“Civilisation must not exist to promote the development of culture, technology, luxury or comfort but to promote the development of man himself: the evolution of the genetic code. For civilisation depends on genes, not the other way round. It is ridiculous that civilisation turns against the genetic heritage that created it, like a snake that bites its tail.”
—Eduardo Velasco
As promised yesterday, I’ve pruned Eduardo Velasco and Valg’s article. I’ll now delete the PDF of the version of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour that included the appendix with the minor changes I made on Friday. The updated PDF of The Fair Race is now linked to the featured article. I’ve also edited my explanatory note at the end of Velasco’s article:
The preceding article was originally published in Spanish by Eduardo Velasco on July 28, 2009. Many images, including a complex phylogenetic tree summarising the new racial classification, have not been included in this much abridged translation. Most of the endnotes from the original text have also been removed, although some have been merged into the main text.
Lack of funding prevented researchers Valg and Velasco from writing the second part of the new racial classification. It is impossible to evaluate their classification scientifically because physical anthropology has been corrupted since 1945. Had the Third Reich been allowed to flourish, there would now be a constellation of anthropologists, from the Atlantic to the Urals, who would have developed this science, and numerous articles would have been published in specialised journals.
After Valg and Velasco disappeared from the internet, following the censorship of the Evropa Soberana website, we believe that pondering the origins of the white race should be done taking into account Danny Vendramini’s Neanderthal predation theory.
As I begin rereading the appendix to The Fair Race this morning I realise that, due to the timeline, it’s impossible to reconcile Danny Vendramini’s findings with the study by Eduardo Velasco’s collaborator, Valg (not Varg, as I mistakenly wrote the previous days).
According to Vendramini, European Neanderthals began invading the Levant around 100,000 years ago and preyed on pre-humans for 50,000 years. During that time, the latter developed evolutionary defence mechanisms—in addition to natural selection, sexual selection and artificial selection—which eventually produced a completely different species.
Cro-Magnon would evolve into contemporary Homo sapiens but the topic at hand, the white race, is a product of this sexual and artificial selection that continued after the extermination of the Neanderthals by the Cro-Magnons. The distinctive features of Aryans, such as pale pink skin, yellow or red hair, and blue or green eyes, are very recent dating back ten to twenty thousand years.
Both Velasco and Valg, as well as Vendramini, published their essays in 2009. Valg followed the old paradigm of anthropologists who have not resolved why our primate species is the only one that “got naked,” lost its fur (cf. the title of Desmond Morris’s famous book, The Naked Ape, who, like his colleagues, was unable to solve the enigma).
Since I believe Vendramini is correct with his theory of Neanderthal predation, what I did in previous days proved insufficient: removing about a page and a half from Valg & Velasco’s very long article, who were under the impression that Neanderthals were human. The page and a half I removed is insufficient because of the dates Valg includes in his study, which assume that the naked ape was much older than the dates Vendramini suggests.
So, in the coming day(s), I will dedicate myself to seriously editing Valg & Velasco’s article and reducing it to its essentials: human physiognomy, Valg’s strong point.
Regarding physical anthropology, Valg followed orthodox academia. But academia is trapped in an anti-white ideology in which, like the Boasian anthropologists, physical anthropologists religiously idealise all wingless bipeds. Using the language of my Day of Wrath, anthropologists massively project their psychoclass onto the prehistoric past: an ideological pathology. This is symptomatic of what I call neochristianity and what Gaedhal calls atheistic hyper-Christianity.
The point is that objective physical anthropology will be impossible as long as these religious figures reign in academia. The reason for considerably shortening Valg & Velasco’s essay in the coming day(s) is that I believe their new racial classification has merit. But we need a Fourth Reich so that today’s pseudoscientists—who do grotesque things like displaying shaved Neanderthals in their museums—can be challenged by studies from non-neochristians.
In the coming edition of The Fair Race Valg & Velasco’s essay will thus be pruned to its essentials: human physiognomy, although those interested can consult it as it was published in Velasco’s website, Evropa Soberanahere (in Spanish) and here (in English).
I’m in full agreement with Mauricio. Even if the Führer were a black-haired “Mediterranean” I would still venerate him as the Greatest Man. His courage, gravitas, persistence, eloquence, wisdom, nobility and kindness were exemplary of a specimen of the highest calibre, and once you get to grips with racial psychology you realize that all those virtuous traits could only materialize in a man of pure Nordic blood.
Every time when someone implied that there is a self-contradiction in Hitler being a Nordicist with brunet hair I always responded that hair colour is just one of many racial characteristics of an individual, so he would still be mainly Nordic even if he had dark hair, and that this would only show that you can support the cause of perfection selflessly despite yourself not being as perfect.
As most people I too found that his personality and Weltanschauung are far more important than his physical features, but after accidentally finding out the truth I cannot sit anymore and watch baseless lies being spread about him often driven by malicious mockery.
So let’s look at the actual evidence.
Black-white photos aren’t of any use in determining the colour of his hair, because everything except for the fairest hair appears dark on them. But in determining forms and shapes they are helpful, and they tell us something really important.
If we look closely we can observe he used some kind of hair-dressing product to shape his hairstyle. You cannot see the look he had naturally. These products were at the time oil based with wax, and were known to darken blond hair with several shades.
When reading Hans F. K. Gunther’s Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes I was pleased to see that he makes very similar observations when discussing Nordic hair, namely that 1) Any other shade of blond that isn’t the lightest will appear dark on the photos of that time, and 2) Oily or wet blond hair will appear dark.
This also explains why we don’t have many more testimonials describing him as blond: it didn’t appear as striking due to the side effects of the hair-dressing product. The only person we know of describing him as blond is Lothrop Stoddard, a eugenicist who probably had been used to paying special attention to details and precision:
There are certain details of Hitler’s appearance which one cannot surmise from photographs. His complexion is medium, with blond-brown hair of neutral shade which shows no signs of grey.
Another piece of real, and undisputable evidence is a painting by Heinrich Knirr who is the only artist ever to paint Hitler from life. He also painted photocopies of course, but one painting we know with 100 per cent accuracy not being a photocopy and made in excellent light conditions is Der Führer (1937). He painted two examples of this. One was brought to London by J. von Ribbentrop and is now at the British imperial war museum. It shows him with light to medium blond hair, with the hair dressing product on!
The other version of the painting was exhibited at the Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung that year, and had been kept in Germany, so it ended up destroyed in the war and there is only later colourizations of it circulating on the internet:
There is no trace [!] of the other version that had been displayed at the 1937 great German art exhibition. It was presumably wrecked by bombs, looted or destroyed by victorious allied troops. —The Art Newspaper
The version kept in Germany had been black-and-white photographed before it got destroyed and there is a colourized version circulating of it on the internet, his hair being colourized brown of course. I have seen it being often used as a counterargument so many times. So it is very important to emphasize: it’s a colourized version of a black-and-white photo. This version of the portrait was never even captured in colour, so it cannot be used as evidence for his actual colouring.
Somebody also showed me a few strands of hair from his hairbrush, sold at an auction. Curiously, the hairs were also blond. We should in general be cautious with items from auctions, but because they corroborate the other two pieces of evidence we have, I think it’s highly probable that they are real. And if we also consider that his actual hair colour is always overlooked by literally all historians, I highly doubt forgers would know about him actually being blond and use blond hair strands in a world where everyone “knows” he had dark hair. If we look really closely these hair strands also look like they have some residual hair-dressing product left on them at certain parts, where they appear thicker, which is consistent with his daily habits.
What about colour photographs?
Colour photography back then was still in an early stage of development which makes it an unreliable tool for determining colour.
Blond hair consists of mainly yellow with some red/orange undertones. In the context of photography, Yellow light = Red light + Green light. We can see the problems Agfacolor had with its sensitivity to green and red light. But now that we understand what’s missing from the old Agfacolor photos, it is not difficult to imagine how they would look if captured with a modern camera.
Hammering this supposed self-contradiction in Hitler’s worldview was started as early as the Second World War (see, e.g., Soviet propaganda poster below). Most historians who are of course by default anti-Nazi either don’t care or actively participate in keeping alive these lies. None ever dare even mention the evidence that contradicts the mainstream convictions which are built on zero evidence. So it is our job to show the real evidence.
Propaganda poster ridiculing Hitler for his alleged dark hair being in contradiction with the Aryan ideal.
However we’re not trying to argue that he did all of what he did out of selfishness or self-worship, or that his Nordicism was only motivated by his own self-image. We are only striving for historical accuracy as we regularly do so regarding important historical figures. Like the Heroes of Homer, Alexander or the Roman patricians, there is no reason to soften this case when the Führer is more significant than all of the aforementioned combined.
Everyone ought to know the truth because the lies have been repeated many times. Adolf Hitler deserves not only to be remembered, but to be remembered accurately, without falsification.
of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (2)
by Hans F. K. Günther
In many areas of Sweden and Norway the racial barrier between free and unfree fell much later than in southern Germania, because Christianity penetrated there much later. In Sweden there were many unfree servants who had been imported from Finland, from areas of predominantly non-Nordic race. Sweden seems to have had the largest number of unfree people around 1200, although by then many people had already been freed under southern Christian influence. But there were still many unfree people in Sweden up until the 14th century, most of them probably in Uppland, the region opposite the Finnish coast, where the need for servants was greater due to the seat of the kingdom and the estates of the powerful large farmers. In some areas of Uppland there are today relatively many short-headed people with broad faces, pronounced cheekbones and features of the Baltic race, which are more common in Finland. When the serfs in Sweden became free around 1200 and later, these people moved to the undeveloped and inhospitable areas, as there was still enough cultivated land. In many cases, the names of settlements and villages indicate that such places were cleared and founded by freedmen. But in these areas, the people are mostly darker in skin, hair and eyes than other Swedes, and at the same time more shy, simple, distrustful and religious in their souls, and not as open and frank as other Swedes. Thus, according to research by Rihtén, despite some later mixing of the populations, there is still a racial difference between the descendants of former freemen and those of former serfs.
Another abolition of the idea of ancestry and ethnic origin was brought about by the idea of redemption – this idea itself was such a characteristic idea of the Near Eastern racial soul that Claus combined the spiritual traits of the people of the Near Eastern race to form the image of the ‘redemptive man’. The redemption taught by the church should, however – and this is the essential difference compared to the traditional racial cultivation of Germanic culture – at the same time bring about a liberation and rejection of species, tribe, language and people, which here appeared as something restrictive and degrading. The ‘Revelation of John’ (5:9) taught that God had redeemed people through his blood from every tribe, every language and every people (ex omni tribu et lingua et populo et natione).
John of Patmos called to write the so-called Book of Revelation. Note how the Christian artist paints both the god of the Jews (or is he an angel?) and Johnny as pure Aryans.
A Jew of the Hellenistic-Roman era could, under certain circumstances, see his nationality as something repulsive and something to be discarded. There were many at that time who detested the Jewish people; there were also some Jews who saw their people as inferior to the Hellenes and Romans. Josephus, for example, the Jewish historian on the side of the Romans besieging Jerusalem, felt this way as a citizen of the world with a Hellenistic education. But now the Germanic peoples were supposed to see their tribe, their language and their way of life as something from which they had to be redeemed. Through priestly instruction, the spirit of the East now influenced the West.
In my work Piety of a Nordic Kind (1934) I tried to show why the idea of redemption in all its interpretations and effects must have seemed completely alien to Germanic culture at first: redemption from what evil and to what other life? Midgard, the world of sensible order, the cultivated homeland, was his evil, was in fact something divine, and Utgard, the power of the anti-divine, was to be fought on the side of the god. There could not be a better life than the combative life on this earth and in friendship with God. It was precisely as a pious person that the Germanic people possessed the security described above and, as a nobleman and descendant of select aristocratic peasant families, the certainty of good nature. Now Midgard was to become for him a scene of original sin and frailty in need of redemption, his very nature bound to the disgusting ‘flesh’ that leads to sin, something sinful from which a soul separated from the body must strive for an afterlife. All human nature was corrupted in its infancy, ‘evil from birth’ (Genesis 8:2) and created from ‘sinful seed’ (Pyalm 51:7). According to this doctrine, it was no longer possible, as it seemed to the Indo-Europeans, that something divine could manifest itself in human races; rather, everything human was inherited, unworthy before God and therefore dependent on redemption, redemption through a blood-stained head.
For the reasons stated above, no evidence has survived of the effect such teachings had on the Germanic mind. This mind probably opposed them with a similar resistance to that felt by Goethe, who rebelled against the doctrine of original sin and wanted to see certain phenomena recognized as an ‘inherited virtue.’ We also know of Goethe’s indignation at Kant’s idea of ’radical evil’ in man – Goethe was certainly too good a connoisseur of reality to overlook the fact that the majority of his contemporaries could probably provide examples of something ‘radical evil.’ but he refused, out of what one might call an Indo-European feeling, to understand this ‘sad evil’ as something necessary and essential to the human species and to all types of people, and believed that Kant had introduced this view into his teachings in order to attract Christians to his philosophy as well, as he wrote in his letter to Herder on June 7, 1793.
The Germanic peoples may have felt something like this in relation to the medieval church teachings. An idea such as that expressed by Luther in his baptismal book (1526), that the child before baptism is possessed by the devil and a child of the devil; further an idea such as that expressed by the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana) and the Formula of Concordia (Formula Concordiae), the obligatory foundations of the Germanic Church, that a person conceived and born of the devil cannot have a true faith in God by nature; that there is nothing found and uncorrupted in the body and soul of man and that he is therefore not only unwilling but completely incapable of doing good and that his whole nature, person and being is completely corrupted by original sin. Such ideas, in contrast to Germanic-Indo-Germanic thinking, can only have entered the minds of the descendants of converted Germanic peoples after centuries of appropriate interpretation. Individual Germanic tribes have certainly tried to interpret the church teachings in a native sense; one such attempt, which may have seemed strange enough to most Germanic tribes of the time, is represented by the Old Saxon Geltand-Bichtung of the 9th century. The sober-minded among the Germanic noble farmers – and sober thinking was always widespread among the farmers of predominantly Nordic origins – may have initially perceived the church teachings somewhat in the same way as Frederick the Great did according to his living will of 1768.
of Germanic racial care by medieval Christianity (1)
by Hans F. K. Günther
In the following, we will not examine whether the church teachings to which the Germanic peoples were to be converted could still adequately represent the pure teachings of the Galilean Jesus. This original teaching, as scientific biblical criticism has shown, can hardly ever be adequately understood. In any case, Christianity came to the Germanic people as an essentially alien, oriental teaching. That it was intended as a teaching for orientals is perhaps already shown by Jesus’ words that he had not come to abolish the Jewish law, and may also be indicated by words such as Matthew 10:5 and 6; 15:21; 15:26, which indicate that Jesus only wanted to address his preaching to the Jews. (The words ‘Go and teach all nations’ have been shown to be inauthentic, a later addition.) The question of the rapacious direction of Christianity can, however, remain undiscussed here, since we shall only consider how the church teachings – which are by no means the same as original Christianity – must have influenced the Germanic racial cultivation since the age of the Frankish wars of apostasy against the pagan Germanic people.
Since the zeal for conversion, which stands for a faith as an oriental phenomenon, eradicated as far as possible all evidence of the pagan past in contrast to the characteristically Nordic tolerance of the Indo-European form of faith, hardly any evidence has survived about the effect of the collision of church teachings with Germanic tradition on the Germanic racial cultivation. It is therefore necessary to attempt a fundamental comparison of both religious worlds with regard to this racial cultivation, a comparison which, in the interests of brevity, must be somewhat rough and schematic, especially since the reality of human life can also combine ideas from contradictory spiritual worlds with one another to form the most diverse balances. In reality, the struggle between the spiritual worlds described continues to this day, and the Christianity of both major Christian denominations is no longer the Christianity of the early Middle Ages preached to the Germanic peoples and its adherents in the then ‘racial chaos of the Mediterranean countries’.
Medieval Christianity initially opposed the barriers between peoples and avarice as being contrary to God: here there is neither Jew nor Greek, here there is neither slave nor free, as Paul said in Galatians 3:28. This was certainly said in relation to otherworldly values: towards God there is neither lord nor slave, neither free nor unfree. The New Testament is also indifferent to the slave question, and this is due to logical thinking, because all earthly circumstances are of no importance compared to otherworldly values, except that wealth can detract from otherworldly values. Furthermore, the slavery question and the class question could not gain any significance in an eschatological otherworldly belief, i.e. a belief in an imminent end to the world and the coming of the Kingdom of God. But when this end of the world did not occur, a worldly conclusion was drawn from such statements as Paul had expressed: the abolition of national and racial barriers, of the barriers between free and unfree. Paul taught the Athenians (Acts 17:26) that all people were created from one blood: ex uno sanguine, as the Bulgata translated, the wording of which became binding Holy Scripture for the Germanic peoples through the conversion in the West.
Paul at the Areopagus of Athens
In Athens, this message of equality was not a new doctrine, for the late Hellenes, a confused, degenerate mixture, thought the same way for the most part. They were, at least in the cities, also mostly descendants of slaves of the earlier, now extinct Hellenes and descendants of the immigrated foreigners (Metoics), and such populations always tend towards the doctrine of equality, which is intended to justify or conceal their descent. Likewise, the Jews, from whose spiritual training Paul came, in Hellenistic and Roman times liked to spread doctrines of equality wherever they were opposed by a traditional consciousness of the other’s species. Jews in particular were involved in the reinterpretation of a term of Indo-European origin such as humanitas from a goal concept of full humanity and success in a national sense to a catchphrase concept of a ‘humanity idea’ that abolished all differences in ancestry. However, the ex uno sanguine was now preached to the Germanic peoples who still lived entirely in the racial tradition of the Indo-Europeans, and indeed as a religious obligation written down in the Holy Scripture.
The grave finds may well give the impression of a rapid racial cross-breeding; but, as always in such cases, the tradition of a certain racial separation, only gradually fading away, probably continued for several centuries, even though church doctrines rejected such a separation. First of all, the occurrence of non-Nordic forms in the graves could only indicate an equally careful burial of the free and the unfree classes, whereas previously only the free had been buried more carefully in the row graves. Gölder also suspects such a process before the actual racial cross-breeding: With the introduction of Christianity, a change of this kind began in all graves in Germany, which can only be explained by the fact that the brachycephalic (short-headed) people, who had long existed alongside the non-Germanic type as serfs and servants, were gradually no longer buried separately. In pre-Christian times, unfree people and foreigners were buried separately.
The church often made serfs into clergy, thereby raising them to the status of free men. Some bishops appear to have admitted serfs into the clergy precisely because of their greater docility. B. Hölder refers to chapter 119 of the decisions of the Synod of Aachen in 816-17 to support this assumption. In the Frankish Empire: priests were mainly taken from the serf class, because a free man could not become a priest without the king’s permission. In the 11th and 12th centuries, however, celibacy among the lower clergy became the norm, which again inhibited the reproduction of the families raised to the status of free men.
New claims by the Museum of London—replicated throughout the controlled media—that London has always been as “ethnically diverse” as it is now are easily disprovable lies being used to justify the ethnic cleansing of the city of white people.
The AFP newswire coverage of the story is a case in point:
A DNA analysis of four ancient Roman skeletons found in London shows the first inhabitants of the city were a multi-ethnic mix similar to contemporary Londoners, the Museum of London said on Monday.
Firstly, they are deliberately confusing ethnicity and race.
Ethnicity is a cultural term, such as ‘German,’ ‘English,’ ‘Polish,’ or ‘Irish.’ Ethnicity is most often expressed in linguistic boundaries.
Race, however is a genetic term, and all Europeans have genetic commonality. The Museum of London is deliberately mixing up these two meanings to try and create the impression that London has always been racially diverse—when in fact all the evidence shows that it has always been racially homogenous until the advent of present-day Third World immigration.
All Europeans are comprised of a number of genetic strains which came together in three distinct waves, dating from the Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Indo-European eras, which stretched over 40,000 years in total.
As a result, any investigation of European genetics will find shared DNA, and consequently that European national boundaries are the product of language rather than race.
The existence of common DNA strings in any given European nation does not mean that that nation is ‘ethnically diverse,’ merely that they share a common origin founding population which created Europe.
The claims by the Museum of London that the Roman-founded city’s population was “similar to contemporary Londoners,” does not stand up to the test of history, DNA, or even the ‘new’ analysis of the skeletons now being boasted about in the controlled media.
The new “multi-ethnic” claim is based on DNA-analysis of just four skeletons—hardly a scientifically accepted sample size, bearing in mind that at its height, Roman London had a population of at least 60,000.
Furthermore, of the four skeletons, only one is claimed to have DNA originating outside of Europe—and even that claim is highly dubious.
According to the BBC’s coverage of the “multi-ethnic London” story, the first skeleton, called the “Lant Street teenager,” showed that she “grew up in North Africa” but that her female DNA (mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA) is common in southern and Eastern Europe. She had blue eyes, the study said.
Then, in a ridiculously unscientific manner, the BBC article claims that there ‘were things about her skeleton that suggested she had some Sub-Saharan African ancestry’—in other words, the claim to what they incorrectly call multi-ethnicity is based upon some unspecified ‘thing’ about the skeleton—while at the same time they say that all the DNA evidence shows that she was European.
In reality, racial skeletal differences are vast and easily discernable to the naked eye, and any expert would have no trouble at all in definitively asserting racial origins based on a study of such a complete skeleton. No ‘suggesting’ would have to be done.
The second skeleton analyzed, known as the “Mansell Street man,” showed that he had dark brown hair and brown eyes. According to the BBC, his “mitochondrial DNA line was from North Africa and his remains show African traits as well.”
The Mansell Street man could well have non-European origins. It is well known that the Roman legions employed mercenaries from all over their empire, and there are recorded instances of some troops stationed along the Hadrian Wall being of non-European, or Middle Eastern, extraction. Their numbers were however tiny, especially when compared to the overall size of the population of Britain.
But, even more importantly, the Museum of London and the controlled media are either being incredibly ignorant, or willfully deceptive by insinuating that the present-day population of North Africa resembled that of 2,000 years ago.
In ancient times, North Africa had a huge original white European presence, known as the ‘old Europeans.’ It was these people who played a major role in creating the Carthaginian civilization, based in present-day Tunisia.
The Carthaginians were early Rome’s greatest enemy, and the famous Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage raged from 264 BC to 146 BC. That was the era of the famous Hannibal of Carthage, who came close to conquering Rome. He was a Carthaginian hero, and coins were issued in his time showing his face—and his European-origin race is clear from these depictions.
A quarter shekel of Carthage, perhaps minted in Spain. The obverse may depict Hannibal with the traits of a young Melqart. The reverse features one of his famous war elephants.
The face of Hannibal, Carthage’s greatest warrior, from a silver coin struck at that city around 220 BC.
The Roman province of Africa consisted of a large piece of North African territory, and a vast network of European cities were built up, many of which can be seen to the present day.
Egypt, for its part, after its final collapse into multiracial backwardness around 800 BC, was occupied by the white Macedonians under Alexander the Great in 323 BC.
For the next 275 years, the white Macedonians ruled Egypt in a dynasty known as the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Their last ruler was the most famous queen of all, Cleopatra (actually the seventh queen of that name).
Despite propaganda to the contrary, Cleopatra and the Ptolemaic ruling elite were not African, but European Macedonian. After the fall of Cleopatra, Egypt also came under Roman rule.”
From this understanding of North African history, it is clear that the Roman-era population of North Africa contained a large residual European element. Given the ancient history, it is therefore highly likely that genes found in Europe can also be found among the present day North Africa population.
This does not however mean that a Roman-era skeleton found in London is multiracial—all it means is that some other Romans left similar genes among the gene pool of present-day North Africans.
The third skeleton used as “evidence” by the Museum of London to “prove” London’s “multi-ethnicity” is known as the “Gladiator.” According to the BBC, his mother’s ancestral line “is common in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.”
Once again, this is perfectly normal for European mtDNA, which, as the genetic research website Eupedia correctly pointsout, is not as accurate in measuring ethnic ancestry as Y-DNA, or male ancestry is.
In fact, Eupedia even specifically says that in ‘Europe, mtDNA haplogroups are quite evenly spread over the continent, and therefore cannot be associated easily with ancient ethnicities.’
A distribution map of European mtDNA,indicating the continent wide diversity of Europe;s founding maternal population. For the Museum of London to claim that this shows the “ethnic diversity” of Roman London, is laughably ignorant, if not a malicious lie.
Furthermore, the ‘youngest’ mtDNA in Europe which is claimed to have originated in the Middle East, the K1 haplogroup, dates from 12,000 years ago, further casting doubt over any claim of ‘multi-ethnicity, as this gene would have been part of present-day Europe’s founding population.
The fourth and final skeleton used by the Museum of London’s “multi-ethnic” claim is known as the “Harper Road woman,” who had brown hair and brown eyes, but, as the BBC admits, was a native Briton.
This fourth skeleton was clearly one of the Old European R1B haplogroup-Britons, from whom nearly 70 percent of the present-day inhabitants of Britain originate, a figure which rises to 90 percent in Ireland.
In conclusion, it can be seen that of the four skeletons used by the Museum of London and the controlled media to allegedly ‘prove’ how ‘ethnically diverse’ Roman-era London was, only one is possibly of non-European origin.
This is very different to media claims that ‘DNA has confirmed that London was an ethnically diverse city from its very beginnings’ and similar such nonsense.
On the contrary, London, founded by the Romans, was a European city.
It is clear that the ‘multi-ethnic’ claim is being invented to try and justify the current Third World invasion of London which has turned it into a minority white city in just three decades.
To even suggest that Roman London was as “ethnically diverse” as present-day London, which has large numbers of Bangladeshis, Chinese, Ghanaians, Indians, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Pakistanis, and Turks, is an outright lie.
It is based on a politically-biased ‘interpretation’ given to just one skeleton’s dubious DNA, and is a deliberate deception, presented as fact to justify the ethnic cleansing of white European people from Britain’s capital city.
During the last ice age (the Würm glaciation), geographic pockets surrounded by glaciers formed in the Heartland, and it is in the extreme conditions of one of these icy pockets that an extraordinary human type, ruthlessly selected by the environment, was able to develop. In the article on racial classification, we saw that the Nordic Central Asian race, progenitor of the R1a and R1b genetic lineages and thus paternal ancestor of most of the world’s modern ethnic Europeans, was born in the Palaeolithic in the heart of Eurasia, the Zungaria and Altai regions being proposed as possible Urheimaten of this evolutionary type. Mackinder himself, who lived at a time when eugenics and the study of human biodiversity were not politically incorrect taboos, related the Heartland to brachycephalic skulls and considered the Central European ‘Alpine’ racial type to be an appendage of the anthropological world of ancient Central Asia,[1]separating the dolichocephalic populations of southern Europe (‘Mediterranean’) from the dolichocephalic populations of northern Europe (‘Nordic’) like a wedge.
After the deglaciation, the hunter-gatherer way of life was still dominant throughout the world, but two new ways of life had emerged: in the Near East, the farmer (evolution of gathering), and in the Heartland, the herdsman (evolution of hunting). From the Neolithic onwards, the Heartland did not cease to spew horde upon horde of pastoralist and mountain peoples over the margins of Eurasia, these peoples eventually forming the aristocracies of many ancient Middle Eastern civilisations.
Through the Persian plateau and the mountainous areas of the Middle East, the R1b lineage will reach Europe, up the Danube and accumulate in breeding nuclei in the Alpine region (Unetice and related cultures), as well as in the French-Cantabrian strip. The R1a took the simpler steppe path to end up in Eastern Europe and the German-Polish Plain. It is here that the properly ‘Indo-European’ world was born, linked to the mobility of large conquering troops, the use of the chariot and the horse, patriarchy and the sense of vast spaces and horizons that would give rise to empires, to such an extent that millennia later, ‘knight’ continues to designate a man considered worthy of respect. It is therefore in the pastoralist-herding cultures of Yamna (or Yamnaya), Poltovka and the Volga battle-axe that we must look for the origins of the chivalric and imperial traditions of history.
The earliest metal-age culture typical of the steppe Heartland is probably that of Sintashta-Petrovka. The Arkaim site in the southern Ural Mountains in the middle of the steppe, dated 1600-1900 b.c.e. is the best-known material evidence of this mother culture. Called the ‘swastika city’, ‘mandala city’, ‘Russian Stonehenge’ (located at approximately the same latitude as the English Stonehenge) and even the ‘capital of the ancient Aryan civilisation’, Arkaim is a fortress-village of concentric circles, oriented according to the cardinal points and the stars, and its inhabitants were probably the ancestors of the Aryans described in the Rigveda (India) and the Avesta (Persia).
Birth and expansion of the use of the two-wheeled radial war chariot, the forerunner of modern armoured military formations. Its emergence is within the Heartland, in the southern Urals, now Kazakhstan, which according to Mackinder was ‘the very pivot of the Pivot Area’. Here the Sintashta-Petrovka culture flourished, where animal husbandry, copper mining and bronze metallurgy played a central role, along with the war chariot and well-fortified human settlements, such as the Arkaim site. Later came the Andronovo (orange) culture with its burial complexes where the warrior was buried in burial mounds along with his weapons, horses and chariot. In Anatolia and Syria, the chariot came from the Hittites, in Egypt from the Hyksos, in Mesopotamia from the Kassites and in Europe from the Celts.
In the Bronze Age, the entire steppe is in ferment. On their chariots and horses, the Mitanni fall on Penthalasia, the Mycenaean Achaeans invade Greece and the Hyksos conquer Lower Egypt. The Rigvedarecounts how three and a half millennia ago the blond Arya, led by the god Indra, swept through the cities of the Indus civilisation, scattering the ‘black skin’ and establishing themselves as the new aristocracy of the region. In India and Persia, conquered by pseudo-Scythian Indo-European peoples from the Heartland, the most important gods are depicted as chariot drivers. In Greece, the Homeric ‘Iliad’ is a hymn to the lifestyle of the Indo-European warriors of the Bronze Age. Even in far-off, inhospitable Scandinavia, the red-haired Thor was conceived as driving a chariot pulled by billy goats. Even after the civilisation of vast areas of Europe and the Middle East, the steppes of the continental interior will continue to be inhabited by peoples of Iranian (‘Aryan’) stock who, like the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans, will maintain a barbaric modus vivendi until they are swept away or pushed back by new migrations from the interior.
Metal Age cultures where horse husbandry was established. The use of the horse was closely related to a landscape of open spaces and flat horizons such as the Eurasian steppe, as well as to forms of warfare based on speed. This culture would end up having tremendous social and military success across the globe.
These Indo-European steppe societies had a clear predominance of R1a paternal lineages – associated with the Slavs, Persians and North Indian high castes – and bequeathed to archaeology (first Soviet and then international) the phenomenon of kurgans: earthen burial mounds in which important men were buried, found from Western Europe to Central Asia. Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried in a burial mound. This imaginary ritual is the origin of the legends of the lost king: missing and often red-haired rulers (such as King Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa or Genghis Khan) who sleep inside a mountain waiting for ‘the moment of greatest need’ for their people.
Kurgan in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. The origin of myths about kings sleeping inside mountains is to be found in the kurgans (burial mounds) of the Metal Age, where important warriors were buried together with their weapons, horses and other belongings. This is where the genesis of the Indo-European world is to be found.
In the article on Indo-European genetic heritage in Central Asia we saw, in addition to some maps illustrating the subject under discussion, to what extent many anthropological-physical traits considered Europoid survive in some ethnic pockets of Central Asia, including Mongolia and Uyghuristan. Precisely from China come references to Western peoples called Dinlins and Boma, who surprised the indigenous population with their ruddy appearance, blue eyes and reddish hair. Some Russian archaeologists link these peoples with descendants of the Afanasiev culture.
To fully understand my most recent book Crusade against the Cross it is necessary not only to have read its appendix where the theme of the Italian Renaissance is touched upon, but preferably also to have read Nietzsche’s masterpiece: The Antichrist. Nietzsche was a critic of culture. Only then could we understand what I said to Berk yesterday in one of the recent discussion threads:
But Nietzsche’s idea was never to execute Luther, simply that the power of the image of Renaissance sculpture and paintings was already transvaluing values (the God of the Sistine Chapel is actually a Zeus), and the Italians would have finished transvaluing them if it hadn’t been for the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation.
One of the things that make my blood boil the most is that on some YouTube channels, it has become fashionable to use beautiful ‘walking tours’—a sort of Bran the Broken’s magic of touching the Weirwood tree to see the remote past—, for example, this video on ancient Sparta, Corinth and Olympia. What makes them impossible for me to watch is that they replace the historical population with dark-skinned mudbloods!
That the ancient Greeks, before they interbred, were blond and blue-eyed is clear from this article in American Renaissance (currently being discussed in hundreds of comments on The Unz Review). We have also contributed to the subject by translating this essay by Eduardo Velasco (later collected in The Fair Race). And let’s never forget two essential books to understand our point of view: William Pierce’s story of the white race, and Arthur Kemp’s story.
I know very little about the magic of computing, or how the people who upload these videos made them. But if I had the means I would do the same about, say, cities like Sparta or Thebes that for several centuries resisted miscegenation and whose inhabitants, descendants of the Dorians, were blue-eyed blonds. Even Athena, the goddess of ancient Athens before the massive miscegenation of the Mediterranean occurred, was blonde and blue-eyed.
Our videos would be similar to the one I linked above, but we would replace the fictional mudblood figures they put with figures that look like their real ancient inhabitants. The last thing the ethnocidal System wants is for the contemporary Aryan to regain his self-image, and lost self-esteem after WW2, by reclaiming history.
My last book, Crusade against the Cross, contains a passage in which I refer to Hollywood contributing to the prolefeed with films that end with the drama being resolved (unlike in real life, where much ends in tragedy, as the Greek tragedians Nietzsche spoke of saw). An example of this American mentality that there are no tragedies, only dramas, can be seen in a YouTube interview of anti-racist Lex Fridman with scientist Richard Haier about The Bell Curve, ‘the most controversial book ever published in science’.
Within a minute from this moment, the interviewer gives away that he has malware installed in his mind: ‘It’s just, it is difficult in a way that… we are limited by our own biology. It’s difficult, and it is, ahem, at least from the American perspective you like to believe that everything is possible in this world’.
Because Fridman is accustomed to the American ideology that the individual of any race or gender who sets out to succeed can make it in the US—the malware precisely!—, he is pained, almost panicked one might say, that there are genetic differences in intelligence. Such science, I would add, would strike a hard blow to the accepted wisdom of the human mind. This is because the psychological mythology of the US is based on Calvinist ethics that the ‘human soul’ is ‘free’ to choose.
‘Common grace’ is a theological concept in Protestant Christianity that refers to the grace of ‘God’ (the mythical god of the Judeo-Christians) that is supposedly common to all humanity, and is limited only by unnecessary cultural factors. It is ‘common’ because its benefits are experienced by or intended for the entire human race, without distinction between one person and another; and it is ‘grace’ because, according to this Reformed thinking of 19th and 20th century Calvinists, it is unmerited and sovereignly bestowed by their god.
Fridman’s interview evokes once again what in my most recent book I called ‘neotheology’: his rationalisations and fears about IQ studies are expressed at a purely secular level. Those fears remind me of an older interview, between David Rubin and Stefan Molyneux, in which the latter was hurt by the IQ difference between the races (though at least Molyneux accepts the data).
What neither Molyneux nor Fridman ask is why, once we move out of countries that emerged from Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular, people no longer suffer from this ‘ogre of the superego’ as far as racial studies are concerned. In Crusade against the Cross I also mentioned that I exchanged emails with Robert Sheaffer last year, a Nietzsche scholar, but I omitted that he told me that race and IQ studies are the most controversial and radioactive subjects in science.
This is true if one only looks at one’s cultural navel. Go to countries that never were, or continue to be, Christian, and neochristianity disappears completely. The Chinese, for example, not only expel Muslims and discriminate against blacks, but they can study eugenics freely in their universities without any guilt whatsoever.
Whites were like the Chinese, and even more racist. I first read The Antichrist forty-eight years ago, and I remember then coming across the passage in which Nietzsche speaks of Manu’s laws in the Indo-Aryan religion (which resemble the Nuremberg laws): a time when no white man was tearing his hair out over this racism simply because the Aryan collective unconscious hadn’t yet been infected with this ogre of the superego.
Before 1940 or so, the term ‘Aryan’ and the name ‘Aryan race’ were part of the ordinary vocabulary of every moderately-educated person in the English-speaking world. Following the Second World War, ‘Aryan’ fell into forced disuse and disrepute because of its association with National Socialist racial ideology. Winners write the history books, and ‘Aryan’ was one word they wanted left out.
An Aryan girl, member of the Nordic sub-race. All Aryans are not
Nordics, but all Nordics (of uncontaminated ancestry) are Aryans.
Instead, it was replaced by ‘White’ in everyday use, and by ‘Indo-European’ for use by historical and linguistic specialists. Most newspapers capitalized the ‘W,’ but at some point in the 1970s, newspapers stopped capitalizing it, and it became just ‘white.’
Now we are told by our would-be masters that the White race itself does not exist—that it is merely a ‘social construct’ designed to keep the colored races of the world suppressed.
Pretty neat trick, eh? First we are exterminated linguistically, then conceptually, and next—well, killing off the Aryan race can hardly be genocide, if it does not really exist in the first place—right?
An essential countermeasure to this genocidal design is for us to reclaim both our racial identity as Aryans—and the word ‘Aryan’ itself.
The following is the truth about the term ‘Aryan,’ which our racial enemies hate so much.
About 4,000 or 5,000 years ago there was a racially homogeneous collection of tribes who called themselves the ‘Aryans’ or something similar. The name means the ‘Noble Ones,’ and is related, for example, to the Greek words aristos (‘the best’) and arete (‘excellence in virtue’). In addition to being of one race or ethnicity, they all spoke the same language, and had common religion, legal system and social structure.
For reason of lamentable Political Correctness, in the post-1945 world scholars have chosen to speak of these people as the Indo-Europeans—but practically speaking, Indo-European and Aryan are interchangeable as racial designations.
There is much controversy about the precise location Indo-European homeland, but the consensus of informed opinion places it somewhere in Southeastern Europe (perhaps in the Danube basin) or Southwestern Asia (perhaps on the western steppes or maybe in Anatolia).
At some point in time there began a great outflowing from the Indo-European homeland. Some Aryan tribes moved east and south. The Indo-Aryans were that tribe or folk which crossed the Hindu Kush mountains and descended into the Indus valley, where they gave birth to the Classical Indian civilization. Others (such as the Mitanni) migrated to the area now known as Iran, where they created the ancient Persian civilization. Still others (such as the Tocharians), journeyed further eastward, towards the rising sun, venturing across the Takla Makan desert and into Western China.
All of these Eastern Aryans, over the course of time, intermarried with the more-numerous non-Aryan peoples whom they conquered. In consequence, they lost their distinctive racial identity, and became extinct.
But the Western Aryans, following the direction of the setting Sun, poured into Europe. The Hellenes conquered Greece; the Italic tribes conquered Italy. The Celts swept across Northwestern Europe, as far as Ireland. In Northern Europe, the Germanic peoples established their distinctive culture.
All of the nations and peoples of Europe, with the exception of the Basques in the west and the Finno-Ugric peoples in the northeast, are descended from the Western Aryans. (And the Basques and Finno-Ugrians are of related racial lineage, in any case.) Because the peoples they conquered were racially similar to them, intermixture between the Indo-European conquerors and the pre-Indo-European ‘Old Europeans’ allowed the Western Aryans to maintain their distinctive racial identity to this day.
The names ‘Ireland,’ ‘Iran,’ and ‘Armenia’ all mean ‘land of the Aryans,’ and testify to the extent of Indo-European or Aryan settlement. Among the ancient Hittites, possibly the oldest Aryan civilization, we find documents using the term nata ara to refer to non-Hittites. It means exactly what you think it means: ‘non-Aryan.’
In The Histories (circa 450 BC), Herodotus actually uses the word ‘Aryan’ to describe the Medes, who were an ancient people related to the Greeks, and who lived directly to the east of them. He writes:
The Medes were called anciently by all peoples ‘Aryans,’ but when Medea, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give.
The first opponent that Julius Caesar faced in Gaul was the German king Ariovistus, whose name is a cognate with ‘Aryan,’ as is the Celtic given name Ariomanus.
In India, the Aryan tribes kept the name ‘Aryan’ as their specific ethnonym (also in Afghanistan), where it continues to be used today, long after the last drop of pure Aryan blood has vanished.
I surmise that the Eastern Aryans, being surrounded by multitudes of non-Whites in the lands that they conquered, and with whom the differed greatly, both in appearance and quality, tended to keep their identity as Aryans, whereas the Western Aryans more readily blended in with the racially similar Europeans peoples they conquered, and so lost their identity as ‘Aryans’ more completely.
Some scholars try to pretend that the term ‘Aryan’ only has value when used linguistically or applied to the Aryans in India. But the historic and prehistoric record is clear: ‘Aryan’ was a racial or folk designation long before it was appropriated as a narrow linguistic term.
Today, racially conscious White people throughout the world have proudly reclaimed this ancient racial descriptor as the proper name of their Race—and that is how it should be!
______ 卐 ______
For the endnotes and bibliography, see the original article.
