William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
Burying the Ashes of Our Fathers, Shrouding the Temples of Our Gods
by D.W.
19 January 2004
A review of The Ancient World, A Beginning, by T.R. Glover, Cambridge University Press, 1935. Out of print.
Old books tell us a lot about how race was once discussed. That is, frankly and frequently. If you did a double take on the publication date of the book I'm reviewing, you saw right the first time. 1935. Years before the conclusion of World War II, and decades before the indoctrination began. Back when race, and racial difference, were not quite the forbidden topics they are today.
This particular book was picked up at a rural garage sale in Vermont. Near as I can tell, it's been out of print for a very long time. I grabbed it because I love history books, and have an appreciation for ones written closer to the actual events -- even if only by a few decades. It's musty and yellowed, and whoever owned it last inscribed it in that beautiful script that people once wrote in, before typewriters and computer keyboards.
Also, this particular area of history -- ancient -- is one I'm weak on. Since coming to White nationalism I have been introduced to Greek and Roman history, and now seek to educate myself on it when I can. It's apparent to me, upon reading books like this one, how poorly educated I am. Yes, according to the system, I have a graduate degree. But surprisingly (or not, given the Jewish control of our society), I have not learned a basic: the history of my own people. More on that in a second.
David Duke once observed that historical accounts, like history itself, can change over time, to fit the agendas of the ruling class. How is it that official accounts of "the Holocaust" went from a mention of some Jews killed in World War II to the single greatest atrocity of all time, as the years went by? Hint: it's not because the facts changed.
The Ancient World, published two-thirds of a century ago, is proof of this phenomenon. T.R. Glover was an ancient history lecturer at Cambridge between 1911 and 1939. One of his main interests was historical Christianity. So, naturally, he'd studied the societies of the centuries before and after Christ a good deal. This book is the result of the that learning.
The book is a warm narrative of early history, beginning with the historical events that might have matched Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, describing such ancient societies as the Hittites, the Lydians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians (ever wonder why circles and hours top out at 360 degrees and 60 minutes, respectively, instead of 100 degrees and 100 minutes? That was the Babylonians), the destructive Peloponnesian War (really, a series of battles between Greeks), fights between Persians and Greeks, Alexander the Great's Europe-to-India conquest, and Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.
The Ancient World Was a White World
Simply put, The Ancient World is the story of White people. Jews were there, as they have been ever since, and the stray negro, too. But the exploits and accomplishments of Homer, Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great and Caesar are the exploits and accomplishments of the White race. I see Internet debates over whether ancient Greeks looked more like the Nordics of today (Richard McCulloch and Arthur Kemp take this view, I understand) or the swarthier modern Greeks, but I'm satisfied that they were recognizably White. Just visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art and take a look at the Greek and Roman busts: the lips, noses and hair of those people were undeniably, unquestionably and indisputably White.
I wonder. Why is it that Greek and Roman history, once carefully studied, has in recent times been shoved aside in favor of Multicultural, Feminist and Gay Studies? Why is it that we no longer study Alexander the Great and Caesar, but Karl Marx and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Could it have to do with who the heroes of Greek and Roman history were, i.e, White men? And the Jewish interest in suppressing that knowledge, lest it inspire today's White men to something greater than fighting wars for Israel? Say, fighting wars for their own people?
A proper cultural education teaches a man who he is and where he came from -- who his ancestors were, and what they accomplished. Deny him that, and you deny him his very being. Glover told us our history. Is it any wonder that his book is locked away in a historical vault, sealed from White view?
T.R. Glover, Racialist
Glover, whatever he might have considered his politics in his lifetime, was a racialist. He tips us off, beginning on page 14, in a discussion of why modern Turkey has not produced the philosophical, literary or political genius that Greece once did: "For centuries the Turks have lived in these same lands, and have shown none of the great qualities of the Greeks; and we may ask why; and all that we can say so far is that climate does not explain everything, but that race counts far more."
Come again? Race counts far more? Yes, those were Glover's words.
On political Greece: "Greece had no Parliament; it was not a nation, though it was a race. Each city governed itself, made its own laws, had its own revolutions, fought this neighbor and made peace with that, and then reversed its hatred and friendships." Maybe this is where the real concept of federalism is found: independent White groups, governing local matters.
Listen to Glover speculate on the racial makeup of the high civilization in and around the Aegaean:
"The people, it is clear, were not Homer's heroes, but men of a different build, stature and mind; and they are assigned to the vague Mediterranean race, from whom masses of people in Italy and France are obviously descended, and not a few in Wales and other parts of the British Isles, dark-haired, rather short people, neat-handed, with head of a distinctive shape. All over Europe, as we know, there broke in historic times another race, 'big blonde beasts' as a German humorist called them, big splendid men and women to match the dying Gaul, familiar in the sculpture. Again and yet again we know of tribes bursting into the Mediterranean area from North or Mid Europe or beyond, Scythian, Treres, Bithynians, Gauls, Cimbri and Teutons, Goths and Vandals. Is it possible that Homer's heroes came of such stock? Their build and their light hair suggests a Northern origin. But this is guessing."
Whatever you think of Glover's speculating, the amazing thing is that he's speculating on the issue at all. Modern accounts of history never refer to race, except to target White Europeans and White Americans as the Source of All Evil. All the people of history are presented as interchangeable, politically correct Lego pieces. The very presentation trains us, from an early age, to disregard race.
But not only does Glover discuss race, he discusses difference. Persians, for instance, were "a people of very high gifts, more closely indeed related by blood to European races than to other Orientals, such as their neighbors the Syrians, the Jews and the Arabs." Think of this next time you hear Wolfowitz & Co. threaten to attack Iran.
So prominent is race in Glover's narrative that the chapter on the early Roman world is subtitled "Italy and its Races." Not communities. Not peoples. But races. The darker-skinned aborigines with small hands were overtaken by the Latins, Oscans and Etruscans, the latter groups coming possibly from Asia Minor (now Turkey). Then came the Gauls, who were wild compared to the Greek and Roman soldiers, "mad for fighting" and "the most beautiful people on Earth," said Polybius, the Greek historian. Europe teemed with Gauls, who ate pigs, lived in villages and kept very little furniture. You've seen Gauls. Look at the picture of The Dying Gaul: put a baseball hat and plaid shirt on this fellow, and he'd fit in as the White guy behind you at the Cardinals game. Or maybe you see him when you look in the mirror.
What might have paved the way for Roman stability? Glover asks. "It was all done at the cost of fighting; and the tribes whom the Romans had to fight were largely of their own blood, as steady fighters as themselves. But, once the fighting was over, the fact that they were of one blood made union of some kind the easier in Italy, as it did in England." An important qualification to the melting pot idea, to be sure: people only "melt" together if they're racially similar enough. South American pot-squatters and buck-lipped Haitians do not blend with us, as is readily observed.
Egyptians under Ptolemy knew this. Not only were these Egyptians not black, they considered blacks circus animals. At a pageant in Philadelphus, there was described (pay close attention to this list) "a huge bottle of made of panther skins, containing 27,000 gallons of wine; women representing cities set free from Persian rule; a god on an elephant; five hundred girls in purple chitons with gold belts; elephants, ostriches, camels, negroes; spices, ivory tusks, parrots..."
Note how negroes come last in the order of walking beasts. And really, what are the negroes of today, but circus animals? Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Oprah Winfrey... are any of these creatures anything but performing beasts?
Glover on Jews
The original racists, Glover says. "Its history explains a nation, and here is a people, far more conscious of its race to-day than ever it was under the Jewish kings. No longer a nation, they are scattered all over the world, eager to take on a local colour, but every conscious that nobody believes in this local colour; they are an alien race wherever they are."
Wait! There's more. "Foreigner and Orientals still, they intermarry only among themselves; they maintain tribal customs and ceremonies, which their fathers practiced in the days when Pericles guided Athens; for they know that the continuance of their race depends on nothing but the maintenance of rite and taboo and the refusal of Gentile marriage."
Jews hated Gentiles. "...meanwhile a good Jew must be loyal to his race and to his God. Some of them bluntly supposed that the Gentiles were created to be destroyed; others felt this too harsh -- if Gentiles acted aright and lived good lives, ought not God to allow the good life to outweigh the unfortunate pedigree? Others again felt the whole problem of the Gentile too complicated to decide; they had better let it alone."
Got that, White man? You are either deserving of death, or grudgingly allowed to exist. So said Glover of Cambridge. You can believe Bill O'Reilly, or T.R. Glover. William F. Buckley, Jr., or T.R. Glover. George Will, or T.R. Glover. Think Jews are different today? You haven't been paying attention. O'Reilly, Buckley and Will haven't.
St. Paul was a Jew. Glover describes him in Athens, preaching a new religion in accented Greek. Jews, it appears, have been preaching new religions for the rest of us for quite some time now. "He was a Jew; but he began well, dealing with the no-man's land between Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy..." Ah, yes. Just how they always do it: the no-man's land between the "equality" of the Enlightenment and "equality" for negroes. Jews have a way of turning the no-man's land into their land, to the detriment of us all. White man, whether it's Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx or David Horowitz, beware of Jews preaching new religions.
"The Jews were disliked, and, as far as their rebellions and their presence would allow, they were ignored," Glover says. Ignored. A good policy as regards Jews, if only they could be ignored. As it happens, that's the Jewish Room 101: being ignored. They must be the center of attention, as anyone who so much as glances at the New York Times and its editorial pages can attest.
Disliked, even truer. Glover reports that Jew-hunts were common in parts of the ancient world. Ah, for the wisdom of the ancients. What, I ask, will put an end to this centuries-old pestilence? Does fate decree that Jews are to be our curse for all time -- the mark of Cain, if you will? Who knows. But we can at least take comfort that our fathers knew the Jew for what he was, and lived to tell the tale.
Perhaps that was because, in the ancient world, they spoke to each other, instead of watching television. Perhaps it was through this truthful communication that evil of the Jews was revealed, and the heroism of our people told.
In Glover's book, we glimpse it. May our people see more than a glimpse, and may future generations of Whites know who they are, where they came from, and the enemies that have beset them.
D.W.
Back to VNN Main Page
by D.W.
19 January 2004
A review of The Ancient World, A Beginning, by T.R. Glover, Cambridge University Press, 1935. Out of print.
Old books tell us a lot about how race was once discussed. That is, frankly and frequently. If you did a double take on the publication date of the book I'm reviewing, you saw right the first time. 1935. Years before the conclusion of World War II, and decades before the indoctrination began. Back when race, and racial difference, were not quite the forbidden topics they are today.
This particular book was picked up at a rural garage sale in Vermont. Near as I can tell, it's been out of print for a very long time. I grabbed it because I love history books, and have an appreciation for ones written closer to the actual events -- even if only by a few decades. It's musty and yellowed, and whoever owned it last inscribed it in that beautiful script that people once wrote in, before typewriters and computer keyboards.
Also, this particular area of history -- ancient -- is one I'm weak on. Since coming to White nationalism I have been introduced to Greek and Roman history, and now seek to educate myself on it when I can. It's apparent to me, upon reading books like this one, how poorly educated I am. Yes, according to the system, I have a graduate degree. But surprisingly (or not, given the Jewish control of our society), I have not learned a basic: the history of my own people. More on that in a second.
David Duke once observed that historical accounts, like history itself, can change over time, to fit the agendas of the ruling class. How is it that official accounts of "the Holocaust" went from a mention of some Jews killed in World War II to the single greatest atrocity of all time, as the years went by? Hint: it's not because the facts changed.
The Ancient World, published two-thirds of a century ago, is proof of this phenomenon. T.R. Glover was an ancient history lecturer at Cambridge between 1911 and 1939. One of his main interests was historical Christianity. So, naturally, he'd studied the societies of the centuries before and after Christ a good deal. This book is the result of the that learning.
The book is a warm narrative of early history, beginning with the historical events that might have matched Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, describing such ancient societies as the Hittites, the Lydians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians (ever wonder why circles and hours top out at 360 degrees and 60 minutes, respectively, instead of 100 degrees and 100 minutes? That was the Babylonians), the destructive Peloponnesian War (really, a series of battles between Greeks), fights between Persians and Greeks, Alexander the Great's Europe-to-India conquest, and Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.
The Ancient World Was a White World
Simply put, The Ancient World is the story of White people. Jews were there, as they have been ever since, and the stray negro, too. But the exploits and accomplishments of Homer, Plato, Socrates, Alexander the Great and Caesar are the exploits and accomplishments of the White race. I see Internet debates over whether ancient Greeks looked more like the Nordics of today (Richard McCulloch and Arthur Kemp take this view, I understand) or the swarthier modern Greeks, but I'm satisfied that they were recognizably White. Just visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art and take a look at the Greek and Roman busts: the lips, noses and hair of those people were undeniably, unquestionably and indisputably White.
I wonder. Why is it that Greek and Roman history, once carefully studied, has in recent times been shoved aside in favor of Multicultural, Feminist and Gay Studies? Why is it that we no longer study Alexander the Great and Caesar, but Karl Marx and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Could it have to do with who the heroes of Greek and Roman history were, i.e, White men? And the Jewish interest in suppressing that knowledge, lest it inspire today's White men to something greater than fighting wars for Israel? Say, fighting wars for their own people?
A proper cultural education teaches a man who he is and where he came from -- who his ancestors were, and what they accomplished. Deny him that, and you deny him his very being. Glover told us our history. Is it any wonder that his book is locked away in a historical vault, sealed from White view?
T.R. Glover, Racialist
Glover, whatever he might have considered his politics in his lifetime, was a racialist. He tips us off, beginning on page 14, in a discussion of why modern Turkey has not produced the philosophical, literary or political genius that Greece once did: "For centuries the Turks have lived in these same lands, and have shown none of the great qualities of the Greeks; and we may ask why; and all that we can say so far is that climate does not explain everything, but that race counts far more."
Come again? Race counts far more? Yes, those were Glover's words.
On political Greece: "Greece had no Parliament; it was not a nation, though it was a race. Each city governed itself, made its own laws, had its own revolutions, fought this neighbor and made peace with that, and then reversed its hatred and friendships." Maybe this is where the real concept of federalism is found: independent White groups, governing local matters.
Listen to Glover speculate on the racial makeup of the high civilization in and around the Aegaean:
"The people, it is clear, were not Homer's heroes, but men of a different build, stature and mind; and they are assigned to the vague Mediterranean race, from whom masses of people in Italy and France are obviously descended, and not a few in Wales and other parts of the British Isles, dark-haired, rather short people, neat-handed, with head of a distinctive shape. All over Europe, as we know, there broke in historic times another race, 'big blonde beasts' as a German humorist called them, big splendid men and women to match the dying Gaul, familiar in the sculpture. Again and yet again we know of tribes bursting into the Mediterranean area from North or Mid Europe or beyond, Scythian, Treres, Bithynians, Gauls, Cimbri and Teutons, Goths and Vandals. Is it possible that Homer's heroes came of such stock? Their build and their light hair suggests a Northern origin. But this is guessing."
Whatever you think of Glover's speculating, the amazing thing is that he's speculating on the issue at all. Modern accounts of history never refer to race, except to target White Europeans and White Americans as the Source of All Evil. All the people of history are presented as interchangeable, politically correct Lego pieces. The very presentation trains us, from an early age, to disregard race.
But not only does Glover discuss race, he discusses difference. Persians, for instance, were "a people of very high gifts, more closely indeed related by blood to European races than to other Orientals, such as their neighbors the Syrians, the Jews and the Arabs." Think of this next time you hear Wolfowitz & Co. threaten to attack Iran.
So prominent is race in Glover's narrative that the chapter on the early Roman world is subtitled "Italy and its Races." Not communities. Not peoples. But races. The darker-skinned aborigines with small hands were overtaken by the Latins, Oscans and Etruscans, the latter groups coming possibly from Asia Minor (now Turkey). Then came the Gauls, who were wild compared to the Greek and Roman soldiers, "mad for fighting" and "the most beautiful people on Earth," said Polybius, the Greek historian. Europe teemed with Gauls, who ate pigs, lived in villages and kept very little furniture. You've seen Gauls. Look at the picture of The Dying Gaul: put a baseball hat and plaid shirt on this fellow, and he'd fit in as the White guy behind you at the Cardinals game. Or maybe you see him when you look in the mirror.
What might have paved the way for Roman stability? Glover asks. "It was all done at the cost of fighting; and the tribes whom the Romans had to fight were largely of their own blood, as steady fighters as themselves. But, once the fighting was over, the fact that they were of one blood made union of some kind the easier in Italy, as it did in England." An important qualification to the melting pot idea, to be sure: people only "melt" together if they're racially similar enough. South American pot-squatters and buck-lipped Haitians do not blend with us, as is readily observed.
Egyptians under Ptolemy knew this. Not only were these Egyptians not black, they considered blacks circus animals. At a pageant in Philadelphus, there was described (pay close attention to this list) "a huge bottle of made of panther skins, containing 27,000 gallons of wine; women representing cities set free from Persian rule; a god on an elephant; five hundred girls in purple chitons with gold belts; elephants, ostriches, camels, negroes; spices, ivory tusks, parrots..."
Note how negroes come last in the order of walking beasts. And really, what are the negroes of today, but circus animals? Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Oprah Winfrey... are any of these creatures anything but performing beasts?
Glover on Jews
The original racists, Glover says. "Its history explains a nation, and here is a people, far more conscious of its race to-day than ever it was under the Jewish kings. No longer a nation, they are scattered all over the world, eager to take on a local colour, but every conscious that nobody believes in this local colour; they are an alien race wherever they are."
Wait! There's more. "Foreigner and Orientals still, they intermarry only among themselves; they maintain tribal customs and ceremonies, which their fathers practiced in the days when Pericles guided Athens; for they know that the continuance of their race depends on nothing but the maintenance of rite and taboo and the refusal of Gentile marriage."
Jews hated Gentiles. "...meanwhile a good Jew must be loyal to his race and to his God. Some of them bluntly supposed that the Gentiles were created to be destroyed; others felt this too harsh -- if Gentiles acted aright and lived good lives, ought not God to allow the good life to outweigh the unfortunate pedigree? Others again felt the whole problem of the Gentile too complicated to decide; they had better let it alone."
Got that, White man? You are either deserving of death, or grudgingly allowed to exist. So said Glover of Cambridge. You can believe Bill O'Reilly, or T.R. Glover. William F. Buckley, Jr., or T.R. Glover. George Will, or T.R. Glover. Think Jews are different today? You haven't been paying attention. O'Reilly, Buckley and Will haven't.
St. Paul was a Jew. Glover describes him in Athens, preaching a new religion in accented Greek. Jews, it appears, have been preaching new religions for the rest of us for quite some time now. "He was a Jew; but he began well, dealing with the no-man's land between Jewish monotheism and Greek philosophy..." Ah, yes. Just how they always do it: the no-man's land between the "equality" of the Enlightenment and "equality" for negroes. Jews have a way of turning the no-man's land into their land, to the detriment of us all. White man, whether it's Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx or David Horowitz, beware of Jews preaching new religions.
"The Jews were disliked, and, as far as their rebellions and their presence would allow, they were ignored," Glover says. Ignored. A good policy as regards Jews, if only they could be ignored. As it happens, that's the Jewish Room 101: being ignored. They must be the center of attention, as anyone who so much as glances at the New York Times and its editorial pages can attest.
Disliked, even truer. Glover reports that Jew-hunts were common in parts of the ancient world. Ah, for the wisdom of the ancients. What, I ask, will put an end to this centuries-old pestilence? Does fate decree that Jews are to be our curse for all time -- the mark of Cain, if you will? Who knows. But we can at least take comfort that our fathers knew the Jew for what he was, and lived to tell the tale.
Perhaps that was because, in the ancient world, they spoke to each other, instead of watching television. Perhaps it was through this truthful communication that evil of the Jews was revealed, and the heroism of our people told.
In Glover's book, we glimpse it. May our people see more than a glimpse, and may future generations of Whites know who they are, where they came from, and the enemies that have beset them.
D.W.
Back to VNN Main Page
