Δευτέρα 25 Μαΐου 2026

The Pagan Roots of Nazism: A Deep Contrast with the Values of Romiosyni




 

Introduction

National Socialism was not merely a political movement; it was a system with deep mythological, esoteric, and neo-pagan foundations. Behind Hitler’s speeches and the military parades lay a world of runic symbols, ancient Germanic mythology, and occult societies that profoundly shaped the ideology of the Third Reich in its darkest depths.

1. The Völkisch Movement and the "Racial Soul"

In the late 19th century, the Völkisch movement developed in Germany—a blend of nationalism, romanticism, and pagan revival. Its representatives rejected Christianity as a "Jewish" religion and sought the "authentic" spiritual roots of the German people in Germanic-Norse mythology: Wotan (Odin), Thor, and Valhalla.

Guido von List (1848–1919) was among the first to associate runic letters with racial mystical significance, developing the Armanenrunen system.



Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels founded the order Ordo Novi Templi, publishing magazines that combined archaic paganism with virulent racial theories.



2. The Thule Society: The Occult Bridge to Politics



The Thule Society (Thule-Gesellschaft, 1918) was perhaps the most decisive link between occultism and politics. Its name referred to the mythical "Ultima Thule"—the alleged primordial homeland of the "Aryan race."

Members believed in an ancient, spiritually superior Hyperborean civilization from which the "Germanic race" descended. Their emblem was the swastika—an ancient Indo-European symbol to which they assigned a racialist meaning. From the circles of Thule emerged the German Workers' Party, which Hitler later renamed the NSDAP.

3. The SS and Heinrich Himmler: A New Teutonic Order

Heinrich Himmler was the preeminent "pagan" of the Nazi regime. He envisioned the Schutzstaffel (SS) not as a mere military force, but as a priestly brotherhood inspired by medieval knights.

Wewelsburg Castle was transformed into a "sacred site" for the SS, complete with rituals and occult symbolism.

Runic Symbols were used extensively; SS members adopted the double Sig (⚡⚡) as their dreaded emblem.



The Ahnenerbe was a pseudo-scientific organization founded to search for evidence of "Aryan superiority" from Tibet to Scandinavia.

4. The Appropriation of Symbols

The swastika (Hakenkreuz) and the runes were not Nazi inventions, but ancient symbols appropriated for a racialist narrative.



Sig (ᛋ) was the symbol of victory used as the SS emblem.

Odal (ᛟ) was the symbol of heritage and land used by agrarian organizations.

Leben (ᛚ) and Tod (ᛏ) were the life and death symbols used on SS gravestones to replace the Christian cross.

5. Hitler, Rosenberg, and the Anti-Christian Agenda

While Hitler used Christian language publicly for political expediency, he privately expressed deep contempt for the faith. In his "Table Talk"(Tischgespräche), he famously stated: "I cannot stand Paul... he is the one who destroyed the ancient world."

Leading ideologues like Alfred Rosenberg sought to replace Christianity with a "Germanic religion" based on the "Myth of the Blood" and the ideology of Blut und Boden (Blood and Soil).

6. The Radical Contrast with the Values of Romiosyni

The neo-pagan and racialist worldview of Nazism stands in absolute historical and spiritual opposition to the principles of Romiosyni(the Hellenic-Orthodox tradition). This conflict is not merely political, but deeply ontological.

Universalism vs. Ethno-racialism

Nazism deified biological descent and racial segregation. Conversely, Romiosyni is defined by Universalism, rooted in the Pauline "There is neither Jew nor Greek," asserting that a person's value is spiritual, not biological.

The Person vs. The Masses

In Nazism, the individual is a disposable cog in the "Race" (Volk). In the Orthodox tradition, the human is approached as a "Person"(Imago Dei), possessing absolute, inalienable, and eternal value regardless of origin or capacity.

Love and Sacrifice vs. The Law of the Strongest

Nazi neo-paganism adopted Social Darwinism, glorifying the extermination of the weak. Romiosyni proposes the exact opposite: love, solidarity, and sacrificial self-offering (the "kenosis" of the strong for the sake of the weak).

Spiritual Freedom vs. "Blood and Soil"

The Blut und Boden ideology confines man to animalistic instincts. Romiosyni calls for the transcendence of natural necessities through the ascetic life, aiming for spiritual freedom and the transfiguration of the world.

Conclusion

The pagan dimension of Nazism was a structural element used to build a totalitarian "anti-religion." Its conflict with the universal and person-centered nature of Romiosyni remains a critical chapter in the history of ideas, reminding us how easily evil can cloak itself in the language of the "sacred."

Sources & Bibliography

Historical & Occult Research

-Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology. NYU Press, 1993.

-Pringle, Heather. The Master Plan: Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust. Hyperion, 2006.

-Trevor-Roper, Hugh (ed.). Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944. Enigma Books, 2000.

-Rosenberg, Alfred. Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), 1930.

-Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. Penguin Books, 1998. 


Theological & Philosophical Context (Romiosyni)

-Romanides, John S. Romiosyni. Pournaras Publications, 1975.

-Yannaras, Christos. The Freedom of Morality. Ikaros, 1970.

-Chapoutot, Johann. The Law of Blood: Thinking and Acting as a Nazi. Belknap Press, 2018.

 

Κυριακή 24 Μαΐου 2026

What do we mean by “Fathers of the Church”?

 


Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries 

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ: Τι είναι οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας

Fathers” and “Patricity” in Christian theology

Fathers and Teachers of the Church” (or, in brief, simply “Fathers of the Church”) is the title used to denote Christian priests of all ranks1 (but also some who were not priests), who have been acknowledged as spiritual teachers and have also been acknowledged as authors for their formulation, their definition of the boundaries of, and the defending of, the Christian dogma.2

According to Western scholasticism (i.e., the philosophical theology that developed in western Europe following the Schism of 1054 and up until its apex during the Medieval era), the Patristic era ended in the 6th century A.D. for the Western Church (with the last Western Father being Saint Isidore of Seville) and in the 8th century for the Eastern Church (with the last Eastern Father being Saint John of Damascus). More recent historical and literary research, which has developed in the West and has adopted the criteria of scholasticism, has likewise adopted the idea of separating “Patristic literature” (=the works of the Fathers up until the 8th century) from “Byzantine literature” (=the works of Byzantine authors after the 8th century).

The Orthodox Church however regards Her theology as being always Patristic and only to the extent that it continues to be Patristic, can it also be considered valid and true. Thus, the Church discerns carriers of Her Patristic spirit in every Christian era, from the 2nd century (=the first century after the generation of Apostles, with Saints like Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch the “God-bearer”, e.a..), through to the late Byzantine era (for example, Saints Gregory Palamas 14th century, Mark of Ephesus 15th century), but also after the Byzantine era (Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain 18th – 19th century, the Russian Saints of the 19th century: Ignatius Branchianinov and Theophanes the Recluse, Innocent Beniaminov, e.a.), while even in our times there also appear to be several authentic carriers of the Patristic spirit of ecclesiastic theology – some of whom have been recognized officially as Saints (for example Saint Nectarios of Pentapolis, Luke the Physician of Symferoupolis, John of Shanghai (Maximovitch), Nicholas of Ohrid (Velimirovitch), e.a.), while others, albeit not “officially” recognized through an ecclesiastic “decision” of any kind, are nevertheless recognized in practice; for example holy teachers such as Justin Popovic, Sophrony Sacharov, Filotheos Zervakos, e.a..

The Church’s persistence with Patricity in Her theology is attributed to the fact that She regards the Fathers as saints; that is to say, as individuals with an authentic (in the Christian sense) association with uncreated (=divine) reality, and as such, reliable expressers of Her dogmatic teachings, whose validity also includes the element of being “divinely inspired”. The Christian dogma is expressed by means of the “enlightenment of the Holy Spirit” (in other words, through God Himself), and not by means of intellectual cogitations. And this is the determinant difference between philosophy and theology.

Of course, for the Church this difference does not lie in “appealing to a Holy-Spiritual enlightenment” – that is, to a “religious authority” – but to the actual existence of this transcendental element; otherwise, if in both cases we were to have ontological and soteriological systems, fashioned by human intellectual processes that merely invoked a certain contact with the divine Beyond for reasons of prestige, then in essence, there would be no objective difference between philosophy and theology3.


Fathers and philosophy

It should be noted that the Patristic opus does not end with the definition of boundaries of the Christian dogma; it also extends into a multitude of issues that involve the examination of human nature - and especially the soul - as well as Man’s relationship with himself, his fellow-man, the world and God – in other words, it deals with the healing of the consequences of Man’s Fall, for each individual, for mankind, and for Creation overall. The Patristic opus also continues its ceaseless dialogue with Philosophy and Science as they appear in every era. In this context, it makes sense to examine Patristic essays from the philosophical aspect also, inasmuch as they comprise one of the most fruitful chapters of worldwide thought. Unfortunately, the science of Philosophy’s History is ignorant of their contribution, although in recent times, with the endeavours of Greek researchers such as K.D.Georgoulis, Vasilios Tatakis, Bishop John Zizioulas of Pergamon, Christos Yannaras, fr. Nicholas Loudovikos e.a., their contribution is now being brought to light.

«An orthodox mind will stand at the point where all roads meet. He will carefully examine each road and, from his uniquely advantageous position, he will observe the conditions, the dangers, the uses and finally, the destination of each road. He will examine each road from the Patristic point of view, given that his personal convictions will come into a real, not hypothetical, contact with the culture around him» (Ivan Kiriyevski, Orthodox Russian author; quoted from the book by fr. Seraphim Rose "Orthodoxy and the religion of the future).

The Fathers of the ancient Church possess in their arsenal the entirety of Hellenic philosophy; after all, they too are philosophers. The only difference is that they are not concerned with “interpreting the world” or describing the laws of nature and their functions (alas, for our contemporary, materialistic sciences), but instead, they focus on theosis (deification), which they consider an imperative prerequisite for a complete knowledge of the world – in other words, our association with the world. (Of course, to modern science this seems meaningless, because it is a conquering, not a loving science. How can you love that which you seek to conquer? Our entire civilization – the western kind, which has now been imposed worldwide – is a conquering kind. Even the major navigators-“explorers” were followed by invading conquistadors, while the exploration of space is commonly referred to as “the conquest of outer space”).

It should be noted that Basil the Great’s “Hexaemeron” for example, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s “On the making of Man”, which is the continuation of the “Hexaemeron”, also summarize the scientific knowledge of their time. Saint Gregory specifically uses references to physiology, medicine, psychology, and also makes mention of dreams etc. And yet they all interpret in the most rational manner, rejecting astrology and any other irrational forms of religiosity.

Let us keep in mind that prior to its illicit Medieval distortion Christianity represented logic and progress, whereas idolatry represented irrationalism. Immediately upon its founding, the Church had openly opposed the superstition of the roman world, regarding it to be something irrational: astrology, star-worship, angel-worship, sorcery, divination, submission to fate…

Are the Fathers infallible?

We need to mention here that the Fathers of the Church, albeit saints, are not considered infallible. However, it is in them that the words of the Lord are realized: “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (John 6:45), therefore their opinion is far more valid than any “scientist” theologian’s (mine, for example) who is not pure in heart. A valid interpreter of this kind (a saint) can quite easily be a humble and illiterate person (man or woman or even child), if their heart is pure enough. The “grand mystery of piety” (1 Tim.3:16) becomes palpable through catharsis of the heart, and not through logic. The heart is not the place of sentiments; it is where the Holy Spirit comes to reside (if the heart is pure), or the evil spirit (God forbid!) if the heart is filled with passions (Gal 4:6, Luke 22:3).

Even though I may not possess a perfect knowledge of Patristic literature and what is more, I am by no means a saint (so that I can speak validly about the saints), I do venture to say the following: There have been certain Fathers who, within the sum of their important writings, have also supported certain teachings that according to Orthodox theology were wrong. The most characteristic example is saint Augustine, however there are other examples also, such as the Syrian Fathers Aphrates and Isaac, who had maintained that Hell is only temporary (this is because they had perceived it as a punishment by God and they were confident that the God of Love would not punish eternally), and others. Thus, it is advisable to read the holy Fathers within the context of the overall teaching of the Church and to not absolutize the viewpoints of one or two of them. We accept something as valid, when it is supported by the sum of the saints of the Church, even if one or two Fathers happen to have another viewpoint. [For an analysis of this problem, see the book by fr. Seraphim Rose (whom I dare to call an American contemporary Father of the Church), “The soul after death – Posthumous experiences in the light of Orthodox teaching”, Myriobiblos Publications]
 

Some of the Fathers

We could briefly list here a number of Fathers of the Church who come to mind:

Apostolic Fathers (1st century) : Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-bearer, Polycarp of Smyrna.

Apologetes (2nd century) : Saint Justin the philosopher and martyr, Athenagoras the Athenian philosopher, Kodratus Bishop of Athens, Theophilos of Antioch e.a..

Pursuant Fathers: 2nd century: Irenaeus of Lyon, 3rd century: Dionysios or Rome, Dionysios of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage e.a., 4th century: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours, 4th-5th centuries: John the Chrysostom, the blessed Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria; 6th century: Dionysus the Areopagite, Leontius the Byzantine; 7th century: Maximus the Confessor, Isaac of Syria, 8th century: John of Damascus, Boniface of Germany; 9th century: Theodore the Studite, Photios the Great… 15th century: Gregory Palamas, 16th century: Mark of Ephesus, e.a…..


Particular groups of Fathers

A particular group of Fathers of the Church is one that pertains to those who did not leave any written works behind them, but had contributed towards the formulation of Orthodox theology, through their participation in local Synods, and especially in Ecumenical ones; such were the major saints of the 1st Ecumenical Synod, Spyridon and Nicholas. The Fathers of Ecumenical Synods are generally honoured “en masse” as saints, given that it was NOT on the basis of political interests and imperial directions that they formulated the terms and the teachings of the Synods, but through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Then there are the Neptic Fathers (that is, the teachers of “nepsis” – the Orthodox “science of ascetic living” – although all the Fathers are also neptic): Makarius the Egyptian (4th century, Cassian the Roman, Benedict of Noursia, Diadochus of Fotiki, John of Sinai (author of the ‘Ladder’, 6th century), Simeon the New Theologian (10th – 11th centuries), Gregory of Sinai, Niketas Stethatos (11th century, Nicholas Kavasilas, Nicephoros the Recluse, etc… (refer to the monumental works “Philokalia of the sacred Neptics”, which the holy Fathers Makarius Notaras and Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain had composed during the Turkish occupation and the Russian Father Paisius Velitkovsky had translated into Russian).

Another particular group of Fathers of the Church are the Hymnography Fathers: for example, saints Romanos the Melodist (the Salutations to the Theotokos e.a. and especially numerous other kontakia), Ephraim the Syrian (in Syrian), Andrew of Crete (the “Major Canon”), John of Damascus (the canon for the night of Easter e.a.), Kosmas the Melodist (the Canon for Christmas e.a.), Joseph the Hymnographer (innumerable canons), Theophanes and Theodore the Branded (they are called thus, because their foreheads were branded with a red-hot iron during the Iconomachy period), Theodore the Studite, Cassiane the Hymnographer (the “troparion of Cassiane” – glorification hymn chanted on Tuesday of Easter Week, also a section of the canon of Good Friday, e.a.) and many others. A contemporary hymnographer-Father was the blessed elder Gerasimos of the Holy Mountain, from the Minor Scete of Saint Anne).

There are also the Fathers of the Desert, who are hermits and monks. Some of them we have already mentioned. Let us note a few more. It should be noted that most of them were simple monks, without any ecclesiastic “rank” – not even priests. Furthermore, many of them did not leave any written texts; however, their verbal teachings as well as their way of life (which was quite possibly even more important than their words) have been recorded by other Fathers in collective works such as the “Lausaikon” by saint Palladius of Helenoupolis, the “Leimonarion” by saint John Moschou, the “Patristic Maxims”, etc…

Older Fathers: Anthony the Great ( the «professor of the desert»), Pachum the Great, Sisoe the Great, Poemen the Great, Arsenius the Great, Pafnut the Great, Nilus, Daniel of the Scete, Pitirum, Zosimas, John the Persian, Ammonius, John Kolovos, Theodore of Ferme, Abraham the Iberian, Moses the Ethiopian «of the robbers» (=a former robber), Sarmatas, Pambo, Biare, Onupher the Egyptian, Pior, Apfy, Mark the Athenian, Theodosios, Head of the Coenobium, and many others.

Recent Fathers:

Russian: Serge of Radonez, Seraphim of Sarov («find peace, and thousands of people will find peace alongside you»), Agapetos the Healer, Alexander of Svir, Cyril of the White Lake, Nicodemus of Lake Koza, John “of many feats”, Job of Potsaev, Nilus of Sorsky, the Elders of Optina (Anatolios, Joseph, Ambrose, Moses, Varsanuf, Nectarios, e.a.), Seraphim of Viritsa and many others (for these, see works such as the “Paterikon of the Caves of Kiev”, “The Thebais of the North” e.a.)

Holy Mountain: Siluan and fr.Tichon (Russians), Paisios, Anthimos of Saint Anna, Porphyry the “Hut-burner”, Joseph the Hesychast or Spilaiotes (the cave-dweller), Ephraim of Katounakia e.a.

Drama (Nth.Greece): George Karslides

Crete: Evmenios and Parthenios Koudouma (from Heraclion), Joachimaki Koudouma (from Roupes, Mylopotamos), Gennadios of Rethymnon, Evmenios of Roustika and many others

Romania: Cleopas Elie, Arsenios Bokas, Paisios Olaru, John of Hozeva, Enoch the Simple (Holy Mountain) etc…


Mothers of the Church


Icon from here

Aside from the Fathers, there are also the holy Mothers of the Church, who belong mainly to the last mentioned group, i.e. of the teachers who did not write anything themselves but whose way of life and words were recorded and handed down to us by others. Among the hundreds of major women-teachers of Orthodoxy were the following:

  • The holy, great martyr Saint Ekaterina who, despite having been imprisoned for her faith, brought 150 idolatrous philosophers to Christianity, as well as 500 soldiers along with their commander (all of them were executed and are saints of our Church).

  • Saint Makrina, grandmother of Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory of Nyssa,

  • Her grand-daughter, also Makrina the Saint, thetheologian, teacher and philosopher” (according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa), who had convinced her mother saint Emmelia, to give equal rights to her maids and servants and to eventually give them their freedom.

  • Saint Maria the Egyptian. A rich young woman who lived her life as a prostitute, for the pleasure and not for the money. On a pilgrimage trip to Jerusalem, she seduced the men who were travelling on the same ship. But when she arrived there, an invisible force obstructed her from going near the Precious Cross to worship. Crushed with the realization of her sins, she immediately departed for the depths of the desert taking only some bread with her and she remained there, until she was revealed in a divine vision to saint Zosimas, who found her in the desert, brought Holy Communion to her on his next visit to the desert, and a year later, he returned to find her lifeless body in the desert (still intact) and with the help of a lion, dug a grave and buried her there.

  • Saint Melane, who, together with her husband, distributed her fortune in order to free captives, and ended up being the spiritual mother to the monastic sisterhood that the first Saint Melane – her grandmother - had founded in Jerusalem

  • Saint Irene Chrysovalantou”, who was seen to hover above the ground whenever she was in prayer and cypress trees would also lower their branches whenever she passed by them.

  • Saint Matrona of Chiopolis, who lived on the island of Chios in the 15th century and performed innumerable miracles, both while alive as well as after her repose

  • The equally important ascetic saints, Syncletiki, Anastasia the former patrician (she lived inside a cave that only Saint Daniel of the Scete knew, in the 6th century), Theoktiste of Lesvos island, Sarrah and Theodora, Genevieve of Paris, Ursula of Germany, Gulinduch the Persian (Maria when baptized)

  • The great saints of philanthropy, Filothei the Athenian (1589) and Elizabeth the Grand Duchess of Russia (1918), who spent all their fortune to build hospitals and philanthropic institutions and finally gave their very life-blood (the former was put to death by Turks and the latter by Communists)

  • The saints of Russia Dorothea and Anna of Kasin, Paraskeve of Pinega, Athanasia Logacheva, the “fools for Christ” saints Pelagia Ivanovna, Xeni of Petroupolis, and many others

  • Contemporary saints, the holy Mothers Methodia of Kimolos island (1908), Pelagia of Kimolos island, Sophia the “Holy Mother’s ascetic” (1974, Kastoria), Tarso, the “fool for Christ” (Keratea, Attica 1989), Gabriela Papayanni (1993) and many more…

Notes

1 The ‘ranks’ of Christian priesthood are three: Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop. Albeit most of the Fathers of the Church bore the rank of Bishop, there have been Fathers with only the rank of Deacon (e.g. Ephraim the Syrian –he wrote in Syrian- and of Presbyter (e.g. John of Damascus) or even ordinary monks.

2 The definition is by professor G.Zografides, “Byzantine Philosophy” and “Hellenic Philosophy”. For more detail see “Patrologia A” by Stylianos Papadopoulos - Introduction – 2nd and 3rd centuries, Athens 1977, Introduction.

3 As above mentioned work by Styl. Papadopoulos, Introduction.

Translation by A.N.

 

Κυριακή 17 Μαΐου 2026

Who killed Homer (again)?

 

 

Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI   

Over the past few days, a major debate has erupted across social media, following rumors that Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated Odyssey closely follows the queer reinterpretation of classical antiquity. It has leaked, though without any official confirmation yet, that Achilles may be portrayed by Ellen Page (the actor who transitioned and is now known as Elliot Page), while Helen of Troy may be played by Lupita Nyong’o, a Black actress.

These choices, if they are indeed true, are the product of an ideological fixation that wages war against anything connected to tradition, inherited truth, and the fundamental anthropological patterns of Greek (and consequently Western) civilization. The West is essentially choosing to renegotiate its relationship with the past on entirely new terms. Who could forget the uproar caused by the BBC’s Troy series, which cast the Black actor David Gyasi as Achilles? Moving in the same direction is the translation of Emily Wilson on which Nolan reportedly based his adaptation. A translation that aspired to become an ideological “correction” of Homer, “cleansing” him of words and meanings associated with patriarchal and androcentric readings. Humanity, it seems, found in Wilson the moral courage willing to confront the “corruption” of a work that, for 2,700 years, had supposedly corrupted the souls of the young including Alexander the Great himself, who famously kept the Iliad at his bedside.

The frenzy of identity politics has flooded public discourse, public space, art, and universities alike, with insatiable expansionist tendencies. But why does it insist on staking its claim on ancient Greek civilization as well? Why does it desire an Achilles stripped of his epic heroism and of the form that once inspired terror in the Trojans? To answer this question, we must understand that Homer belongs to the foundational myths of Western civilization. Through his work, the West reflected upon heroism, glory, honour, death, fate, courage, the historicity of virtue, and the tragic nature of human existence. But once you shift the center of gravity toward sexuality, you deconstruct the founding myth in order to renegotiate your identity, to gain control over the cultural imagination of both the present and the future.

The argument usually made in favor of such interventions is the “freedom of art.” But how free can art truly be when it moves almost exclusively in one direction? When Hollywood, universities, cultural institutions, platforms, and state funding all converge around the same ideological pattern? Could it be that this supposed “nonconformity” has itself become a new form of cultural imperialism? An imperialism in which anything traditional must be branded outdated, morally inferior, and stripped of legitimacy.
We have reached the point where the freedom of Art means freedom only for those who call themselves progressive, whose mission is to “moralize” tradition by reconstructing it according to their own ideological obsessions. And so texts are censored, comedies are silenced, reactions are suppressed, historical truth is forgotten, and a new past is manufactured without the consent of the societies that inherited it.

In the end, the answer to the question posed by the book Who Killed Homer? is simple: those who insist, instead of reading Homer, on reading themselves into him. Those who, rather than engaging through Art with other worlds, transform it into a tool of perpetual self-affirmation.

And Homer is just one more victim. The greatest victim is the new generation, in whose consciousness will be inscribed a genderless, neutered Achilles, severed from the heroic ideal, from the era that he belongs to, from the anthropology he embodies. And he too will be added to the long line of “heroes” desecrated upon the masterpieces of humanity, solely in order to normalize the new kind of human being they are determined, at any cost, to impose upon us

Dr. Ioanna Stergiou
Head of Culture & Sports Thematic Group

The Song “Ferto” and the Voice of a Generation that Grew Up in Crisis


Democratic Patriotic Popular Movement NIKI  

The song “Ferto,” which will represent Greece this year at the Eurovision contest, has sparked a variety of reactions. Yet, beyond a superficial reading of its lyrics and of the overall concept of the work, we ought to approach more deeply the social and existential context within which it was born.

We shall not dwell on the simplicity of its language and music, on the lack of depth and of profound meaning, on the pervasive irony and the constant “trolling,” which essentially amounts to the use of humor as a defense mechanism and as a search for immediate gratification.

In our view, this song is not a hymn to gambling, consumerism, or greed, as it may initially appear. Rather, it is primarily the anguished cry of a generation (to which its creator, Akylas, also belongs) that grew up during the prolonged economic crisis, was deprived of fundamental opportunities, saw its expectations collapse, and today struggles daily for survival, without a clear prospect for the future.

Behind the desire for money, success, and material security lies a deep wound: insecurity, uncertainty, and the fear that life may stagnate or regress. Phrases such as “what we were deprived of in the past,” “so that nothing will be lacking again,” and “I buy to fill the gaps” reveal precisely this lived experience of a generation that grew up watching its parents being tested while its own future was shrinking.

At the same time, the song also reflects a deeper cultural void: the loss of meaning and orientation within our society. When society offers no vision, when education fails to inspire, when the state does not create real prospects, then the youth seek outlets wherever they can find them.

Today, moreover, the anxiety becomes even greater as the world enters a new technological era. Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics are shaping a future in which many young people fear they may become unnecessary to the system. This uncertainty generates stress, pressure, and at times extreme expressions of desire for success and security.

For this reason, instead of confronting such artistic phenomena with rejection, we ought to read them as social symptoms. The artist expresses—perhaps unconsciously—the anxiety of an entire generation.

The real question, therefore, is not whether we like a song, but what kind of society we are creating for our young people.

Greece needs a new vision of life, hope, and perspective. It needs an education that cultivates persons rather than merely skills, a society that offers meaning, and a state that creates opportunities.

Our youth do not deserve criticism; they deserve a future.

And this future can be born only when we rediscover our roots, our identity, and the civilization of Romeosyne, which sees the human being not as an isolated individual or unit, but as a person endowed with value and destiny.

Ioannis Kon. Neonakis
Member of the Cultural Policy Committee of NIKI
Head of the Romeosyne Policy Committee of NIKI