Heisman’s suicide note, 11


A key to understanding the ethnosuicidal United States

I had said in the previous post that I would not read beyond page 500. But a friend on Facebook suggested that I read what Heisman says about the Norman Conquest and I have found oil. I wonder if those white nationalist scholars in the history of Britain and the United States know this thesis? Although Heisman was a Jew, in good hands his thesis could be a vital piece to put together the puzzle of the whys of white suicide, which leads the United States of America. Heisman wrote:


Remarkably, the Anglo-Saxons and Germans are very closely related in their cultural-ethnic origins. Yet during the Nazi period, the Germans continued a cultural-political path that lead to an idealization of the Jews as their greatest mortal enemies, the destruction of Western cultural values inherited from Christianity, and the systematic genocide of the alleged propagators of those values. The Americans ventured towards the total opposite historical trajectory becoming perhaps the most Christian nation of the developed world, the most culturally compatible nation with the Jews, and the greatest ally of the state of Israel. At the root of this historical divergence between the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans lay the Norman Conquest. […]

An essential inheritance of America’s Anglo-Protestant values is an inclination to forget ethnic origins, national rivalries, and presumptions of hereditary status that were characteristic of the Old World. The Anglo-Saxons planted the model of this morality of turning a blind eye to national origins for all other Americans to follow and this implicated the erasure of everyone else’s ethnic origins as well. The freedom to forget the past appears to be the obverse side of America’s traditionally optimistic vision of the future. But why is this past problematic? Why were hereditary origins an issue in the first place?

The “race problem” should not matter in America, yet somehow it is the most American issue, the most relevant innovation of the entire American experiment. The old answers, moreover, that attempted to account for the entire “race” issue simply do not add up. There is a lack of coherent answer to the question of why race matters.

American historian Gordon Wood observed that

the white American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing imperial chains to throw off. In fact, the colonists knew they were freer, more equal, more prosperous, and less burdened with cumbersome feudal and monarchical restraints than any other part of mankind in the eighteenth century.

What exactly were the colonists rebelling against, then? What was this world-historical commotion called “revolution” really about?


Conquering the Conquest, or, Enlightened Saxon-centrism

The unanswered questions about race and revolution can be concentrated into a single historical question: When did the Anglo-Saxon nation stop being conquered by the Normans? For the sake of empirical accuracy, let us refuse to indulge in vague abstractions or undemonstrated traditional assumptions of assimilation. If we demand a specific, empirical date or period that marks a distinct end to the Conquest, what can the study of history offer?

Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, a descendant of an old aristocratic family from Normandy, wrote in his famous treatise on American democracy, “[g]eneral ideas do not attest to the strength of human intelligence, but rather to its insufficiency.” The holy abstraction of “freedom” has effectually pulled wool over the eyes of those who have mindlessly submitted to the authority of the metaphysics of freedom. Freedom, in this way, seems to grant freedom from rational reflection upon the authority of “freedom.” Instead of being misled by fuzzy, mystical, metaphysical abstractions such as “freedom”, let us ask, specifically and empirically, freedom from what? In its distinctive historical context, what exactly was it about the British political order that radicals such as Thomas Paine sought freedom from?

The very title of Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, might suggest a tendency to abstract or grossly generalize his particular anathema to “hereditary government” in England and France in universal terms. Yet this appearance does not fully stand up to scrutiny. In the case of England, he inquired specifically and empirically into the identity of its hereditary government and followed its very own hereditary logic back to its hereditary origins to discover:

that origin is the Norman Conquest. They are evidently of the vassalage class of manners, and emphatically mark the prostrate distance that exists in no other condition of men than between the conqueror and the conquered.

This means that the “prostrate distance” between the conqueror “class” and the conquered “class” was also a hereditary distance. This kinship discontinuity between rulers and ruled suggests possible grounds for ethnic hostility between the descendants of the aristocracy and the majority population.

In The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, historian Hugh Thomas documented the ethnic hostility that existed between the native English and Normans following the Conquest. Justifying a common tendency to conflate ‘Anglo-Saxon’ with ‘English’, he maintained that English identity ultimately triumphed over both Norman identity and ethnic hostility. His thesis implies a kind of democratic cultural revolution and a belief in Anglo-Saxon conquest through cultural identity imperialism. If Thomas was right, then we should really date the first “modern” step towards democratic cultural revolution around the beginning of the thirteenth century. But was the Conquest really conquered so easily?

If the Norman Conquest, Norman identity, and ethnic hostility were conquered so easily, then how does Hugh Thomas explain these words of Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man?

The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.

This is a direct refutation of the Hugh Thomas’s thesis, in The English and the Normans, that ethnic hostility ended by the beginning of the thirteenth century. Paine provided a powerful refutation, not simply as an observer, but as a highly influential embodiment of ethnic hostility against the Norman conquerors and their legacy. So who is right, Hugh Thomas or Thomas Paine?

The historian noted, “[l]ong-standing ethnic hostility would have completely altered the course of English political, social, and cultural history.” This unverified assertion that ethnic hostility did not continue significantly past the period covered by his study (1066-c.1220) was also contradicted by Michael Wood’s recollection of his childhood encounter with Montgomery in the 1960s:

Monty, of course, still bore his name and still carried his flag. And that explained his take on the Conquest. For though he was as English as I was, he saw himself as a Norman—and that’s what counts when it comes to matters of identity… as far as I was concerned, Monty would always be a Norman.

Still, in the twentieth century, the old ethnic identities mattered.

Did “Englishness” mean more than a quirk of geography, and more than “class”, to a hereditary Norman dominion eventually engulfed Ireland and Scotland as well? The label of Englishness certainly triumphed and the very core of the English language re-emerged. Yet England ultimately became something different, neither Norman nor English, but neither and both. Even if we ignore actual hereditary descent, the famous, and distinctively English “class system” dates from the Conquest and can itself be considered a long-term cultural triumph of Norman identity.

Genealogist L. G. Pine attested to the fact that the prestige of a Norman pedigree, associated with the identity of the “best people” or upper class, triumphed to the extent that many ambitious native English wanted to be Normans throughout post-Conquest English history. Ultimately, it was not so much that Normans became English so much that the English became British. The permanent occupation of the conqueror “class” formed the hereditary basis of the “British” Empire. While Thomas is fundamentally wrong, it is fortunate that he has clarified the issue by rightly raising the point that the reality of early post-Conquest ethnic hostility should wake people out of the complacent assumption that Normans and English should ultimately merge into one people.

Cultural assimilation is one thing; genetic assimilation, however, is quite another. Here the deficiency of historical studies that fail to account for biological factors and a general evolutionary perspective becomes most apparent. While Thomas’s scholarship offers many contributions to the debate, especially his balanced judgment on many topics, conclusions about the ultimate effects of the Conquest will remain fundamentally unbalanced if genetic factors are left out of the final equations.

Thomas writes history as if Charles Darwin never lived. Even if the Normans had completely assimilated culturally yet maintained a hereditary monopoly of leading positions within the country, that cannot be called full assimilation. The notion of special political-hereditary rights and privileges passed on from generation to generation that the American revolutionaries fought against in theory are the exact opposite of genetic assimilation.

Thomas’s thesis makes sense only if it can be demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity indifferent as to whether their government is or is not representative of “the people.” Thomas’s thesis could be saved only if the evidence verified that Anglo-Saxons are an ethnicity with no sense of the value of liberty, their fawning natural servility allowing them to live together with their new Norman aristocracy happily ever after. In summary, the real question of assimilation is whether the Anglo-Saxons assimilated to the notion that the Normans had a right to conquer them.

As L. G. Pine wrote, “The historian whose unthinking conscience allows them to justify the Norman Conquest, could as easily justify the Nazi subjugation of Europe.” Thomas’s perilous, conciliatory suppression of any negative attitudes towards Normans that could be construed as ethnic hostility led him to acquiesce in a neutral or sometimes even positive attitude of appeasement towards those exemplary Normanitas virtues expressed in ruthless military domination, genocide, and the crushing of all native ethnic resistance (a.k.a. conquest; the antithesis of the rights of man; the negation of the every principle that the most egalitarian of the American founders sought to bring to light in opposition to the founding of the British Empire in 1066).

Michael Mann’s The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing proposed two versions of “We, the people.” He proposed that the liberal version, exemplified by American Constitutionalism, is characterized by individual rights, class, and special interest groups. In the organic version of democracy ethnicity rivals other forms of interest and identity and in some circumstances can express itself in ethnic cleansing. This is the “dark side of democracy.”

In Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, Mann observed, “democratization struggles increasingly pitted a local ethnicity against a foreign imperial ruler.” The demos was confused with the ethnos. Was America any different? If the Normans conquerors achieved some degree of success in perpetuating their hereditary government over the centuries, and the original ethnic conflict that Thomas documented was not perpetuated with it, then how does one explain that? What would make the impetus of organic and liberal democracy so different from one another?

For the sake of argument, let us entertain this peculiar idea of hereditary separatism, just as John Locke does in his Second Treatise of Government (and try in earnest to assume this has nothing to do whatsoever with the Norman Conquest):

But supposing, which seldom happens, that the conquerors and conquered never incorporate into one people, under the same laws and freedom; let us see next what power a lawful conqueror has over the subdued: and that I say is purely despotical… the government of a conqueror, imposed by force on the subdued… has no obligation on them.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This assertion implies that the Norman Conquest was illegitimate. The Norman takeover was achieved despite the lack of consent of the governed. That government was instituted with strategic violence against any significant resistance from the governed. From the view of its author, Thomas Jefferson, the Norman Conquest was the institution of an unjust power against the rights of the people. It is thus not a coincidence that the hereditary “English” political tradition was founded in utter violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

In The Rights of Man, Paine explained, “by the Conquest all the rights of the people or the nation were absorbed into the hands of the Conqueror, who added the title of King to that of Conqueror.” Paine posited a remarkable ambiguity between the “rights of the people” and “the nation.” King was equated with Conqueror. In 1066 there existed a right of conquest, but no “rights of the people.” The modern invention of the latter justified, at long last, the reclamation of Anglo-Saxon “rights” from the “hands of the Conqueror.”

The Declaration of Independence further asserts, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” America provided an opportunity to do just that.

Taking full advantage of this opportunity meant that America would truly be different from the old world. As The Rights of Man explained, “In England, the person who exercises this prerogative [as king] is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country.” A lack of “natural” connection between the political elite and the people was significant for Paine. The contrast with America was clear: “The presidency of America… is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded; and in England, it is the only one to which he is admitted.” The new world would be different.

America, for Paine, was the place where foreigners were excluded from that high office. Democracy meant that “commoners” could finally be admitted. Revolution had turned the old order upside down: the rule of the people meant the triumph of Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism over the legacy of the Norman-centric aristocracy.

It is unfortunate for believers in the distinct superiority of the liberal form of democracy that the organic and liberal varieties are more equal than they think. Faith in the categorical distinction between the liberal and organic expressions of democracy is only a display of naiveté towards the cunning of ethnocentrism. Democratic Saxon-centrism has prevented an appreciation of the ethnic diversity at the very heart of the American founding.

Are the Anglo-Saxon ethnically superior to ethnocentrism and thus superior to all other peoples on Earth in this respect or has something been overlooked? Is it true that Anglo-Saxons are always superior and never inferior to the power and influence of the Norman Conquest or is it at least possible that this unspoken assumption might have something to do with Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism? It is as if a conquest of the Conquest has been attempted through an enlightened ethnic cleansing of the Norman impact on world history. The Norman conquerors of history, however, were not conquered so easily.


The Peculiar Revolution

For the title of original, permanent English colony in the New World, the Pilgrims of the Mayflower take second place. It was the English settlers of Jamestown, Virginia, who were the first permanent English colonists, thirteen years before the Mayflower. Jamestown was birthplace of the United States, and, it just so happens, the birthplace of American slavery of Africans. In 1619, a year before the landing of the Mayflower, the first black slaves were brought to Virginia.

America was born a land of slavery.

In the Old World, it had been “the Norman” who so often represented tyranny, aristocracy, and inequality. But surely things must have been different in America. In the land of freedom, democracy, and equality, perhaps only Southern slavery posed a truly fundamental challenge to these modern values.

The question nonetheless remains, who were these Southern slave masters?

It is as if recent historians have confidently assumed that, in all of human history, there could not be a case where the issue of race was more irrelevant. Never in human history was the issue of race more irrelevant than in regard to the racial identity of the American South’s essential “master race.” This is a truly fantastic contradiction: the South apparently fought a war in the name of the primacy of race, yet the distinctive racial identity of the South primary ruling race is apparently a matter of total indifference.

Virtually every other people in history, from the Italians, to the Chinese, to the Mayans, to the Albanians, possessed some form of ethnic identity. The French, the Germans, and the Russians did not and do not simply consider themselves to be merely “white.” The original English settlers of the North, moreover, are considered, not simply white, but Anglo-Saxon. Why, then, was the South’s “master race” nearly alone in its absence of a distinctive ethnic identity? Is this state of affairs only a consummation of the Northern victory?

Of course, that blacks possessed a distinctive African ancestry is admissible, but the ancestry of the South’s ruling race is apparently inadmissible. This must be a state of affairs almost more peculiar than slavery itself. Everyone else across the world is permitted a distinctive ethnic or racial identity except the great Southern slave masters. For some peculiar reason, the original Southern slave masters are not allowed to have a distinct ethnic or racial identity. This means that the only people in American history who apparently have no distinct ethnic or racial origins beyond being white are precisely the same people who thought other people could and should be enslaved on the basis of their ethnic or racial origins.

These aristocratic planters must have been the most raceless, bloodless, deracinated, rootless, cosmopolitan universalists ever known to history. We must conclude that of all white people, these aristocrats must have valued heredity or genealogy the very least. The Virginia planters were most peculiar, not for being owners of black slaves, but for being the least ethnically self-conscious white people in world history. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?

This is really one of the great, peculiar paradoxes of world history: the elite Southern planters, one of the most extreme, unapologetic, and explicitly racist groups in history, are precisely those who may have the most obscure racial identity in history. Their claim to fame has been tied to identifying blacks as a race of natural slaves and in identifying themselves as race of natural masters—a “master race” without a racial identity. Perhaps the time has come to recognize that they have also merited a claim to fame simply for the obscurity of their racial identity.

Who were they?

The Englishmen who first settled the North identified themselves as Anglo-Saxons. But what about the “First Families of Virginia”? Virginia’s Tidewater elite largely originated from the geographic entity of England. But did these racists consider themselves specifically Anglo-Saxon? This question must be posed as carefully as possible: did they or did they not specifically identify themselves as members of the Anglo-Saxon race?

Who were these American slave masters?

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the North possessed “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class”, while the South “has the tastes, prejudices, weaknesses, and greatness of all aristocracies.” There could probably be no greater confirmation that South possessed a genuine aristocracy in the traditional sense. Yet this prescient antebellum observation begs the question: how did young America acquire an old aristocracy?

It is as if, in America, of all places, no explanation is required for this profound cultural difference between North and South. America was supposedly a country defined by “the qualities and defects that characterize the middle class.” But the idea of a slave race assumes the existence of a master race, not a bourgeois or middle-class race. The Union was not threatened by the leadership of poor Southern whites; it was threatened by the leadership of a subgroup of whites with an aristocratic philosophy that mastered the entire cultural order of the South.

If the Civil War was fought against slavery, and to fight slavery was to fight the slave-masters, then the Civil War was fought against the slave-masters. Since the slaves were not guilty of enslaving themselves, the argument that the Civil War was about slavery is practically identical to the argument that the Civil War was about the slave-masters. No matter which way one looks at it, all roads of inquiry into slavery leads to an inquiry into these peculiar Southern slave-masters.

Who were they?

“These slaves”, said Abraham Lincoln, “constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.” Did Lincoln state here that slavery was the cause of the war? No, Lincoln stated that slaves, as property, constituted an interest, and this interest was, somehow, the cause of war. The question then becomes, whose interest did these slaves serve?

To speak of aristocracy is to speak, by definition, of a minority of the population. The original aristocratic settlers of Virginia were called Cavaliers. “[T]he legend of the Virginia cavalier was no mere romantic myth”, concluded David Hackett Fischer in Albion’s Seed. “In all of its major parts, it rested upon a solid foundation of historical fact.”

But who were the Cavaliers?

One year before the outbreak of the American Civil War, in June of 1860, the Southern Literary Messenger declared:

the Southern people come of that race recognized as cavaliers… directly descended from the Norman barons of William the Conqueror, a race distinguished in its early history for its warlike and fearless character, a race in all times since renowned for its gallantry, chivalry, honor, gentleness and intellect.

Normans and Saxons: Southern Race Mythology and the Intellectual History of the American Civil War documented the thesis of Norman/Saxon conflict from a literary perspective. Its author, Ritchie Devon Watson, Jr., interpreted this thesis of Norman-Cavalier identity as “race mythology”, just as historian James McPherson has called this peculiar notion the “central myth of southern ethnic nationalism.” Yet how can this thesis be dismissed as myth without a thorough, scientific, genealogical investigation into the matter? Is it a myth, rather, that the Norman Conquest, the most pivotal event in English history, had no affect whatsoever on America? Is it true that representatives of virtually every ethnicity and race have come to America—with one peculiar Norman exception? Were the descendents of the Norman-Viking conquerors of England the only people in the world who were not enterprising or adventurous enough to try their fortunes in a new land?

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union,” Lincoln explained, “and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” Yet it has become commonplace to disagree with Lincoln and to propagate the myth that the Civil War was first and foremost about the slavery of black people. The repeated claim that the Civil War was about slavery can be deceptive because it serves as a means of avoiding focus upon the slave-masters, which further avoids facing the centrality of the identity of the Norman-Cavaliers. The American Civil War was fought primarily, not over black slavery, but over Norman mastery.

There is a sense, however, in which the Civil War was provoked by the slavery of a race of people. Norman-American George Fitzhugh, the South’s most extreme and comprehensive pro-slavery theorist, clarified the relationship between race, slavery, and the Civil War amidst that violent clash of two Americas:

It is a gross mistake to suppose that ‘abolition’ is the cause of dissolution between the north and south. The Cavaliers, Jacobites, and Huguenots of the south naturally hate, condemn, and despise the Puritans who settled the north. The former are master races, the latter a slave race, the descendants of the Saxon serfs.

This is a key piece of the racial puzzle of America. Fitzhugh implied that the North sided with a black slave race because the Anglo-Saxons themselves are a slave race. Fitzhugh depicted Anglo-Saxons as the niggers of post-Conquest England.

With these words, Fitzhugh verified that the Norman Conquest, in its origins, was a form of slavery of the Anglo-Saxon race. The foundational irreconcilability between North and South is incomprehensible without recognizing that North’s peculiar obsession with “freedom” evolved precisely from the fierce denial that they or their ancestors were, in fact, a Saxon “slave race” born to serve a Norman “master race.”

“True,” Horace Greeley admitted in an issue of his New York Daily Tribune in 1854, “we believe the tendency of the slaveholding system is to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others.” Would he have believed, too, that the tendency of the Saxon-holding system in England after 1066 was to make those trained under and mentally conforming to it, overbearing, imperious, and regardless of the rights of others? Could there be any connection between these two very peculiar tendencies?

Could revulsion against the very notion of a slavish Saxon-holding system be the root and source of the inordinately strong Anglo-Saxon tendency toward freedom? The key to understanding the modern fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a free race is to understand the medieval fame of the Anglo-Saxons as a conquered and enslaved race. The Norman-Cavaliers’ belief in the rectitude of slavery was a direct descendant of belief in the rectitude of the peculiar institution of the right of conquest.

Yet, as Fitzhugh made clear, he and other Cavaliers were not the only whites of the South, even if they were as decisive in forming the culture of South as the Anglo-Saxons were in forming the culture of the North. The Jacobites refer to the Scotch-Irish who became the majority of the Southern white population. A smaller population of French Huguenots followed the original Cavaliers and concentrated in South Carolina.

According to the late American political scientist Samuel Huntington, “American identity as a multiethnic society dates from, and in some measure, was a product of World War II.” Huntington believed that America has a Puritan essence. He implied that American identity is rooted in a single ethnic identity and that ethnic identity is Puritan and Anglo-Saxon. If this is true, then it goes without saying that ultimate patriarch among the “founding fathers”, George Washington, must have been a pureblooded Anglo-Saxon. Is this genealogically accurate?

According to one source, the very first Washington in England was originally named William fitzPatric (Norman French for son of Patric). He changed his name to William de Wessyngton when he adopted the name of the parish in which he lived circa 1180 A.D. Another source, the late English specialist in Norman genealogy L. G. Pine, related that George Washington and his family “has plenty of Norman ancestry.” He confirmed that this family was on record as owners of Washington Manor in Durhamshire in the twelfth century and of knightly rank. Since George Washington was the possessor of “a carefully traced decent from Edward I,” this implies that the first president of the United States was also a descendant of William the Conqueror. None other than the twenty-eighth president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, affirmed in his biography of Washington that his Cavalier ancestors “hated the Puritans” and that the first Washingtons in Virginia were born of a “stock whose loyalty was as old as the Conquest… They came of a Norman family.”

George Washington was a Norman-American and a classic representative of the aristocratic, slave-owning, Cavalier culture of Virginia. Unfortunately for Mr. Washington, Samuel Huntington has no room for the kind of diversity represented by America’s first president and his Puritan hating, Cavalier ancestors. Everyone must conform to the Anglo-Saxon, Puritan cultural model if they want to be counted as real Americans—even George Washington. Wasn’t that what the Civil War was about?

How is it even conceivable that Norman conquerors who developed into Southern slave masters could also have played a decisive role in the architecture of American liberty? Huntington, so keen to stress the English roots of American liberty, neglected to point out that Magna Carta was a product of Norman aristocratic civilization. It was the Normans who first invented the formal tradition of constitutional liberty that eventually conquered the world.

So while Washington was an heir to Norman aristocratic tradition, Magna Carta was a part of that tradition. Southern resistance to King George III in 1776 could trace its struggle for liberty to the resistance of Norman barons to King John in 1215 (and this also preserved their special privileges or “liberties” against the tide of assimilation with Anglo-Saxons). It was only in the seventeenth century that Anglo-Saxons exploited and selectively reinterpreted Magna Carta for their own purposes.

The ultimate foil of Hugh M. Thomas’s thesis that ethnic hostility between Normans and Anglo-Saxon went extinct by about 1220 is to be found in the endurance and persistence of Samuel Huntington’s question: Who are we? The “universalism” of the American founding actually emerged out of the attempt to preserve a rather peculiar form of multiculturalism that balanced the democracy-leaning North against an aristocracy-leaning, slaving owning South. The American Civil War resulted in the Northern conquest of the multicultural America that formed the character of the American founding. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of 1865 was the real founding of Samuel Huntington’s presumption of a single Puritan-based American culture.

What Hugh Thomas actually did was to dig up the root of the Anglo-Saxon cultural identity imperialism that late twentieth century multiculturalism began to expose. Thomas’s conclusion that the Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Normans in thirteenth century was made seemingly plausible only by nineteenth century conquests of the Normans. Thomas only uncovered the origin of this Anglo-Saxon way of cultural conquest through a struggle against the multicultural England of medieval times.

Multiculturalists who have promoted the contributions of women and minorities at the expense of the usual dead white males of history are following directly in the footsteps of Anglo-Saxon historians who downplayed the Norman impact on their history. The underdog biases of multiculturalism is not an aberration, but only a continuation of the majoritarian bias of democracy itself against a fair assessment of the contributions of Norman aristocracy to world history. William the Conqueror is the ultimate dead white European male in the history of the English-speaking world.

Hugh Thomas’s unspoken assumption is that Anglo-Saxons culturally conquered the Norman Conquest. They, the Anglo-Saxons, were ultimately history’s great conquerors. But is this true? Let this point resound around the entire world with utmost clarity: the issue here is who conquered whom? Did the Normans become victims of conquest by the Anglo-Saxons in modern times through characteristically modern methods?

Is it all possible that Anglo-Saxons might possibly be biased on the subject of the people who once defeated, conquered, and subjugated them? Most humans have submitted to the yoke of a “modern” Anglo-Saxon-leaning interpretation of long-term effects of the Norman Conquest. The repression of the impact of 1066 upon modern times has stifled a rational, evolutionary understanding of liberal democracy in the English-speaking world. The time has come for America and the rest of the English-speaking world to overcome this ancient bloodfeud and reclaim its Norman heritage, a heritage to goes to the very heart of the American founding.

In modern times, the Anglo-Saxon culturally conquered the Normans by Saxoning away their multicultural difference into presumptions of Anglo-Saxon “universalism.” To call America “Anglo-Saxon” is thus tantamount to ethnically cleansing George Washington of his Norman or Cavalier ancestral identity. Was George Washington the victim of a cultural form of ethnic cleansing by the Anglo-Saxon people?

[pages 654-675]

September 2016 interview

This original canvas signed by Antonio Zucchi (1726-1795) is a landscape in Flemish style, now very near from the desk where I work for this blog.

My friend Jake F. interviewed me last year. These are his words: “The below text is of a scripted interview I was to conduct with C.T. of The West’s Darkest Hour. Due to unforeseen circumstances we could not record. However, Cesar graciously offered to allow this interview to be published on The Right Stuff”.

Jake: Hello, and welcome to Manifest Destiny! This is Jake and I’ll be your host today. I have the privilege of bringing you a rare interview with C.T. of The West’s Darkest Hour. What Cesar brings to the table is rare combination of principled fearsomeness and refined sensibility. This interview will serve as an exposition and clarification of his thought for an unfamiliar audience. Questions and answers were composed in advance for purposes of clarity. As always, thank you for listening and enjoy.

Cesar, please give us a brief overview of your background and journey to your present ideological positions. Which books, authors, films, and music inspired you?

Cesar: Thanks for having me here, Jake. I’ll answer straight to the point.

Both of my parents were artists but since my middle teens they became abusive as hell, and I was the target of this abusive madness, which of course destroyed my young life. I explain the tragedy in two books, Hojas Susurrantes and the one I’ve just finished, Exterminio. Both comprise almost half a million words and soon I’ll start the third of the trilogy. As a matter of fact, my sister died this year. In my latest book I claim that her death was probably related to the trauma we endured in our teens.

With my books, I believe, I’m starting a new literary genre. If I manage to finish the third one I will be the first writer in history who analyzes his extremely abusive family in a million-word trilogy.

As to which books and films inspired me, I’d say that 2001: A Space Odyssey exerted a major influence since I watched it in 1968. I was 10 years old then. It was before the abuse at home. After my family became so destructive, Childhood’s End by Arthur Clarke made a huge impact in my life. Still later, the books of Alice Miller helped me to understand my evil family.

With regard to music, since I was a small child I listened to Mussorgski and Stravinsky. Mussorgski’s Dawn over the Moscow River was my first love. Later I discovered Beethoven.

Jake: You seem to be heavily influenced by psychohistory. Could you briefly define it for our audience? What insights have you gleaned from it? What faults have you found with it?

Cesar: This is my interpretation of psychohistory: Most adult children of extremely abusive parents become mad. Really mad I mean: like the magical thinking of the tribes since prehistoric times. And there are cultures that are far more abusive than others.

Psychohistory is a term used by the American Lloyd deMause to research child abuse through recorded history. The meta-perspective provided by psychohistory helped me to contextualize what happened in my family. The problem with deMause is that he’s a rabid liberal, some would even argue that he’s a Jew, like Alice Miller. In the only chapter of my trilogy that has been translated to English I try to Aryanize psychohistory away from deMause’s crazy liberalism.

Jake: You make incisive criticisms of psychiatry as a pseudoscientific field which often fails to draw upon or selectively draws upon neurological research. How specifically is it wounding our people? How deeply do such wounds go?

Cesar: Curiously, Kevin MacDonald used to teach child psycho-pathology in the university before his recent retirement. I don’t know if MacDonald knows that psychiatry is an “iatrogenic” profession, which means that psychiatric drugs often cause a much more serious mental condition for the client than the original distress or disorder.

For instance, there are international studies that show that people in third world countries, with few resources to purchase so-called anti-psychotics, fare much better for those diagnosed with schizophrenia. In other words, so-called anti-psychotics are iatrogenic: they only worsen the original disorder. My blog contains scholarly references to support this claim, but it is something you won’t ever hear in the media, not even in the outlets of white nationalism.

One of the things that I find exasperating while trying to communicate with white nationalists is that, in addition to the pseudoscientific racial and gender studies, there are other pseudosciences. Psychiatry is one of them. Nationalists are completely clueless of the fact that this pseudo-medical profession has as much scientific basis as the study of UFOs.

Let me expand a bit on this.

Those plugged in the Matrix believe that schizophrenia is the product of a chemical imbalance. Unplugged dissidents know that mental disorders are not a biomedical condition. A computer analogy is helpful here. Imagine a technician who doesn’t believe in the existence of computer viruses in the software. This guy always tries to fix computers by messing with the hardware. That’s exactly what psychiatrists do: they are in denial of the existence of the “software” in the human mind, so to speak. So they treat every mental disorder as a brain disorder. For psychiatrists, biology is destiny. Trauma does not exist, or is irrelevant. Only the genes matter.

But psychiatry cannot demonstrate any biological marker, genetic, chemical imbalance or otherwise, in any of the major psychiatric disorders. That’s why neurology, which is real science, is separated in the universities from psychiatry, which is not a science but a big, big business.

Also, all pseudosciences present their central concepts as unfalsifiable hypotheses, that is, hypotheses that cannot be refuted through the scientific method. What most people ignore is that psychiatry also presents its main concept, mental illness, as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. This is explained in detail in one of my scholarly articles.

Jake: You’ve written extensively on child abuse and its racial implications. Chiefly, that non-Whites are much more likely to abuse their offspring and much more likely to do it in horrific ways. Besides obvious things (like removing Judeo-liberal media or moving to a Whiter area) what advice would you have for racially conscious White parents?

Cesar: If you have in mind abusive parents, you cannot educate them. They are simply unconscious of their abuse. In my latest book for example I have published my mother’s entire diary. It is shocking to see that throughout her diary, mostly about the 1970s, she had no clue whatsoever that she was driving her children mad.

In an ethnostate it would be possible that the child finds a window of escape from abusive families through the Hitler Youth. But even in an Aryan ethnostate would-be parents should be taught not to abuse their kids. Together with the Hitler Youth, education for young couples that are about to marry is the only way that occurs to me that children won’t be abused in the future.

Jake: In the past, you have discussed a collapse scenario as presenting the best or only chance Whites will have to exercise the Fourteen Words freely. What if the collapse never comes? What do you think about the collapse as a mythical trope for “fringe” political movements or causes?

Cesar: I have referred to psychiatry as a pseudoscience that the average white nationalist is unaware of. But there are other pseudosciences taught at the academia that nationalists also ignore. Another example is Keynesian economics, that presently influences not only the academia but the Federal Reserve and the banking system.

You cannot have a thriving economy by means of the current system of huge debt and huge spending. The United States has a debt of almost 20 trillion and if the Fed starts Quantitative Easing 4 it will dwarf the previous QEs combined. QE, of course, is newspeak for inflation: expanding the currency supply, the paper dollars. Sooner or later the dollar will hyperinflate because of this astronomic expansion of the currency supply.

Those economists who reject the crazy paradigm that rules the financial world predict that the crash will happen in this decade. And this means something like the depression of 1929. But unlike 1929 there are millions of Negroes out there, especially in the big cities. After the financial accident they’ll chimp out, and contribute beautifully to the collapse of the System. By the way, have you seen the Jew-movie Imperium?

There is a movie character, the one that “Harry Potter” betrayed, hehe.☺ Well, with his group this character tries to produce what he calls “The Event”, which supposedly would awaken whites, a big act of terrorism.

In real life this is not necessary. The Event is coming nevertheless. And not from racists like us, but from the blunders of the Fed and the international monetary policies.

If by December 31 of 2020 the crash has not happened I will recognize I was wrong. But what if I am right? Because if I am right you should start obtaining coins of silver, and if you can afford it, coins of gold. Even the commercials of Fox News are advertizing this.

Jake: Nordicism is a particularly loaded term. Who exactly are the Nordic peoples? Are they a distinct sub race located only in certain White countries? Do they form the upper crust in every White society? Or are they something else entirely?

Cesar: In my opinion white nationalism or Altright, however you want to call it, is fake. The real thing is National Socialism. Unlike the Nazis people in the Altright are like the republicans: they have granted amnesty to millions of non-whites from Mediterranean Europe. The Germans of the 1930s knew better: the standard for whiteness is the Nordic type.

A pundit from Barcelona in Spain has developed a new racial classification that clarifies this matter. He basically says that the European race is divided in three primordial races: the European Nordid White (“White Nordid”), the Nordid Central Asian Redhead (“Red Nordid”), and the Near Eastern Armenid. The white race is actually a mixture of two or more races.

So we cannot say, “This person is a pure white” but “This person has a mixture of A, B and C races in such proportions.” With terms like Aryan we designate a mixture between White Nordid and Red Nordid and its mild crossing with non-white Armenids or Mongolids—usually people of Germanic and Slavic origin.

While the ideal white is a White Nordid with a Red Nordid, we cannot say that those whites who have some Armenid or Mongolid genes are non-whites. However, we could say they are non-whites if they contain a few drops of Congid blood, that is, Negro genes; or substantial Armenid or Mongolid blood.

In the new racial classification the phenotype is more important than genetic studies. Therefore, based on phenotype we can say that many of us Meds are not properly white. Some of them are, yes. I’ve seen girls as beautiful and Aryan in Spain as in the Nordish countries. But not in the proportion I’ve seen such women even in Texas. Many Meds are mudbloods, something that the Germans knew very well. So well in fact that inter-marriage between the mudbloods and the Nazis was discouraged.

Since this is a scientific subject, I recommend those who want to understand nordicism to study carefully the most scholarly article in my blog. It’s under the title Gens alba conservanda est, which is Latin for “the white race must be preserved”. Alas, most white nationalists are anti-nordicists. They are still under the grip of the egalitarian ideology that has destroyed the West. Most of them sincerely believe that all whites are created equal.

I would recommend they read William Pierce’s only non-fiction book, Who We Are, to grasp my point. Pierce was not a white nationalist. Like the Nazis he was the real thing. The biggest surprise that the reader will find in his book is that the founding stock of the ancient Greeks and Romans was Nordish, real whites.

Jake: Much like Dr. William Pierce, you postulate a Witches’ Brew (essentially a convergence of catastrophic trends) theory of factors leading to the gradual and sometimes rapid extermination of our race. What ranks near the top that most of our people are missing? Conversely, what are we greatly overestimating?

Cesar: For those who accept the premises of Who We Are it is clear that the main enemy of whites are whites themselves, especially the civilizational decadence that comes from wealth-over-race policies.

I have lived in Mexico more than half a century. Latin-America is very similar to Mexico if you visit the countries to the south of Mexico. What the Spaniards and the Portuguese did in the Americas, mixing their blood since the 16th century, was the product of greed, of lust for gold. It was also the result of the universalist creed of the Catholic Church, which considered the Amerindian women as “souls” to be “saved”.

The Iberians that conquered the continent also brought the Inquisition, which persecuted crypto-Jews. But even in Judenfrei New Spain these two factors, economic greed and universalist Christianity, destroyed the gene pool of the Spanish.

White nationalists ignore the history down the south of the US because it breaks their little narrative. Their narrative is that Jewry is the main factor of white decline. The fact is that there are other major factors beside Jewry that nationalists are ignoring. Christianity is one of them as demonstrated in the history of Judenfrei Spain and New Spain.

Jake: On a related note, you’ve produced a volume of writing on different strains of Counter-Semitism. Could you go into more detail on this taxonomy of Counter-Semitism?

Cesar: The Jewish problem is one the most serious problems of the West. For centuries and even millennia Jews have been a hostile minority in the West. There’s no question about it. Just see how they lobbied for a century to open the gates of non-white immigration into the United States. Just see the role they played in the Holocaust on non-Jews committed by the Bolshevik Jews. Just see who controls the anti-white media and how the kikes have been trying to prevent that whites wake up.

The problem itself shouts for a final solution of some sort. This is an aspect I don’t differ much from white nationalists. We both try to find radical solutions to the problem. We agree on the medicine.

But we disagree on the diagnosis. For me it’s clear that the Aryan problem caused the Jewish problem, and not vice versa. Perhaps the best analogy would be to see the Aryan problem as an HIV virus, and the Jewish problem as an AIDS-related infection like pneumonia. Kill off the bacteria if you want. I won’t complain about Alex Linder’s solution. But if you don’t eliminate the virus, you may still have a Judenfrei society that commits racial suicide, as happened here in Latin America.

It is simply untrue, as Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer recently wrote, that “physically removing the Jews will solve every other problem”. No. Our ancestors removed the Jews from New Spain and just look at the mess that Mexico is today: those ancestors still committed ethnic suicide, and on a continental scale!

Jake: From your research, what are the strengths and weaknesses of Nietzsche’s thought in general and in to furthering the Fourteen Words?

Cesar: No Nazi tract that I know mentions Nietzsche, but Hitler sort of admired him. Before Nietzsche lost his mind in January of 1889 his concept on the “revaluation of all values” was very handy. I use it a lot in my anti-Christian trolling. I’ll talk about this later in the interview.

Jake: Blake asks: In your writing, you refer to temples and priests of the Fourteen Words. Please expand upon these concepts. What would be the vocation and training of such a priesthood?

Cesar: Here we must recall what my Spanish friend Manu Rodríguez told me: We need to create the Aryan community, an ecclesia, which by the way we never had. Ecclesia, you know, was the principal assembly of ancient Athens.

The Aryan ecclesias need to thrive in our towns and cities, Manu told me. Our “priests”, for lack of a better word, won’t be experts in theology but in history, anthropology and Indo-European cultures. A priest of the 14 words must teach the Western tradition to his young pupils.

Nowadays, without money to build temples like those in Greece and Rome, we can only organize barbecue gatherings like those of my favorite character in the movie Imperium, hehe.☺

Jake: Your upcoming work From St Francis to Himmler has piqued my interest. Based upon the title alone, it is reminiscent of William Gayley Simpson’s journey from being an itinerant Franciscan to a fanatical Aryan racialist. To what extent are you familiar with his work Which Way Western Man? What is it actually about if not your own voyage?

Cesar: I have not read Simpson’s journey but From St Francis to Himmler will be the third and last volume of my autobiographical trilogy.

Francis is the most beloved saint for many Catholics. When I was abused by my father, who admired St Francis, as a defense mechanism I developed a sort of piety inspired in this Italian saint. After the abuse, the doctrine of eternal damnation, that I internalized from my father, destroyed my image of a benign God. The spiritual odyssey from my adolescent piety, to Himmler’s exterminationism, will be the axis of my last book. It is exactly that: an odyssey; the story of a long, long night of my soul.

Jake: For you, White Nationalism was merely a stepping stone to a much sterner and more disciplined National Socialism. Many American White Nationalists enjoy National Socialist iconography and pageantry, as well. What is the line of demarcation between these two ideologies? Is White Nationalism even an ideology or could it more accurately be described as a sentiment? How can American Whites steeped in republican, individualist beliefs adapt to a more “collective” or duty-oriented belief system? What about National Socialism is non-essential or merely adapted to Germanic norms? Finally, which National Socialist texts are American White Nationalists missing or refusing to read?

Cesar: Instead of responding question by question let me say that the line of demarcation is what George Lincoln Rockwell did: he formed a fascist party. White nationalists don’t do anything of the sort! If Rockwell had not been assassinated, radicals like Dylann Roof would have found a warm home and a healthier way to channel their hatred.

Individualist Americans will radically change, and I mean radically, when the convergence of catastrophes is already under way: something that will happen in the second half of the century. I refer to the tectonic-plate, apocalyptic convergence between energy devolution and a political crisis in the West. That collision will create a real mountain.

If “Our race is our nation” then, theoretically National Socialism is doable among Anglo-Saxons, not only among Germanics. Rockwell saw this clearly and he was right.

The most important book to awake whites is the one that Tom Goodrich wrote: Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany. I believe that any honest white liberal who reads it will break, in his mind, the media narrative about the Second World War. Once you nuke the media narrative, I would recommend a Nazi textbook for young readers, Faith and Action by Helmut Stellrecht. It is available online.

Jake: Blake asks: Many White Nationalists advocate the creation of an ethno-state or ethno-states for White-Aryans to seek refuge in. They often fail to mention whether this goal is their highest aim or merely a tactical one. Assuming White-Aryans had the capability to do with the Earth as they wish, what should they do? You’ve been called quite a few names for suggesting that Earth should be made a Whites-only planet. How do you respond to this?

Cesar: I don’t remember the names I was called. Perhaps I missed those threads? In the book that I’ve just finished, Extermination, I explain why the human race is a failed species. Most of them deserve extermination, save the most beautiful Aryans with good heart for nature, the children and the animals.

Extermination is a subject that has only been partially explored in fiction, at the end of The Turner Diaries. It is time to speak out in the genre of non-fiction, as I just did with my latest book, which will be available in Spanish this month or the next one.

I had said that I was inaugurating a new literary genre. But I omitted to mention that, if completed, my trilogy goes well beyond such autobiographical genre into a philosophical system. From this point of view, exterminationism is more than an odd subject: it is what we may call the Significant A of the coming Overman. But let’s change the conversation to a more “normal” subject.

Jake: Rock music is controversial within racialist spheres. You take an uncompromising stance against it for a host of reasons. Two that come to mind are its negro roots and repetitive notes. But, rock has been so heavily appropriated by Whites that even negroes flee from it now. At what point does White ownership (in terms of content; we know Jews dominate the music industry) erase a genre’s origins? Is this even possible? Are there any healthy modern White music genres? Many would defend folk and electronic music as the latest resurgence of authentic White culture in music. Do you agree? Finally, which classical composers or performers would you suggest to a modern White wishing to expand his or her tastes?

Cesar: Folk music is OK but not what the Nazis called “degenerate music”. Even nationalists have been unable to recognize that such music is used by the System to degrade the spirit of whites, to control them. A passage from 1984, written before the birth of rock, was prophetic. The music in the totalitarian world, Orwell says: “had a savage, barking rhythm which could not exactly be called music, but resembled the beating of a drum… The proles had taken a fancy to it.” Of course, the people of the Altright would be degenerate proles from the Nazi point of view: they listen so-called Retro-wave music.

As to which classical composers, I’d recommend starting with Walt Disney’s 1959 movie Sleeping Beauty. Its soundtrack contains a masterful edition of the music of Tchaikovsky’s ballet. But the trick is not adding classical music to your repertoire. The trick is subtracting degenerate music from what you listen.

I have always compared degenerate music with degenerate sex. A guy just cannot have a healthy marriage with a lovely wife and children and, at the same time, indulging himself in escapades in gay bars. The degenerate side of both sexual lifestyles and music tastes must be completely cut off from our way of life.

Jake: On several occasions you’ve described the Sublimis Deus papal bull as the original sin committed in South America. Could you give us some background on this proclamation? Was it a logical extension of Christian doctrine or an aberration?

Cesar: It was an expansion of the Church’s universalism, where all races can enter the church. “Catholic” in fact means universal. But the original sin was not the Pope’s bull. The original sin of the Spanish and the Portuguese was, as I said, the lust for gold and silver in Mexico and Peru. The Catholic bull that allowed Iberian whites to marry the brown natives was a very serious, mortal sin; but not the original one.

Jake: Lately, the phrase “Pathological Altruism” has been used to describe a weakness of the White-Aryan psyche. Is this valid and sufficient? Do you agree with Dr. Sunic and Pierre Krebs that a universal Christian memeplex is the source of our vulnerability, instead?

Cesar: I don’t know much of Krebs but Sunic is quite smart. He does not only blame Christianity as a more elemental factor of white decline than Jewry; he actually says that capitalism is the main factor.

I believe he’s right. And I must add that Americans love Mammon too much to purge the Jews! Once more, the Aryan problem has created the Jewish problem. Pro-whites must read Who We Are to contextualize historically the claim that wealth-over-race policies is suicidal, even when no Jews are present. March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp also reaches the same conclusion.

Jake: Blake asks: How do we as a race combat our predisposition to choose wealth over a sound society? Alain de Benoist notes that critics of immigration must also critique capitalism lest they contradict themselves. What must be done to slay Mammon once and for all? Or, at the very least, restrain him?

Cesar: Mammon will die in this century of natural death. I not only believe that the financial collapse is coming this decade. I also believe in peak oil and energy devolution later in this century. Once oil is depleted, corporate capitalism can no longer be the economic paradigm for whites, especially after the racial wars change bourgeois whites into blond-beast warriors.

The paradigm of the future lies in farming. Using an image of the penultimate chapter of The Lord of the Rings, I would say that the new paradigm lies in a return to the bucolic Shire. By the way, that very important chapter, “The scouring of the Shire”, was not filmed in Peter Jackson’s version of The Lord of the Rings. In the book, which I read, the war at the Shire actually happens after the One Ring has been destroyed. The ring is metaphor for gold…

Jake: What are your thoughts on the so-called manosphere? How should Aryans approach courtship in a day and age where it’s too early to procure Sabine women yet too late to find a young woman that isn’t a pod person? On a related note, how should White-Aryans answer the homosexual question?

Cesar: A lot of what is said in the manosphere is true. I’ve started to elaborate a guide for the priests of the fourteen words. He should not discuss with Jews, non-whites or women. He should even try to avoid talking with white Pod women.

Recently I discovered a YouTube blogger, Turd Flinging Monkey. I was shocked to learn about scientific facts that concern all white males that I didn’t find in the more formal writing of Roger Devlin. Yes: Turd Flinging Monkey is an anti-racist, clueless blogger about the Jewish question. But there’s something in his manospheric rants that merits scrutiny. After I finish the corrections of my book I’ll see all of his videos.

Courtship is impossible for the moment except if you move to an Amish or Mennonite community. So what can we do before the collapse of the rule of law, a rule that prevents Aryans from abducting and raping the Sabine women? The blogger Turd Flinging Monkey simply recommends masturbation. Well, well…☺ I prefer to be a workaholic to avoid thinking in sex.

As to homosexuality, it is a pity that some open homos in the Altright are not ashamed of talking publicly about their degeneracy, as if it was normal. Shame on them.

Jake: Unlike most pro-Whites, you stand by Heinrich Himmler with few reservations. What can we learn from him? How does he stand in relation to more “mystical” figures on the Right like Spengler or Yockey?

Cesar: I know almost nothing of Spengler except that he refused to support Nazi ideas of racial superiority. Yockey was a great essayist but the style he chose for his famous book, the very one which gave the name to the recent film Imperium, is too philosophical for my taste.

What I like of Himmler is that he volunteered to do the dirty job, extermination. I identify with Uncle Heinrich because, like him, I don’t look Aryan. But when he visited a specific town in Norway he admired them so much because of the purity of the Aryan breed there.

I believe that later in this century, when the demographic bubble pops as a result of energy devolution, Himmler-like exterminationism should become the religion of the Blonde Beast. Only the best should survive. I envision throughout the Earth the beauty that Hitler and Himmler saw in specific Nordish towns, a return to the Shire so to speak after the death of capitalism.

Here comes handy Nietzsche’s concept about the transvaluation of all values. Remember that I call atheists “Neo-Christians”. When millions of adolescent whites change their T-shirts from Che Guevara to Himmler, you will know that the race is already saved. I can only hope that my books will help young whites to revaluate their fucking values.

Jake: Are pro-Whites approaching the subject of Holocaust revisionism correctly or incorrectly? How should it be approached and why?

Cesar: Incorrectly. One must start with the Holocaust committed by the Allied forces. I sincerely believe that any nationalist who has not read the abridged edition of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and Tom Goodrich’s Hellstorm is a historical fool.

It is not only that after the Second World War the Germans were dishonestly demonized. The biggest secret of our times is that the astronomic crimes of the Allied forces dwarf what the Germans did. What the United States and the Soviet Union did in times of peace was more monstrous than the crimes attributed to the Germans in times of war—precisely because the Allied Holocaust was perpetrated in times of peace! I am talking about the crimes committed by Eisenhower and the Soviets from 1945 to 1947. Most people are unaware of this Holocaust. I would dare to say that if whites do not atone for the genocide perpetrated on the German people they will go extinct.

The root problem of white decline is Christian meta-ethics, what I have been calling “Christian axiology”. National Socialism revaluates such meta-ethics back to the mores of the ancient Greeks and Romans. This cannot happen as long as whites are Christians and neo-Christian atheists.

When the Aryan race reaches maturity, probably in the next century, the calendar must be changed from Jesus to Hitler. Anno Domini will start with the Fuhrer’s birthday, not with the crucified rabbi. White nationalists are incapable to reach this level of priesthood today because they are part of the problem as well as part of the solution.

Jake: Looking North, what are your thoughts on Donald Trump and the Alt-Right? What advice do you have for the average Alt-Rightist? What ideological pitfalls should he avoid that we haven’t already discussed?

Cesar: Alt-rightists might have their 15-minute fame after Trump wins. But when things get really nasty after the dollar collapses the proles will look after more masculine voices, those filled with hatred. Real hate I mean. Not the VDARE, American Renaissance or the Radix Journal types but The Daily Stormer, Neonazi types.

Jake: What is it like being a White or Aryan Man in Mexico? What has been lost in Mexico’s de-Europeanization process? Can the average “race-neutral” or un-awakened American White fathom what a majority colored country is like day in and day out? More broadly, what do we have to lose that we don’t know we have to lose?

Cesar: Recently Donald Trump visited my own town, Mexico City. But Latin America, not only Mexico, is too far gone. Nothing can be done here down the South. You guys have half a century of polluting your blood but there are still millions of pure whites in North America. Here down the south these guys have half a millennium of mestization, and in 500 years no intellectual voice has ever been raised against this genocide of Iberian whites! I can speak volumes on the subject but a single anecdote will be enough.

Recently, a meeting was organized by my former classmates of the Madrid School in Mexico that graduated forty years ago. This was a school founded by those who fled from Francisco Franco after the civil war. Two of my whitest schoolmates, blond and very handsome four decades ago, married mestizo women and formed mestizo families. I was shocked! Presently the young students of the Madrid school, who used to be mostly white in my teens, have become brownish. The second generation! Almost all white Latin Americans have already become Body Snatched Pods. Even Argentina and Uruguay are gone.

In the US you at least have Fox News. In Spanish-speaking countries, Spain included, there’s not even one media outlet that sides Donald Trump. Nothing! What remains of Iberian whites are like Jeb Bush: they’re happily marrying dwarf Latinas. Our only hope is that a tough ethnostate is formed at the North and then proceeds to conquer so-called Latin America.

Jake: Where can our listeners find your work online? Where can they purchase your books? What parting message do you have for our listeners?

Cesar: They can google “chechar” (that is, c-h-e-c-h-a-r) and “WordPress” and they’ll hit a blog, “The West’s Darkest Hour”. My books are linked at the top of my blog.

My parting word is simple: I am not a white nationalist. I am a guy to the right of Himmler. Only one of my books is in English, Day of Wrath that I dedicated to you. Since it will take some time for the rest of my books to be translated to English, read instead William Pierce’s books and see for yourselves how an American also rejected Christian ethics.

What race were the Greeks —

and Romans?


The evidence is clear—but often ignored

by John Harrison Sims

Recent [1] films about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler). Recent films about ancient Rome, such as Gladiator and HBO’s series Rome, have done the same (e.g. Russell Crowe). Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?

Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.

A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).

Scholars today recoil at this pre-1960s consensus. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, written in 1996, scoffs at the “undoubtedly dubious racial theories underlying much of this reconstruction,” but offers no theory to replace it, conceding only that “the origin of the Greeks remains a much-debated subject.” The Penguin author makes this startling admission, however: “Many of the ideas of racial origins were developed in the 19th century and, although they may have had some foundation in historical tradition, archaeology or linguistics, they were often combined with more dubious presumptions.” The author fails to list these dubious presumptions. Beth Cohen [editor’s note: a jew], author of Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (2000), asserts that the Thracians, distant cousins of the Greeks, had “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Ancient Greeks.”

In fact, there was a good basis for the 1911 Britannica to write about blonds in Thebes. Thebes was the leading city of Boeotia, a rich agricultural region in south-central Greece. Fragments from an ancient 150 BC travelogue describe the women of Thebes as “the tallest, prettiest, and most graceful in all of Hellas. Their yellow hair is tied up in a knot on the top of their head.” Pindar, a fifth century Theban lyric poet, refers to the Greeks as “the fair-haired Danaoi,” using a poetical name for the Hellenes. Likewise, in his Partheneia, or “Maiden Songs,” the seventh century BC Spartan poet Alcman, praised the beauty of Spartan female athletes, with their “golden hair” and “violet eyes.” He also wrote of Spartan women with “silver eyes,” meaning light gray. The seventh-century BC Greek poet Archilochus praises the “yellow hair” of one of his lovers, and Sappho—also of the seventh century BC—writes of her “beautiful daughter, golden like a flower.”

As late as the fourth century AD, Adamantius, an Alexandrian physician and scientist, wrote in his Physiognominica, that “of all the nations the Greeks have the fairest eyes,” adding, that “wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see tall men of fairly broad and straight build, of fairly light skin, and blond.” Several centuries of mixing had presumably changed the racial character of many Greeks, but blonds still survived, and Xanthos, which means “yellow” in Greek, was a common personal name.

Professor Nell Painter of Princeton [editor’s note: a negress], author of The History of White People (see “Whiting Out White People,” AR, July 2010), complains that “not a few Westerners have attempted to racialize antiquity, making ancient history into white race history.” She points out that the Greeks often painted their marble statues—“the originals were often dark in color”—that the paint wore off over time, and Europeans mistakenly concluded from the white marble that the Greeks were white.

Yes, the Greeks painted their statues, but the originals were not dark. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, from the Greek city of Knidos, was the most famous and most copied statue in the ancient world. Hundreds of copies survive. Experts have determined from microscopic paint particles that Aphrodite was painted blonde. The Romans had their own name for this goddess, Venus, and likewise her “cult images” were ubiquitous and “painted with pale-coloured flesh and golden-blonde hair” (see Joanna Pitman’s On Blondes, 2003).

Phidias’ masterwork, the Athena Parthenos, stood in the Parthenon for nearly 1,000 years until it was lost, probably in the 5th century AD. When American sculptor Alan LeQuire set out to make a faithful copy for the full-scale Parthenon replica in Nashville’s Centennial Park he modeled it on descriptions of the original work. The 42-foot-tall Athena, unveiled in 1990, has light skin, blue eyes, and golden hair [editor’s note: see detail of this image above].

Many small terra-cotta figurines from Greece of the fourth century BC have survived with traces of paint. They show light hair, usually reddish brown, and blue eyes, as do larger statues from the time of the Persian Wars in the early fifth century BC. Even a cursory examination of ancient marble reliefs, statues, and busts reveals European features. Many of the faces could just as easily be those of Celtic chieftains or Viking kings.

There is more evidence of the appearance of the Greeks. Xenophanes, an Ionian Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC, was amused to note that different peoples believed that the gods look like themselves: “Our gods have flat noses and black skins, say the Ethiopians. The Thracians (despite Prof. Cohen’s observations above) say our gods have red hair and hazel eyes.” Indeed, a fourth century BC fresco of a Thracian woman, found in the Ostrusha Mound in central Bulgaria, shows distinctly red hair and European features.

The Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) called Troy the “land of fair women.” According to the Roman historian Diodorus Sicilus, who lived in the first century BC, the Egyptian god Set had “reddish hair,” a color that was “rare in Egypt, but common among the Hellenes.” Plutarch (46–120 AD) tells us that while the Theban general Pelopidas (d. 364 BC) was campaigning in central Greece, he had a dream in which a ghost urged him to sacrifice a red-haired virgin if he wished to be victorious in the next day’s battle.

Two racial types

There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type. These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all, and who built an impressive civilization on the island of Crete. The Pelasgians, which is the name later Greeks gave to the pre-Hellenic population of mainland Greece, were also dark. They tended to have black, curly hair and olive-shaped eyes. Their type is plainly visible on many Attic (Athenian) vases, and has lead some scholars to conclude that all Greeks looked as they did.

Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek—the linear A inscriptions of the Minoans have still not been deciphered—so the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley. According to Greek national myth, the Hellenes were descended from Hellen (not to be confused with Helen of Troy), the son of Deucalion. Hellen had sons and grandsons, who correspond to the four main tribal divisions of ancient Greece: the Aeolians Achaeans, Ionians, and Dorians.

Scholars today tend to dismiss such myths but they would not have survived if they had not been generally consistent with the long folk memories of ancient peoples. In this case they point to what classical scholars have long believed was a series of Hellenic descents upon mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The first Hellenes to arrive were the Ionians and Aeolians; then a few centuries later, the Achaeans, and finally the Dorians.

The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek. Linear B, which began to dominate Cretan culture around 1500 BC, has been deciphered and found to be an early form of Greek. Around the year 1200 BC this culture, known as Mycenaean, collapsed; its cities were destroyed and abandoned, and Greece entered a 400-year Dark Age. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions probably played a part in the destruction, and later Greeks attributed it to invasions from the north. Waves of Hellenic warriors swept down and burned the Mycenaean citadels and became the ruling race in Greece. They also sacked the city of Troy, and Homer’s Iliad is about them. They also seem to have snuffed out much of Mycenaean culture: Greeks stopped writing, and abandoned the arts, urban life, and trade with the outside world.

We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again. It recounts events some four to five hundred years earlier. Although we think of the poem as being about the Greeks, Homer’s warrior heroes belong to the Achaean nobility, which suggests that it was the Achaeans who overthrew Mycenaean civilization, not the Dorians, who would descend upon Greece and displace the Achaeans a hundred years later. Archeology confirms this supposition, for Troy was burned around 1200 BC, and the traditional date for the Trojan War is 1184 BC. The Dorian invasion is dated by various ancient historians at 1149, 1100, or 1049 BC.

There is good reason to think that Homer was recording stories handed down during the Dark Age. He was a bard who lived in Ionia, a region on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey, and if he were making the stories up he would have claimed that the heroes were Ionian. Instead, he sings praises to the light-haired Achaean nobility: Achilles, their greatest warrior, has “red-gold hair,” Odysseus, their greatest strategist, has “chestnut hair,” his wife Penelope has “white cheeks the color of pure snow,” Agamede, a healer and expert on medicinal plants, is “blonde,” and King Menelaus of Sparta, the husband of Helen, has “red hair.” Helen, likewise, has “fair hair,” and even slave girls are light-skinned: “fair-tressed Hecamede,” “fair-cheeked Chryseis,” and “blonde Briseis.” This is significant, for if even some of the slaves were blond it would mean the Nordic type was not unique to the Achaeans, that it was present elsewhere in the Aegean world.

Homer (and Pindar) describe most of the Olympian gods and goddesses as fair haired and “bright eyed,” meaning blue, grey or green. The goddess Demeter has “blond” or “yellow hair,” as does Leto, mother of Apollo, who is also described as “golden haired.” Aphrodite has “pale-gold” hair, and Athena is known as “the fair, bright-eyed one” and the “grey-eyed goddess.” Two of the gods, Poseidon and Hephaestus, are described as having black hair. As noted above, Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves.

It was the Dorians, the last Greek invaders, who ended Achaean rule and probably provoked a mass migration of Aeolian and Ionian Hellenes—no doubt including Homer’s ancestors—across the Aegean Sea to the coast of Asia Minor. The Dorians who settled in the fertile valley of the Eurotas in the southern Peloponnesus were the direct ancestors of the Spartans of the classical age, and they claimed to be the only pure Dorians.

Werner Jaeger, Director of the Institute of Classical Studies at Harvard, writes:

“The national type of the invader remained purest in Sparta. The Dorian race gave Pindar his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent, which he used to describe not only the Homeric Menelaus, but the greatest Greek hero, Achilles, and in fact all the ‘fair-haired Danaeans’ [another name for the Achaeans who fought at Troy] of the heroic age” (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 1939).

The classical Greeks made no claim to being autochthones, that is to say, “of the earth,” or the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, they took pride in being epeludes, the descendants of later settlers or conquerors. Two notable exceptions were the Arcadians and the Athenians, whose rocky soils presumably offered little temptation to armed colonizers. The historian Herodotus (484-420 BC) recorded that the Athenians were “a Pelasgian people [who] had occupied Attica and never moved from it,” as were the Arcadians. Language lends support to this view, for both the Athenians and Arcadians spoke unique dialects. They learned Greek from the northern invaders but retained Pelasgian elements.

Thus, classical Greece was a fusion, both cultural and racial, of these two types of whites. Some city-states, such as Thebes and Sparta, were predominantly Nordic. Others, such as Athens, were predominantly Mediterranean, and still others were mixtures of the two.

The Roman patricians

Nell Painter [the negress mentioned above], author of the above-mentioned History of White People, finds it “astonishing” that the American Nordicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) argued in The Passing of the Great Race (1916) that the Roman nobility was of Nordic origin, yet there is good evidence for this view. There are many lavishly illustrated books about ancient Rome with examples of death masks, busts, and statues that clearly depict the Roman patricians not simply as Europeans but as northern European.

R. Peterson’s fine study, The Classical World (1985), which includes an analysis of 43 Greek, and 32 Roman figures, is persuasive. Dr. Peterson explains that the Romans painted their death masks to preserve the color, as well as the shape, of their ancestors’ faces.

Blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexions are common. A good example of racial type is the famous portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, which dates from the fourth century BC. Brutus’ face is identifiably Germanic, and so is the color of his eyes. The sculptor used ivory for the whites and blue glass for the pupils.

Or take the famous marble head of a patrician woman from the late first century AD, which is often included in illustrated surveys of imperial Rome to demonstrate the fashion for curled hair. Her features are typically northern European: a delicate, aquiline nose, high cheekbones, and a face angular and long rather than round. Another classic example is the famous fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii, which shows four women undergoing ritual flagellation. They are tall, light-skinned, and brown-haired.

There is also evidence from Roman names. Rutilus means “red, gold, auburn” and stems from the verb rutilo, which means “to shine with a reddish gleam.” Rufus, meaning red, was a common Roman cognomen or nickname used for a personal characteristic, such as red hair. The Flavians were an aristocratic clan whose family name was derived from flavus, meaning golden-yellow. The Flaminians were another noble family whose clan name came from flamma, meaning flame, suggesting red hair.

According to Plutarch, Marcus Porcius Cato had “red hair and grey eyes,” Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the general and dictator, had “blue-grey eyes and blond hair,” and Gaius Octavius (Augustus), the first Roman emperor, had “bright eyes and yellow hair.” Recent analysis of an ancient marble bust of the emperor Caligula found particles of the original pigment trapped in the stone. Experts have restored the colors to show that the demented ruler had ruddy skin and red hair.

The love poetry of Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid, (43 BC to AD 17) offers much evidence of the color of upper-class Roman women during the early years of the empire. That Ovid ascribes blond hair to many goddesses—Aurora, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, and Venus—tells us something about the Roman ideal of beauty; that he describes many of his lovers the same way tells us that the Nordic type was still found in imperial Rome. “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned,” he writes in his Amores of 15 BC, but “brunettes make marvelous lovers too.” He admires the contrast of “dark-tresses against a snow-white neck,” and adores young girls who blush. One of his favorite lovers is “tall” with a “peaches-and-cream complexion,” “ivory cheeks,” and “bright eyes.” Another was a “smart Greek blonde.”

So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races. The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes—Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti—who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.

What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery. Protracted internecine war was devastating. The Hellenes lost relatively few men in their two wars with the Persian Empire (490, 480-479 BC), but they were decimated by the ruinous series of inter-Hellenic wars that followed. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) pitted Athens and her subject Ionian cities against the Spartan Dorian confederacy. That was followed by 35 years of intermittent warfare between Sparta and Thebes (396-362 BC), which pitted Nordics against Nordics. These wars so weakened the Greek republics that they fell under Macedonian rule about 20 years later (338 BC), bringing to an end the classical age of Greece.

Money was, as always, a racial solvent. Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”

The Roman experience was similarly tragic. All of her later historians agreed that the terrible losses inflicted by Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) were minor compared to the horrendous losses Rome inflicted on herself during the nearly 100 years of civil war that followed the murder of the reforming Tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.

Immigration was the inevitable backwash of imperialism as slaves, adventurers, and traders swarmed into Rome. Over time, slaves were freed, foreigners gave birth to natives, non-Romans gained citizenship, and legal and social sanctions against intermarriage fell away. By the early empire, all that was left of the original Roman stock were a few patrician families.

The historian Appian lamented that “the city masses are now thoroughly mixed with foreign blood, the freed slave has the same rights as a native-born citizen, and those who are still slaves look no different from their masters.” Scipio Aemilianus (185–129 BC), a statesman and general of the famed clan of the Aemilii, called these heterogeneous subjects “step-children of Rome.”

One hundred and fifty years later, Horace (65–8 BC) wrote in Book III of the Odes:

Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs
Were weaker still—ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.

The last Roman writers therefore came to see their own people as both morally and physically degenerate. The subtext of Tacitus’ (56-117 AD) ethnological treatise Germania is a longing for the northern vigor and purity the Romans had lost. He saw the Gauls and Germans as superior to the Romans in morals and physique, and Roman women shared this admiration. Blond hair became the rage, and German and Gaulic slave women were shorn of their blond or reddish-brown hair to make wigs for wealthy women. By the time of Tertullian (160-225 AD), so many Roman women were dying their hair that he complained, “they are even ashamed of their country, sorry that they were not born in Germany or Gaul.” In the early second century AD, the satirist Juvenal complained of the dwindling stock of “the bluest patrician blood,” which is a figurative phrase for the nobility, whose veins appear blue through their light skin.

Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves. In both Europe and America, patriotic young men slaughtered each other in terrible fratricidal wars. In North America, the descendents of slaves are the majority in many great cities. Both continents have paid for imperial ambitions with mass immigration of aliens.

Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?



[1] This article was originally published in 2010 by American Renaissance. Mr. Sims is an historian and a native of Kentucky.

Mapping Aryan expansion

Just ignore the PC title of this YouTube clip: ‘Mapping Indo-European language expansion’.

For ‘language’ just replace ‘racial’ or ‘Aryan’ and you’ll get the picture (see Arthur Kemp’s history of the white race for a textual explanation of such expansion).

Published in: on October 24, 2017 at 6:20 pm  Comments (1)  

Rising, 2


Mr. Lothrop Stoddard’s “The Rising Tide of Color,” following so closely the Great War, may appear to some unduly alarming, while others, as his thread of argument unrolls, may recoil at the logic of his deductions.

In our present era of convulsive changes, a prophet must be bold, indeed, to predict anything more definite than a mere trend in events, but the study of the past is the one safe guide in forecasting the future.

Mr. Stoddard takes up the white man’s world and its potential enemies as they are to-day. A consideration of their early relations and of the history of the Nordic race, since its first appearance three or four thousand years ago, tends strongly to sustain and justify his conclusions. For such a consideration we must first turn to the map, or, better, to the globe.

Viewed in the light of geography and zoology, Europe west of Russia is but a peninsula of Asia with the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea included. True Africa, or rather Ethiopia, lies south of the Sahara Desert and has virtually no connection with the North except along the valley of the Nile.

This Eurasiatic continent has been, perhaps, since the origin of life itself, the most active centre of evolution and radiation of the higher forms.

Confining ourselves to the mammalian orders, we find that a majority of them have originated and developed there and have spread thence to the outlying land areas of the globe. All the evidence points to the origin of the Primates in Eurasia and we have every reason to believe that this continent was also the scene of the early evolution of man from his anthropoid ancestors.

The impulse that inaugurated the development of mankind seems to have had its basic cause in the stress of changing climatic conditions in central Asia at the close of the Pliocene, and the human inhabitants of Eurasia have ever since exhibited in a superlative degree the energy developed at that time. This energy, however, has not been equally shared by the various species of man, either extinct or living, and the survivors of the earlier races are, for the most part, to be found on the other continents and islands or in the extreme outlying regions of Eurasia itself.

In other words those groups of mankind which at an early period found refuge in the Americas, in Australia, in Ethiopia, or in the islands of the sea, represent to a large extent stages in man’s physical and cultural development, from which the more energized inhabitants of Eurasia have long since emerged. In some cases, as in Mexico and Peru, the outlying races developed in their isolation a limited culture of their own, but, for the most part, they have exhibited, and continue to this day to exhibit, a lack of capacity for sustained evolution from within as well as a lack of capacity to adjust themselves of their own initiative to the rapid changes which modern times impose upon them from without.

In Eurasia itself this same inequality of potential capacity is found, but in a lesser degree, and consequently, in the progress of humanity, there has been constant friction between those who push forward and those who are unable to keep pace with changing conditions.

Owing to these causes the history of mankind has been that of a series of impulses from the Eurasiatic continent upon the outlying regions of the globe, but there has been an almost complete lack of reaction, either racial or cultural, from them upon the masses of mankind in Eurasia itself. There have been endless conflicts between the different sections of Eurasia, but neither Amerinds, nor Austroloids, nor Negroes, have ever made a concerted attack upon the great continent.

Three-eyed raven, 5


Ethnosuicidal Spencer


The future 3-Eyed Raven
beside the Heart tree at Winterfell.

Generally white nationalists see me as a very rare fellow since, without being Aryan, I proclaim nordicism. They ignore that it is precisely because my ancestors lost their Aryan blood what motivates me to warn others not to lose it.

I’m not the weird one in promoting nordicism. They are the freaks. A reading of William Pierce’s book immediately uncovers the fact that over the millennia whites tried to preserve their race through a religion (as in India) or through a harsh political system based on iron laws (as in Sparta) or putting public notices so that the blacks did not pass from a certain geographic latitude (as in Egypt) or burning alive the Aryan that married a mudblood (as did the Visigoths in Spain before Christianity deceived them).

What is more, what is labelled ‘nordicism’ is, in fact, orthodoxy in racial studies from Gobineau and Chamberlain to Grant and Günther and the National Socialists. The latter, for example, took nordicism for granted to the extent that they prevented the Germans from marrying those Slavs whose bloodline was compromised (Richard Spencer did exactly the opposite in his personal life). Even today’s scholars share the nordicist premise (see, for example, Kevin MacDonald’s review of the book Raciology by Vladimir Avdeyev here or here).

Only in recent times, when in the mid-1990s the term white nationalism started to be used, its supporters wanted to make tabula rasa of the knowledge accumulated in the last centuries and tried to reinvent the wheel starting from scratch. Many of these people are so ignorant that they do not even want to read books: they just watch the news of what is happening in the world from the point of view of racist internet sites. Something as elementary as ordering Pierce’s book from Amazon Books and studying it is foreign to them in their superficial way of acting in the world.

Moreover, even the most educated white nationalists suffer from this problem. Like pedantic university students these nationalists quote charlatan Aleksandr Dugin, but at the same time they are incapable of recognizing elemental patterns in the history of the white race.

Yesterday evening, for example, I discovered an interview with Richard Spencer with a mongrel in which Spencer asserted that the ethnic state of his dreams could absorb mulattos and mestizos, as long as they believed in the Western cause!

Presumably Spencer would admit these mongrels, mestizos and mudbloods as ordinary citizens, who would have the right to marry whites. ‘Race is a big family’ Spencer said, in the sense that he is not ‘Puritan’ to the extent of rejecting black and Amerindian blood within the gene pool of the white state. Spencer added that the numbers of mongrels are very small although earlier in the interview the interviewer had released the data that interracial couples consist of 10 percent of the population.

In Who We Are Pierce wrote:

Before we deal with the next Indo-European peoples of the Classical Age—the Macedonians and the Romans—let us review briefly the history of our race to this point, and let us also look at the fate of some Indo-Europeans who, unlike those we have already studied, invaded Asia instead of Europe.

Pierce then explains how the ‘Indo-Europeans’, that is the Nordish peoples, conquered the Middle East but perished through racemixing precisely because they held the view that Spencer now holds. According to Pierce it happened to the Hittite Empire, the Persian Empire and in India. Unlike what Spencer and most white nationalists believe, ‘only total separation can preserve racial quality’.

My prediction is not only that white nationalists will continue with their ethnosuicidal ideology. They will continue to ignore the classics of racial studies whose names I cited above, even the American Madison Grant. In their pride they will continue to see themselves as superior to the nationalist socialists of the last century, when their inferiority is obvious.

Eugenics and race

by Prof. Roger Pearson


This booklet [first edition 1959, second and revised edition 1966] comprises a selection of articles from the pages of Northern World which between them broadly cover the field of eugenics and race, and help to show how these twin studies are both facets of the same subject: heredity.

There can be no guarantee of enduring progress until a thorough appreciation of the implications of heredity has been acquired by those who shape the policies of governments and the destinies of nations. Man is in no way exempt from the laws of biological inheritance which govern all species of the animal and plant kingdoms, and since affairs of heredity tend to be final and irrevocable, the sooner he learns to face up to the facts of nature, then the brighter will be the prospects for humanity.

Published in: on July 17, 2017 at 11:00 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Raciology, 7

After 1945

In April 1966, Alex Haley interviewed American Nazi Party founder George Lincoln Rockwell for Playboy. Rockwell justified his belief that blacks were inferior to whites by citing a study by G.O. Ferguson showing that the intellectual performance of black students was correlated with their percentage of white ancestry, stating “pure negroes, negroes three-fourths, mulattoes and quadroons have, roughly, 60, 70, 80 and 90 percent, respectively, of white intellectual efficiency.” Playboy published the interview but botched it with a pseudoscientific editorial note. The next year Rockwell was assassinated.

Today, the term “scientific racism” is used to refer to Raciology: research seeming to scientifically justify racist ideology. The accusation of scientific racism often is cast upon the raciologists that discovered quantifiable differences in intelligence among the races, especially if said differences are partly genetic in origin.

Post WW2 researchers include Arthur Jensen (1923-2012), Philippe Rushton (1943-2012), Chris Brand (1943-2017), Richard Lynn (1930-); and also Charles Alan Murray (1943-) and Richard Herrnstein (1930-1994), the authors of The Bell Curve, among others. These authors, while seeing their work as scientific, may dispute the term “racism” and may prefer terms such as “race realism” or “racialism”.

Presently Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance is internet’s premier race-realist site.

Diaspora, 1

Food for thought from Kevin
MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples:

Groups of Europeans are thus exactly the sort of groups modeled by Fehr and Gätcher: They are groups with high levels of cooperation with strangers. They are thus prone to market relations and individualism. On the other hand, Jewish culture and Chinese culture derive from the Middle Old World culture area, characterized by extended kinship networks and the extended family. They derive from cultures prone to ingroup-outgroup relationships in which cooperation is with the ingroup composed of extended family members…

Jews are at the extreme collectivist end of the individualism-collectivism continuum, so extreme that they are prone to martyrdom rather than abandoning the group. These people are obligated to remain in the group no matter what—even to the point of killing themselves and their own family members to prevent the possibility of becoming a member of the outgroup…

There has been essentially no conversion of Europeans to become mating members of the Ashkenazi gene pool. The very low levels of genetic admixture with Europeans may well have come from clandestine matings and rape…

Sephardic Jews were genetically distant from both Spaniards and North Africans despite having lived among them for centuries. Indeed, they remain very close to Kurdish Jews, a finding the authors attribute to genetic continuity with Jews exiled by the Assyrians in 723 B.C. and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. Kurdish Jews remained closer generically to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews than to Kurdish Muslims, a truly remarkable finding, since it indicates no detectable genetic admixture between Kurdish Jews and their hosts over approximately 2700 years.

Published in: on July 4, 2017 at 11:54 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: ,

Raciology, 6

In the late 19th century, the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) United States Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutional legality of racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

Eugenicists such as Harry H. Laughlin and Madison Grant sought to scientifically prove the physical and mental inadequacy of certain ethnic groups to justify compulsory sterilisation and restrict immigration, per the Immigration Act of 1924.

Lothrop Stoddard published many racialist books on what he saw as the peril of immigration, his most famous being The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy in 1920. In this book he presented a view of the world situation pertaining to race focusing concern on the coming population explosion among the coloured peoples of the world and the way in which white world-supremacy was being lessened in the wake of World War I and the collapse of colonialism.

Stoddard’s analysis divided world politics and situations into “white,” “yellow,” “black,” “Amerindian,” and “brown” peoples and their interactions. He argued that race and heredity were the guiding factors of history and civilisation, and that the elimination or absorption of the white race by coloured races would result in the destruction of Western civilisation.

Like Madison Grant, Stoddard divided the white race into three main divisions: Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean. He considered all three to be of good stock, and far above the quality of the coloured races, but argued that the Nordic was the greatest of the three and needed to be preserved by way of eugenics. Unlike Grant, Stoddard was less concerned with which varieties of European people were superior to others (nordicism), but was more concerned with what he called “bi-racialism,” seeing the world as being composed of simply coloured and white races.

In the years after the Great Migration and World War I, Grant’s racial theory would fall out of favour in the U.S. for a model closer to Stoddard’s. An influential publication was The Races of Europe (1939) by Carleton S. Coon, president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists from 1930 to 1961. Coon was a proponent of multiregional origin of modern humans and divided Homo sapiens into five main races.
Racial policy of Nazi Germany

The Nazi Party and its sympathizers published many books on scientific racism, seizing on the eugenicist ideas with which they were widely associated, although these ideas had been in circulation since the 19th century. Books such as Rassenkunde des Deutschen Volkes (“Ethnology of the German People”) by Hans F. K. Günther and Rasse und Seele (“Race and Soul”) by Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss attempted to scientifically identify differences between the German, Nordic, or Aryan people and inferior groups. German schools used these books as texts during the Nazi era.

In the early 1930s, the Nazis used racialised scientific rhetoric based on social Darwinism to push their eugenic social policies. During the Second World War, raciology studies became anathema in the United States, and Boasians such as Ruth Benedict consolidated their institutional power.

After the war, the malicious propaganda by the Allied forces led most of the scientific community to repudiate the scientific support for racism.