as well. Instinctively, we sense that here was more than just another man, that here was someone quite extraordinary.

The truth is that in Adolf Hitler we are confronted by a phenomenon which defies all objective analysis and rational explanation. Indeed, it is one which can only be understood in its symbolic, or representative, role—that is, through mythos interpretation. For only in the realm of the mythos—of the epic, the saga and legend—do we find those elements adequate to describe this most unusual personality. Only through a process of apotheosis can we hope to achieve a coherent understanding of the true reality of this remarkable figure. Only then do the various facets of his earthly life and career submit to plausible explanation.

Accordingly, we may proceed to a recognition that this very unusual being did, indeed, bear a divine mandate. He was, indeed, the instrument of a higher destiny. He was, indeed, endowed by Providence with a special mission. And, indeed, may he be described as an incarnation of the Absolute—of that great, ineffable Force without beginning or end, which rules and dominates this universe and determines the destinies of men.

Intuitively we recognize that represented here is something elemental, something primal—something that goes back to the very foundation of the world. We perceive that this singular figure was/is a manifestation of the will of the Eternal in corpore; that he was/is the voice of the Almighty, the word—the logos—spoken anew to modem man; that, indeed, he was/is the herald of a new age here on earth.

At the same time, we recognize him as the perfect personification of our racial soul. He is our consciousness and our conscience. In him is our racial will made manifest. In him do we see embodied the highest hopes and aspirations of Aryan man.

And so, in paying homage to this extraordinary personality, we at the same time defer to our own soul and to the divine which lies within us. In immanent relationship with him and in the service of his Cause do our lives acquire purpose, meaning, value, relevance, direction, structure, significance. Without him, we have no worth; we are nothing—nil. With him, we are privileged to become part of a larger order—indeed, we possess the possibility of transcending the limitations of our own mortal existence.

This, then, is the One whom we are honored to call Führer—Leader—our spiritual guide, special gift of Providence, the One chosen to disclose the divine will, the divine ordinances to the present age.

Every human order contains an idea which is symbolic of its higher purpose and mission. And so it is, above all, as a symbol of a new age that the figure of Adolf Hitler must be seen. It may be stated that he represents the inner principle—the raison— of our entire racial existence, of our history, our destiny, our life. He stands as our eternal emblem before the world. He is our law and our guide as Aryans for all time to come. He is our hope, our redemption, our promise of victory.

Thus do we perceive the outline of a new, immanent reality in which the transfigured person of Adolf Hitler joins with regenerate Aryan man and the Absolute in mystic union to form the noble mythos of a new faith.

Already, the rudiments of this faith, the Hitler faith—Hitlerism— exist in wordless, inchoate form in the hearts of a small, but growing number. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, a sacred retinue is gathering in sworn bond of deathless loyalty and honor. Defiantly, its banner is raised. The prospect of battle stirs its blood. It hails the struggle— the awesome challenge. It awaits the coming storm.

A new dispensation now looms on the horizon. A new, transforming reality is rising. As the darkness of a dying civilization casts its lengthening shadow over a confused and despairing world, the faith of the future will shine forth ever more brightly as the one great, redeeming hope—the polar star of a new age and a resplendent New Order, one which will be guided and instructed by the immortal personality of the greatest figure ever to walk the face of this earth.

[1] August Kubizek, The Young Hitler I Knew, tr. E.V. Anderson (New York, N.Y., Tower Books, Inc., 1954), Chapter 10.

[2] Lilo Linke, Restless Days (New York, N.Y., A.A. Knopf, 1935), pp. 397-398.

Faith of the Future, 6

by Matt Koehl

 

VI. Worldview of a New Age

Today we are witness to the death throes of a civilization. An entire order is collapsing. The Old cannot be restored. It is doomed.

The confusion and uncertainty we now see is but a prelude to the utter chaos and agony which awaits. When the bright star of civilization implodes, it creates a spiritual black hole, one which acts in the same awesome manner as its material counterpart. All spiritual reality is impacted into nothingness by anti-spirit, as it were. No purpose, no meaning, no values, no standards, no principles, no roots, no direction, no ideals, no truth, no honor, no beauty, no excellence, no order, no gods—nothing—remains. Only that which is able to distance itself from the old world and remove itself from its terrible gravitational pull can escape the all-consuming vortex of the collapse.

In this latter category will be found all those now spiritually alienated, who somehow manage to find their way to a new world. Today there exists a brooding sense of despair—a despair reflecting more than a mere loss of faith in some governmental regime or social system, but touching every aspect of life and existence. Men cry out for something to believe in, for something to guide and inform their lives. Perceptive minds are searching for purpose and direction, for a new focus of faith to replace that which has been hopelessly and irretrievably lost.

But where is such an idea, such a faith?

As has been noted, Aryan man has suffered for over a thousand years from a spiritual tension caused by the intrusion of alien ideology into his natural thought-world—a process which has distorted the culture of the West from the very beginning, and prevented the fulfillment of a higher mission. Not only was an incredible cosmology foisted upon the reluctant Aryan by the new creed, but he was forced to accept a statement of teleological purpose which amounted to a declaration of war against the natural order and its eternal laws.

God was divorced from his creation; Nature itself became suspect; the spirit was set at enmity with the flesh; man was declared inherently and hopelessly sinful; God became an external object—a remote, arbitrary, despotic figure—whom man should fear and before whom he should cringe and cower, God was also seen as kind and benevolent; accordingly, he was said to have agreed not to torment and torture man in perpetuity, as he had planned, if man in turn would consent to ritual expiation through one of his three parts. By implication, responsible, upright behavior was denigrated in favor of forgiveness through divine grace.

The preoccupation of religion in the West for over a millennium with the salvation of the individual “soul,” without regard for any larger racial considerations, has had the most disastrous consequences. Not only has it encouraged the grossest form of spiritual pettiness and selfishness, but it has had an even more harmful effect.

By assigning cardinal importance to individual salvation, it thereby downgraded the well-being of one’s own kind—of one’s folk and race—to something of lesser significance. The community of believers—red and yellow, black and white—was more precious in the sight of the Church fathers than the true community of flesh and blood, love for which was denounced as a species of “idolatry.” Whereupon the spiritual marrow of Aryan man was left to marinate in a moral concoction of meekness, mildness, resist-not-evil and love-thine-enemy.

Finally, coupled with all of the foregoing measures for moral disarmament, there was added a Judeolatrous component: Those of the House of Israel were conveniently exempted from all of the above, on the grounds that as Chosen Ones they should not be disturbed by such unnecessary considerations. The modem condition presents itself as the end result of this extraordinary doctrine.

* * *

The worldview of the future will differ radically from the Judeo-Christian outlook. It will proceed from a totally different perception of the human condition and its purpose.

It will be based, in the first instance, upon a profound respect and reverence for Nature, which it conceives as a timeless order without beginning or end but undergoing constant change and cyclic renewal , and which in its ultimate configuration is consubstantial with the divine, which it treats as subject rather than object.

It regards man as part of Nature, and proposes to restore the natural laws to their rightful place in human affairs—thus reforging the sacred link between man and Nature, a link which was shattered by Semitic ideology.

At the same time, it declares that for the conscious Aryan there can be no separation from the divine; that his god is not in some other world, but resides within the precincts of his own heart; and that a proper religious attitude is one of veneration, rather than one of fear.

Thus does it lift the burden of original sin and guilt from his shoulders and end his abasement before the Almighty, proclaiming his glorious nobility instead. It restores the essential wholeness of man, for in its view there can be no cleft between body and soul. It represents, finally, an affirmation—rather than a negation—of life, and teaches joyful heroism, defiant courage and manly resolve in the face of inexorable destiny, even when it involves gloom and despair, adversity and death.

Thus does the new Idea—by returning to traditional values of Aryan religiosity—free Aryan man from that inner tension which has characterized spiritual life in the West for the past millennium, and bring him into harmony with the laws of Nature and his own being. In a word, the outlook of the future reinstates Aryan man to a sound, natural condition, once again allowing unhindered expression for his native spirituality, as well as freeing him for the accomplishment of a great mission.

In so doing, it recalls the faith of our ancient forefathers, who lived in communion and rapport with Nature and enjoyed a fully developed religious life, which established the moral and ethical standards of their society and set the spiritual tone of their destiny.

Most importantly, by going back to the primal source of life itself, the new Idea is able to re-establish the primacy of race as the sacred premise for all higher existence on this earth. By thus raising the concept of race to an inviolable religious principle—indeed, to a moral imperative—it is able to speak to the paramount issue of modem time, the supreme biological/environmental issue, namely, the survival of Aryan man as the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Hence, not the salvation of a mere individual, but rather the salvation of an entire race is its vital concern. By contrast, any system of contemporary philosophical or religious thought which fails to address this fundamental question in an explicitly positive manner is irrelevant, meaningless and useless—if not downright harmful—to the cause of our continued existence.

* * *

And here it must be noted that the threat to our racial survival begins with spiritual causes; consequently, it can only be overcome by a solution which is spiritual in character. It is not from a lack of political alternatives or intellectual strategies that we suffer, but rather a more fundamental lack of will, courage, determination, dedication, commitment, integrity and overall morale—not to mention a lack of basic understanding and insight and a sense of true common identity. Whatever external dangers pose themselves derive, in the final analysis, from this internal problem.

Therefore, the question of racial survival must be seen as involving not only political and propagandistic activity, but must in the first place encompass a moral and spiritual mobilization. Without such a moral muster, all other efforts—however noble and valiant—must necessarily prove futile. The effects of decades and centuries of cultural decadence are simply too advanced and widespread to be overcome through political appeal alone.

The proper function of politics, of course, is to take people—in the mass—as they are and utilize them for a larger purpose. The spiritual condition of the Western masses is such, however, as to preclude any useful potential for revolutionary political activity at this time. Consequently, the first task of the contemporary Movement must be to establish a firm spiritual/moral base—a standard of absolute moral fixity—capable of attracting those alienated young idealists of our race who are searching for answers in a confused and despairing world, one which will influence their lives and transform them into dedicated partisans of the holiest of causes.

It is just such a strong spiritual foundation which must underlie any effective political action in the future.

There is an accompanying consideration. It must be recognized that the condition which prevails evolved over a long period of time and cannot be eliminated by instantaneous panacea, but only through a process of protracted struggle involving decades and generations. The integrity of such a struggle, however, can only be sustained by spiritual—i.e., religious—conviction and commitment, with the Movement often depending solely on its moral resources for continuity and survival. Therefore, the development of those resources as a critical necessity must assume the highest priority over every other consideration.

* * *

If the new Idea represented merely an instauration of traditional Aryan spiritual values and the natural outlook of pre-Christian times, along with an appeal for racial preservation, it certainly would possess relevance, meaning and utility; yet it would remain incomplete, and would not hold its dynamic, historic quality. For ultimately, every great historical idea embodies a special mission as well as a call for a new type of man.

What is unique about the Idea of the future is that it proposes to relieve the human condition by transcending it. It proclaims a higher destiny for Aryan man, and summons him toward a full realization of his potential for physical, spiritual and moral elevation—indeed, toward godhood—an undertaking so tragically stymied and stunted till now by the warped, deforming doctrines of an alien creed.

Nevertheless, it is precisely the possibility for such upward evolution toward a godlike race in the Nietzschean sense which assigns to the new Idea its higher purpose and meaning and gives to it its extraordinary, revolutionary character.

If we examine all of the ideological and spiritual trends of the past one hundred years, as well as those of the present time, it becomes immediately apparent that there is but one Idea which can conceivably qualify to serve as the formative principle of a post-Western, post-Christian world.

The coming dispensation will not involve so-called alternatives which are merely secularized outgrowths of the same underlying idea which is itself the cause of our present condition.

And here it must be emphasized that in the revolutionary convulsions which are coming, the neo-Semitic ideology of Karl Marx will have no more lasting significance than that of a cultural emetic. Whatever momentary power and success it enjoys is all ephemeral within a larger historical context—just as is that of all the gurus, fakirs and exotic, new cults from out of the East in these latter days of the twilight civilization.

In the contemporary world, an idea or conception may be viewed as either reactionary—and therefore transitory—or as revolutionary and enduring. Everything which tends to perpetuate the Old Order is reactionary. Everything which continues to work within the framework of the past is reactionary. Everything which tends to foster decadence is reactionary. All falsehood, all hypocrisy and opportunism are reactionary. As such, they are transitory and will not last. Only that which embraces hard reality and difficult truth will form part of something new and wonderful. Only it can truly be called revolutionary, for it will endure. It alone will furnish the spiritual foundation—the radiant nucleus—of a new age.

Today there is but one Idea which may be regarded as the regenerating seed of a revolutionary New Order; but one Idea which can serve as a spiritual standard for post-Western man; but one Idea which holds the key to the future. It is the magnificent and mighty Idea of Adolf Hitler.

Apocalypse for whites • XXX

by Evropa Soberana

 
Christians stop being persecuted

In 311, another emperor, Galerius, ceased the persecution of Christianity through the Edict of Toleration of Nicomedia, and Christian buildings began to be built without state interference.

Who knows by which methods the Christians infiltrated the upper echelons, exercise the relevant pressures and launch the resources they needed for Rome to yield more and more. This emperor was a supporter of the mediocre persecution that Diocletian used, but he did not learn the lesson and perhaps thought that, by appeasing the Christian rebels, they will cease their agitations.

He was wrong. The Christians had for some time already proposed themselves to overthrow Rome. In 306, Emperor Constantine I ‘The Great’ rises to power. He reigned between 306-337. This emperor was not a Christian, but his mother Helena was; and he soon declared himself a strong supporter of Christianity.

In the year 313, through the Edict of Milan, ‘religious freedom’ is proclaimed and the Christian religion is legalised in the Roman Empire by Constantine representing the Western Empire, and Licinius representing the Oriental Empire. The Roman Empire is in clear decadence, because not only the original Romans were debasing themselves with luxury, voluptuousness and opulence and refusing to serve in the legions. The Christians have now infiltrated the bureaucratic elite, and already numerous Influential characters practice it and defend it. The Edict of Milan is important, since it ends once and for all the clandestinely in which the Christian world was immersed.

Once legalised, the Christians begin to attack without quarter the adepts of Hellenic culture. The Council of Ancyra of 314 denounces the cult of the goddess Artemis (the favourite and most beloved goddess of the Spartans) and an edict of this year provokes for the first time that hysterical populaces begin to destroy Greco-Roman temples, break statues, and murder the priests.

We have to get an idea of what was involved in the destruction of a Temple in the past. A Temple was not only a place of religious worship for priests, but a place of meeting and reference for all the People. In our days, soccer stadiums or nightclubs are minimally similar to what the Temple represented for the people. To destroy it was tantamount to sabotaging their unity, destroying the People themselves.

As for the breaking of statues, the Greeks—and this was inherited by the Romans—firmly believed that their best individuals were similar to the gods, of whom they considered themselves descendants. This is very clearly seen in Greek mythology, where there were mortals so perfect and beautiful that many gods (like Zeus) took mortal lovers, and many goddesses (like Aphrodite) did the same.

In addition, many particularly perfect and brave individuals could reach Olympic immortality as just another god. Only a people who consider themselves so close to the gods could have devised this. And to leave reflected what was that human type loved by the divine forces, the Greeks established a canon of perfection for the body and face, on which was created a network of complex mathematical proportions and sacred numbers. To destroy a statue was to destroy the Hellenic human ideal: it was to sabotage the capacity of man to reach the very Divinity, from which He proceeds and to which He must return one day.

While destructions of Greco-Roman heritage takes place, and as a reminder that early Christianity was always philo-Jewish and anti-Roman, Constantine allows Jews to visit Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem) to mourn at the Western Wall: what still is the only thing that remains of the Temple. Thus, Constantine breaks the prohibition decreed to the Jews in the year 134, when the Roman legions annihilated the Palestinian Revolt of Bar Kokhba during the Third Jewish-Roman War.

Since 317, the legions of the empire—which have nothing to do with those ancient Roman legionaries of Italic origin, but are plagued by unruly Christians on the one hand, and Germans loyal to the Empire on the other—are accompanied by bishops. In addition, they already fight under the sign of Labarum, the first two Greek letters of the name Christ: that is, X (Chi) and, P (Rho) combined with the cross, supposedly revealed to Constantine in that famous dream, ‘In hoc signo vinces’ (‘With this sign, you will win’ in Latin).

A labarum, Xtian symbol adopted by Constantine and
ordered to inscribe on the shields of the legionaries.
Note the Greek letters Chi and Rho
that form the labarum.

Toward the White Republic

I have read Michael O’Meara’s recently published Toward the White Republic. It’s an honor for me to own copy #56 with O’Meara’s personal inscription to me on the very first page.

O’Meara is absolutely right: A numinous vision always comes before galvanizing the collective unconsciousness, and the mere idea of a white ethnostate does reminds us the Latin saying “Thus I will, thus I command.”

In the 16th century, the English believed they had replaced the Jews as the chosen nation: an important factor in American history which also helped Elizabethan England in their fight against Catholic Spain. O’Meara’s powerful book demonstrates that what moves societies is not scientific fact, e.g., IQ studies of blacks versus whites, but myths. Only myths can galvanize the collective unconsciousness of a nation. Homer’s epics captivated the minds of the ancient Greeks, not the geometric discoveries of the Ionian scientists and philosophers.

For John Winthrop, the previous American colonies had failed because they were carnal and irreligious. He believed that only an enterprise founded on religion had a chance to thrive.

Even if God doesn’t exist and Christianity is ultimately false, Winthrop was right. In 1630 he led an exodus of his people to the new world. It is beyond doubt that the spirit animating these men and women was not economic but religious. A “City upon a Hill” watched by the world was the myth that galvanized the community.

In sharp contrast to present-day Americans’ aid after the 2010 Haiti earthquake, once on American soil, Winthrop was delighted by the news that North American Indians were being decimated by smallpox. It was clear to the Puritans that God had accepted their right to occupy the land.

After the Reconquista generated the sense of a religious nation, something similar happened here down the South. The Catholic myth, catalyzed by the Counter-Reformation, moved the Spaniards to conquer the Aztec and Inca empires.

Winthrop’s success resolved a mystery for me. Why were the English so reluctant to establish themselves in America even a century after Columbus’ discovery while the relatively more primitive Spanish and the Portuguese had already created vast empires? The answer is patently clear: The English lacked a truly galvanizing story that conferred upon them a definite self-image and consequent self-esteem.

Something similar could be said of the Great Awakening in America’s 1730s. An awakening is what whites desperately need today, albeit one based upon a different kind of myth.

Toward the White Republic is more than a must read. Copies of this slim yet potent book could be given to your friends and acquaintances as part of the process of starting another Great Awakening.

Published in: on September 16, 2015 at 10:50 pm  Comments Off on Toward the White Republic  

Inspiring statues

“We need a regime that (1) bans pornography and (2) erects statues of gorgeous naked nymphs and athletes in every public square and crossroads.”

 —Greg Johnson

Published in: on August 31, 2015 at 6:08 pm  Comments (1)  

The measure of greatness

by William Pierce

 

uncle-adolf-fans
 
April 20 of this year [this was a 1989 National Vanguard article] is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era—a man who dared more and achieved more, who set his aim higher and climbed higher, who felt more deeply and stirred the souls of those around him more mightily, who was more closely attuned to the Life Force which permeates our cosmos and gives it meaning and purpose, and did more to serve that Life Force, than any other man of our times.

And yet he is the most reviled and hated man of our times. Only a few tens of thousands of men and women, in scattered groups around the world, will celebrate his birthday with love and reverence on April 20, while all of the scribblers and commentators of the controlled news media, the controlled politicians, and the controlled churchmen will pour out their hatred and venom and lies against him, and those lies will be believed by hundreds of millions.

What is the measure of greatness in a man?

Only the most vulgar and doctrinaire democrat would seriously equate greatness with popularity—although in any polling of average citizens on their choice for the greatest man of the century there are certain to be substantial numbers of votes for Elvis Presley, John Kennedy, Billy Graham, Michael Jackson, and various other high-visibility lightweights: charismatic entertainers on the stage of politics, rock concerts, spectator sports, or what have you.

More serious citizens would pass by the lightweights and choose men who have changed the world in some way. We would hear choices like Franklin Roosevelt (“he saved the world from fascism”), Albert Einstein (“he taught us about the nature of our universe”), and Martin Luther King (“he helped us achieve racial justice”), depending upon whether one’s personal inclinations lay more in the direction of politics, science, or racial self-abasement, respectively.

But if the poll asked instead for the most evil man of the century, or the most hated man, or the man having the most negative influence, at least three-quarters of the blue-collar and the white-collar pollees alike would name one man: Adolf Hitler. This, however, would be merely a reflection of the role assigned to him by the controlled mass media, rather than a truly informed and reasoned choice.

All of this raises several very interesting issues. There is, for example, the question of how we came to the preposterous state of affairs prevailing today, wherein we place the destiny of our nation, our planet, and our race in the hands of a mass of voters whose powers of judgment are manifested in such things as the type of television entertainment their preferences have pushed into prime time and the type of men they have elected to public office. And there is the equally weighty question of how, knowing the ease with which this mass is misled, we permitted virtually all of the media of mass information and entertainment to fall into the hands of a race whose interests are so diametrically opposed to our own.

Perhaps even more pertinent to a consideration of human greatness, however, is the question of how our system of values came to be turned on its head, so that Franklin Roosevelt is regarded as a hero and Adolf Hitler as a villain, not only by the stolid and stunned masses, but also by a majority of the supposedly “educated” elite, many of whom pride themselves on their intellectual independence.

Whether we judge the greatness of a man by his intrinsic qualities of character and soul or by his accomplishments, Adolf Hitler had greatness of a very high order—if we use the standards which have been traditional in our race.

We cannot, of course, make comparisons with all the “mute, inglorious Miltons” whose lack of notable accomplishment has made them anonymous, despite the sterling inner qualities they may have possessed. But when Hitler’s character is held up beside those of other 20th-century political leaders, he stands as a giant among pygmies.

At the prosaic level, we can note his ascetic personal habits, compared with Winston Churchill’s habitual drunkenness and notorious self-indulgence; or his personal loyalty to those who had been his comrades in the days of political struggle, compared with Joseph Stalin’s habit of murdering his former comrades by the dozen, as potential rivals, as soon as he no longer needed their services; or his direct, frank, and straightforward manner, compared to the cunning deviousness which was Franklin Roosevelt’s trademark.

At the spiritual level, the inner differences between Hitler and his contemporaries are even more striking. Hitler was a man with a mission, from the beginning. The testimony of his closest associates, from his boyhood days to the end of his life, agrees with the observations of more distant and impartial observers: Hitler had a mystical sense of destiny, a sense of having been singled out and called by a higher power to devote his life to the service of his race.

His childhood companion August Kubizek has related extraordinary evidence of this when Hitler was only 16 years old (August Kubizek, Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund [Graz, 1953], pp. 127–35). Twenty years later, while he was in prison after an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the government, Hitler himself wrote of his motivation in a way which suggested the range of his vision:

What we must fight for is the security of the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the maintenance of the purity of our blood… so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted them by the Creator of the universe.

Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility. Then no theory will stiffen into a dead doctrine, since it is life alone that all things must serve…

The National Socialist philosophy finds the importance of mankind in its basic racial elements. In the state it sees on principle a means to an end and construes that end as the preservation of the racial existence of man…

And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces which must lead to a continuous mutual higher breeding, until finally the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free play for activity in domains which will lie partly above it and partly outside it.

We all sense that in the distant future humanity must be faced by problems which only a highest race, become master people and supported by the means and possibilities of an entire globe, will be equipped to overcome…

Thus, the highest purpose of a National Socialist state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom…

A National Socialist state must begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape…

It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children…

The National Socialist state must make certain that by a suitable education of youth it will someday obtain a race ripe for the last and greatest decisions on this earth…

Anyone who wants to cure this era, which is inwardly sick and rotten, must first summon the courage to make clear the causes of this disease. And this should be the concern of the National Socialist movement: pushing aside all narrowmindedness, to gather and to organize from the ranks of our nation those forces capable of becoming the vanguard fighters for a new philosophy of life…

We are not simple enough to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and to strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice because mistakes creep into it, or any more than medicine is discarded because there always will be sickness in spite of it.

We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolutionaries in the world of today and are branded as such. But our thoughts and actions must in no way be determined by the approval or disapproval of our time, but by the binding obligation to a truth which we have recognized. (Mein Kampf)

Hitler’s opponents, Churchill and Roosevelt, were party politicians, with the minds and souls of party politicians. Great, impersonal goals, just as truth, meant nothing at all to them. The only thing that counted was the approval or disapproval of their times: the outcome of the next election, a good press claque, votes. Only Stalin shared in any way Hitler’s disdain for approval; only Stalin was motivated to any degree by an impersonal idea. But the idea that Stalin served was the alien, destructive idea of Jewish Marxism. And while Hitler served the Life Force with the instincts of a seer, Stalin served Marxism with the instincts of a bureaucrat and a butcher. A comparison of careers leads us to a similar ranking of greatness of soul. Churchill and Roosevelt were born into the political establishment. They fed at the public trough for years, in one office after another, grabbing greedily at opportunities for a bigger serving of swill. But it was circumstance, not their own efforts, which thrust them onto the stage of world history.

Stalin hacked out his own niche in history to a much greater extent than his western allies, and he was an incomparably stronger man than either of them. He was tough, ruthless, infinitely cunning, and utterly determined to prevail, no matter what the obstacles. Even so, his struggle for prominence and power was entirely within the Bolshevik party and its predecessors. He was the consummate bureaucratic infighter, not the innovator or the lone pioneer.

Only Adolf Hitler started literally from nothing and through the exercise of a superhuman will created the physical basis for the realization of his vision. In 1918, recovering in a veterans’ hospital from a British poison-gas attack, he made the decision to enter politics in order to serve that vision. He was a 29-year-old invalid, with no money, no family, no friends or connections, no university education, and no experience. Liberals, Jews, and communists ruled his country, making him and all those to whom he might appeal for support outsiders.

Five and one-half years later he was sentenced to five years in prison for his political activity, and his enemies thought that was the end of him and his movement. But less than nine years after being sentenced he was Chancellor of Germany, with the strongest and most progressive nation in Europe at his command. He had built the National Socialist movement and led it to victory over the organized opposition of the entire Establishment: conservatives, liberals, communists, Jews, and Christians.

He then transformed Germany, lifting it out of its economic depression (while Americans, under Roosevelt, continued to line up at the soup kitchens), restoring its spirit (and much of the territory which had been taken from it by the victors of the First World War), stimulating its artistic and scientific creativity, and winning the admiration (or, in some cases, the envy and hatred) of other nations. It was an achievement hardly paralleled in the history of the world. Even those who do not understand the real significance of his creation must concede that.

And what was the real significance of Hitler’s work? One of his most earnest admirers in India, Savitri Devi, has given us a poetic answer to that question. She wrote:

In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our times, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch… it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depth and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and… it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom—stigmatizing man’s silly infatuation for “intellect,” his childish pride in “progress,” and his criminal attempt to enslave Nature—but to have made it the basis of a practical regeneration policy of worldwide scope, precisely now, in our overcrowded, overcivilized, and technically overevolved world, at the very end of the dark age” (Savitri Devi, The Lightning and the Sun [National Socialist World No. 1, p. 61]).

More prosaically, Hitler’s work, in contrast to that of his contemporaries, was above politics, above economics, above nationalism. He had mobilized a powerful, modern state and placed it at the service of our race, so that our race might become fit to serve as an agent of the Life Force.

Perceptive and idealistic young men from every nation in Europe—and from many nations outside Europe as well—recognized this significance, and they flocked to serve him and to fight for his cause, even at the cost of censure and ostracism from their more parochial and narrowminded countrymen. There was never before an elite fighting force to match the SS, which by the end of the Second World War had more non-Germans than Germans in it.

The war, of course, is counted as Hitler’s great failure, even as the proof of his lack of greatness, by his detractors. It merely proves that he was a man, not a god, even if a divine will worked through him, and that he could not perform miracles. He could not defend himself forever, with the governments of nearly the whole world allied in a total war to pull him down and destroy his creation, so that they and the interests they served could return to “business as usual.” Even so, he gave a far better account of himself than any of his adversaries.

And what will count in the long run in determining Adolf Hitler’s stature is not whether he lost or won the war, but whether it was he or his adversaries who were on the side of the Life Force, whether it was he or they who served the cause of Truth and human progress. We only have to look around us today to know it was not they.

The face of Classical Europe (I)

Were the Greeks blond and blue-eyed?

 

In 2013 I translated this article from the Spanish blogsite Evropa Soberana in fragmented form. Now that I am reviewing The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour for the 2015 edition, I would like to see it reproduced here in a single entry:

 

I remember a movie that came out in 2004. Troy was called. Naturally, many fans of Greece went to see it quite interested; some of them because they sincerely admired Hellas and its legacy. But some uncultivated specimens attended the theaters too. Everyone knows that, in our day, Greece is regarded as a mark of snobbery and sophistication even though you do not know who Orion was, or what was the color of Achilles’ hair according to mythology. The movie’s Helen (one with a look of a neighborhood slut) and Achilles (Brad Pitt) were rather cute. Adding the special effects, advertising and usual movie attendance there was no reason not to see this movie that, incidentally, is crap except for a few redeemable moments.

Upon first glance at the big screen, one of the many reactions that could be heard from the mouth of alleged scholarly individuals, was something like the following:

Outrageous: Achilles and Helen, blond and blue-eyed! Oh tragedy! Oh tantrum! Such a huge stupidity! Irreparable affront! It is obvious that Nazism, fascism, Nordicism, Francoism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and sexism are booming in Hollywood, because who would have the crazy notion to represent the Greeks as blond, when their phenotype was Mediterranean? Only the Americans could be so uneducated and egocentric and ethnocentric and Eurocentric and fascists and Nazis and blah blah…

These good people were not outraged by the desecration of The Iliad; for the absurd and fallacious script, for representing Achilles like an Australian surfer, or Helen as a cunt or the great kings as truckers of a brothel. No. They didn’t give a hoot about that. What mattered was leaving very clearly that they were sophisticated people, conscious of what was happening and that, besides being progressive democrats and international multi-culturalists without blemish, and able to pronounce “phenotype” without binding the tongue, they were also sufficiently “sincere admirers of Greece” to be indignant and losing their monocles before a blond Achilles.

The same could be said about the ultra-educated reaction to the movie 300. When it was released, we could see an outraged mass (and when we say “outraged” we are saying really outraged) complaining in the most grotesque way, by the presence here and there, of blond Spartans throughout the movie—fascist xenophobia by Hollywood and the like. How easy it is for the big mouths when there are large doses of daring ignorance involved, and when they have no idea what it stands to reason.

What I did not expect was to hear similar statements from the admirers of classical culture: people that one generously assumes they have read the Greco-Roman works or that are minimally informed—at least enough to not put one’s foot in it in a such a loudly manner. For Achilles, considered the greatest warrior of all time, and sole and exclusive holder of the holy anger, is described in The Iliad as blond, along with an overwhelming proportion of heroes, heroines, gods, goddesses—and even slaves considered desirable and worthy for the harem of the Greek warriors to seed the world with good genes.

The same could be said of the Spartans if we consider the physical appearance of their northern Dorian ancestors, who had come “among the snows” according to Herodotus. In fact, the movie 300 was too generous with the number of Spartans of dark hair, and too stingy with the number of blonds.

Whoever declares himself an admirer of classical European culture (Greece and Rome) and, at the same time, asserts that it was founded by swarthy, Mediterraneans-like-me folks is placing himself in the most uncomfortable form of self-consciousness. As I have said, if such individual really admired the classical world and bothered to read the classical works, he would have ascertained to what extent Nordic blood prevailed in the leaders of both Greece and Rome—especially in Greece. In short, those who claim being ultra-fans of Greece, Rome or both only throw garbage on themselves by demonstrating that they had not even read the original writings.

There are many truths about Nordic blood and Hellas but perhaps the most eloquent and overwhelming truth is that Greek literature is full of references to the appearance of the heroes and gods because the Greeks liked to place adjectives on all the characters, and nicknames and epithets representing their presence. So much so that it is really hard to find a swarthy character. In the case, for example, of Pindar, it is a real scandal: there is not a single character that is not “blonde,” “golden,” “white,” “of snowy arms,” and therefore “godlike.”

The blue eyes were described as γλαυκώπισ (glaukopis), which derives from γλαῦκος (glaukos), “brilliant,” “shiny.” The Roman writer Aulus Gellius, in his Attic Nights describes the concept of colors in a conversation between a Greek and a Roman. The Roman tells the Greek that glaucum (from which derives the Castilian glaucous) means gray-blue, and the Greek translates glaukopis into Latin as caesia, “sky,” i.e., sky blue. As Günther observes, the very word “iris,” of Greek origin, that describes the color of the eye, could only have been chosen by a people whom clear and bright eye colors dominated (blue, green or gray), and that a predominately swarthy people would have never compared the eye color with the image of the rainbow.

The Greek word for blond was ξανθός (xanthus), “yellow,” “gold,” “blond.” The xanthus color in the hair, as well as extreme beauty, light skin, high height, athletic build and luminous eyes were considered by the Greeks as proof of divine descent.


The physical appearance of Greek gods and heroes

DemeterDemeter as it was conceived by the Greeks. We must remember that the statues had a deeply sacred and religious character for the Hellenes and that, in addition of being works of art, they were also the height of geometric feeling and engineering, since the balance had to be perfect. The Greeks, who had a great knowledge of the analyses of features, represented in their statues not only beautiful people, but beautiful people with a necessarily beautiful soul.

There is a persistent tendency among the Hellenes to describe their idols as “dazzling,” “radiant,” “shiny,” “bright,” “full of light,” etc., something that very obviously correspond to a barely pigmented, “Nordic” appearance. To be more direct, I’ll omit these ambiguous quotes and focus on the concrete: the specific references to the color of skin, eyes, hair, and more. Where possible I’ve inserted the works, specific chapters and verses so that anyone can refer to the original passage.

• Demeter is described as “the blonde Demeter” in The Iliad (Song V: 500) and in Hymn to Demeter (I: 302), based on the mysteries of Eleusis. It is generally considered a matriarchal and telluric goddess from the East and of the pre-Indo-European peoples of Greece. However, here we should be inclined to think that, at best, she was a Europeanized goddess by the Greeks, integrated into their pantheon. The very name of Demeter comes from Dea Mater (Mother Goddess) and therefore would, in a sense, be the counterpart of Deus Pater—Zeus Pater or Jupiter, Dyaus Piter.

• Persephone, daughter of Demeter, is described as “white-armed” by Hesiod (Theogony: 913). At least it is clear here that Persephone was not a brown skinned goddess, nor that her physique coincided with the “Mediterranean” type. It is more reasonable to assume that her appearance was, at best, predominantly Nordic.

• Athena, the daughter of Zeus, goddess of wisdom, insight, cunning and strategic warfare in The Iliad, is described no more no less than a total of 57 times as “blue eyed” (in some variations, “green eyed”), and in The Odyssey a comparable number of times. Pindar referred to her as xanthus and glaukopis, meaning “blonde, blue-eyed.” Hesiod is content to call her “of green eyes” in his Theogony (15, 573, 587, 890 and 924), as well as Alcaeus and Simonides; while the Roman Ovid, in his Metamorphoses, which tells the perdition of Arachne, calls the goddess “manly and blond maiden.”

• Hera, the heavenly wife of Zeus, is called “white-armed” by Hesiod (Theogony, 315), while Homer called her “of snowy arms” and “white-armed goddess” at least thirteen times in The Iliad (I: 55, 195, 208, 572. 595, III 121, V: 775, 784; VIII: 350, 381, 484; XV: 78, 130).

• Zephyrus, the progenitor of Eros along with Iris, is described by Alcaeus (VII-VI centuries BCE) as “golden hair Zephyr” (Hymn to Eros, fragment V, 327).

• Eros, the god of eroticism, considered “the most terrible of the gods,” is described by an unknown, archaic Greek author as “golden-haired Eros.”

Belvedere_Apollo

• Apollo as it was conceived by the very Greek sculptors. We are talking about a Nordic-white racial type slightly Armenized. Along with Athena, he was the most worshiped god throughout Greece, and particularly loved in Sparta.

Apollo is described by Alcaeus as “fair-haired Phoebus.” Phoebus is Apollo. On the other hand, Alcman of Sparta, Simonides (paean to Delos, 84), and an anonymous author, call Apollo “of golden hair,” while another epithet of his by Góngora—a Spanish author of the Renaissance but based on classic literary evidence—is “blond archpoet.” The famous Sappho of Lesbos speaks of “golden-haired Phoebus” in her hymn to Artemis.

• The god Rhadamanthus, son of Zeus and Europa, is described as blond in The Odyssey, and Strabo calls him “the blond Rhadamanthus” in his Geographica (Book III, 11-13).

• Dionysus is called by Hesiod “golden-haired” (Theogony 947).

• Hecate, goddess of the wilderness and also of the Parthians, is described by an unknown Greek poet as “golden haired Hecate, daughter of Zeus.”

Artemis

• Artemis (illustration), the sister of Apollo is described by Sappho and Anacreon (Hymn to Artemis) as “blond daughter of Zeus.”

• The goddess Thetis, mother of Achilles, is called by Hesiod “of silver feet” (Theogony 1007), and by Homer “of silvery feet” (Iliad, I: 538, 556, IX : 410; XVI : 574, XVIII : 369, 381, XIV:89). Needless to say that a brown-skinned woman cannot have silvery feet: this is an attribute of extremely pale women.

• The Eunice and Hipponoe mermaids are described as “rosy-armed” by Hesiod (Theogony, ll. 240-264).

• Aphrodite, daughter of Zeus, goddess of love, beauty and female eroticism, is always described as a blonde. Its conventional title is almost always “Golden Aphrodite.” Ibycus (in Ode to Polycrates) calls Aphrodite “Cypris of blond hair.” Aphrodite held the title of Cypris (Lady of Cyprus) because the Greeks believed she was born in Cyprus, where she was particularly revered. In Hesiod’s Theogony she is called “golden Aphrodite” (824, 962, 975, 1006 and 1015) and “very golden Aphrodite” (980). In Homer’s Iliad we have “Aura Aphrodite” (IX: 389), and in The Odyssey as “golden haired.”

• The Graces were described by Ibycus as “green eyed” (fragment papery, PMG 288).

Above I listed Wilhelm Sieglin’s conclusions regarding the Hellenic pantheon as a whole. Let us now see the heroes.

• Helen, considered the most beautiful woman ever and an indirect cause of the Trojan War, was described by Stesichorus, Sappho (first book of poems, Alexandrian compilation) and Ibycus as “the blonde Helen” (Ode to Polycrates).

• King Menelaus of Sparta, absolute model of noble warrior, brother of Agamemnon and legitimate husband of Helen is many times “the blond Menelaus” both in The Iliad (a minimum of fourteen times, III: 284, IV: 183, 210, X: 240, XI: 125; XVII: 6, 18, 113, 124, 578, 673, 684, XXIII: 293, 438) and The Odyssey. Peisander described him as xanthokómes, mégas en glaukómmatos, meaning “blond of big blue eyes.” In Greek mythology, Menelaus is one of the few heroes who achieved immortality in the Islands of the Blessed.

• Cassandra, the daughter of Agamemnon and sister of Orestes, is described by Philoxenus of Cythera with “golden curls,” and by Ibycus as “green-eyed Cassandra.”

• Meleager is described as “the blond Meleager” by Homer (Iliad, II: 642), and in his Argonautica

Apollonius of Rhodes also describes him as blond.

• Patroclus, the teacher and friend of Achilles, is described as blond by Dion of Prusa.

• Heracles is described as strongly built and of curly blond hair, among others, by Apollonius of Rhodes in Argonautica.

• Achilles, considered the greatest warrior of the past, present and future, is described as blond by Homer in the Iliad when he is about to attack Agamemnon and, to avoid it, the goddess Athena retains him “and seized the son of Peleus by his yellow hair” (I:197).

• The Greek hero Ajax (Aias in the Iliad) is described as blond.

• Hector, the Trojan hero,[1] is described as swarthy in the Iliad.

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

• Odysseus in any case differs from the Greek hero prototype: tall, slender and blond. It was described as lower than Agamemnon but with broader shoulders and chest “like a ram” according to Priam, king of Troy. This could more likely be a physical type of a Red Nordid [2] than a typical white Nordid Greek hero. It should also be mentioned that Homer used so frequently to call “blonds” his heroes that, in two lapses, he described Odysseus’ hair as xanthos in The Odyssey.

• Laertes, the father of Odysseus, was blond according to Homer’s Odyssey.

• Penelope, Odysseus’ wife, and queen of Ithaca, was blonde in Homer’s Odyssey.

• Telemachus, son of Odysseus and Penelope, was blond in Homer’s Odyssey.

• Briseis, the favorite slave in the harem of Achilles—captured in one of his raids, and treated like a queen in golden captivity—was “golden haired.”

• Agamede, daughter of Augeas and wife of Mulius, was “the blonde Agamede” according to Homer (Iliad, XI: 740).

• In his Argonautica Apollonius of Rhodes describes Jason and all the Argonauts as blond. The Argonauts were a männerbund: a confederation of warriors which gathered early Greek heroes, many direct children of the gods who laid the foundations of the legends and fathered the later heroes, often with divine mediation. They took their name from Argos, the ship they were traveling and did their Viking-style landings.

Below I reproduce some passages of Nordic phenotypes in Greek literature. Note that these are only a few examples of what exists in all of Greek literature:

• “Blonder hairs than a torch” (Sappho of Lesbos, talking about her daughter in Book V of her Alexandrian compilation).

• “Galatea of golden hair” (Philoxenus of Cythera, The Cyclops or Galatea).

• “…with a hair of gold and a silver face” (Alcman of Sparta, praising a maiden during a car race).

• “…happy girl of golden curls” (Alcman of Sparta, in honor of a Spartan poetess).

Berlin_Painter_Ganymedes_Louvre

• “…blonde Lacedaemonians… of golden hair” (Bacchylides, talking about the young Spartans).

• Dicaearchus described Theban women as “blonde.”

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

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

_____________________

See also:

“The face of Classical Europe (II):
Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?”

_____________________

Footnotes:

[1] “Trojan”—i.e., a non-Greek.

[2] An explanation of terms like “red Nordid,” “slightly Armenized,” etc., appears in other article of the website Evropa Soberana, also reproduced in this blog.