Reestablishing masculinity

by Andrew Anglin

Okay, so there are three separate main issues involved with Feminist Podgate 2015 that need to be cleared up for those who aren’t clear on them so far. These are:

a) The idea of women being involved in political movements
b) This site maintaining a male-centric character, and
c) My exact position on the nature of women and the role of women in society

These issues are linked closely, but they are not the exact same thing. Let’s talk about all of them at the same time.

Firstly, the issue of women being involved in the site has never really come up until now. I have published news articles by women, and never really thought much of it. We have also posted radio shows with women. We have a few female commenters, and surely quite a few female readers.

That said, this site has never held the view that it was appropriate for women to play a role in politics or public life in general, as the concept has always struck me as bizarre. There is no historical basis at all for women having a role in politics, it is a completely Jewish concept. Of course, you can dig up some historical individual women who did whichever political thing, but the mere fact that you have to bring up the names of individuals proves my point: there was no time in history when this was an accepted norm.

Currently, because of the Jew-altered social norms, there are women in right-wing political parties, sometimes playing prominent roles. On the political scene, I will support these women because of their views, for purely practical reasons, but as an ideological concept, I am entirely opposed to women being involved in politics.

To be honest, I had otherwise thought little about the involvement of women on the site, as I assumed that female readers understand this position—which I state often—and still continue to read.

Then this show happened and I realized that a new policy was necessary, as I was very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman giving her views about how men should be behaving, and was also very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being a “voice” on the site, as I believe that is unprofessional and ridiculous. I am not commenting on the particular woman involved at all here, as I believe she is a very fine lady. I am speaking of the concept.

And though this view is apparently shocking to a large portion of the White Nationalist community, by any historical gauge, those who disagreed with me would not only be shocking to the people, but appear to be completely insane. This website is a public speaking platform. The internet has only existed for a very short time, but we have a very long history of public forums, going all the way back to ancient Greece. Women were never allowed to speak in these. Depending on the era, locale and the specifics of the situation, sometimes they were allowed to hang out and listen to men speak, sometimes they were not.

For instance, the Roman Forum—Roman civilization lasted for 12 centuries, and always had a forum. There is a feminist website, called Women in World History, which in discussing the forum brings up two instances where women got involved:

During the years of the Roman Republic, women had no political rights. They were not allowed to vote, directly address the Senate, nor mill about in the forum. Respectable women who spent time in public places were frowned upon. Nonetheless, there were times when women used the power of public protest to get what they wanted. One was the demonstration of women against the Oppian Law. Another ws Hortensia’s speech to the forum.

I am sure there were more such instances, but I’m also sure that in every such instance, the entire population—women included—were either like “hmmm, this is weird” or they got really angry.

You could clearly go through the entire history of White civilization and see the exact same pattern: women were not involved with public life, at all. Is there really a need for specific examples though? Is there anyone actually making the argument that women traditionally played a public role in society? The feminists themselves are constantly on about how they have these thousands of years of oppression.

I do not see that there is a debate here on the traditional role of women in Western (or any other) society. We can probably all agree about that. So then, comrades: my position is the default position, historically and traditionally—objectively. That means that those who disagree with my position are not arguing for something traditional, they are arguing for a form of social progressivism. The argument is: “I’m not a feminist, but…”

“…but the Jews did have a few good points.” I mean, right?

No, that’s not fair, and I wouldn’t make that argument. I am open to discussing the idea that some form of social progressivism is good. I don’t think there will ever be any point at which I agree with it, but I am open to discussing it. However, this is not what I am seeing from many of those responding to this drama. They are not openly admitting that they are advocating for some degree of social progressivism—however limited that advocacy may or may not be—and are instead accusing me of whichever thing: “alienating women,” “excluding women,” “attacking women,” “being afraid of women,” “creating a male version of feminism,” “must be gay,” “small penis,” and on and on.

What it is is a reaction to the programming you’ve undergone in a Jew-controlled system being questioned. Your entire education and the whole media apparatus have pounded it into your head that women are equal, and so if someone questions that, there must be something wrong with him. Because there can’t possibly be anything wrong with female involvement in public life.

I am arguing for the exact type of social norms which existed all throughout history before the last hundred years. In order to condemn my position as objectively wrong, you would also have to condemn the entire history White civilization as wrong, which makes very little sense to me. I am definitely not saying something unique or ground-breaking here. It only comes across that way to you because you’ve been brainwashed by modern society to oppose the basic order of nature.

Either that, or I’ve communicated my positions poorly, and I am willing to just assume it was the latter, which is why I’m writing this piece to try and clear everything up.

So, misconceptions

Hunter Wallace—who I like, I am not bringing this up for drama purposes, but simply because he articulated well some ideas others stated—made this comment on the show I did yesterday with Sven:

brad-n-wife The “men’s rights” movement. It’s a reaction to contemporary feminism. It is heavily influenced by feminism and the gay rights movement. You could say that the two exist in symbiosis. There’s nothing “traditional” at all about PUA or male identity politics. Traditional societies interpret gender roles in terms of a greater whole.

Gentlemen’s clubs and fraternities, for example, existed in the Old South. That’s not the same thing though as group therapy sessions for aggrieved and victimized men who are embittered and hostile toward all women for ideological reasons. Elliot Rodger isn’t the solution to contemporary feminism. Insofar as men begin to sound like Elliot Rodger, it just makes a bad situation even worse. I don’t think more Americanism is the answer to the extremes of Americanism.

To which I responded:

AndyHi Hunter,

Firstly, bringing up Elliot Rogers is unfair. He was just a mentally ill Eurasian who realized he was never going to get laid.

The reason that “male identity politics” were never a thing is that all political identity was always male. It is the same reason there were no White identity politics before non-Whites entered the equation. You wouldn’t say “there is nothing traditional about opposing NAMBLA” simply because no anti-NAMBLA sentiment existed before the creation of NAMBLA. Same thing for anti-abortion movements, anti-homosexuality movements, gun rights movements and on and on. By definition, a reactionary movement has to have something to react to. So it isn’t really a valid point to say that it is not traditional, as ideally it is a modern movement to re-establish tradition, which would not have been necessary before the destruction of tradition.

That having been said, I basically agree with you about current “Men’s Rights” movements being similar to feminism or gay activism, though possibly for different reasons. I used the word “ideally” above, because in practice, these movements are not geared toward re-establishing tradition, but simply going issue by issue, advocating for men to have some of their basic rights restored. They use the term “real equality.”

In contrast, I am unapologetically arguing for a full-on return to Medieval gender norms—quite literally. “How dare you interrupt while men are speaking?” type stuff. There is some commonality between my position and the various positions of the Men’s Rights movement, because the issues they bring up are symptoms of the core issue, which is that women should not have any “rights” at all. And this is the default position, all throughout history, so there is no way to claim that this position is not “traditional.”

Modern Nationalist movements appear to pick and choose on issues of tradition, and it often appears that they are choosing based on what they perceive to be the most “inclusive” positions. I approach feminism in the same way that I approach Nazism and the Holocaust, which is without any attempt to soften the reality of the situation. And it should be noted that I do so not solely for ideological reasons, but also—and most importantly—because I don’t think anything else can possibly work.

I explained my reasoning behind embracing Nazi imagery and holocaust denial in some detail during the assault on my base by Colin Liddell and others. Perhaps it would be prudent to do something similar on the issue of feminism.

So, my position is not “men’s rights” advocacy or a form of feminism for men. It also has nothing to do with pick-up artistry, which I find faggy and weird.

There is also some confusion with this idea that I “don’t want women in the movement.” This is more difficult to respond to, as it is so broad and vague. As I have said, I don’t want women in political positions and I don’t want women playing a role of a political voice on my website. That doesn’t mean I don’t want women to come to rallies in support of nationalist causes if they feel like they need to or (much more likely) are dragged along by their boyfriends or husbands. They could have some special area to get together and talk about whatever it is women talk about with each other.

It is the nature of a woman, if she is not being influenced by a man with fringe beliefs, to return to the belief system which represents the status quo. This is a rule to which there are of course exceptions, but the fact that it is a rule is the point here. Women are naturally attracted to power, and if they are not being swayed by the individual power of an individual man, they will return to the power of the system itself.

To me, when I see nationalists talking about how they’re going to “get women involved in the movement,” as in market a political ideology to a woman, it just sounds kooky. Besides the fact that it’s not really possible, what could possibly be the point? And what are we talking about, exactly? I mean, are we talking about single women? So that nationalist websites, demonstrations and other events can turn into singles meet-ups? What sort of idiot childishness is this?

But ah—we do need “women in the movement”! What we need is nationalist men to have girlfriends and wives. Because if a man has a nationalist perspective, so too then does his female counterpart (unless he is some faggy failure at life being leeched off of by a parasite). The natural desire for a woman is to hold the political views of the male figure in her life.

And if we are going to have healthy men in healthy relationships with women, we are going to have to do away with feminism, not embrace it by saying “yeah let’s convince women to join our movement so they can tell us what we should be doing.”

Because it is an eternal law of the universe that if you do what a woman tells you to do, she doesn’t have respect for you, and thus she won’t follow you. And there is no way to sway women by trying to convince them of things. You must demonstrate power, because whether you guys like it or not, that is the only thing a woman’s essence is naturally capable of responding to. It is basic and obvious evolutionary biology, because within nature, a woman did not have the ability to defend and provide for herself and her children.

Status = Power, Muscles = Power, Money = Power. Power is to a woman what physical beauty is to a man. Period. You might like things about her besides her looks, but the bottom line is always going to be her looks, and unless you are some fagged-out beta wimp, you can admit that to yourself. There’s no shame in it. Yes, you’re superficial for looking at her ass and she’s superficial for looking at your wallet, but it’s just basic human nature.

We didn’t ever advance. We’re still the same animal we were before the invention of the steam engine. It’s hard to accept, I know, but it just is what it is. I’m not the bad guy for telling you. This applies to both individuals and groups or institutions. Once more: Women are attracted, magnetically, to all forms of power, because in the natural order from which we emerged, they needed to be attached to that power in order that they and their children would survive.

So, I simply don’t believe that this “okay let’s half way embrace feminism but just claim we aren’t actually doing that because maybe women will like it for some reason and then help us somehow” method is ever going to work out very well at all.

The absolute importance of this issue

Some people are taking the position of “well, sure this is important, but right now we have to focus on these Jews and their Brown hordes.” And obviously, the invasion is the most important issue, as it is the only one which can never be fixed. However, feminism was the basis for the destablization of society. The importance of the Eden myth cannot be overestimated. The root cause of all of these other problems is the feminization of our society—the feminization of men through the introduction of women as social and intellectual equals.

The only way we are going to be able to stand together and fight this thing as men is if we are men. And in order to reclaim our masculinity, we must understand what we have lost, psychologically, emotionally and physically through the Jewish process of distorting gender norms. No man is going to be capable of fighting a foreign enemy while he remains a slave to women.

Beyond that, by putting a focus on male issues, our movement is offering something to young men who are looking at their world. Whereas race can be an obscure concept for young Whites who haven’t been forced to deal with other races directly, and the Jewish problem can be downright esoteric, the problem of being forced into subservience to women, having your basic dignity taken from you as you are subjected to a level of degradation no man in history has ever been subjected to, is something we have all experienced as young men raised in a feminist society.

As such, the offer of “we can free you from women and give you back your masculinity and your power, as well as your tribal male-bonding patterns” means a whole lot more in real terms to young men—who currently have the option of living comfortably and playing video games, rather than fight for anything at all—than “we have to stop these Jews for the sake of future generations.”

On an instinctual level, I think most young men who grew up in this system will perceive a movement which allows women power is simply more of the same.

So, the direction of this site

I have been talking for a while about making this site more focused on male issues, and I want to work to do that. What that will mean is that I will necessarily have to say things that will offend at least most and probably all women, because there is no way around that. I have held back, to some extent, and that just has to stop, regardless of feelings.

I know for a fact there are women flipping out right now about what I’ve just said here about their sexual fixation with power. Because in the same way a man will tell a woman he’s interested in her personality and a relationship in order to get laid, women constantly put on that they are interested in men’s kindness in order to manipulate them and drain emotional or physical resources (generally without providing them with sex). They will do the same thing to political movements, pretending they understand or care about the ideology on some intellectual level, when in actual fact they are only judging its ability to provide them with resources.

Note that many of the resources women seek are emotional, so modern women often get involved in male spaces in order to cause chaos and direct male emotional energy towards themselves in order to boost their self-esteem, while simultaneously attempting to see if there is a man in the group willing to stop them from doing this and thus prove his worth to her.

Women very often react with rage when they hear someone say these things plainly, as they are now holding it as some sort of a secret, collectively (it’s obviously a bit more complicated than that, but we’ll get into that at a later date).

I had somewhat assumed that readers were up on these issues relating to the behavior patterns of women as individuals and as a collective. While some readers obviously are, I have no good reason for having assumed it was a majority, and recent comments sections have shown that this is definitely not the case. I regularly mention these issues on the site, but have never really gone into the necessary detail, and I am going to try and do that more. Can’t promise a regular schedule or anything, but I’ll be both writing and talking on the radio about these issues, and this will be a permanent feature of the site.

Also, just to be a hundred percent clear here: yes, this is now officially a boys club. Male space is needed and this needs to be a male space. There will not be any articles or radio shows from women, at all.


Feminism is a war against both women and men. And it has hurt all of us, deeply. But the only possible way of fixing this situation is to return to the traditional norm, and in order for the traditional norm to be restored, men are going to have to come to terms with some very uncomfortable truths about the nature of the sexes.

Anders Breivik’s letter

Commander Breivik’s Letter to the International Press has gone unreported in the mainstream media. Before trying to decipher it I would strongly recommend reading Alex Linder’s thoughts on Breivik.

Why wasn’t the 2011 entry “Linder on Breivik” chosen when collecting articles for The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour? Because Linder is a type-A bicausal ideologue and I’m type-B. Nonetheless, since expelling the subversive tribe from the West is priority number one, if I were Führer of an ethno-state I would name Linder my Reichsführer-SS.

Published in: on January 25, 2015 at 9:30 am  Comments (6)  

Deal with it!

Further to my previous post. Andrew Anglin has now steamrolled a cockroach in the “right whinge” of white nationalism, a racialist liberal who cannot understand that anti-Nazi is simply a codeword for anti-white (see also Alex Linder’s input here). Below, the last section of Anglin’s overkilling piece. Pay special attention to the paragraph where he states that National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization.


The sheer idiocy of pro-white liberalism

The last point in the entire debate is that no matter what you do, if you are attempting to restore traditional European society, you are going to look and act basically exactly like Nazis. Because NS was the post-industrial revolution embodiment of traditional Europeanism. It was scientifically formulated as such.

What happens is that the further you try to get away from the label of “Nazi,” the more you necessarily have to compromise, because in fleeing the label, you abandon stances and doctrines with similarities to those of the NSDAP, and so are forced to abandon key aspects of a nationalist platform.

Basically, what the Right Whinge are trying to do is combine modern liberalism with a whites-only society. And though I want something very much more extreme than that, if I thought it was possible to achieve that, I might put aside my agenda and embrace it. After all, a whites-only society, whether based on liberal principles or not, would at least give us more radical folks the option of existing how we wish to exist, free from harassment by the system.

We would also end up voting our way into power anyway through the liberal democracy system that the pro-White liberals would doubtlessly leave in place, as conservatives are still the majority in America if you get rid of the Jews and non-Whites, at which point we could form a one-party system and end the vote.

However, this plan for a liberal White revolution can’t possibly work. Even if you could manage to combine liberal thought with the concept of a Whites-only society (and you couldn’t, as is evidenced by Johnson’s attempts to do so, which contain endless inconsistencies and outright contradictions—one of the most blatant being complaining about the White birthrate while celebrating homosexuality) it would be incapable of achieving victory over the present system, largely due to the fact that liberals are weak and gutless cowards, as evidenced by Liddell and others continually speaking out against “hate” and defaming anyone who ever accomplished anything that mattered.

As I have said, they are also fundamentally incapable of rallying the masses.

What rallied the masses in the sixties, when liberalism began its conquest of the West, was seduction. They offered free sex, drugs and a general lack of any personal responsibility. Plus a lot of really good music. But the people now have all of these things. So what would you then rally them behind? Just “we need rid of these foreigners and Blacks, so we can have peace”?

It cannot work. Yes, of course people are fed up with foreigners and Blacks, but that idea alone cannot maintain a new Zeitgeist. It cannot stir the youth to revolution. What can stir the youth to revolution is a critique of the entire system of the Jews, and the way it has affected all of us on a personal level.

The fact that we can see all of these people invading our countries and feeding off of us like buzzards on a still breathing man is indeed powerfully upsetting, but at this point those who are inspired by liberal thought—who are definitively a part of a very specific socio-economic class—can still avoid them, for the most part, and it doesn’t much matter if in thirty years they are the majority, because who cares what happens in thirty years? Certainly childless middle class White liberals do not.

However, if we look at the entirety of the effects of Jew liberalism on us, the levels of alienation we’ve suffered in our individual lives, the way our families have been torn apart, the way we have been undermined by the fairer sex which was created by God to be our faithful companion, the way our masculinity has been stripped from us, the way our identity and sense of belonging has been crushed into powder and swept out into the sea—then we are left with material fit for Total Revolution.

We are vocalizing an idea which appeals to the masses, a full-on rebellion against modernity. Hitler is the ultimate symbol of that, because Hitler is Old Europe, and Old Europe is what our very bones are calling out for. National Socialism was the pinnacle of European civilization. In order to progress forward, we must first return to that point.

This is the only plan which can possibly work. Thus we should relish in extremism, not avoid it. It is all or nothing. There is no halfway. Halfway is impossible. The entire Jewish system must be removed.

Unlike Johnson, I won’t attack “mainstreamers” as useless, as I believe they ultimately move things in the right direction, even though they don’t go the whole way.

However, in the end, the only way we are going to fix society is through hardline National Socialism.

The Jew system doesn’t accept apologies for being White and I wouldn’t be willing to offer one anyway.

I am White.

I am a National Socialist.

And I am not sorry.

Deal with it.

The Daily Stormer


Andrew Anglin’s blogsite, The Daily Stormer, which acknowledges the benign force of National Socialism, is becoming more popular among highly red-pilled whites than the old, much milder approach of racialists—fantastically more popular in fact.

See Anglin’s excellent rebuttals of Colin Liddell & Greg Johnson’s effete approaches in Anglin’s own site (e.g., here), or Alex Linder’s recent take on exactly the same subject (here).

Finally it looks like National Socialism is starting to become un-demonized among those whites who have really awoken. This promises a Great Awakening in the future for the whole West.

Sieg Heil!

Published in: on October 12, 2014 at 7:35 pm  Comments (13)  

Extermination • II

“How much good it would do if one could exterminate the human race.”

—Bertrand Russell

Quoted in A Bibliography of Bertrand Russell



No one, to my knowledge, has written a thorough analysis of his parents. But what I said in Hojas Susurrantes (abbreviated HS this line up) about the murder of children’s souls only lays the foundation for a further and deeper elaboration of Psychohistory, which in the last analysis shows us that the human species is a failed species.


From a careful reading of HS it cannot but be inferred that most of the human species should be exterminated—on top of what is written there, because, as Schopenhauer wrote, if the world is hell, human beings are the devils of the animals. And if we want to save the animals from the human devils, there is no choice but to dispatch the latter.


That only some of the most beautiful specimens of whites deserve to continue living; so beautiful in body and soul that they have left human devilry behind, has become so obvious to me as that the cow is a mammal—as we shall see in this sort of continuation to HS.


By way of a prologue

Most of the text of HS is not original. There are original parts, yes: the long letter to the mother with which the book opens; my experiences to twelve years, and the final part where I analyze my fear of damnation as an internal persecutor begotten as a result of my father’s crimes. However, most of HS consists of long paraphrases of other peoples’ ideas, pastiches and re-workings of their works to present the trauma model (refuting, along the way, the fraudulent professions of “mental health”).

I believe that, as a didactic work to Aryanize the trauma model away from the Semitic or philo-Semitic hands of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause, HS honors its goal. But the problems I raised—remember how the fourth book in HS ends by mentioning the burning of children by their Semitic parents in the Ancient World, wondering if mankind had a right to exist—were left unsolved. Fortunately, this century will be crucial because of the energy devolution that is upon us, especially of oil, for Nature’s killing these humans that I hate so much and whose destruction has become my personal religion.

I will not live to see my day: that which for decades I have called the extermination of the Neanderthals, in which I include not only non-whites but those white traitors who brought them into the West. But the burden is upon me to bear witness to why I believe that the être supérieur should yearn, as so desperately I do, that the primitive version of modified apes, as in my soliloquies I call the humans of today, both white and of other races, becomes extinct.

Another huge issue never made onto paper is a detailed narrative of my agonizing experiences in 1976, when I was only seventeen, and ten years later, while living in California: experiences outlined in HS. Here I hope to talk more about those life lessons. So to confess why I hate humanity to the extent of wanting to exterminate it, at the same time being the first to analyze in detail his destructive parents—so that, after due extermination, in the Acadia of my most cherished dreams the treatment to children and animals be free of my hells—is the double helix of this new text.

But there is much more than that. In the Neanderthalesque literature that I run into the bookstores I never see confessions about male sexuality that go to the merits. In HS I quoted an Austrian writer who said that autobiography is the most difficult literary art because the adept of self-portraiture has to betray himself. Of course! How it won’t be self-betrayal for a respectable writer to recount, say, his sexual fantasies? Previous literature to the “total autobiography” suffers from cowardice insofar a text that confesses everything could be posthumous. But the so-called giants of letters, that I find so small that I do not read, never reached such confessional level. They stayed in the pre-autobiographical phase of literature. Here I will try to amend this lacuna in the section entitled “In search of the soulmate.”

Quite apart from the autobiographical question, we propose the need to rescue and/or abduct Aryan women—only the very young and pretty—from what will become multiracial clans after the civilizational collapse pulls us over to strictly ethnic strongholds. To paraphrase George Lincoln Rockwell, “He who doesn’t rape won’t fight!” will be the motto of a Blonde Beast redivivus that, by getting his manhood back, will not only become genocidal of everything that does not resemble him. The Beast will hunt for his females once the collective unconscious falls back to its original form by historical inertia forces. The brutality and savagery resulting from the collapse of the rule of law, together with the most elemental Darwinism, will mercilessly weed the feminized white males. Thanks to the energy devolution of our century the yin where today is pending the psyche of these whites will swing, like a pendulum of kilometric arc, to the Yang extreme of the right.

We won’t only lucubrate to kill non-whites around the globe and renaming cities currently inhabited by people of brown, yellow or black skin with names like “Pierce City” or “Himmler City.” The idea is that, alongside the extermination of Neanderthals, the Beast will have to go on the hunt for females, abandoning a masturbation currently afflicting millions of feminized males. The Aryan sperm injected involuntarily into those who had fornicated with the colored will fulfill the fourteen words during a holy war that will cover the world—and this time fulfilling them by brute force. The obvious objective will be to form families thank to the same élan vital that breathed life into the ancient founders of Rome by abducting, and raping, their attractive Sabine neighbors. In other words: if every nation, not just ancient Rome, is born with violence, after the darkest night of the West the Aryan Nation can only be born with extreme violence: from limit to limit of the pendulum’s arc, from the extreme yin to the extreme Yang.

Basic historical inertia: the swung pendulum is rushing toward us with vengeful force because of the incredible liberal lengths it reached in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. So far it swung toward the dark side that the “Day of the Rope” so dreamt by William Pierce in The Turner Diaries, a novel written in the 1970s but projected in the 90s, won’t be enough. We will go further. Neither Pierce nor Covington—much less Covington: a de facto feminist novelist in Freedom’s Sons—dared to predict the abduction of the new Sabine women. They did not seem to have considered that if the ancient Latins (Aryans) abducted and raped the Sabines (Aryans who copulated with Aryans), with much greater reason will be legitimate to direct our rediscovered sexual primitivism over those who delivered themselves to non-whites!

Returning to the subject of total autobiography. The victim of his parents and the fucking society who has lost everything requires getting revenge against those who spit on his cross. Only revenge heals the soul, and as I cannot settle scores with the Neanderthals at least I can tell what they did. Going into detail of what I omitted in HS will show how the evil that infected my parents also infected my siblings and how some of them, in turn, voluntarily surrendered to evil after reaching adulthood. Also, when analyzing my family, relatives, acquaintances, close and distant persons I met and even strangers whom I only interacted over the net, we will see how their behavior helped me realize that the human being is so obsolete a version of Homo sapiens as the niggers of the seedy hostel with whom I spent a night.

Finally, my exterminator conclusions I have come regarding all these people have relevance for understanding the darkest hour of the West. This topic sucked my recent years to the point of putting on a blog in English and its ramifications over a thousand entries summarized in two books: The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour and Day of Wrath (which I will be abbreviating as FR and DW). The book Extermination, that I now start, is relevant because the evil that ails the white man is the same one that destroyed my tree and its leaves and my dear family of Palenque.* And if I can unravel the evil that destroyed me I will probably unravel the evil that destroys the white race around the world, including the mass migration of non-whites in London I witnessed last month.

In other words, the evil I saw in my parents and the people I met (cf. HS) and the evil I see in westerners who are committing ethnic suicide (cf. FR and DW) is, down to the core, two sides of the same coin. That alone deserves my venture into this new literary genre: the vindictive autobiography.

Mexico City
September 2014



(*) Note that this book is written for those who have already read my previous books, including HS, and understand exactly what I mean, for example, with the word “Palenque”: the house where I experienced happiness before the catastrophe of my adolescence.

On American capitalism

"Cultural Marxism is a code word for American Capitalism."

White nationalists have been deceiving themselves with their single-cause hypothesis, i.e., an omnipotent tribe and the utter innocence of poor little whites. Yockey, O’Meara and Sunic on the other hand have seen capitalism as the main etiology of Western malaise (the non-Gentile, merely a secondary infection).

Below, no ellipsis added between the unquoted phrases or excerpts taken from pages 93-99 of Michael O’Meara’s Toward the White Republic, a must-read for any nationalist still stuck in “monocausalism”:


>Toward the White Republic, essay 2Corporate capitalism, in tandem with the new managerial state, began redesigning American culture and society to accord with its specific social-economic imperatives. The country’s historic racial hierarchy was overturned; cities, in the name of “urban renewal” (i.e., social engineering) were ethnically cleansed and white communities destroyed; masses of Negroes were not just allowed into, but imposed on, white society to resocialize whites as mindless, deracinated consumers; most cultural and educational institutions were taken over by Jews or market forces hostile to tradition.

Our people will survive only if white men, in struggle, learn again to stand, like their ancestors, on their own two legs and fight for a land of their own, free from everything associated with the monstrous Leviathan that has become the United States.

Almost as depressing as the thought of our people’s extinction is that of the white opposition to it. It’s not just that this opposition is minuscule in number, confined to the internet, and attracts a great many asocial, dysfunctional types incapable of sustaining any sort of nationalist resistance. Our people face extinction not because the Jews or the liberals monopolize the media, force feed us anti-white ideas, control the leading institutions, and wield all the power and influence. This is a big part of it, to be sure, but to see things solely—or principally—in these terms is to overlook the last two or three centuries of Western history.

As for the white masses—whose vegetative existence is lived unconscious of the higher forces governing them—they’ll never be moved by ideas and principles openly challenging the existing order. Only a social crisis set off by some cataclysm that makes their normal way of life impossible will cause them to look for alternatives. And at that point, what matters most will not be ideas and principles, but men and organizations whose exemplary stature instills in them the confidence for decisive action.

The white race will be reborn, then, not by electing Congressmen, hiring lobbyists, and participating in a system that seeks its destruction, but by returning to its original self—and to the challenge of creating a new elite, a revolutionary vanguard morally and organizationally armed to stand against the Jewish age—so that when the foul system supporting it collapses in decay, there will be someone around to fight for our fair share of the spoils.

If our people are to restore European America it will be in the Aryan way.



See also my translation of a Manu Rodríguez article, re-baptized here as “The Aryan problem.”

Published in: on July 22, 2014 at 10:46 am  Comments (12)  
Tags: ,

Linder responds

linderSurfing the internet in search of insightful thoughts by Vance Stubbs on the VNN forum (and I did find this one: “You can’t have a revolution until people are willing to put anger ahead of their comfort”) I causally hit this 2012 reply of Alex Linder to Greg Johnson:

Originally posted by Johnson:

Alex: Men are merely motivated by greed and fear, on your account.
Linder responded:

Did I say those were their only motivations? I said, or implied, fear is their main motivation. Fear of sticking out, in part, which is what happens when you embrace the right politics prematurely. People are PC out of fear more than out of positive belief it is a moral or good thing. Your politics fails to account for this most basic psychological fact, and so you and MacDonald and others are endlessly reaching out for these imaginary respectable middle-class people who just need to hear our arguments to be convinced.

You know what, bourgeois people aren’t stupid. But they are self-interested and, if not cowardly, then philistines—people only interested in causes that will net them personally some advantage, whether money or status. If you and MacDonald could deflate your egos, you might realize that people like Hitler already figured all this out. But like the bourgeois selfish you’re trying to reach, you only want to do what you enjoy—not what actually needs to be done. Your kind is basically irrelevant, and that’s why you never discuss Golden Dawn. That party’s experience directly contradicts every last assertion you make about the way your notional New Right will effect change.

Johnson quote: Morality is for kiddies, you say.

Morality is the name men give to their preferences. Or their self interest. Even if they believe it strongly enough to act against interest—very rare in this world—it still doesn’t change the fact their good and bad are merely labels for their own preferences. Morality is not absolute, no matter who asserts otherwise. If you’d spent more of your youth reading someone wise men like Twain, Bierce and Mencken instead of a fool like Swedenborg, you’d know that kind of thing.

Johnson quote: There is a pattern here: vulgarity, cynicism, nihilism—not to mention malignant narcissism and casual dishonesty and calamitously bad judgment of character. Nothing good can come from you.

I’m the cynical one? If I were cynical I would write tastefully and appropriately, that I might attract those unlike me. If I were cynical, I’d praise the South to the skies, and talk up their Book of books. If I were nihilist, I would stick to no principles. Or perhaps, following your example, I would proclaim one set of principles during the week, and the opposite on Sunday. [César Tort's interpolated note: Johnson preaches Nietzsche on his webzine and Jesus at his Swedenborgian church — see “Dies irae” in my new book] Then I would cynically say to myself, well, a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. That’s just how it is. Or I would publicly announce I’m a new fascist, building on the same proud legacy of old fascists that I’m also, by the way, simultaneously, and publicly, rejecting!… [see Linder's expansion on this: here] And then I would go to others’ sites and blame them for cynicism and nihilism? While not allowing them to criticize me at my own. [Johnson is good at that!]

Well, little semen-sucker, maybe your self-interested sybaritic syncretism is sans sense and, well, just plain silly.


Source: here.

The face of Classical Europe (II)

Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?


Translated from Evropa Soberana


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

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


Were the Romans blond and blue-eyed?

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

—Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals

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

He was blond.

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

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

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

The first Roman emperors as an example of patrician racial types

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, we find that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Were the Romans, then, blond?

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

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

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

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

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

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


See also a previous article about the subject of:

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

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

Rockwell, Pierce, Hitler

I’ve seen enough specimens of white Untermenschen in my life to understand that skin color alone is unfortunately not enough…


Andrew Hamilton’s latest piece includes stupendous quotations that I can quote again apropos my provocative views that most humans are “Untermenschen,” including those whites who are behaving like the blond Eloi before the Morlocks.

Hamilton wrote:

We have been without genuine freedom of speech or association for so long that we don’t even know what they mean anymore. Ordinary whites are completely clueless. They’re anti-white racists and neo-communists because that’s what the System tells them to be. From morning to evening and birth to death that’s all they hear. They’re denizens of Oceania.

White racialists, an iconoclastic subset, think it means addressing a miniscule audience on a tiny website or individual blog, or organizing six people for a street protest—until a writer or activist is taken down by the System, at which point remaining racialists gleefully join the Left-wing mob in kicking the helpless victim to a bloody pulp. He didn’t get it! He said the wrong things! He acted the wrong way! I have witnessed this unedifying spectacle again and again over the decades.

Any given Counter-Currents article I write will be seen by roughly 1,000-2,000 people. Seen by (i.e., clicked on), not necessarily read or agreed with; only a small number will actually read a piece with some degree of sympathy and understanding, or have a seed planted that will eventually take root and grow, which is the best one can hope for…

The situation is especially strange in that in addition to theoretical access to a worldwide audience of English readers, market forces—supply and demand—are in my favor. I fill an unmet need. In a genuine marketplace of ideas there would be some demand, certainly more than there is now, for suppressed facts, information, and opinions. But this natural demand is not there. The absence of a greater positive response is like the dog that didn’t bark in “Silver Blaze,” alerting the perceptive observer that something was seriously wrong. (“I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others,” Sherlock Holmes noted.) In our case the primary culprit is disparate power, and the refusal of elites to play by the rules.

Conversely, those who hate my race—and I mean hate it—broadcast their hatred repeatedly, many times daily, to billions of people worldwide: a distinctly unnatural state of affairs in an ostentatiously “anti-racist” culture. Thousands and thousands of people make exceptionally good livings doing this. They monopolize not only the mass media of communications with their racist and totalitarian bile, but educational systems, governments, legal systems, and other institutions as well—everywhere. This, also, is not natural. It is exceedingly strange.

Such a lopsided disparity of power can have only one possible outcome in terms of who wins, who loses, and why. Therefore, I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: “Why are whites doing this to themselves?” I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement…

As one man long ago observed:

The fundamental error of the right wing—that sweet reason will change the world and save us from the Jewish tyrants.


Reason is still an infant in human affairs, a precious and rare development found in the mutational brains of an infinitesimal minority of Homo sapiens. And even the few geniuses able to exercise genuine, independent reason are almost entirely incapable of acting in accordance with the dictates of that reason—which is one of the reasons so many of them end up as failures in a world which does not appreciate them or their reason.

It is FORCE, POWER, STRENGTH which rules the world, from the ebb and flow of the tides to the decision of your neighbor to join the Rotary. Only a negligible fringe of oddball humans change their mind as a result of being convinced by a superior argument. The overwhelming masses, including the mass of today’s “intellectuals” [emphasis added], change their minds only in order to CONFORM. In other words, the minds of the vast majority ALWAYS bow to the strongest opinion—the opinion which brings rewards and avoids punishment.

The right wing examines its reasons and arguments and facts and finds them true and good—as they may be. They then become outraged [or hopelessly befuddled] when the slobs next door cannot see and appreciate this rightness and, very probably, throw them out of the house for preaching “hate.” But this is only as things are. The slobs will hold whatever opinion seems to show the most strength and WILL TO POWER. They are completely, hopelessly female in their approach to reason and always, ALWAYS prefer strength to “rightness.”

This is a “secret” the Jews learned long ago.

Another voice from the past:

Things are very bad indeed, but they are far from hopeless. Only a people or a nation that gives itself up for lost is truly and irrevocably lost. There is a bloody and terrible ordeal ahead of us, and many will perish—but our race can still be saved, and that, in the long run, is all that counts.


Do not be discouraged by the indifference of the people around you. Remember, the great mass of people have always been like that and always will be. When the Christians are ahead they cheer for the Christians, and when the lions are ahead they cheer for the lions. They have no understanding or concern for anything but the present and for what they see as directly affecting their comfort, welfare, or security.

But the masses do not make history. [Again, “the masses” includes academics, intellectuals, and high-IQ and socially successful people generally. It is not a class thing.] That is and always has been the task of the few. Those few must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination. They must know what they want and be willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal.

Today the old order of things is crumbling into ruin, and the world will never again be restored to what it was before. But a new order will eventually emerge from the wreckage of the old.

It is only too late to save the present order from final collapse. It is not too late to begin building the new.

How many are “the few”? Here’s the assessment of a formidable achiever, also deceased, whose judgment on such matters cannot be taken lightly, much less dismissed out of hand:

“In my view, when there are nine thousand men in a country who are capable of facing prison from loyalty to an idea, this idea remains a living one.”

For conceptual purposes, this might be adopted as a provisional benchmark since, implicitly, the reference is to a minority existing amidst a hostile majority in a Jewish-Leftist state. It imparts concrete substance to the idea of “the few” whose task it is to embody within themselves a majority of will and determination.

Of course, the speaker was probably referring to an extraordinary level of commitment, on the order of an Anders Breivik or Timothy McVeigh. Even so, he added:

“And as long as a man [i.e., presumably one man] is left to carry the flag, nothing is lost. Faith moves mountains.”


Each of the three men just quoted was an optimist. They said so explicitly and their words and deeds bore them out. Yet each “failed.” I qualify “failed,” because in a larger spiritual sense (as far as white survival is concerned) they were all successes given the insurmountable odds they faced.

Moreover, the battle in which they were engaged still rages. It is world-historical and spans generations. The outcome has yet to be determined.


My 2 cents:

Quotations in order according to Hamilton: George Lincoln Rockwell (“reason is still an infant in human affairs”); William L. Pierce (“must embody in themselves a majority of will and determination”); Adolf Hitler (“9,000 men” / “a man left to carry the flag”).

But Hamilton is wrong. Rockwell, Pierce and Hitler were not. Hamilton said, “I never scratch my head, stumped, wondering blankly: ‘Why are whites doing this to themselves?’ I’d be dense, dishonest, or willfully blind to express such puzzlement.”

Well, he has the answer right in front of his nose and he chooses not to see it. He is willfully blind indeed.

The same site that recently published Hamilton’s piece has also published, yesterday and today, pieces about homosexual “wild boys” by an author that Franklin Ryckaert nailed not long ago:

It is a pity that Greg Johnson has this attitude, because he is fairly intelligent and writes and promotes a lot of good stuff. I could accept an in-the-closet homosexual WN, if only he had no homosexual agenda. But people like James O’Meara, who promotes the idea of a homosexual “Mannerbünd” as the vanguard of WN, or Greg Johnson who pleads for homosexual “marriage”, seem unable to do that.

WN not only means the survival of the White Race, but also its flourishing, and that entails cultural and moral regeneration. Homosexuals-with-an-agenda cannot really contribute to that.

I have stated many times that the 19th century is the most important one to understand how whites empowered the subversive tribe. But that subject aside, Hamilton just cannot see that if whites were not doing it to themselves prototypical white nationalists like his editor, so conscious of the Jewish problem, would simply not subscribe a liberal agenda, such as homo “rights.” And Johnson is not alone in the pro-white movement promoting this. Alternative Right, the site for white Untermenchen has also joined the fad.

I must say something outside the subject of both sites to better illustrate my point. A hetero blogger who over the pro-white boards has been willing to discuss with me about the extent of Jewish influence in our woes, a man from Louisiana (who incidentally also defends the homos), has stated that his daughter has decided to be independent, in the sense of not being bothered with a traditional marriage and lots of kids, and he has no problem with that.

This is the same man who is so conscious of the Jewish problem that always jumps over the boards to defend his point of view. But at the same time he—like Hamilton—is unwilling to see that once you tolerate the liberal view of placing individualism whims above racial duties (both the gay movement and feminism are the product of runaway individualism), you simply cannot blame the Jews. You must blame yourself.

There’s no other interpretation of the facts. If the editor of CC and this Louisiana blogger are so conscious of the subversive tribe, why on earth they themselves subscribe the toxic aspects of the tribe’s agenda for whites?

The answer is simple: Modern suicidal liberalism, and the economics-over-race policies since the times of ancient Rome and even before are white phenomena. Or haven’t you read my very recent posts quoting Yockey’s magnum opus?

If the blond Eloi are not ultimately responsible for what the Morlocks do to them, who is? I have already said it and I’ll say it again: What moved me to change my mind from blaming the Jews to blaming Whites was the ethno-suicidal behavior (feminist whims; homo tolerance, and more) coming from the white nationalists themselves. That’s why I have abandoned the term White Nationalism and adapted instead the old-fashioned National Socialism.

Stick to the giants! Stick to honorable men like Hitler, Rockwell and Pierce. Forget white nationalists. As the Swede Panina said in the comment linked in the epigraph, the American movement is just pathetic.

John Tyndall (1934-2005)


Before the BNP betrayed itself

“The day that our followers lose their ability to hate will be the day that they lose their power and their will to achieve anything worthwhile at all.”

—John Tyndall

TyndallDon’t miss British Paul Hickman’s premier radio-podcast aired today in a show that has been baptized “Voice of Albion.” Hickman is a National Socialist, and it is refreshing to listen that he has chosen classical music at the beginning and the end of his first episode instead of the common rock “music” we have to endure in most white nationalist sites.

It is also refreshing to know that Tyndall’s recorded voice sounds like the voice of a man instead of the feminized voices one hears in the programs of most white nationalists. (For an article written by Tyndall himself in the times that I wanted to move to England, see my latest post at the Addenda.)

Published in: on October 27, 2013 at 6:11 pm  Comments (3)  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 271 other followers