Cheddar Man: Using Archaeology To Promote The Immigration Cult

A joint venture between myself and Christoph Hauck. My contributions are in black and Hauck’s are in red. Originally published at the Eurocanadian.


Most recent reconstruction of the Cheddar man
The most recent reconstruction of Cheddar man as per DNA analysis.

In 1903, the oldest complete human skeleton was found in Gough’s Cave in Cheddar, England. The remains were that of a male who had died 10,000 years ago and he was given the epithet of “Cheddar man,” based on the location of his remains. For decades now, various reconstructions have been made of the finds and just this month a new reconstruction was revealed based on recent genetic testing. So, what did Cheddar man look like? Well, apparently, he may have had dark skin and blue eyes. On the face of it this is not a particularly startling find as white skin tones are not supposed to have developed until around 5,800 years ago – although in Scandinavia it may have developed early, some 7,700 years ago. However, when it comes to Cheddar man it is not just that he was dark but that, he was “dark to black.”

It is interesting how he is described as being “dark to black,” and problematic, because it leads people to assume the earliest inhabitants of the British Isles would have been sub-Saharan, as in most peoples’ minds black refers specifically to sub-Saharans. Referring to Cheddar man as black has only fueled afrocentrists, that is people who believe sub-Saharan blacks once dominated the world, with some going as far as to say that Egypt or even the Olmecs, Chinese and other ancient civilizations were originally black). Of course, these views are not held by all of them, but most do seem to agree that anything dark enough to be considered black is the same as sub-Saharan.

We often see from academia the desire to question whiteness, but what is blackness? Given that black has historically been applied to a wide number of genetically unrelated groups whose only commonalities are skin colour and (in many cases) hair type. It is only thanks to American influence that “black” refers today to sub-Saharans and West Africans in particular. If Australia had become global hegemon black would refer to their aborigines, if the Philippines held that position, it would refer to their indigenous peoples (often referred to as negritos – little blacks), and if Brazil had been in America’s place then blackness would encompass an even greater variety, as in that country race is seen to be as fluid as gender is by the global liberal elite. Cheddar man being dark does not mean sub-Saharans are the autochthonous inhabitants of Europe. It would seem he shares DNA with modern inhabitants of Britain and other parts of Europe.

Maybe those who are so eager to deny race (at least when it comes to Europeans) and deconstruct identity should keep this in mind when it comes to blackness. Or better yet, they could stop engaging in such destructive behavior which ultimately only furthers the growth of the elite powers they so vocally claim to reject.

Given not only the description of Cheddar man, but the remarks from the scientists and artists who took part in the recent reconstruction project, I think it is fair to say that there is political aspect behind the current reconstruction project. This includes the usual desire to deconstruct whiteness.

Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project’s team, agreed, saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change.”

In other words, white Brits should accept the arrival of hordes of Negroes from Africa and brown Moslems because thousands of years ago the inhabitants had dark skin. Well, consider the logical implications of this claim by Diekmann. Contrary to the pitch with which the discovery has been sold, it does not enhance but diminish the immigrationist point of view: IF it is true that the first Britons were brown, it means that Whites are unique to Europe. It means that we did not immigrate to Europe from another place, but are truly indigenous to Europe because we only evolved there. Whites are unique and indigenous to Europe — two hatefacts of the highest order to immigrationists. Rather than weakening the identity relation between being European and being White, a brown Cheddar man actually deconstructs the notion that ‘everybody is an immigrant’ — Whites aren’t in Europe. And there are even more implications:

If white is an evolution of brown, it also means that we are more evolved than Browns, at least in the sense of being better adapted to European climate and habitat. But possibly also in more complex, deeper ways, ways which would deeply upset any egalitarian world view. The idea that peoples from cold climates have a higher group intelligence because the evolutionary pressure to survive and cooperate has been greater in the harsh climate than in the warmer climes is reasonable to contemplate. If the conditions in Europe were so different from the place where the Cheddar man came from that they changed his phenotype within a relatively short span of time, why should his evolution be limited only to one particular characteristic, the pigmentation of his skin, and not to more aspects of his body and mind? Don’t hold your breath though that natural scientists will dare to address this obvious question with an open mind anytime soon. The belief in One World requires One Truth, the orthodox, politically correct truth that everybody is “equal.”

Turning briefly to the Americas, note the leftist double standard in treating distant ancestry. Amerindians clearly descend from Asiatic people. Yet no leftist makes the case that Amerindians owe something to Asiatics, that the pre-Colombian Americas were therefore a “nation of immigrants” and that — Heaven forbid! — the definition of a “native” to Canada is not an immutable truth but bound to change over time. No multiculturalist would ever argue this way because then he would have to concede that the European founding peoples of Canada have to be considered “First nations” too — and gone out of the window the carefully crafted special status of Amerindians would be.

The artists, Alfons and Adrie Kennis, made Cheddar man’s skin as dark as possible as if to make him as superficially distinct from modern inhabitants of the British Isles as possible. Was that necessary? When several years ago evidence from a Spanish find revealed (from roughly the same era: the Spaniard being 7,000 years old) that the man in question also had dark skin and blue eyes there was no such rush to make him look as dark as the recent depiction of Cheddar man. Yes, there is a 3,000 or so year gap between the two men, as stated earlier outside of Scandinavia, light skin was not yet existent in Europe. In January of this year, a far less celebrated reconstruction of a find out of Greece (a young woman, “Avgi,” who lived 9,000 years ago) was shown to look pretty similar to modern Europeans populations.


It seems that as Europe becomes ever more populated by brown immigrants, the images of our ancestors will be darkened ever more by our deceptive academics and scientists in order to justify this invasion of non-Whites. But what the browning of our ancestors shows is that we Whites were a late evolutionary phenomenon, a singular and superior people coming later in the soil of Britain and indigenous to our Europe.

Posted in Race, United Kingdom | Tagged , | Leave a comment



In July of 2017, Christopher Nolan released what may be his greatest film to date, Dunkirk. This was a really moving film replete with great cinematography and it is no wonder it has received such praise and accolades. It isn’t slow or ponderous and events kick off almost immediately. The music used throughout often meant to mimic a ticking clock as time is an important theme, Dunkirk is after all about soldiers, sailors and airmen racing against time to escape from France before the Germans get to them first. On the topic of Germans, however, it must be noted that never do we hear the word ‘German’ uttered. Nor do we hear any slurs like ‘hun’ or ‘jerry.’ And we also do not hear the word ‘nazi.’ All the audience hears is ‘the enemy.’ It should also be pointed out that we do not actually see any Germans until the very end and even then, it is very brief. All the audience really sees of the enemy is their planes, bombs and bullets maim and kill.

Other interesting aspects concerning Dunkirk, is how it features an almost unknown cast outside of Tom Hardy and Kenneth Branagh. Moreover, women, though shown here and there as nurses, do not feature prominently; that is the extent of their role. There is no love interest or even a minor female character, let alone a lead one. Nolan was evidently going for realism as opposed to a simple cash grab flick which try their best to appeal to both men and women and as such make sure to have a romantic subplot for female viewers. Dunkirk also features little dialogue, because, I believe, the emphasis here is not so much what people think or say, but about them surviving.

While I think it is fair to say Dunkirk has received near universal acclaim that does not mean every reviewer enjoyed it. Apparently, some were upset at the lack of overt political overtones and clear mentioning of who the enemy was. David Cox even disparaged at the lack of CGI! Cox also disliked the acting and I suppose he has a point in that there was not much in the way of character development. He seems especially critical of Tom Hardy, but I actually thought his character was one of the better ones. A veteran pilot who perhaps because he is jaded and battle-worn simply does his duty with little feeling and emotion. Cox and others were upset also that there were no lead female characters.

Other critics were less interested in the acting, lighting, production, special effects, etc., but in the racial origins of the actors. Most of these criticisms come from South Asian commentators like one Yasmin Khan who wrote a negative review for the New York Times. In her piece, Khan notes how two and a half million South Asians fought in the war, but the vast majority were not in European theatres. If this movie had been about the Burma Campaign and had failed to show South Asians than I would fully agree and understand. Why, I would even understand if this had been about the North Africa campaign, although even then there is no reason an Occidental film can’t be homogenously European. No one ever gets upset about lack of diversity in films from Asia or Africa.

Khan ends her piece with,

“The myth of Dunkirk reinforces the idea that Britain stood alone. It is a political tool in the hands of those who would separate British history from European history and who want to reinforce the myths that underpin Brexit. A YouGov poll in 2014 found that 59 percent of those surveyed in Britain thought the British Empire was something to be proud of. Today there is a willful distortion of the empire in the British public mind, a strange determination to misremember it. An informed history of both World War II and the empire is necessary if we want to understand modern Britain. But in post-Brexit Britain, some are more interested in turning back the clock.”

Given most have been impregnated with liberal views and values to some extent, and that the empire was used to spread liberalism, I would not be surprised if that 59 percent were proud of the empire’s liberalism. Quite frankly, tokens like Khan should love the empire given it spread ideas they claim to hold. But, more importantly, we see in this quote, how for Khan and many others like her, the problem with Dunkirk is that it has not been politicized in ways that they accept. Because Dunkirk isn’t explicitly anti-Brexit and because it chooses to focus on European soldiers – who made up the bulk of Allied troops in this and other campaigns in the European theatre of the Second World War as other critics of the racial casting have admitted – it is potentially dangerous and subversive.

Writing for the Guardian, one Sunny Singh also condemns Dunkirk and for essentially the same reasons as her co-ethnic Khan. However, Singh, unlike Khan, also mentions non-Whites other than her racial fellows. In Singh’s critique we see how she, unlike Khan, mentions blacks as well (there were a few black faces in the film, as Singh notes, but they were in French uniforms), but there really was no point. I highly doubt she cares whether or not blacks were shown as her real concern comes from the lack of her fellow South Asians. By throwing in other non-Whites into her article, however, she makes it seem as if she is concerned about ‘racism’ or historical accuracy (which obviously it can’t be because as has already been mentioned there were few non-Whites at Dunkirk) instead of just wanting her own people to take precedence. For Singh, multiracialism is necessary lest it leads to her people being singled out. In her article she writes how she worries Dunkirk is a hearkening for a monoracial future. As many ‘coloured’ faces as possible is necessary to stop film-goers from somehow developing such an opinion.

They can’t just enjoy the film as a study of man’s reaction to tribulation and of civilians as well as soldiers coming together to help out their comrades in arms. Western movies today are obliged to have non-Whites when the same standards are not applied to other film industries around the world. One of course can argue that the West today is more racially diverse (but no amount of diversity seems to be enough for recent productions out of Hollywood as can be evidenced by the #OscarsSoWhite campaign), and even the creators of historical pieces seem compelled to make their productions multiracial. Take for instance The Hollow Crown, a BBC series based on Shakespeare’s many biographies. Shakespeare may have taken many liberties, but he wrote about real people and obviously Margaret of Anjou was not mulatto. Although, even then throwing in non-Whites to please liberals and their tokens is not enough, as was the case with Dunkirk.

On the other hand, we have reviewers trying to turn this film into some pro-mass migration feature,

“The casting of Dunkirk is near perfect. From Hardy to Keoghan, from Rylance to Harry Styles, the pop star who plays one of the young soldiers, the picture is filled with great English faces. But to call them characteristically English faces is wrong. Remember, they’re supposed to be the faces of men who lived more than 75 years ago. Today, the face of England—like that of France or any other European country—is much more racially mixed. Love of country comes with no color or birthplace attached. Nolan doesn’t address that idea directly—the story of Dunkirk is almost exclusively about white men, something that can’t be changed after the fact. But his approach opens out to it implicitly. Late in the film, a British commander played by a stalwart Kenneth Branagh, knowing that nearly all of his own men have been rescued, makes an executive pronouncement: He will not leave stranded French soldiers behind. His England, even then, was part of a greater whole, and that made him no less English.”

Zacharek seems upset that Europe wasn’t flooded with POC in 1940, but she hopes that Dunkirk can be twisted enough by the likes of her for audience goers to view it through the same liberal internationalist lens as her. Of course, White Englishmen wanting to help White Frenchmen should hardly lead one to the conclusion that Branagh’s character wants to see England be turned into some third world dumping ground for any and all, but Zacharek hopes against hopes that indeed this is the case. Earlier in the film, it should be noted, the French were held back from boarding the leaving ships as they are for English only. If England was part of a greater whole, then still it was one where it’s own people came first and foremost.

Generally speaking this is a patriotic film, especially when Churchill’s famous ‘we shall fight on the beaches’ speech is read, but Dunkirk is about more than just patriotism. One perhaps could say that patriotism is not even the primary theme, as Dunkirk is about the general will to survive and of men looking out for themselves and those they care about. For example, when one soldier newly evacuated to England says, “all we did was survive,” the elderly man handing out blankets to the evacuees replies with, “that is enough.”

In many ways Dunkirk is a sad film when one thinks of how useless and unnecessary a war 1939-1945 was. Indeed, the same goes for the First World War, the Boer War and most of London’s overseas adventures after the defeat of Napoleon. How much blood was spent in the name of empire only for that empire to not just fall apart (as all empires do), but to implode in on itself. England has now essentially become a rundown little police state ever hampered down by failing welfare agencies; where not only the English, but also the Scots Brythonic peoples are being replaced with England’s former non-White subjects.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Rebel Rabbis: Anti-Zionist Jews Against Israel


One of the most controversial issues today is that of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, this issue has been a hotly debated one ever since Israel came into existence back in 1949. Tied into this conflict is the role of our global hegemon, the United States. The US gives more aid (particularly for military purposes) to Israel than any other country in the world. The Jewish lobby in the US (particularly AIPAC) is very strong and has remained so even after eight years of the Obama administration, which was far less Israel obsessed than the previous Bush one; although even Obama gave into neoconservative demands regarding the destruction of Libya. Evidently, the established media has remained as Zionist as ever, even with two Obama terms.

And of course, these same Zionists in the Occident call for European states to be flooded with the refugees from the conflicts they cause; Israel, on the other hand, is allowed to retain the integrity of its borders and does its part to help with continued destabilization in the Near East. On a related topic, according to Israeli Major-General Herzi Halevy, Israel did not want Islamic State to be defeated in Syria, while former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon noted that Islamic State and Israel had actually communicated with the terrorists apologizing to Israel for having accidentally fired upon them.[i]

The power of the Jewish lobby in Washington D.C has remained steady and now under Trump is proving particularly influential – at least in foreign affairs – as he has finally done what the US always seemed on the verge of doing, and claimed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Moreover, in a hilarious twist it turns out that the supposed ties between Trump and Russia are actually concerning Israel. His son-in-law, the Jewish Jared Kushner, sent former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to talk with the Russians in the name of furthering Israeli interests. As under previous regimes it seems that Trump’s policies are more Israel first than America first.[ii]

Although perhaps not quite as strong as in the United States, similar lobbies exist elsewhere in the Occident, particularly English-speaking countries like Australia and the United Kingdom.

As in the US, in the UK we see how Zionists engage in duplicitous nature of promoting multiculturalism at home whilst supporting the continued existence of the monocultural Jewish ethno-state. We see too how they have as much influence in the press as much as they do the political class. Although, unlike in the US, in Britain it would seem that shadowy backroom dealings with the Israelis can only be tolerated for so long – but as in the US these scandals only last a short time in the news cycle before being swept away. In recent years, the formerly pro-Israel Labour party has been beset with infighting over their stance on Israel, given the rise of more radically socialist types like Jeremy Corbyn and the increasing mohammadan element of that party. In terms of the “religion of peace”, if it continues to increase in Britain, than no doubt support for Israel will only continue to decrease – it will also mean the continued marginalization and replacement of native inhabitants.

It should be noted that not just the UK’s Labour party, but leftists around the world have since the 1960s become increasingly anti-Israel. This is just as true of Jewish leftists as it is White ones. Why, it was the move away from Zionism that made some leftist Jews (particularly of the Trotskyite variety) become nominally conservative; these are the infamous neoconservatives. Such Jews dislike Israel because they know Israel makes global Jewry look bad, at least among their liberal circles and because for all its support for feminism and leftist gender politics, Israel does not buy into the “diversity is our greatest strength” meme. Generally speaking these Jews are secular, if not outright anti-religion, however, there is at least one group of devoutly religious Jews who have made a condemnation of Zionism and the Jewish state an important part of their identity.

The name of this group is Neturei Karta and while I have heard of them before, it was only in passing. It was not until watching this short Vice documentary from 2016 recently, that I truly learned about them. Neturei Karta are a small branch of Haredi Jews. Haredim are an orthodox division of Judaism that practices sex segregation, arranged marriages, emphasis on education being about the memorization and study of religious texts; and generally tries to remain as separated from all other communities as possible. For example, often they use their own ambulances and security services.

The creation of a Jewish state was one of much controversy for all Haredim as it is viewed as being a heresy and they rightly saw that Zionism was a largely secular nationalist movement. That said, most Haredim today reside within Israel and many have made their peace with its existence, although all are against the largely secular nature of the Jewish state and its policy of conscription. Neturei Karta, however, have retained their antipathy to Zionism and indeed take their disdain to a greater level than any other group. As is shown in Rebel Rabbis, they take part in Palestinian protests, have ties to Iran and Jobbik, and call for Israel to be destroyed.

This film is just over 20 minutes and follows one Vice correspondent as she meets with Rabbi Beck and other members from Neturei Karta’s Stamford Hill community in London.  Beck and his associates spend much of their time printing anti-Zionist literature (in Yiddish of course) and posting them around Stamford Hill. As another rabbi states, “Israeli propaganda is so strong, so obviously we feel obliged to do the opposite.” As mentioned above, they take part in pro-Palestine protests (the one shown in this video was for Nakba Day)[iii] and often get into arguments with Zionist Jews who come to counter-protest. Beck also mentions another reason for Neturei Karta’s resistance to Israel: the Jews were sent into exile by God and it is not up to man to bring them out of it. Jews must wait for the messiah to return before they can think of setting up their own state.

Although not the primary focus of Rebel Rabbis, the audience is also shown how Neturei Karta also engage in more traditional orthodox behavior – particularly when it comes to ensuring their religious laws are being upheld by members of the community. For example, Rabbi Beck explains how, “if a woman is dressed not so modestly, or there are some shops where they sell things not in the Jewish style, we call them and say ‘look, please, stop it. You’re not allowed here in our neighbourhood.’” The reporter, it should be noted, is a woman by the name of Milène Larsson and this causes some trouble. For example, special permission has to be granted to her before she can enter their synagogue. Despite the fact she is a Swede, she is referred to as English by Rabbi Beck; it is clear that they consider themselves apart from the English (which of course they are) and that they neither know nor care about differences between non-Jewish groups. They are all just outsiders.

I think it is fair to say that, like when the non-religious/anarcho-communist Jew, Norman Finkelstein flashes Hitler salutes[iv] or comes out in support of Hezbollah, these ‘rebel rabbis’ are kind of trolling when they hold friendly meetings with Jobbik and Ahmadinejad. They want to be provocative and cause a stir and, in this way, they are successful. However, their willingness to meet with groups long condemned by the liberal press and their resistance to feminism and secularism, ultimately means Neturei Karta is not a particularly prominent or revered member of the mainstream anti-Zionist movement.

At one point in Rebel Rabbis, Larsson meets with a rabbi from the Reformed Jewish tradition (a woman: Charley Baginsky) who also happens to be critical of Israel. She clearly doesn’t have much time for Neturei Karta, because of the reasons mentioned above, and both she and Larsson refer to them as “fundamentalists”, essentially lumping them in the same category as al-Qaeda or Islamic State[v]. As with many Protestants and Catholics, for Reformed Jews like Baginsky, belief in God is fine, but only so long as it does not get in the way of cosmopolitan liberal values; liberalism is their true religion.

For her and many other Jews who are critical of Israel, they also dislike Neturei Karta’s extreme anti-Zionism. It is one thing to point out Israel’s flaws in regards to the treatment of Palestinians, but ultimately the idea of a Jewish state existing – and particularly one that is so secular and open to gay marriage, transgenderism and the like – is kosher. Like Finkelstein, Neturei Karta believe that the Holocaust has been mythologized and misused by Zionists as a way of shielding Israel from any criticism. Of course, any critique of what Finkelstein terms the Holocaust Industry is, to quote Larsson, “problematic” and certainly keeps them marginalized.


I confess that I am actually sympathetic to Neturei Karta and I like how they and other orthodox Jews retain their distinctiveness and don’t try (or at least don’t seem to try) to infiltrate and undermine the cultures of the native majorities they live with. Orthodox Jews in general, but these lot in particular, seem far more honest about their views and about who they are than secular Jews. Given the role Jews have played in pushing obscenity, the trans movement, etc., one does fear that any secularization of these communities will lead to them going down the same path to becoming proselytizers of anti-Western dogmas.

One must also remember that religious Jews have been a problem for Europeans (and Near Easterners too) for centuries. They may not push degeneracy, but their clannishness and refusal to integrate were in the past causes of conflict – as was competition with their neighbours over resources, brought about by their high birthrates.[vi] If orthodox Jews keep having more and more children then we could see a return to an older style of conflict between Jews and Gentiles. It should be noted that in Rebel Rabbis, when the Neturei Karta members are walking to the Nakba Day protest, they are heckled a couple of times and at least one-person shouts, “fuck off!” at them. Even now their clannishness is something people are aware of and dismissive of.

Watching Rebel Rabbis, I wondered, why must Occidental Countries be host to conflicts that do not concern us? And why must Western cities be so riddled with foreign enclaves? Although, so long as they remain small segregated communities, having foreign enclaves is not a huge problem. Let us remember how in the ancient and medieval world there was the concept of foreign quarters in cities. Perhaps we should re-create urban quarters? What exists now in most cities in the West is an unofficial segregated hodgepodge of communities, with little in the way of clear distinctions between them. Of course, if such a policy were implemented it would need to go hand-in-hand with limited migration and repatriation policies to ensure that Occidental cities will still remain Occidental. Some changes to this neo-quarter system will need to take place, to ensure that child abuse isn’t allowed to happen and that minority groups don’t feel they can act with impunity. Certainly, better than the current state of affairs where not only are we to open the flood gates, but, as a writer for the same site that brought us Rebel Rabbis informs us, native majorities must actually now be the ones doing the integrating; not the incomers.[vii]









[i]Now, while it is mopped up in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State has made a dramatic appearance in Gaza, declaring war on Hamas. Is this part of the wider Saudi-Iran cold war? Could Islamic State be helping Israel with its dirty work perhaps?

[ii]Not that any of this is helping him with the Jewish community. They loath the man for is immigration skepticism and refusal to fully submit to their social engineering policies.

[iii]The Nakba Day protest of 2016 evidently was on the sabbath and in keeping with general orthodox practices they are not allowed to use anything electronic or to drive which meant Beck and his associates had to walk 3 ½ hours to the protest at the Israeli embassy. Moreover, they couldn’t carry anything so their signs were attached to string so they could be worn around their necks. This reminded me of how in New York, the orthodox will put wires above streets so that they can still venture outside because technically they haven’t left their homes – there is still a roof (of sorts) above their heads.

[iv]As great as Finkelstein’s segment is, the rest of the documentary Defamation is worth a watch if only to see the global reach of the ADL (a Jewish nationalist organization based out of the United States) and how frank many Jews are about Jewish privilege.

[v]Indeed, they are compared to Islamic State by one of the many unattractive secular Jewish Zionists counter-protesting the Nakba Day protest.

[vi]In Separation and Its Discontents, Kevin MacDonald notes key reasons for outbreaks of anti-Semitism in the past and among the common causes was “reproductive competition.” (page 28).

[vii]Then again this was written by a South Asian, these people I find are particularly vindictive towards Whites. I assume this is more than just anger over fact their ancestors were colonized (often willingly) by Europeans, but that jealousy plays a role here also, as they are Caucasoid but not Europid. Perhaps a feeling of inadequacy that they are not truly POC, but yet are not and can never be White either. Let us not forget about what Gandhi had to say about sub-Saharans.

Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Masters of the Pacific Coast

Masters of the Pacific Title Card

I first became aware of Jago Cooper from Lost Kingdoms of South America, a series he presented in 2013 on the developed cultures of South America, besides the Inca, that are largely unknown in the Anglosphere. Overall, I found it an interesting program – although I was not particularly impressed with Cooper as a presenter. Cooper is an archeologist whose main focus is pre-Columbian South America, but in 2016, he released a two-part documentary series concerning the Amerindians of the northern Pacific coast of North America; from roughly the Alaska panhandle in the north to Oregon in the south.

In his earlier series Cooper on South America, Cooper seemed eager to point out egalitarian aspects of these societies – even when having to admit they weren’t beacons of equality, for example the existence of aristocracies, hierarchical societal structures including attempts by ruling classes to distinguish themselves physically from the masses, for example the Tiwanaku practice of binding their infants’ heads so that they would develop elongated skulls and thus forever be set apart from the lower orders – and this plus the general trend in academia and the media over the past several decades gave me no illusions as to the liberal nature of Masters of the Pacific. That said, this series is not a total write-off.

One theme present in many programs on non-European cultures and one which Cooper was keen to bring up in Lost Kingdoms of South America as well as Masters of the Pacific, is that of the ignorant White man.  I wonder if Cooper felt annoyance or even jealousy at his peers who had chosen to focus on the histories of more advanced peoples and so feels it always necessary to make these comparisons with Europe? For example, Cooper notes how the Amerindians of the northern stretch of the pacific coast were able to form settled communities, as opposed to most other Amerindians north of Mesoamerica, thanks to their ability to create smokehouses. Fish could be stored in these houses and dried ensuring that they would not just rot and as such people could stay settled in one area during the winter months when hunting and fishing became scarce. Cooper also states that they practiced a form of aquafarming. This is presented as defying European conventions, but given that most settled communities the world over (including Amerindians ones like those of the Mississippi or the Mesoamerican and Andean civilizations) have been ones that farmed, it is reasonable and understandable that Europeans would have held such conclusions about social development. I always find it interesting how in Cooper’s programs, and indeed many such shows, there are these distinctions made between Europeans and others. Much effort seems to go in to discussing difference and uniqueness, but wait I thought we were all exactly the same? “The human species is one race!”

One of the worst aspects of any program concerning peoples who did not develop sophisticated civilizations is that it very easily denigrates into a simple ‘noble savage’ narrative. To his credit, Cooper generally avoids falling into this trap. However, throughout this two-part series Cooper interviews a number of individuals of Amerindian descent (most of whom look to be mestizo) many of whom do promote this narrative, particularly in terms of environmentalism; the old Amerindians have a special connection to the land trope. But, as we know Amerindians as a whole do not have any greater or special connection to the natural world. When their societies reached levels of complexity even greater than those of the northwest which it must be noted were quite complex for Amerindians. Cahokia is generally believed to have disappeared because of environmental mismanagement (although another theory is that they were destroyed by diversity!) and the civilizations of Mesoamerica and the Andes were more than willing to impact the environment in major ways: the building of temple complexes, cities, roads and mines. Going back to the program, Cooper notes also that the Makah people are one of the few allowed to whale in the United States, but have only done so once in the last 80 years for environmental reasons. He then makes the comment that why should the Makah not be allowed to whale when they have done so sustainably and others have not; why should the Makah stop “because of the failings of others?” the only reason it was sustainable is because they lacked the technology necessary to whale on a mass scale.

Another common feature of the ‘noble savage’ myth is that those ethnies that did not develop complex civilizations are somehow less violent and warlike and more prone towards pacifism. To his credit, Cooper does discuss organized violence and its prevalence. For example, he talks with a Tlingit chief who specialises in recreating Tlingit armour and this chief tells Cooper about battles between his people and the Russians. Interestingly enough, the Tlingit and others are known to have acquired Chinese coins from White traders which they used specifically in the making of chain mail armour. Interesting how they thought to use coins in such a manner as opposed to for some other purpose. The Tlingit and their fellow Pacific coast Amerindians were warrior cultures. Cooper also interviews a Makah historian who notes that her people were head-hunters and that warfare was often for slaves (mainly women and children as the men were killed – he also mentions that indentured servitude existed as well as slavery and that by the 19th century it is estimated some 15% of the population of this area were slaves).[i] We also learn that there were conflicts over women, honour and material goods.

Although it is not mentioned in this documentary, I think it is interesting to note that many groups used to raid up and down the coast. The Haida in particular were feared because of their use of ‘stone-rings,’ weapons designed to destroy enemy ships – arguably they were the Vikings of the Pacific coast. Again, this is not mentioned in the series, but these groups often reacted in a violent manner when dealing with foreigners, even if said foreigners were peaceful. For example, Spanish explorers noted that the Tlingit attacked them even though they’d only the day before been cordial.[ii] The Tlingit also showed complete disregard for the Spanish, stealing their clothes and any metal objects they could find.

MP Louis S. Glanzman - Battle of Sitka. Note how the Tlingit utilized wooden armour

Louis S. Glanzman’s depicition of the Battle of Sikta between Russian and Tlingit forces

Interestingly, Cooper does not want to entertain the thought that they fought for territory like Europeans. However, one Makah woman he talks to mentions that wars were fought for resources and that tribes would often split apart and fight in civil wars; in other words, there were wars over territory. Clearly, there were acts of conquest as well, that is, for example, how the Kwakwaka’wakw came to gain control of Quadra island in BC. Although I am left to wonder, how going to war over slaves, material goods or honour is really that much better.

Although they never developed complex, sophisticated civilizations like those of Mesoamerica or the Andes, these groups were more developed than most other Amerindian groups. The Spanish, for example, noted that these peoples possessed higher cultural qualities than Amerindians living to the south of them, particularly those in California.[iii] Part of this higher development can be seen also in their development of gold jewelry and ornaments and also in the development of organized/ritualised modes of social interaction. The most famous example of this is being the potlatch festival.

MP James G. Swan's depiction of a potlatch. In this case that of the Klallam people

James G. Swan’s depiction of a potlatch, in this case of the Klallam people

The potlatch was a ceremony in which those of high social standing would exchange gifts with each other. Cooper has a mostly positive view of the potlatch and sees it as a practice of wealth redistribution, but in fairness he also notes negative aspects of it. The biggest issue that missionaries had with it was how the potlatch could be used to ruin rivals by forcing people to one up each other. Potlaches could easily become a huge waste of resources and could end up bankrupting (as it were) whole tribes. Cooper goes with the view that the banning of the potlatch by the US and Canadian governments was entirely for malicious reasons. Although certainly it makes sense to break major cultural practices as a way to spread control, Cooper largely ignores the liberal aspect of trying to change and Westernize these people. He even makes a really strange comment that potlatch and other practices were seen as an affront to European civilization and furthermore as a threat! This reminds me of the ‘White fragility’ narrative from the left. Despite being a ‘privileged’ and ‘oppressive’ race which others should fear, Whites are also ‘fragile’ and act erratically out of this weakness.

He ignores how the missionaries, who began the anti-potlatch campaign, were motivated by a desire to save souls and truly help the Amerindians. They saw the potlatches as being to the detriment of the community as a whole as the tribe as wealth goes from chiefs to chiefs. Indeed, the liberalising policies of Christian and secular leaders was a major reason for Westernization and the infamous residential schools (which Cooper describes essentially as evil, genocidal institutions); they wanted to uplift and progress the Amerindians the way Europeans and other peoples had been. It was a progressive project not a conservative one. I am all for aristocracies for the Amerindians and indeed all racial groups. I could care less if the aristocracies of other peoples bankrupt their own people, that is not my concern, however, it is the left that lays claim to being against any un-egalitarian and un-democratic system and which claims to care about the well-being and progress of all humanity. Yet when it comes to the potlatch, we see an example of how they are supporting systems which do not mesh with their ideologies, what matters most of all is that these ceremonies are not Occidental in origin. To me this is further proof that they put the desire to undermine the Occident over ‘equality’, ‘democracy’ or any of their other overused buzzwords.

One controversial aspect of the cultures of the Amerindians of the Pacific coast is the presence of cannibalism. This issue is highly debatable and I’m actually surprised Cooper made no mentions of it as it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to condemn Europeans for being so ignorant as to believe cannibalism was a widespread practice when the general consensus is it was probably limited to ritual reasons (and possibly to vanquished enemies). In the case of the Kwakwaka’wakw, cannibalism was accepted in a spiritual manner in the form of the Hamatsa cult, which involved an acting out of cannibalism, as the cult revolved around worship of a cannibal spirit. Evidently, the tribes of the Pacific coast liked to collect body parts of their defeated foes as trophies and this wasn’t limited to heads but included hands.[iv] Arguably, that in itself is still disturbing.

One of the most unexpected parts of Cooper’s series is how at one point he goes so far as to say that it would be wrong to see these people as solely victims of colonialism as they benefited from trade (for example there was an increase in the number of totem poles after trade opened with Europeans because chiefs now had the wealth necessary to fund building projects) and they also were able to fight back against foreign intrusions; they were not completely helpless. I found this a refreshing take given that so much discussion today on groups that were conquered by this or that European empire is on portraying the non-Whites as eternal victims completely lacking in agency. That said, Cooper sets out plenty of time to discuss the impact of colonialism and chastise European peoples for their actions along this stretch of the Pacific coast of North America.

As with any discussion of European-Amerindian relations the issue of disease makes an appearance. It is well known that Amerindians had no immunity to the Old-World diseases inadvertently brought by Europeans and as a result vast swathes of Amerindians were destroyed. However, it is commonly held that on occasion disease was spread purposely. Cooper entertains a theory from an elderly Haida who with no proof states that the British purposely spread smallpox among Haida. Given other supposed examples of biological warfare have been disproved, I have no doubts that the old Haida was spouting complete falsehoods. Yet another example of people trying to apply the statements of Lord Jeffery Amherst to the entirety of European-Amerindian relations.[v]  Although the Amerindians had no way of combating infectious diseases, perhaps we can still learn from their example. Seems particularly important now given the number of diseases in the third world including ones that only seem to have developed (or at least gained ground) recently, like ebola and the new Madagascar plague which evidently has the likelihood of mutating. Evidently the Canadian government is worried about the possibilities of pandemic. Maybe they would be wise to look at how immigration and globalisation would play a role in such an outcome.[vi]

Cooper labels Canada and US as colonialist[vii] which is a typical leftist talking point. With the end of the European empires in Africa and Asia decolonization didn’t die, but it imploded; the radical left decided to use the same narratives but just use them for their home countries. Part of this strategy is to deny Canadians and Americans any rights to the Americas by treating them as if they are transitory rulers of the land just as the British and French were in Africa. The decolonization crowd are quick to condemn the older assimilation strategy of Canada and the US and their promotion of European immigration, but then they generally support non-White immigration and, arguably, the new policy of multiculturalism which they are so enamored with, is just a continuation of the older assimilation strategy, albeit in a different form. Seemingly, every group is free to practice their own cultures, but in reality, all are still being molded and melded together as a new collective of individuals that are outwardly different in appearance or language, but in reality, are all adherents to a secular liberal order. In the past, racial nationalism and a belief in the superiority of Occidental civilization were at the forefront of the melding process of Canadian and American citizenship, but now these are out the window in favour of an all-encompassing model which places all emphasis on a subservience to liberalism. All are to be united under one liberal legal and economic system which cares not for racial, ethnic, religious or other differences and autonomy is to be in name only.

On that note, I wonder if we could strike a deal in which these groups give up claims to major urban areas and their environs (which barring a major catastrophe will never be there’s again) and if we can get these people to agree to submit to our suzerainty to ensure that their lands cannot become bases for foreign powers or in any way undermine our ultimate authority on this continent. In that case, I am perfectly fine in letting these groups going back to live in the ways of their ancestors. Much of the region is not really suitable for the settled communities that we have developed as it is largely just forest, beyond the bounds of civilization. With the exception of military bases, I see no reason why Canada or the US need to promote mass settling of the area.

Of course, this is a pretty LARPy vision of mine and one that is largely threatened by the fact that in terms of suzerainty, it almost doesn’t matter now given that we are more than willing to sell our lands (great example being the Greater Vancouver region where the Chinese are now very open about their colonization thanks to our submission), government and economy out to the Chinese, to open our borders to mass migration from the third world, and to give in to self-loathing. Then there is the issue of how all land is just unilaterally claimed as Amerindian, regardless of the fact that the cities were built by and for Europeans; so too were the agricultural areas because as Cooper notes, it is a foreign concept to them.

When it comes to the Amerindians, ‘masters of the pacific’ or otherwise, the answer is either the much-reviled policy of separation or the much-reviled policy of assimilation. What we have now is a halfway house which ultimately will fail. What makes it even worse, however, is that this flawed system is imbued with official policies of pushing anti-White degradation on the one hand and an increasingly militant Amerindian nationalism on the other.




[i]Europeans were sometimes enslaved and an Englishman by the name of John Jewitt wrote of his time as a slave with the Nootka (he was eventually freed by American traders). He noted the often-brutal treatment of POWs and women who had given their husbands a cuckold’s horns.

[ii]Christen I. Archer, “Cannibalism in the Early History of the Northwest Coast: Enduring Myths and Neglected Realities.” The Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, (December 1980), pp. 458


[iv]Ibid, 464

[v]Lord Jeffery Amherst was head of British forces during Pontiac’s War and it is known he discussed the use of smallpox as a weapon, but there is debate as to whether smallpox was actually weaponized and if so to what extent it was effective. I think it worth noting that Pontiac’s forces were motivated by a desire to ethnically cleanse the region of English-speaking Whites. This was a racial war and atrocities were committed by both sides.

[vi]It is debatable as to how large the population of Amerindians on the west coast were. I have seen anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 for the whole region. It often seems as if this number keeps being revised to be higher and higher. But what does that matter? Does that mean Europeans have no claims? If it was a tragedy that the Amerindian population of this coastal region was so drastically reduced from diseases and lower birth rates compared to Europeans, than would it not also be a tragedy that the European population of this area is being reduced due to migration and lower birth rates compared to Asians and mestizos?

[vii]Part of this includes mentioning of the left’s newest narrative meant to undermine White Canada: the residential schools. As it turns out the supposed architect of the residential schools was actually a supporter of the non-White indigenes.


Posted in Films/TV | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Carthago Delenda Est

CDE Child Sacrifice

There is a common saying about how the children are the future. Well as lame and prosaic as that sounds it is true. In traditional societies the elders would seek to ensure the maintenance of society for the upcoming generations who in turn would grow up to build upon their forebears legacy. Currently in the Occident this seems to have all been discarded. Our civilization has been in the decline for a while now and with each passing decade it seems to become more hyper-individualistic and nihilistic. Nothing seems to matter save fleeting personal pleasure. Even the young are to be sacrificed for such ends.

The most obvious example of how Western society has abandoned the young is in the realm of sexual politics. Males and females of all ages are meant to deny their natures and the hardest hit are the most vulnerable, namely children. Boys are feminized and girls are made masculine and in the end, both are sexualized. This process is most notable with girls as we can see with pop-culture whores particularly in the music industry who are looked up to as idols. As with Hollywood (which is more than just perverted old men going after women, as men and children are victims too) the music industry is completely lacking in morals and will do whatever it can to push sexualisation. As such it is no surprise that the media in general has been such a major promoter of promiscuity and homosexuality and would be so corrupted by such predators; including pedophiles whose sole target are children. It should be noted that certain sectors of the media and I presume academia as well, are actively promoting a normalization of pedophilia.

CDE An example of the paedophilia apology in the mainstream media

Recent articles from the BBC and elsewhere which offer sympathy to pedophiles are actually tame in comparison to the open support for the sexual use of children by the left several decades ago; take for example the German ’68 student movement or famed French post-modernist writer Michel Foucault and famed American poet Allen Ginsberg, or even the British Labour party. Regular people are, thankfully, outraged at any positive talk of pedophilia and so the movement has not as yet had much success. Tactics had to be changed, with the focus now on tolerating pedophiles who don’t act out their degeneracy, although evidently there are still organizations on the left with connections to those who openly advocate for sexually active pedophiles.[i] It is unfortunate that there are people who have such deviant desires but they should not be normalized or otherwise treated as being equal to the majority. Given all this plus the endless desire to achieve ‘equality’ and the left’s obsession with sexual identities, I can’t help but think that this is yet another slippery slope. We saw what happened when homosexuality was tolerated! Now we have to throw out all basic understandings of sex in the name of trans acceptance; why we even have to impose this dogma upon children regardless of how this may negatively impact them.

CDE Imposition of trans-agenda on helpless children

Its almost as if they embrace being demonic

Pedophilia normalization will not only be pushed because of the fact that there is no end to revolution, but also because it would be ‘racist’ not to turn a blind eye to the mistreatment of children. Not all cultures are equal and many Afro-Asiatic ones have no qualms with children being used for sexual purposes. Child marriage was more or less eradicated from Europe but is making a comeback thanks to the mass importation of Afro-Asiatic peoples, something that the elite doesn’t know how to respond to, but evidently some courts  and governments are respecting this (and of course leading members of foreign communities support the practice). The raping of children and teenagers is also ignored when the rapists are foreign as we have seen, for example in the many covered-up cases of the raping of White girls by Pakistanis in Rotherham, Rochedale and Telford. The topic of immigration and culture clash leads me to look at yet another example of how our civilization misuses children. Whenever children are killed in mohammadan terror attacks, these images are suppressed and we are told ad nauseum about how there is nothing to worry about from having such complete foreigners in our lands. However, images of the dead – young or otherwise – are plastered everywhere when it comes to ‘refugees’ or the enemies of Assad. Take for example, the staged image of Alan Kurdi, who died thanks to the reckless nature of his father, it has since become iconic. Death is a great seller of political ideas.

Then of course there is the realm of education: we teach foreigners to hate us and this is a form of abuse to the next generation (increasingly we see the effects of this on children) who will have to endure the taunts and diatribes of worked-up aliens. Western societies are also teaching our own to hate themselves which is yet another form of abuse. Given how many mohammadan terrorists seem to be second generation immigrants, I suspect the degenerate nature of the modern West plays a role. As such, it is not just our own who are being abused.

CDE One of the many victims of the 2016 Nice attack. A young girl. Unlike Kudi her corpse was not plastered all over the media

A child victim of the July 2016 Nice attack

And of course, there is the near universal support for abortion from Western elites. It is pushed officially by many governments and certainly unofficially in the form of educators, members of the media, business figures, et al. Why, even the UN human rights commission has made abortion a right and is now pushing this cult of death upon member states. The creation of new life used to be seen as a blessing, but now it is simply an inconvenience, something that holds down women from being free to become busy cogs in the liberal machine.

All of this malevolent behavior seems incredible, but, perhaps, it is the childlessness of  many of our leaders which plays a role in the continued denigration of the Occident. Regardless, for the left the ultimate goal is a complete destruction of the Occident and a replacement of our civilization with some new utopian world. Part of this replacement means the destruction of the family, of nation, of Christianity and anything else that acts as a bulwark against such radical restructuring of society. As for the ‘conservatives’, well they don’t care what happens on the social front so long as they get their free market. The two factions have proven to be – contrary to what one might think given their depiction in the mainstream media – opposite sides of the same coin.

Children have become disposable in this brave new world of ours, to be used as tools or to be sacrificed. Certain ancient cultures like the Carthaginians, practiced child sacrifice in a twisted and misguided form of worship. While we don’t literally murder children (unless you want to count abortion), we instead sacrifice the well-being of future generations to new idols, namely immigration, equality, liberty and unending social revolution. To quote that staunch Roman patrician Cato the Elder: Carthago Delenda est!








[i]Much to the chagrin of the pro-homosexuality lobby, as it turns out there are connections between homosexuality and pedophilia: namely that many who identify as one are also the other. Gay rights activists have traditionally been supportive of pedophilia or as a way of making their own degeneracy seem more ‘normal.’ It should also be noted that both Foucault and Ginsberg were homosexuals.

Posted in Cultural Struggle | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Οχι Day

Today marks the anniversary of the beginning of one of many forgotten little wars that ended up becoming swept up in the Second World War which raged on at the same time. As with the First World War, the 1939-1945 war was one of those terrible confrontations which swept up so many nations in its wake no matter how unrelated they were to the initial conflict. In the case of the event that is remembered on October 28th, it was the beginning of the Greco-Italian War in 1940. A relatively contained conflict that quickly became part of the wider European conflict that was then ongoing.

Greece at that time was a constitutional monarchy, but decades of political strife between competing conservative and republican Venizelist factions had led to one to many incidences of instability for George II to tolerate. As such in August of 1936, he named the former military man and staunch royalist, Ioannis Metaxas the new head of government and in no time Metaxas did away with parliamentary politics. Metaxas set about solving the economic crisis then facing Greece. In 1936, Greece was running a budget deficit of 844 million drachmas and dependent on ever-growing foreign loans. The rate of unemployment was high (135,000 of a country of 5 million were unemployed), moreover, loan sharks were having a field day with ruralites and added to this were the hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greek refugees from Asia Minor who were living in hovels. Moreover, laissez-faire policies had only exacerbated the problem further.


Ioannis Metaxas

Ioannis Metaxas


Metaxas also reorganized the army, had fortifications built along the border with Bulgaria (the Metaxas Line), began extensive reforms to benefit the lot of the workers and farmers which included, among other initiatives: an 8-hour work day, paid vacations and banning of child labour. His ultimate goal was an end to class struggle, a rejuvenation of the upper strata of society into a group which was truly devoted to the nation as a whole and the realization of his dream of the ‘Third Hellenic Civilization’ – the preceding two having been pre-Roman Greece and the Byzantine Empire – which would incorporate the best qualities of the former two. Metaxas hailed from noble stock, being the descendant of an aristocratic family from the island of Kefalonia; a lineage that traced back to the period of Venetian rule over that island and back further still, to the Byzantine Empire.

There is much debate as to whether Metaxas’ regime can be called fascist or not, although most historians seem to agree he was not actually one. It is difficult to exactly pin down what is and isn’t fascism especially in our day when that word is thrown around so much it essentially has no meaning. One reason for this debate is because of how heterogeneous fascism is. To quote Francisco Franco, another figure who is often labeled fascist, but like Metaxas was not,

Fascism, since that is the word that is used, fascism presents, wherever it manifests itself, characteristics which are varied to the extent that countries and national temperaments vary. It is essentially a defensive reaction of the organism, a manifestation of the desire to live, of the desire not to die, which at certain times seizes a whole people. So, each people reacts in its own way, according to its conception of life.

Metaxas never went as far as Sir Oswald Mosely in Britain or Eoin O’Duffy in Ireland and call his politics fascist, and nor was he was primarily influenced by fascism as the Spanish Falangists and German National Socialists were. Metaxian Greece was much like Salazar’s Portugal, Horthy’s Hungary, Antonescu’s Romania or Franco’s Spain: more reactionary conservatism with the trappings of fascism, so as to tap into popular foreign trends on the one hand and to better mobilize and secure the loyalties of the people on the other. Indeed, it should be noted that Salazar’s Estado Novo was a particular influence upon Metaxism.[i] The idea of corporatism was embraced (at least publicly) as it was by say the Falangists in Spain and fascists of Italy, Britain and Ireland; a militarized national youth organization was created and the fasces were adopted as a symbol – although they had also been adopted by liberals in the 18th century, most notably the American founding fathers. However, there was no leader-principle as was the case with the Falangists and the National Socialists and nor was there any strict ideological conformity that was imposed.

Flag of the E.O.N

Flag of the national youth organization E.O.N

Metaxas generally put the nation above religion although he also saw religion as a central tenet to his Third Hellenic Civilization project, especially because of the centrality of the Church to the Byzantine Empire – aka the Second Hellenic Civilization.[ii] Christianity was seen as having been an important actor in the Greek struggle for independence in the 1820s and the nucleus of Metaxism was to be nation, fatherland and religion.[iii] It should also be noted that Metaxas was himself a pious man and did not harbour any anti-Christian views, as Hitler and many fascist leaders did. However, in the end Metaxas’ writ ran large as he was able to influence the outcome of the 1938 Holy Synod election.[iv] In conjunction with his religiosity was Metaxas’ royalism. Unlike Mussolini who put up with a monarch because he had to, Metaxas was a staunch defender of monarchy and did his level best to unite the monarchy with his ‘4th of August’ regime and the Orthodox Church.

Kallis argues that an actual fascist or fascist derivative movement could not have succeeded in Greece because the country had experienced an ‘incomplete modernization and uneven liberalisation’ and also because the traumas it had experienced in the interwar period were blamed by the Greeks on their own nation.[v] Moreover, Metaxas’ regime was not a populist one despite certain populist reforms that were undertaken. But that does not mean he faced widespread resistance. In the end the vast majority of Greeks assented to Metaxism even if they weren’t overt promoters of it, largely because of the way he brought back stability and improved the economy.[vi] Metaxas’ regime was also largely focused on traditional values and upholding Greece’s glorious past.

Clearly, aspects of fascism, or at least the original Italian variant, had an influence and yet it was to be with fascist Italy that Metaxian Greece would end up warring with in October 1940. Throughout the 1920s Greece and Italy had had a cool relationship at best. After the First World War, the two countries had come to loggerheads over the fate of Anatolia as the Italians had hoped to include much of that region into their sphere of influence while the Greeks had hoped to fulfill the Megali idea of reuniting all majority Greek inhabited lands. This frosty relationship continued even after the Turks pushed both out of Anatolia and Mussolini took power in 1922. In 1923 Italy even went so far as to bombard the island of Corfu after a progressively worsening relationship brought about initially by Italian arbitration of a border dispute between Greece and Albania.

That said, the relationship did begin to warm in the late 1920s as successive governments strove to obtain peaceful relations with all of Greece’s neighbours in order to break free of diplomatic isolation. In the case of rapprochement with Italy this was largely driven by their mutual distrust of Yugoslavia and Greece’s distrust of Bulgaria. However, Greece remained closely tied to Britain and France and so had to be careful about how closely it moved towards Italy. In 1934, Greece also signed the Balkan Pact which was meant to be a bulwark against Bulgarian irredentism and as such came to include Yugoslavia. It was rejected by the Italians. In the end, though, it was the rise of Hitlerian Germany to prominence in Central and Eastern Europe which truly began the return of Italian hostility towards Greece. The Italians feared German intrusions into the Balkans which they hoped could be turned into their sphere of influence, indeed, in the case of Greece, Germany did begin having a greater role in trade after 1933. Shortly after Anschluss – which Mussolini had initially been against, only changing his mind after his former allies decided to diplomatically isolate Italy for its conquest of Ethiopia – the Italians began an absorption process of their own: they conquered Albania. This country had only come into being in 1913 and since then had been racked by rebellions, internal political strife, foreign intrigue and general instability. It was essentially a failed state until Ahmed Muhtar Zogli came to power. But even then, the country remained in dire financial straits and was indebted to Italy. Zogli’s attempts to break free from Italian influence backfired dramatically.

Having Italy now share a land border with Greece raised concerns of the future of Greco-Italian relations especially as the Italians began to foster Albanian nationalism and irredentism. Although this was primarily aimed at Yugoslavia given it had a far larger number of Albanians than Greece, it still had the potential to cause problems in Greece given the existence of its small Albanian minority. There was also the added issue of the Greek populace of Northern Epirus which was (and still is) part of Albania. Another issue seems to have been Mussoini’s mixed messages: he would tell the Greeks one thing but then tell his own ministers another regarding Italy’s intentions with Greece.

The Italians facilitated Albanian expansionism in Yugoslavia but ultimately not in Greece. The Germans would uphold this after they took over from the Italians after the Italian armistan

During WWII a Greater Albania was created under the aegis of Italy and continued after the Germans took over in 1943. In the end it did not include Greek territory.

After Italy joined in the Second World War a further complication arose in that Greece remained heavily pro-British and of course Italy and Britain were now at war. The Italians were wary of Greece because British vessels were cruising through Greek waters, however, this was not done with the permission of Greece. The Italians began countering this by deciding to also completely ignore Greek neutrality and send ships into its waters. The most blatant act against Greece was when the Royal Hellenic Navy cruiser Elli was sunk by the Italians in August of 1940. The Greek government chose to ignore the sinking in order to keep neutral. Ultimately, as much as he feared war would come, Metaxas did not want a war. Furthermore, there was the continued problem of German economic penetration of the Balkans. After the Second World War began this only picked up speed and now included a military component. On the 7th of October 1940, the Romanians allowed the German military to station troops in its borders and take up patrol duties for its oil fields. Hitler did not tell his ally of this before hand; he waited until the 11th to let Mussolini know. It seemed to Mussolini that Hitler was trying to out manoeuvre him in the Balkans and halt any potential Italian hegemony of the region. Although the British remained the greatest influence on Greece the Germans also played a leading role. Again, further evidence for Mussolini that the Germans were trying to halt any expansion of Italian influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.[vii]

In the summer of 1940 Italian forces invaded British possessions in East Africa, completely overrunning British Somaliland and driving the British back in Sudan and Kenya. That September, Italy invaded British controlled Egypt. Overjoyed with success and feeling the time now was ripe for further gains elsewhere, on the 28th of October the Italian Ambassador Emanuele Grazzi presented Metaxas with an ultimatum, demanding free passage for Italian troops to occupy unspecified strategic sites within Greek territory. Accepting such an ultimatum seemed tantamount to treason especially as it seemed increasingly clear to Metaxas that the Italians intended to stay. As such he rejected the ultimatum. There is a widely held belief that Metaxas replied to Italy’s ultimatum simply with όχι (no) and it is from this legend that the day gets its name. However, in reality it is believed he actually made a slightly longer reply and in French – a still common language for the educated classes at that time – saying ‘Alors, c’est la guerre’ (then it is war). Both could be considered Spartan replies – that is to say short and to the point – but the former has the added benefit of being more direct, terse and of course is in Greek. Shortly after Metaxas took to the radio to tell his people,

Greeks, the time has come for Greece to fight for her independence. Greeks, we now must prove worthy of our ancestors and the freedom they gave us. Fight for the Fatherland, for your wives, for your children and for the sacred traditions. Now, above all, Fight!

The Greeks were able not only to halt the Italian invasion which came shortly afterwards, but turn them back! In fact, the Greek counter-offensive managed to drive deep in Albania, taking over the traditionally Greek region of Northern Epirus. Churchill famously said of the Greek war effort that, “Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.” Adolf Hitler also lauded the fighting skills of the Greeks stating to the Reichstag in May of 1941, “For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death.” Although there are some who erroneously try to make it seem as if the war was an Italian victory, these individuals have I think rightly, noted the long-term favoured the Italians because the Greeks did not have the men or material to push any further. There were very real fears also that Greece would not even be able to hold the gains it had made. Ultimately, however, I think it is fair to say it was the Germans who won the war, but was their involvement a foregone conclusion?

Metaxas let the British know that Greece would need greater aid if it were to conclusively defeat Italy, but the British offer of a few paltry reinforcements was not to Metaxas’ liking. Their offer was problematic because the forces offered were not enough to have been of any real assistance but would certainly get the attention of Germany and could very well lead to a German intervention. As such Metaxas refused the offer of troops from Britain. The British did supply the Greeks throughout the conflict, however. In November the British occupied the islands of Lemnos and Crete as a pre-emptive move to keep them out of the hands of the Italian navy. In no time Greece, which had been trying its best to present its war with Italy as having nothing to do with Germany, came into Hitler’s sights. Hitler had no intentions of becoming involved in the Balkans, but sadly this happened anyways, largely because of Mussolini’s ill-thought out invasion, but one cannot help but shake one’s head over the role of London also. The British its true were giving aid to the Greeks but they had previously violated its waters[viii] and their offers of troops[ix] were only enough to enrage Germany; not to defend Greece.

Looking back its clear that όχι day is one of those days in history which should never have happened. Mussolini really should have just concentrated on seeing through the campaigns he had begun in Africa. Its obvious that Mussolini under-estimated the Greeks just as he had earlier under-estimated the French in June of 1940. Or better yet Italy could have stayed out of the war in the first place. Mussolini did not join Germany when war broke out in 1939 and really, he should have stayed out as his military just was not prepared for war. There is a common myth that Italian troops were poor soldiers and cowards, but that is not true; the military in general was simply not ready for a war at that time. Britain and France shouldn’t have got involved in what was originally a German-Polish conflict, but neither should have Italy. Mussolini refused to take part in the war in 1939 and there was no reason for him to embroil his country in the conflict in 1940. Or perhaps Hitler could have stayed out of Poland.

Metaxas is a figure of mixed reception by Greeks today. On the one hand they celebrate his decision to stand up for his country in 1940 but on the other hand the cult of liberalism and egalitarianism that so dominates today’s globalized world means he is often portrayed as some horrid little despot. There is at least one group which upholds Metaxas as the figure of worth which he really is, Golden Dawn – of course Golden Dawn’s reverence for Metaxas is used as somehow being evidence of him having been a fascist. There are many problems with Golden Dawn, primarily the way they have sadly attracted neo-nazi skinhead elements, but it must be said that they are actually a Greek party as opposed to most of their political rivals who are your average globalist shills. For example, Golden Dawn has run foodbank services to impoverished Greeks and also has offered security for Greeks living in areas that have been colonized by foreigners. Compare this to the ruling SYRIZA party, for example, whose leader (Prime Minister Alexis Tspiras)[x] is an anti-Christian, eager to promote the newest fashionable views on trans, homosexuality, feminism, et al. The current government is also promoting anti-patriotic education policies such as ending traditional flag raising and the singing of national anthem at primary schools. Plans are also underway for ending morning prayers and religious education which as with other unnecessary SYRIZA social policies is unpopular. Golden Dawn doesn’t seem to be overly concerned with Christianity and from what I gather they have neo-pagan elements as well; I would like to see them and other rightists actually make greater overtures to the faith.[xi]

With any luck there is a silver lining to the problems which beset contemporary Greece, that they can have a revival of Orthodoxy, that the left can be relegated to the dustbin of history and populist organizations can give way to a revived traditional right-wing in Greece that can bring about a renaissance, as Metaxas did his best to achieve. Until then let us honour men such as Metaxas, who, unlike our leaders today, actually cared for their countries and put them first.




[i]Aristotle A. Kallis, “Fascism and Religion: The Metaxas Regime in Greece and the ‘Third Hellenic Civilisation’. Some Theoretical Observations on ‘Fascism’, ‘Political Religion’ and ‘Clerical Fascism.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 8, No. 2, (June 2007), pp. 229-246.236

[ii]Ibid 237

[iii]Ibid 238

[iv]Ibid 240

[v]Ibid 241

[vi]Interestingly enough the largest industry in Greece became the arms industry! Something one generally does not associate Greek exports with. Anyways, it appears that Greece became an important supplier of arms to Chiang Kai-Shek in China and to both sides during the Spanish Civil War.

[vii]France had also played quite an important role in the Greek political and economic spheres from the time of its independence. However, this influence was shattered in the post-1918 period as the French refused to fully back Greece in its struggles with the Turks and the Italians. Whatever influence France had left was finally snuffed out after the German conquest in the summer of 1940.

[viii]British violations of Norwegian waters had led to a German invasion in 1940 while a British backed coup against the pro-neutrality Prince-Regent of Yugoslavia ultimately led to the Axis conquest and division of that kingdom. As with Norway, British actions in Greece were not, I don’t think, about undermining the state. British machinations in Yugoslavia, on the other hand, do come across as a malicious action.

[ix]In the end, over 62,000 British, New Zealand and Australian troops were sent to Greece to help fight the Germans but ultimately this did not prove enough to turn the tables.

[x]It would seem that many members of Golden Dawn were or still are sympathetic to Hitlerism and of course this is continually brought up whenever they are in the news. However, SYRIZA is filled with all sorts of communists and former communists including Tsiparis. This is never a problem, however. On a side note, it should be mentioned that many of SYRIZA’s members were radicalized whilst attending British universities. Interesting, how so many hard-left types develop their ideologies in Western European and American centres of ‘higher education.’ It may also explain why SYRIZA is more cosmopolitan than the more outright communist KKE which still holds certain politically ‘incorrect’ views regarding gender and sexuality.

[xi]With any luck their Cypriot counterparts ELAM will, given that the archbishop of Cyprus was ‘satisfied’ with their gaining seats in parliament.

Posted in Greece, History | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Visegrád Union


The European Union is proving itself to be an anti-European, internationalist organization which is seemingly hellbent on flooding the continent with peoples who are completely foreign in every conceivable manner from the indigenes. However, many will argue that some form of union is necessary given how small a continent Europe is. Well, instead of one massive union why not a series of smaller ones? Already, it would appear that there is a potential one in the making: Visegrád.

The Visegrád Group or Visegrád Four, consists of Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia. It has become famous (or infamous depending on how you look at things) for its refusal to kowtow to pressure emanating from Germany, France and the EU leadership to open borders to the recent influx of foreign hordes from the Middle East and Africa. Although all members are part of the EU, the four also have their own military, energy, economic and other joint initiatives. Given the hostility the rest of the EU is showing the Visegrád Group one wonders if they would not be better off leaving and forming their own union? Of course, that could mean a loss of aid which sadly these countries need given their past as inept communist states. But really, it’s not such a bad idea for these countries to ponder, especially as the fate of their people is more important than money. Sadly, there are other potential roadblocks including the greater ties the former Czechoslovakia has with Germany. Benjamin Cunningham notes that Poland is one of the most religious countries in Europe while Czechia is the least and while the other three have a friendly view of Russia, the Poles do not. However, such differences exist already within the EU so it is hardly as if these differences of opinion would be unique to any potential Visegrád Union.

A Visegrád Union (VU) would not be such a strange entity as unlike the EU there is a history of large states in Central Europe. The Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian empires covered much of the territory now made up by the potential VU and so did the Kingdom of Hungary at its height, under the rule of king Louis the Great. Should the VU open itself to expansion the way the EU has then we could include as well Poland-Lithuania as another predecessor. Granted, these were not unions based upon equal cooperation, but it does show that this area of Europe has a history of some degree of unity. However, if the VU did become a reality and did commit itself to expansion it should have stricter limits of membership. I would argue they should limit who they allow in to countries that are traditionally Catholic. Thus, Lithuania and Austria could join if they were to move further away from the soulless internationalism of the EU (given most recent legislative elections in Austria it looks like this is thankfully happening; especially with the young).

Perhaps Lithuania’s Baltic neighbors Estonia and Latvia could become associates; perhaps Romania which is also resisting EU migrant policies could as well. However, I would again stress that there should be a greater overarching rule for membership other than being part of the continent of Europe. A shared cultural-religious heritage not to mention geography should be stressed. Another problem with potential Latvian and Estonian membership is the presence of substantial Russian minorities brought in by the Soviets in an act similar to current plans of many EU states to elect a new population. It would be advisable for the VU to have friendly relations with Russia and taking in members who could have potential conflicts with Russia would be unwise. Given Catholic heritage of Croatia and its historical connections to Hungary perhaps it too could be included.

The Kingdom of Hungary and its vassals during the reign of Louis the Great

Kingdom of Hungary and vassals during the reign of Louis the Great

Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and much of Poland were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and much of Poland were all part of Austria-Hungary

I’m aware that this a particularly LARPy piece on my part, but regardless of what the future of Visegrád is, I still think it advisable to scrap the EU and replace it instead with pan-European bodies which are not promoters of every conceivable anti-Occidental  policy in favor of globalist insanity. If a body that includes most if not all of Europe is too unworkable than I contend that smaller regional ones should be considered instead.

Posted in Europe | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment