March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of the concluding chapter of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

arthur-kemp-barnsley-feat
All the great events of history have a racial basis. The very ebb and flow of history is understood only when it is seen that all of history is the result of racial or sub-racial shifts in power, of tribes or nations conquering others, of lands being occupied by different races, and racial conflict.

Once this common thread is understood, then history stops being a meaningless jumble of seemingly unconnected events, but welds into an obviously connected and predictable flow. With this knowledge, predicting the future on the basis of what is already known, is not that difficult.

This is particularly so in the light of the facts which have been overviewed in the previous chapter: the increasing numbers of non-Whites flooding Europe, North America and Australia will, without any doubt, lead to a change in the nature of the societies on those continents, which in turn will bring about a change in the nature of the civilization on those continents. That this will happen is without doubt: it is not even a question of debate, it is a simple fact.

What it means in practical terms is that Western European civilization—as it has been developing since the Late Paleolithic Age, some 27,000 years ago, will vanish and change into something else, a hybrid culture like that of present day India.

A civilization rises and falls along with its originating population: this is the great lesson of history which applies equally to any race in any country. Once the racial composition of a society changes, then that society itself changes.

The socio-demographic factors listed above are the most obvious indicators that the very nature of the White West is busy changing: it is becoming more violent; it is becoming poorer; and it is becoming more anti-White; it is becoming darker.
This is directly linked to the decline of the White people who originally made up that society, and their replacement by non-White newcomers foreign to the culture and civilization.

There are four ways through which a nation’s population can vanish:

1. Through obliteration in war;

2. Through their lands being swamped by labor-driven immigration;

3. Through physical mixing with newcomers; and

4. The second and third factors above combined with a decreasing birth rate amongst the original population.

Ancient Rome vanished because of the last three factors. Now exactly the same scenario is being played out in Western Europe, North America and Australia. Unless checked, the demographic trends show conclusively that Whites will be a minority in all three of these continents by the year 2100. After that, it is only then a question of time and Whites as a racial group will vanish completely.

The notion of an entire race disappearing may seem incredible: but it is not. There are in fact at least four distinct racial groupings which have already vanished as a result of being absorbed into other racial groups which have occupied their territory during the course of history. One of these four groups was a White subrace.

The White subrace known as the Mediterraneans, were the race who originally occupied much of Europe and the Middle East. These were the people who built the very first European civilizations, and then afterwards helped build the civilizations in the Mesopotamian river valley and in Egypt. On the European continent the Mediterraneans were absorbed for the greatest part into the Alpine White subrace; the Proto-Nordics and then the invading Indo-European Nordic subraces.

This absorption occurred with relatively little disruption to the growth of the European continental civilizations, as all the mixing components were all part of the broader White race. In the Middle East and Egypt, however, the Mediterraneans were absorbed into the Arabic/Semitic peoples and the African Blacks: through this process they lost virtually all genetic contact with the rest of the White race. The Mediterranean subrace of the White race has then already vanished, along with the culture it created.

_____________

Note: To read all the book, not only these excerpts, one must purchase a copy. It is no longer free online, not even the original drafts of the book that were once available.

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

Non-white immigration into the white heartlands

The dominating theme of European history in the last quarter of the 20th Century has been the large-scale immigration of non-White peoples and races into the modern era White heartlands of Europe, Australia/New Zealand and North America. This process has taken place via two avenues: legal immigration and illegal immigration: it is difficult to formulate estimates on which has been the greater. Whatever the channel used, the reality of masses of non-Whites settling in these territories can quite rightly said to be changing the face of these continents.

According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the fifteen countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3-10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.

France, Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Scandinavia and England are all listed as having “non-nationals resident” of more than 10 per cent, with Germany in two regions registered figures of “more than 15 per cent.” An average of between ten and fifteen per cent of “non nationals resident” in Western Europe as of the mid 1990’s is therefore an accurate estimate, given that official figures are always behind actual statistics, as the number of illegal immigrants always closely shadows the number of legal immigrants.

Racial mixing has been extremely prevalent in Britain. According to the 1991 census, taken by the Office for National Statistics in London (ONS), 40 per cent of young Black men in Britain are married to, or live with, a White partner. The trend is less common on the other side of the sexual divide, where one in five young Black women has a partner who is White. Britain has, as a result of this large non-White influx, suffered a large number of Black riots, the most serious of which occurred in 1981, when countrywide riots saw large areas of many inner cities razed to the ground.

According to an article in the newspaper, USA Today of 17 June 1998, the number of mixed-race marriages in the USA was 150,000 in 1960. By 1998 it had increased to “over 1.5 million” and it estimated that the number of mixed-race children in America stood at “over 2 million.”

The 1960s will also go down in history as having introduced one of the most significant factors to affect White numbers in the entire history of the world: the development of the birth control pill, or oral contraceptive, which was first approved for use in the United States in 1965. Social demographic trends have shown that it is only in the Western, White, industrialized countries where contraception is used to any significant degree.

The reproduction rate in White countries (amongst their native populations) has, since the introduction of the pill, dropped to the point where in most White countries it is below the stable replacement rate of 2.4 children per female. In the non-White Third World however, no such restraints exist, and the population grows exponentially as fast as the White population declines in Europe and North America: this demographic time bomb will in the not to distant future have serious consequences for the entire earth.

The resultant massive overpopulation of the non-White lands of the earth provides the major driver for non-White immigration into the White heartlands of Europe, Australia and North America.

Battery Park, NY

Cloaca gentium – Battery Park, New York

March of the Titans

The following paragraphs of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

 

The Third Reich

Hitler and the Third Reich remain one of the most difficult historical areas with which to come to grips. The reason for this is that Hitler still has a massive influence on everyday politics and life at the end of the 20th Century, and it is difficult to find any source which has an objective view of the state created by the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 in Germany. In fact, a large amount of what has been written about Hitler and Nazi Germany has been particularly subject to the pressure of political correctness.

The very first law passed by the Nazi controlled parliament of the territory of East Prussia in 1933, under the premiership of Hermann Göring, was the abolition of vivisection, or experimentation on animals.

Nazi-cartoon

This cartoon appeared in Kladderadatsch,
a German magazine, on September 3, 1933,
showing lab animals giving the Nazi salute
to Hermann Göring, after restrictions
on animal testing were announced.

 
Imitating ancient Greek and Roman attempts to encourage population growth, the German government rewarded those families with large numbers of children: a special Mother’s Cross was struck, given in bronze to German women who had four children, silver for six children and gold for eight. Hundreds of thousands of these medals were given out before the war ended. Financial payments and tax concessions were also offered for large numbers of children.

A combination of these incentives, the abolition of abortions (except in cases of the mentally ill) and the expansion of the borders of Germany eventually caused an increase in the number of children born in Germany during the Third Reich era of just over three million.
 

SS-leader Heinrich Himmler speaks

A valuable insight into exactly how the Nazis viewed other European populations is afforded through the memoirs of Artur Silgailis, chief of staff of the Latvian Waffen-SS, in his book Latvian Legion (James Bender Publishing, 1986, pages 348-349). In that book, Silgailis describes a conversation he had with Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany: “He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people.” [Himmler said:]

To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time.

This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate.

I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans. This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race. It is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race.

heinrich-himmler-ss-speech

At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness, I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer.

This private discussion is illuminating, as it shatter a few myths which have arisen around Nazi Germany’s racial policies: namely that the Nazis viewed Germans as the only superior race, and that they regarded Latin or Slavic nations as inferior. Both these allegations are utterly false, as revealed here in Himmler’s own words.

The Waffen SS recruited heavily amongst Russians, Ukrainians, Cossacks, Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians. Thousands more Russians volunteered for service with the German army: in 1944, they were organized into a separate unit under a former Soviet Army general, Vlassov, who had been taken prisoner by the Germans very early in the war.

Vlassov and his Russian army fought bitterly until the end, and when all was lost he and thousands of his soldiers fled into the West to surrender to the Americans and British rather than face capture by the Soviets. His hope was misplaced: in an operation codenamed Keelhaul, Vlassov and around 20,000 of his soldiers were then handed over to the Soviets by the Western allies: unsurprisingly, they were never heard of again.

March of the Titans



Excerpted from March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp (pic: Kemp in a BNP meeting):



Australia and New Zealand

Australia and New Zealand were virtually unique amongst the European colonies in the sense that they were the only new lands to where large numbers of Black slaves were never imported. The result was a successful colony comprised overwhelmingly of Whites (with only a small fraction of original non-White natives) which established a record for stability and progress virtually unmatched in history.

 
“White Australia” policy started in 1856

The development of the mining industry saw for the first time the importation of non-White laborers: Chinese immigrants started arriving after the discovery of gold, and their appearance created alarm amongst the Whites. Eventually in 1856, the state of Victoria formally passed a law prohibiting Chinese persons from entering its territory.

The government of the colony of Queensland started importing Polynesians to work on sugarcane plantations in the early 1860s; a public outcry followed, and the Polynesians were quickly sent back and their jobs were taken by White workers.

The Victoria Chinese exclusion law was then taken up by every other colony in Australia, being extended to include all non-Whites everywhere. This policy of excluding all immigrants except those belonging to the White race became known formally as the “White Australia Policy” and had the overwhelming support of all the colonists.

It was precisely the common acceptance of the White Australia policy which finally drew the various colonies of Australia into political unity, as it underlined the need for common immigration laws.

 
Rapid progress due to population make-up

All the while, Australia continued to progress as fast as any other modern European country, despite the country only being as young as it was. Almost overnight, White European culture and technology was implemented in Australia and it soon became the superpower of the region, easily dwarfing its much-longer-inhabited neighboring islands.

The rapid rate of Australia’s growth—given its relative youth—is possibly one of the most powerful arguments that can be made for the racial interpretation of history and of how environment is not the overriding factor. There are many Third World lands with greater natural resources, particularly in Africa, which have been inhabited for far longer than Australia, yet they are woefully behind the latter country in development. There can be only one explanation for this differentiation—namely the nature of the population, and not the environment.

Internally, Australia’s racial population make-up hardly changed during the first part of the 20th Century—only Whites were allowed into the country, and this policy combined with a natural reproduction rate created a steady increase of the numbers of Whites.

 
Homogeneity, key to stability

Australia’s development is notable for its stability, in stark contrast to every other part of the new world settled by White colonists. The key difference between Australia and the Americas or Africa, has been the massive degree of homogeneity amongst the inhabitants of Australia. It has never caused the Australians to become involved in horrendous civil wars nor to face the social unrest and racial violence that has dogged all the other settlements.

The development of Australia into a modern First World country contrasts dramatically with the progress of colonies in South America: although the settlements in South America preceded those in Australia by hundreds of years, Australia is nonetheless far more developed than almost all of South America.

If time, geography or other environmental factors were the sole determinant of the development of a society, it would be fairly logical to assume that a colony dating from approximately 1500 (for example Cuba) would be more developed than a colony dating from approximately 1800 (Australia).

The fact that the levels of development in these two countries differ so vastly can only be ascribed to the populations of these regions, and to no other factor. This is particularly so if it is borne in mind that, by any measure, Australia is a far less hospitable place than most of South America.

This stability has allowed Australia to develop as fast as any nation on earth: and the country is classed as First World even though in reality it was only created during the early part of the 18th century—truly a remarkable example of the truth that a society is a reflection of the people living in it, rather than a product of the environment.

 
White Australia policy abandoned

In a move which has seen Australia’s non-White population surge in numbers, the White Australia policy was only formally struck from the statute books in 1966 by a Liberal party government under Robert Menzies: unofficially it remained in force well into the 1970s.

March of the Titans

Zimbabwe_(orthographic_projection).svg

Arthur Kemp was born in Southern Rhodesia. It is interesting to know what he thinks about his native country and of South Africa. The following paragraphs are taken from March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:

South Africa and Rhodesia

The establishment of White settlements in what later became South Africa and Rhodesia were different from those outposts established elsewhere in Africa during the colonial period, because it was only in Southern Africa that White numbers ever reached a large enough total for them to establish large scale settlements which seriously affected the balance of power.

The histories of South Africa and Rhodesia—the two largest White settlements, and the interrelated Portuguese colonies of Mozambique and Angola—all serve as valuable lessons in racial dynamics and as such are well worth looking at in some detail. In South Africa, a large White population had the chance to create their own state, but failed to do so due to their reliance on Black labor, which ultimately led to their submersion and downfall; while in Rhodesia, Mozambique and Angola, no serious efforts were ever made to establish majority White occupation in any particular area, with these states only surviving as long as they did through brute force and one of the most protracted and violent race wars since the invasion of Europe by Asians and Turks nearly 1000 years earlier.


Mixed marriages prohibited

In 1682, the Dutch East India Company formally issued written instructions to the governor of the Cape colony at the time, one Simon van der Stel, to officially forbid all racial intermarriage following a number of marriages between early White settlers and freed slaves.

In 1685, the first law prohibiting interracial marriages in the Cape was formally proclaimed, and a Whites only school had been established for the children of colonists. Eventually the remnants of the Hottentot population, the Malays and Black slaves and a number of Whites, mixed together to produce a mixed race group which later was to be called Cape Coloreds. Some of these mixed racial types did however “pass over” into the officially classified White group, and modern estimates are that about 6 percent of Afrikaners who claim to be White, are actually of mixed ancestry.

British endorse Boer policy towards blacks. After occupying the Boer republics, the British actively proposed keeping the Blacks voteless. Segregation was accepted as a perfectly normal and desirable state of affairs, and it was not even considered necessary to make laws in this regard, so universally was the practice accepted. It was not a case of the Blacks being disenfranchised: they had never had the vote.

In this way the administration of the four colonies—the Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State and Transvaal—was carried out exclusively by Whites, with in many cases in the former Boer republics even by former Boer civil servants returning to their pre-war posts.

South_Africa_topo_continent

When the Second World War broke out, certain small factions of Afrikaners were decidedly pro-Hitler and had even formed tiny Nazi parties, none of whom received any significant electoral support. A bare majority of the South African Parliament voted in favor of entering the war on Britain’s side: as a result the coalition government broke down and the NP (National Party) went into opposition, having voted against going to war for Britain.

Outside of Parliament, militant Afrikaners organized themselves into a movement known as the “Flaming Ox Wagon Sentinel” and through this organization engaged in numerous acts of sabotage and violence in an attempt to keep the country’s volunteer army deployed internally, rather than being used against the Germans and for the British.

The normalization of racial segregation by the NP did not address the real issue which has faced every White country, culture or authority since the start of White history: namely, the contradiction of allowing huge numbers of non-Whites into the territory in question to do the labor; whilst trying to prevent that civilization from being overwhelmed by foreign numbers. In fact, it cannot be done.

White South Africa was no different in this regard to any of the previous White societies: the Aryans in India in the year 1500 BC, also lived in a country where the majority of the population was non-White: they too introduced all manner of laws trying to prevent racial mixing but all the while used the non-White labor. Eventually the sheer numbers of non-Whites grew to the point where it was no longer feasible to exercise control—simply put, the situation was reached where there were simply not enough Whites to control the entire territory, and the White civilization was overwhelmed by non-White numbers and sank.

In South Africa, almost every White household had one or more Black servants, with farmers very often having dozens to work the huge farmlands, more often than not living on the premises; in the mines, the economic heart of the country, the vast majority of common laborers, numbering many thousands, were Black; all over the country the overwhelming majority of laborers were Black.

Over this mass of economic integration, the Whites of South Africa attempted to enforce social segregation and still maintain a White government: it was doomed from the start, as it was in Aryan India, in ancient Persia, in ancient Sumeria, in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

All that happened in South Africa that was different was that the number imbalance occurred even faster than in the older civilizations, and White control was overwhelmed at a quicker pace.

[Kemp discusses how Black birth rate jumped dramatically with White aid. Personally, I would blame the suicidal Christian axiology for this colored mess. In fact, from the historical perspective the case of Africa demonstrates that the Christian problem is more serious than the Jewish problem itself (see e.g., here).]

At the same time, Western medicine was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the Black population. Infant mortality rates for Blacks, while still far higher than for Whites, fell dramatically, and were way below that of the rest of Black-ruled Africa. This rapid population growth, also typical of non-White populations residing in White ruled countries throughout history and elsewhere in the modern world, put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country.

The White government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the Whites as the Black population continued to leapfrog in numbers year after year. Soon economics became a secondary issue in everyday politics when compared to the racial issue.

At the same time the White government started giving practical application to the policy of “Grand Apartheid”. Imitating the British, independence was given to a number of traditional Black tribal homelands, the first in the mid 1970’s. In this way, the White government deluded itself into thinking that Black political aspirations could be satisfied in the exercise of voting for these tribal homelands, despite huge numbers of these tribe members living outside the borders of these states (in the urban areas).

ApartheidSignEnglishAfrikaans

The White South African government—just like the Aryans in India—refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of the society in that space, irrelevant of to whom that space originally belonged. White South Africa’s fate was sealed when the territorial division was not adjusted to fit in with the demographic realities; when all the effort was put into creating Black homelands and none put into creating a White “homeland” and the continued insistence upon the use of Black labor.

By 1990, there were approximately 5 million Whites in South Africa, and anywhere between 35 and 40 million non-Whites—the latter having had a population rate increase as staggering as that of the Black population in America.

In 1990, the White government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the ballooning Black population, and unbanned the ANC and released its leader, Nelson Mandela, from prison. Within four years an election based on universal suffrage was held: the 1994 election was won by the ANC with nearly two thirds of the votes cast.

Microcosm of a rise and fall

Ultimately then, South Africa became a vitally important microcosm of White history: important because within the space of two hundred years (just over four generations) it traveled the full circle of the rise and fall of White civilizations as defined by the race of the country’s inhabitants:

• starting out with deeds of immense bravery (the settlement of new territory; the Great Trek);

• then moving onto the establishment of independent states;

• then allowing huge numbers of non-Whites into these territories as legal or illegal immigrants to do the labor;

• then trying to segregate themselves from the growing numbers of non-Whites (at first by custom and then by law) while still using the non-White labor; and

• then finally being overwhelmed by the changing demographics, by the change in the make-up of the population of those territories.

This process was compressed even further in the short history of the White country of Rhodesia. This little country, whose White inhabitants never numbered more than 500,000, became the subject of one of the most vicious bush wars ever to have been fought between Whites and Blacks in Africa, and attracted condemnation from around the world.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The birth of the United States of America

Although the United States did not emerge as a separate country until the end of the 18th Century, it assumed a massive, perhaps even dominating, role in world history from that time onwards. North America became as important as Europe in many senses: not least because it became, through occupation and natural reproduction, a new White heartland, mirroring the occupation of Europe by the Indo-Europeans some 7,000 years earlier.

By 1630, the Spanish, French, Dutch and English had all established colonies in North America: all except the French had found themselves waging racial wars against the Amerinds, who resisted the White settlers with methods which were by any standards cruel. This was the first time the Whites came into contact with the particularly nasty habit of scalping—the taking of the scalp of a defeated enemy as a trophy; a habit deeply ingrained in the Amerind culture of war.

1622_massacre_jamestown_de_Bry

The Amerinds living in these areas for the greatest part resisted the White settlements with violence. The last resistance to the Whites in New England came in 1675, when three Amerinds were executed by the White colonists for murder. An Amerind chief named Metacom led an alliance of Amerind tribes in fierce guerrilla raids on the colonists. The Whites replied in kind and a bloody tit-for-tat exchange followed until Metacom’s secret hideout was discovered and he was killed. The Whites then drove the majority of remaining Amerinds from New England.
 

Mass white immigration

As news of the colonies in the Americas, or the New World, as it became known, spread throughout Europe, there occurred one of the most incredible mass population movements since the Indo-European immigrations: hundreds of thousands of Whites from almost every country in Europe packed their bags and moved to the new territories.

Some were attracted by the opportunity of owning their own land—something impossible for common folk since the time of feudalism in Europe—while others wanted to escape the class system and religious conflict into which Europe had descended. Waves of Germans, Irish, Danes, Dutch, Swedes and others all started pouring into the colonies, even though they were still under the nominal control of England.
 

Racial consequences of the American wars with Britain

For the White population, the War of Independence was psychologically testing: of the approximately 400,000 adult white men who lived in the colonies in 1775, about 175,000 fought in the war, either as rebels or loyalists. Thus, husbands or sons from nearly half of all white families were part of the “shooting” war.

The American Revolution also carried with it clear racial undertones, not only in terms of the Amerinds. The open call by the British to Black slaves to rebel against the White Americans, and the raising and arming of all-Black armies for this purpose, served to alienate Blacks from the new republic: many thousands crossed into British North America with loyalist supporters to escape the slave-owning Americans whose republic they feared and distrusted.

The population growth in the American colonies was staggering: in 1700, there were around 250,000 people in the 13 colonies: by 1775 there were 2.5 million, a ten fold increase—of whom 567,000 or 20 per cent—were Black slaves.

About 250,000 Blacks had been brought into North America before 1775, but the total Black population numbered 567,000 on the eve of independence. Whatever else slavery may have done to the Blacks, it certainly did not kill them, as this population growth was virtually exclusively the result of natural reproduction.

The contrast with the situation in Portugal immediately springs to mind: in that European country only about ten percent of the population was Black, yet in America at its very founding, the figure was already 20 percent: why did Portugal vanish as a world power and America then go on to become a great world power?

Agostino_Brunias_Planter_and_his_Wife_with_a_Servant

The answer lies in the level of integration: in Portugal there was absolutely no segregation and mixed race unions were positively encouraged. In America, not only did the huge degree of racial alienation exist—but as a result integration was actively discouraged and, in many states, made punishable with prison sentences (many of these anti-miscegenation laws were only repealed in the 1960s).

Thus although America always had a larger Black population, it never absorbed this population into its mainstream society, as the Portuguese did: and the difference is marked, once again proving the reality that the nature of a society is determined by the nature, or make-up, of the people dominating that society.

Civilisation’s “Heroic Materialism”

Originally I posted this article on April 25, 2012. But now that I have been postulating that the One Ring of greed and power—that we might start calling “the Aryan Problem”—could be the main factor in the West’s darkest hour, I am moving it at the top of this blog.

Below, some excerpts of “Heroic Materialism,” the last chapter of Civilisation by Kenneth Clark. (For an introduction to these series, see here.) Ellipsis omitted between unquoted passages. Also, the headings don’t appear in the original text:

The westerners’ new god: Mammon

Imagine an immensely speeded up movie of Manhattan Island during the last hundred years. It would look less like a work of man than like some tremendous natural upheaval. It’s godless, it’s brutal, it’s violent—but one can’t laugh it off, because in the energy, strength of will and mental grasp that have gone to make New York, materialism has transcended itself. It took almost the same time to reach its present conditions as it did to complete the Gothic cathedrals. At which point a very obvious reflection crosses one’s mind: that the cathedrals were built to the glory of God, New York was built to the glory of mammon—money, gain, the new god of the nineteenth century. So many of the same human ingredients have gone into its construction that at a distance it does look rather like a celestial city. At a distance. Come closer and it’s not so good. Lots of squalor, and, in the luxury, something parasitical.


Blake’s Satan

One sees why heroic materialism is still linked with an uneasy conscience. The first large iron foundries like the Carron Works or Coalbrookdale, date from about 1780. The only people who saw through industrialism in those early days were the poets. Blake, as everybody knows, thought that mills were the work of Satan. ‘Oh Satan, my youngest born… thy work is Eternal death with Mills and Ovens and Cauldrons.’

The [slave] trade was prohibited in 1807, and as Wilberforce lay dying in 1835, slavery itself was abolished. One must regard this as a step forward for the human race, and be proud, I think, that it happened in England. But not too proud. The Victorians were very smug about it, and chose to avert their eyes from something almost equally horrible that was happening to their own countrymen.

In its early stages the Industrial Revolution was also a part of the Romantic movement. And here I may digress to say that painters had for long used iron foundries to heighten the imaginative impact of their work with what we call a romantic effect; and that they had introduced them into pictures as symbolising the mouth of hell. However, the influence of the Industrial Revolution on Romantic painters is a side issue, almost an impertinence, when compared to its influence on human life. I needn’t remind you of how cruelly it degraded and exploited a mass of people for sixty or seventy years.

What was destructive was size. After about 1790 to 1800 there appeared the large foundries and mills which dehumanised life. Long before Carlyle and Karl Marx, Wordsworth had described the arrival of a night shift ‘that turns the multitude of dizzy wheels, Men, maidens, youths, Mothers and little children, boys and girls, Perpetual sacrifice.’

The terrible truth is that the rise in population did nearly ruin us. It struck a blow at civilisation such as it hadn’t received since the barbarian invasions. First it produced the horrors of urban poverty. It must have seemed—may still seem—insoluble; yet this doesn’t excuse the callousness with which prosperous people ignored the conditions of life among the poor on which to a large extent their prosperity depended, and this in spite of the many detailed and eloquent descriptions that were available to them. I need mention only two—Engels’s Conditions of the Working Classes in England, written in 1844, and the novels written by Dickens between 1840 and 1855. Everybody read Dickens. But his terrible descriptions of poverty had very little practical effect: partly because the problem was too big; partly because politicians were held in the intellectual prison of classical economics.

The images that fit Dickens are by the French illustrator Gustave Doré. He was originally a humorist; but the sight of London sobered him. His drawings were done in the 1870s, after Dickens’s death. But one can see that things hadn’t changed much. Perhaps it took an outsider to see London as it really was.


Degenerate architecture

At the beginning of this series I said that I thought one could tell more about a civilisation from its architecture that from anything else it leaves behind. Painting and literature depend largely on unpredictable individuals. But architecture is to some extent a communal art. However, I must admit that the public buildings on the nineteenth century are often lacking in style and conviction; and I believe that this is because the strongest creative impulse of the time didn’t go into the town halls or country houses, but into what was then thought of as engineering. In fact, all modern New York started with the Brooklyn Bridge.

In this series I have followed the ups and downs of civilisation historically, trying to discover results as well as causes; well, obviously I can’t do that any longer. We have no idea where we are going, and sweeping, confident articles of the future seem to me, intellectually, the most disreputable of all forms of utterance. The scientists who are best qualified to talk have kept their moths shut.

The incomprehensibility of our new cosmos seems to me, ultimately, to be the reason for the chaos of modern art. I know next to nothing about science, but I’ve spent my life trying to learn about art, and I am completely baffled by what is taking place today. I sometimes like what I see, but when I read modern critics I realise that my preferences are merely accidental.

Western civilisation has been a series of rebirths. Surely this should give us confidence in ourselves. I said at the beginning that it is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilisation. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs. Fifty years ago W.B. Yeats, who was more like a man of genius than anyone I have ever known, wrote a famous poem.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The One Ring

“In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.”

—Greg Johnson

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business.”

—President Calvin Coolidge



Yesterday I listened Tom Sunic’s interviews of Andrew Fraser, author of The WASP Question. Fraser is a Protestant and Sunic, of Catholic background, like me has given up Christianity. Although their very friendly discussion on the role that Calvinism and Puritanism may have played in today’s suicidal zeitgeist was fascinating, what piqued my interest was the view that both Sunic and Fraser share: how White Anglo-Saxon Protestants fell into the spell of the One Ring (economics-over-race policies).

Since the Jewish Question was almost absent in this two-part interview, it reminds me very strongly Michael O’Meara’s view that the JQ is secondary to America’s Low Church worship of Mammon. In the heated debate at Counter-Currents between O’Meara and the monocausalists (those who believe that whites are blameless), that I copied and pasted, O’Meara said:

Kevin MacDonald, unlike his epigones, knows how to make an argument and support it with substantiating evidence. Nevertheless, his argument proves nothing (except his own intelligence), for with the same methods but in reference to different facts, I could make an equally convincing argument to “prove” that corporate capitalism (or the Cold War state, Catholicism, Protestantism, or a half-dozen other factors) were far more influential in legalizing the formal de-Europeanization of the American people.

I think that Sunic, Fraser and O’Meara are right. In fact, the moral of the historical books by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp is that non-whites have always overwhelmed the white minority after some centuries. Pierce and Kemp have proven, to my satisfaction, that ever since the civilizations of the Ancient World to date, whites have been losing because they don’t follow the golden rule: total separation from non-whites. Instead, they have fallen, and still fall, in the temptation of trying to use non-whites as “capital”: whether slaves, servants, second-class citizens, or wet-backs in the US and elsewhere.

From this meta-perspective that reviews several millennia of history the culprits of the West’s darkest hour may be listed, in order of importance, thus:

1) The One Ring

2) The Christian Problem

3) The Jewish Problem

This blog has been focusing on the second etiological factor because other white nationalist blogs are reluctant to fully discuss it. Nonetheless, both the Christian and the Jewish problems are far from being the most influential factors, and it is a pity that nobody is sponsoring O’Meara because, in addition to his published articles, I believe that his thesis must be expanded as thoroughly as MacDonald has presented his views on Judaism. (But why does this movement have no wealthy sponsors…?)

Michael_O'Meara

Michael O’Meara

Quotable quote

“A people of good race which has too few children has a sure ticket for the grave, for insignificance in fifty to a hundred years, for burial in 250 years.”

—Himmler

Published in: on July 30, 2013 at 7:19 pm  Comments (2)  

On feminism

Some time ago John Thames wrote, and quoted, the texts below:


Woman, to a very real extent, is the “natural born Jew” of the universe. She thinks that man exists to serve her the same way the Jew thinks that the gentile exists to serve him.

To my enlightened female critics: Since you do not like my opinions, let me infuriate you with some more clear thinking. Let me describe to you American society as it existed before “sex discrimination” became a problem.

In 1950’s America, women work to support men who stay home and raise the children. Women give men the house, the furniture, the car and all the money in divorce court. Women pay massive child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women suffer 400,000 battlefield deaths in WW2 while Jimmie the Riveter works in the factories back home. Women go down with the Titanic so that men and children can climb on the life boats. Women work themselves into a seven year shorter life expectancy so that men can inherit 80 percent of all the personal wealth of the country, paid for by women’s effort. Now tell me why men should have all the high paying jobs too?

As for Dear Old Mommie and her burdensome diaper changing duties, preach it to me as you throw unwanted babies into the garbage can down at the abortion clinic. Your concern for your own child (the ones you decided to keep) is truly touching.

Women are basically Jews. They think they can do no wrong. Far from being victims of sex discrimination, women are the most pampered, parasitical, good for nothing pieces of ass on planet earth. I enjoy The Spearhead, although it is completely gutless on the Jews. As to your idiotic female logic, it merely demonstrates a truth my mother once told me: “The worst mistake men ever made was giving women the vote. Women have no brains and by giving women the vote, men gave women the power to screw everything up.”

No truer words were ever spoken.


Feminism in ancient Sparta

Feminism is not a modern invention, as many suppose. It existed in the ancient world—and its consequences were largely the same as now. A classic example is the Greek city-state of Sparta.

It would shock most people to know that the famous warrior state was a paradise for women, relatively speaking but it was. The Spartans granted educational and economic equality to women—and it contributed greatly to their eventual downfall. Spartan girls were given the same curricula as the boys and encouraged to engage in sports. They were also granted the right to hold property in their own name and inherit property on an equal basis. The Spartan economy was largely agricultural. While Spartan men were away on war Spartan women ran the household and controlled the finances. As much as 35-40 percent of Spartan land was owned by women some of whom became quite wealthy.

Sparta suffered quite a decline in its birth rate during its decline. Some of this was caused by economic factors, such as limiting reproduction to avoid splitting up estates and inheritances. But much more, it was caused by the independence of women. Women were too busy being “liberated” to bother with the necessities of reproduction. In several centuries time, the total number of Spartiae (Spartan citizens as opposed to the helots and half-citizens) had declined from 7000 down to 700 (a 90 percent drop). Spartan sterility was remarked upon by many observers, particularly the Romans. The Spartans eventually reached the stage where they could no longer replace their losses in war. They were conquered by the Romans and ceased to exist. Spartan women were noted for their adulteries, particularly in their later stages of decline. There was no stigma attached to adultery and Spartan women could violate marital vows with relative impunity.

The similarity of all this to modern feminism is striking. The sterility, the free love, the equal educational and athletic opportunities, the female control of the economy are, in essence, the same trends observable today. And this brings up the key point: Totalitarian societies, past and present, do not enslave women, they liberate them. It was so in the ancient world; it was so in Jewish-Marxist Russia; it is true in the degenerating and decaying society of today.


Feminism and the fall of Rome

Feminism is not a new thing. Neither is it a sign of progress, as some imagine. It has flourished in the past with results as disastrous as presently. Many parallels exist between the feminist movement in the Roman Empire and the feminist movement of today. In the early days of the Republic, Rome was extremely patriarchal. The father, the Pater familias, held the power of life and death over his wife and children. This system lasted until roughly the end of the Second Punic war against Carthage. Then began a vast movement for the “liberation” of women. The war had, in a sense, been won by women. The Romans had lost the entirety of their manpower in three consecutive defeats at the hands of Hannibal Barcas. The final disaster came at Cannae where 60,000 Romans were surrounded and stabbed in the back.

Ancient-Rome-1

When women had grown back the dead soldiers and the final defeat of Hannibal was achieved at Zama, Roman women demanded freedom. One of the first concessions granted to them was the repeal of the law against luxury. The repeal of this law allowed Roman women to flaunt their wealth in public. No longer did they have to practice frugality as matron of the household. Next they acquired the right to enter minor political office and the right to practice infanticide and abortion.

The Roman birth rate plummeted and vice and corruption spread among Roman men. A general strike against marriage ensued and the Emperor Augustus tried to revive reproduction with a bachelor tax. It was all to no avail. The situation became so outrageous that a famous Roman remarked that “We Romans, who rule the world, are ruled by our women.” The poet Juvenal remarked that the Roman aristocracy “divorced to marry and married to divorce”.

At the same time that this female liberation was taking place the Empire was overrun by swarms of slaves and racial aliens. Like many European cities today, it became difficult to find a genuinely Roman face in Rome. Diversity, like feminism, greatly contributed to the fall of the Empire. By the Empire’s end, the legions which had conquered the world were half Roman and half barbarian (rather like the American army today, where increasing numbers of Third Worlders proliferate). When Rome fell, the female irresponsibility which had so greatly contributed to the Empire’s downfall made a severe impression on the fathers of the Christian Church. They made a point to yoke females and to impose the virtue of chastity. Given what they had witnessed during the fall of Rome the misogynist viewpoint of the early Christian elders can hardly be criticized.

The parallels of all this to modern day America can hardly be disputed. Although America is not Rome the same trends, particularly that of the female unleashed, are evident. Women, throughout history, are either the bedrock of a social structure or the dissolvers of the social structure. In early America, as in early Rome, women were baby makers and home makers. In latter day America, as in latter day Rome, women are imitation men and unborn baby killers. The consequences are the same, then as now.

I could go on and on. It wouldn’t take a race-realist reactionary person but a few weeks of reading the “manosphere” to understand why white women will not join us [white nationalism] in large numbers. White men need to become “sex realists” too and understand that white women will not change until things are in a bad way.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 244 other followers