Liberalism, 3

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

The type of mind which believes in the essential “goodness” of human nature attained to Liberalism. But there is another political anthropology, one which recognizes that man is disharmonious, problematical, dual, dangerous. This is the general wisdom of mankind, and is reflected by the number of guards, fences, safes, locks, jails and policemen. Every catastrophe, fire, earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, evokes looting. Even a police strike in an American city was the signal for looting of the shops by the respectable and good human beings.

Thus this type of thought starts from facts. This is political thinking in general, as opposed to mere thinking about politics, rationalizing. Even the wave of Rationalism did not submerge this kind of thinking. Political thinkers differ greatly in creativeness and depth, but they agree that facts are normative. The very word theory has been brought into disrepute by intellectuals and Liberals who use it to describe their pet view of how they would like things to be. Originally theory was explanation of facts. To an intellectual who is adrift in politics, a theory is an aim; to a true politician his theory is a boundary.

A political theory seeks to find from history the limits of the politically possible. These limits cannot be found in the domain of Reason. The Age of Reason was born in bloodshed, and will pass out of vogue in more bloodshed. With its doctrine against war, politics, and violence, it presided over the greatest wars and revolutions in 5,000 years, and it ushered in the Age of Absolute Politics. With its gospel of the Brotherhood of Man, it carried on the largest-scale starvation, humiliation, torture and extermination in history against populations within the Western Civilization after the first two World Wars. By outlawing political thinking, and turning war into a moral-struggle instead of a power-struggle it flung the chivalry and honor of a millennium into the dust. The conclusion is compelling that Reason also became political when it entered politics, even though it used its own vocabulary. When Reason stripped territory from a conquered foe after a war, it called it “disannexation.” The document consolidating the new position was called a “Treaty,” even though it was dictated in the middle of a starvation-blockade. The defeated political enemy had to admit in the “Treaty” that he was “guilty” of the war, that he is morally unfit to have colonies, that his soldiers alone committed “war-crimes.” But no matter how heavy the moral disguise, how consistent the ideological vocabulary, it is only politics, and the Age of Absolute Politics reverts once again to the type of political thinking which starts from facts, recognizes power and the will-to-power of men and higher organisms as facts, and finds any attempt to describe politics in terms of morals as grotesque as it would be to describe chemistry in terms of theology.

There is a whole tradition of political thinking in the Western Culture, of which some of the leading representatives are Macchiavelli, Hobbes, Leibnitz, Bossuet, Fichte, de Maistre, Donoso Cortes, Hippolyte Taine, Hegel, Carlyle. While Herbert Spencer was describing history as the “progress” from military-feudal to commercial-industrial organization, Carlyle was showing to England the Prussian spirit of Ethical Socialism, whose inner superiority would exert on the whole Western Civilization in the coming Political Age an equally fundamental transformation as had Capitalism in the Economic Age. This was creative political thinking, but was unfortunately not understood, and the resulting ignorance allowed distorting influences to fling England into two senseless World Wars from which it emerged with almost everything lost.

Hegel posited a three-stage development of mankind from the natural community through the bourgeois community to the State. His State-theory is thoroughly organic, and his definition of the bourgeois is quite appropriate for the 20th century. To him the bourgeois is the man who does not wish to leave the sphere of internal political security, who sets himself up, with his sanctified private property, as an individual against the whole, who finds a substitute for his political nullity in the fruits of peace and possessions and perfect security in his enjoyment of them, who therefore wishes to dispense with courage and remain secure from the possibility of violent death. He described the true Liberal with these words.

The political thinkers mentioned do not enjoy popularity with the great masses of human beings. As long as things are going well, most people do not wish to hear talk of power-struggles, violence, wars, or theories relating to them. Thus in the 18th and 19th centuries was developed the attitude that political thinkers—and Macchiavelli was the prime victim—were wicked men, atavistic, bloodthirsty. The simple statement that wars would always continue was sufficient to put the speaker down as a person who wanted wars to continue. To draw attention to the vast, impersonal rhythm of war and peace showed a sick mind with moral deficiency and emotional taint. To describe facts was held to be wishing them and creating them. As late as the 20th century, anyone pointing out the political nullity of the “leagues of nations” was a prophet of despair. Rationalism is anti-historical; political thinking is applied history. In peace it is unpopular to mention war, in war it is unpopular to mention peace. The theory which becomes most quickly popular is one which praises existing things and the tendency they supposedly illustrate as obviously the best order and as preordained by all foregoing history. Thus Hegel was anathema to the intellectuals because of his State-orientation, which made him a “reactionary,” and also because he refused to join the revolutionary crowd.

Since most people wish to hear only soporific talk about politics, and not demanding calls to action, and since in democratic conditions it matters to political technics what most people wish to hear, democratic politicians evolved in the 19th century a whole dialectic of party-politics. The idea was to examine the field of action from a “disinterested” standpoint, moral, or economic, and to find that the opponent was immoral, unscientific, uneconomic—in fact—he was political. This was devilishness that must be combated. One’s own standpoint was entirely “non-political.” Politics was a word of reproach in the Economic Age. Curiously however, in certain situations, usually those involving foreign relations, “unpolitical” could also be a term of abuse, meaning the man so described lacked skill in negotiating. The party politician also had to feign unwillingness to accept office. Finally a demonstration of carefully arranged “popular will” broke down his reluctance, and he consented to “serve.” This was described as Macchiavellism, but obviously Macchiavelli was a political thinker, and not a camouflageur. A book by a party-politician does not read like The Prince, but praises the entire human race, except certain perverse people, the author’s opponents.

Actually Machiavelli’s book is defensive in tone, justifying politically the conduct of certain statesmen by giving examples drawn from foreign invasions of Italy. During Macchiavelli’s century, Italy was invaded at different times by Frenchmen, Germans, Spaniards and Turks. When the French Revolutionary Armies occupied Prussia, and coupled humanitarian sentiments of the Rights of Man with brutality and large-scale looting, Hegel and Fichte restored Machiavelli once again to respect as a thinker. He represented a means of defense against a foe armed with a humanitarian ideology. Machiavelli showed the actual role played by verbal sentiments in politics.

One can say that there are three possible attitudes toward human conduct, from the point of evaluating its motives: the sentimental, the realistic, and the cynical. The sentimental imputes a good motive to everybody, the cynical a bad motive, and the realistic simply seeks the facts. When a sentimentalist, e.g., a Liberal, enters politics, he becomes perforce a hypocrite. The ultimate exposure of this hypocrisy creates cynicism. Part of the spiritual sickness following the First World War was a wave of cynicism which arose from the transparent, revolting, and incredible hypocrisy of the little men who were presiding over affairs at that time. Macchiavelli had however an incorruptible intellect and did not write in a cynical spirit. He sought to portray the anatomy of politics with its peculiar problems and tensions, inner and outer. To the fantastic mental illness of Rationalism, hard facts are regrettable things, and to talk about them is to create them. A tiny politician of the Liberal type even sought to prevent talk about the Third World War, after the Second. Liberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party. The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas—these are the enemy.

Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History into herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself—what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to “society,” ie. a woman. “Society” is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control; social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is “better” than someone else.

And yet what does Liberalism do ultimately to woman: it puts a uniform on her and calls her a “soldier.”’ This ridiculous performance but illustrates the eternal fact that History is masculine, that its stern demands cannot be evaded, that the fundamental realities cannot be renounced, even, by the most elaborate make-believe. Liberalistic tampering with sexual polarity only wreaks havoc on the souls of individuals, confusing and distorting them, but the man-woman and the woman-man it creates are both subject to the higher Destiny of History.


Yockey’s views on liberalism appear in Imperium (1962), 208-223.

Liberalism, 2

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

From its anthropology of the basic goodness of human nature in general, Rationalism produced 18th century Encyclopedism, Freemasonry, Democracy, and Anarchism, as well as Liberalism, each with its offshoots and variations. Each played its part history of the 19th century, and, owing to the critical distortion of the whole Western civilization entailed by the first World Wars, even in the 20th century, where Rationalism is grotesquely out of place, and slowly transformed itself into Irrationalism. The corpse of Liberalism was not even interred by the middle of the 20th century. Consequently it is necessary to diagnose even now the serious illness of the Western Civilization as Liberalism complicated with alien-poisoning.

Because Liberalism views most men as harmonious, or good, it follows that they should be allowed to do as they like. Since there is no higher unit to which all are tied, and whose super-personal life dominates the lives of the individuals, each field of human activity serves only itself—as long as it does not wish to become authoritative, and stays within the framework of “society.” Thus Art becomes “Art for Art’s sake,” l’art pour l’art. All areas of thought and action become equally autonomous. Religion becomes mere social discipline, since to be more is to assume authority. Science, philosophy, education, all are equally worlds unto themselves. None are subject to anything higher. Literature and technics are entitled to the same autonomy. The function of the State is merely to protect them by patents and copyrights. But above all—economics and law are independent of organic authority, i.e., of politics.

Twenty-first century readers will find it difficult to believe that once the idea prevailed that each person should be free to do as he pleased in economic matters, even if his personal activity involved the starvation of hundreds of thousands, the devastation of entire forest and mineral areas, and the stunting of the power of the organism; that it was quite permissible for such an individual to raise himself above the weakened public authority, and to dominate, by private means, the inmost thoughts of whole populations by his control of press, radio and mechanized drama.

They will find it more difficult yet to understand how such a person could go to the law to enforce his destructive will. Thus a usurer could, even in the middle of the 20th century, invoke successfully the assistance of the law in dispossessing any numbers of peasants and farmers. It is hard to imagine how any individual could injure the political organism more than by thus mobilizing the soil into dust, in the phrase of the great Freiherr von Stein.

But—this followed inevitably from the idea of the independence of economics and law from political authority. There is nothing higher, no State; it is only individuals against one another. It is but natural that the economically more astute individuals accumulate most of the mobile wealth into their hands. They do not however, if they are true Liberals, want authority with this wealth, for authority has two aspects: power, and responsibility. Individualism, psychologically speaking, is egoism. “Happiness” = selfishness. Rousseau, the grandfather of Liberalism, was a true individualist, and sent his five children to the foundling hospital [see Chechar's footnote below].*

Law, as a field of human thought and endeavor, has as much independence, and as much dependence as every other field. Within the organic framework, it is free to think and organize its material. But like other forms of thought, it can be enrolled in the service of outside ideas. Thus law, originally the means of codifying and maintaining the inner peace of the organism by keeping order and preventing private disputes from growing, was transmuted by Liberal thought into a means of keeping inner disorder, and allowing economically strong individuals to liquidate the weaker ones. This was called the “rule of law,” the “law-State,” “independence of the judiciary.” The idea of bringing in the law to make a given state of affairs sacrosanct was not original with Liberalism. Back in Hobbes’s day, other groups were trying it, but the incorruptible mind of Hobbes said with the most precise clarity that the rule of law rule means the rule of those who determine and administer the law, that the rule of a “higher order” is an empty phrase, and is only given content by the concrete rule of given men and groups over a lower order.

This was political thinking, which is directed to the distribution and movement of power. It is also politics to expose the hypocrisy, immorality and cynicism of the usurer who demands the rule of law, which means riches to him and poverty to millions of others, and all in the name of something higher, something with supra-human validity. When Authority resurges once more against the forces of Rationalism and Economics, it proceeds at once to show that the complex of transcendental ideals with which Liberalism equipped itself is as valid as the Legitimism of the era of Absolute Monarchy, and no more. The Monarchs were the strongest protagonists of Legitimism, the financiers of Liberalism.

But the monarch was tied to the organism with his whole existence, he was responsible organically even where he was not responsible in fact. Thus Louis XVI and Charles I. Countless other monarchs and absolute rulers have had to flee because of their symbolic responsibility. But the financier has only power, no responsibility, not even symbolic, for, as often as not, his name is not generally known. History, Destiny, organic continuity, Fame, all exert their powerful influence on an absolute political ruler, and in addition his position places him entirely outside the sphere of base corruptibility. The financier, however, is private, anonymous, purely economic, irresponsible. In nothing can he be altruistic; his very existence is the apotheosis of egoism. He does not think of History, of Fame, of the furtherance of the life of the organism, of Destiny, and furthermore he is eminently corruptible by base means, as his ruling desire is for money and ever more money.

In his contest against Authority the finance-Liberal evolved a theory that power corrupts men. It is, however, vast anonymous wealth which corrupts, since there are no superpersonal restraints on it, such as bring the true statesman completely into of the service of the political organism, and place him above corruption.

It was precisely in the fields of economics and law that the Liberal doctrine had the most destructive effects on the health of the Western Civilization. It did not matter much that esthetics became independent, for the only art-form in the West which still had a future, Western Music, paid no attention to theories and continued on its grand creative course to its end in Wagner and his epigones. Baudelaire is the great symbol l’art pour l’art: sickness as beauty. Baudelaire is thus Liberalism in literature, disease as a principle of Life, crisis as health, morbidity as soul-life, disintegration as purpose. Man as individualist, an atom without connections, the Liberal ideal of personality. It was in fields of action rather than of thought that the injury was the greatest.

Allowing the initiative in economic and technical matters to rest with individuals, subject to little political control, resulted in the creation of a group of individuals whose personal wills were more important than the collective destiny of the organism and the millions of the population. The law which served this state of affairs was completely divorced from morality and honor. To disintegrate the organism from the spiritual side, what morality was recognized was divorced from metaphysics and religion and related only to “society.” The criminal law reflected finance-Liberalism by punishing crimes of violence and passion, but not classifying such things as destroying national resources, throwing millions into want, or usury on a national scale.

The independence of the economic sphere was a tenet of faith with Liberalism. This was not subject to discussion. There was even evolved an abstraction named “economic man,” whose actions could be predicted as though economics were a vacuum. Economic gain was his sole motive, greed alone spurred him on. The technic of success was to concentrate on one’s own gain and ignore everything else. This “economic man” was however man in general to the Liberals. He was the unit of their world-picture. “Humanity” was the sum total of these economic grains of sand.


(*) In his searing exposé of Rousseau, Paul Johnson comments that the newborns of this extremely self-righteous scoundrel with all probability died in the foundling house. For installments 1 and 3 of this article, see here and here.

Liberalism, 1

by Francis Parker Yockey

Imperium Eagle

Liberalism is a most important by-product of Rationalism, and its origins and ideology must be clearly shown.

The “Enlightenment” period of Western history which… set in after the Counter-Reformation laid more and more stress on intellect, reason and logic as it developed. By the middle of the 18th century this tendency produced Rationalism. Rationalism regarded all spiritual values as its objects and proceeded to revalue them from the standpoint of “reason.” Inorganic logic is the faculty men have always used for solving problems of mathematics, engineering, transportation, physics and in other non-valuing situations. Its insistence on identity and rejection of contradiction are practicable in material activity. They afford intellectual satisfaction also in matters of purely abstract thought, like mathematics and logic, but if pursued far enough they turn into mere techniques, simple assumptions whose only justification is empirical. The end of Rationalism is Pragmatism, the suicide of Reason.

This adaptation of reason to material problems causes all problems whatever to become mechanical when surveyed in “the light of reason,” without any mystical admixture of thought or tendency whatever. Descartes reasoned the animals into automata, and a generation or so later, man himself was rationalized into an automaton—or equally, an animal. Organisms became problems in chemistry and physics, and superpersonal organism[s] simply no longer existed, for they are not amenable to reason, not being visible or measurable. Newton provided the universe of stars with a non-spiritual self-regulating force; the next century removed the spirit from man, his history and his affairs.

Reason detests the inexplicable, the mysterious, the half-light. In a practical problem in machinery or ship-building one must feel that all the factors are under his knowledge and control. There must be nothing unpredictable or out of control. Rationalism, which is the feeling that everything is subject to and completely explicable by Reason, consequently rejects everything not visible and calculable. If a thing actually cannot be calculated, Reason merely says that the factors are so numerous and complicated that in a purely practical way they render the calculation unfeasible, but do not make it theoretically impossible. Thus Reason also has its Will-to-Power: whatever does not submit is pronounced recalcitrant, or is simply denied existence.

When it turned its gaze to History, Rationalism saw the whole tendency as one toward Reason. Man was “emerging” during all those millennia, he was progressing from barbarism and fanaticism to enlightenment, from “superstition” to “science,” from violence to “reason,” from dogma to “criticism,” from darkness to light. No more invisible things, no more spirit, no more soul, no more God, no more Church and State. The two poles of thought are “the individual” and “humanity.” Anything separating them is “irrational.”

This branding of things as irrational is in fact correct. Rationalism must mechanize everything, and whatever cannot be mechanized is of necessity irrational. Thus the entirety of History becomes irrational: its chronicles, its processes, its secret force, Destiny. Rationalism itself, as a by-product of a certain stage in the development of a High Culture, is also irrational. Why Rationalism follows one spiritual phase, why it exercises its brief sway, why it vanishes once more into religion—these questions are historical, thus irrational.

Liberalism is Rationalism in politics. It rejects the State as an organism, and can only see it as the result of a contract between individuals. The purpose of Life has nothing to do with States, for they have no independent existence. Thus the “happiness” of “the individual” becomes the purpose of Life. Bentham made this as coarse as it could be made in collectivizing it into “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” If herding-animals could talk, they would use this slogan against the wolves. To most humans, who are the mere material of History, and not actors in it, “happiness” means economic well being. Reason is quantitative, not qualitative, and thus makes the average man into “Man.” “Man” is a thing of food, clothing, shelter, social and family life, and leisure. Politics sometimes demands sacrifice of life for invisible things. This is against “happiness,” and must not be. Economics, however, is not against “happiness,” but is almost co-extensive with it. Religion and Church wish to interpret the whole of Life on the basis of invisible things, and so militate against “happiness.” Social ethics, on the other hand, secure economic order, thus promote “happiness.”

Here Liberalism found its two poles of thought: economics and ethics. They correspond to individual and humanity. The ethics of course is purely social, materialistic; if older ethics is retained, its former metaphysical foundation is forgotten, and it is promulgated as a social, and not a religious, imperative. Ethics is necessary to maintain the order necessary as a framework for economic activity. Within that framework, however, “individual” must be “free.” This is the great cry of Liberalism, “freedom.” Man is only himself, and is not tied to anything except by choice. Thus “society” is the “free” association of men and groups. The State, however, is un-freedom, compulsion, violence. The Church is spiritual un-freedom.

All things in the political domain were transvalued by Liberalism. War was transformed into either competition, seen from the economic pole, or ideological difference, seen from ethical pole. Instead of the mystical rhythmical alternation of war and peace, it sees only the perpetual concurrence of competition or ideological contrast, which in no case becomes hostile or bloody. The State becomes society or humanity on the ethical side, a production and trade system on the economic side. The will to accomplish a political aim is transformed into the making of a program of “social ideals” on the ethical side, of calculation on the economic side. Power becomes propaganda, ethically speaking, and regulation, economically speaking.

The purest expression of the doctrine of Liberalism was probably that of Benjamin Constant. In 1814 he set forth his views “progress” of “man.” He looked upon the 18th century Enlightenment with its intellectualistic-humanitarian cast as merely preliminary to the true liberation, that of the 19th century. Economics, industrialism, and technics represented the means of “freedom.” Rationalism was the natural ally of this trend. Feudalism, Reaction, War, Violence, State, Politics, Authority—all were overcome by the new idea, supplanted by Reason, Economics, Freedom, Progress and Parliamentarism. War, being violent and brutal, was unreasonable, and is replaced by Trade, which is intelligent and civilized. War is condemned from every standpoint: economically it is a loss even to the victor. The new war technics—artillery—made personal heroism senseless, and thus the charm and glory of war departed with its economic usefulness. In earlier times, war-peoples had subjugated trading-peoples, but no longer. Now trading-peoples step out as the masters of the earth.

A moment’s reflection shows that Liberalism is entirely negative. It is not a formative force, but always and only a disintegrating force. It wishes to depose the twin authorities of Church and State, substituting for them economic freedom and social ethics. It happens that organic realities do not permit of more than the two alternatives: the organism can be true to itself, or it becomes sick and distorted, a prey for other organisms. Thus the natural polarity of leaders and led cannot be abolished without annihilating the organism. Liberalism was never entirely successful in its fight against the State, despite the fact that it engaged in political activity throughout the 19th century in alliance with every other type of Stated-disintegrating force. Thus there were National-Liberals, Social-Liberals, Free-Conservatives, Liberal-Catholics. They allied themselves with democracy, which is not Liberal, but irresistibly authoritarian in success. They sympathized with Anarchists when the forces of Authority sought to defend themselves against them. In the 20th century, Liberalism joined Bolshevism in Spain, and European and American Liberals sympathized with Russian Bolsheviks.

Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea. Its great word “freedom” is a negative—it means in fact, freedom from authority, i.e., disintegration of the organism. In its last stages it produces social atomism in which not only the authority of the State is combated, but even the authority of society and the family. Divorce takes equal rank with marriage, children with parents. This constant thinking in negatives caused political activists like Lorenz V. Stein and Ferdinand Lasalle to despair of it as a political vehicle. Its attitudes were always contradictory, it sought always a compromise. It sought always to “balance” democracy against monarchy, managers against hand-workers, State against Society, legislative against judicial. In a crisis, Liberalism as such was not to be found. Liberals found their way on to one or the other side of a revolutionary struggle, depending on the consistency of their Liberalism, and its degree of hostility to authority.

Thus Liberalism in action was just as political as any State ever was. It obeyed organic necessity by its political alliances with non-Liberal groups and ideas. Despite its theory of individualism, which of course would preclude the possibility that one man or group could call upon another man or group for the sacrifice or risk of life, it supported “unfree” ideas like Democracy, Socialism, Bolshevism, Anarchism, all of which demand life- sacrifice.

Clark’s personal view

My commented excerpts of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation can now be read orderly, starting with chapter 1 (here). Keep in mind that when I typed those excerpts last year Civilisation was still unavailable online. Typos are my fault, not of Clark’s editors.

Published in: on November 12, 2013 at 10:36 am  Leave a Comment  

Hunter – 9


Excerpted from
William Pierce’s novel
Hunter, which depicts one man’s attempt to right the wrongs in society by murdering interracial couples:

Ryan in his turn shook his head and then responded, “I must confess, Yeager, that there are certain aspects of your own vision that appeal to me. It’s a romantic vision. But I stopped being a romantic and became a realist about the time I passed through puberty. I guess you haven’t made that transition yet.” Ryan chuckled at the verbal thrust he had made, then turned serious and continued: “If you had made a serious study of history like I have you might have recognized certain very general facts of life, or perhaps I should say certain general facts of historical development. History has inertia. Any historical development, such as the one we’ve been going through in this country as it has changed in this century from an essentially homogeneous, White, Christian nation quite conscious of its European heritage to a heterogeneous, multi-racial, polyglot, heterodox rabble ruled by Jews and crooked lawyer-politicians in league with the Jews, has an enormous inertia. It moves tectonically, like a crustal plate in the earth. It has built up its motion over a long period of time. That motion is driven by historical forces.

”There is simply no turning such a development around. The most one can hope to do is understand its dynamics and learn how best to adapt to it. That’s what I intend to do. You, on the other hand, want to ignore the laws of history and charge head-on into all the forces that are carrying America in the direction she’s going. In particular, you want to tackle the Jews head-on. You can’t win that way.”

“I don’t know about your ‘laws of history,’ Ryan. I’m sure that the rot we can see all around us has very deep roots, but I’m not convinced that we have to sit back and be observers while the race goes down the drain. I’m inclined to agree with you that the process of decay has gone too far to be reversed, but there’s still plenty of sound human material left to be salvaged. I believe that there are ways to carry out a salvage operation successfully. You could, for example, let the Black rebellion take place as planned, but then use the Agency to liquidate the Jewish leadership, the Jewish media controllers and money men, during the general confusion caused by the rebellion.

”The rebellion would serve as a great stimulus to White consciousness, and we could organize the salvageable elements into an effective force for cutting out the rest of the rot and isolating it. The TV screens could go blank, and the cities could burn. The more rioting by the rabble the better. At the end of a year we should have a pretty clear separation of elements, and we could start rebuilding even while completing the elimination of the rotten material.”

“You’re dreaming again, Yeager. You have an idealized image of the White man in your head. It’s an image of what you think the White man ought to be, not what he really is, not what he actually has become. You imagine that when the Blacks rise up and start their wholesale burning and looting and raping and killing, hundreds of thousands of these heroic White men which exist in your mind will materialize, along with their heroic women, and you’ll organize them into a disciplined force for mopping up the Jews, the queers, the feminists, the nigger-loving liberals, the politicians and the other race traitors, the nut-case Christians, the spics, the gooks, the towel-heads, and what’s left of the Blacks after I’ve crushed their rebellion. But it won’t happen, Yeager. It’s only a dream.

”Just because you and I have the balls and the inclination to join such a fight doesn’t mean that anyone else does. We’re unique. There aren’t any others like us left in this degenerate age. You’d end up with a few hundred White volunteers, and you’d find those impossible to discipline. The rest would be sitting at home waiting for their television sets to come back on and tell them what to think, running with the niggers and joining the looting and raping, or praying for Jesus to save them. Understand?

”What you have in mind won’t work. The White people are too far gone. They don’t understand discipline, sacrifice, pulling together for a common goal. They’re too weak, too timid, too spoiled, too selfish, too undisciplined. Hitler’s SS legions were the last White force on earth which had a chance of doing what you want to do, and there just weren’t enough of them to pull it off. The rabble smothered them with sheer numbers. And the rabble would smother you a thousand times faster. Do you think my Agency is the only armed force in this country? The Army would be called out against you, and it would smother you, no matter how much higher your racial quality or how much better your discipline.”

There was silence in the cabin while the two men stared at each other. Finally Ryan glanced down at his watch, and Oscar spoke, his voice husky with emotion.

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 isle of influence – England, Scotland, Wales
and the United Kingdom

• Æthelred II ordered the killing of all Danish men in England on St Brice’s Day, November 13, 1002.

• In 1189, the first anti-Jewish riot took place in London, which soon spread to York, where 150 Jews were killed by a mob after they took refuge in a local building, Clifford’s Tower, the ruins of which still stand to the present day.

1 Manuscript from The Chronicles of Offa that depicts Jews

• In 1290, all the Jews of England were expelled from the country, accused of exploitative financial practices related to their dominance of the banking business.

• Mary I restored the Roman Catholic church in England, violently suppressing the Anglicans, ordering 300 leading members of that church burned at the stake. [Her] bloodthirsty revenge upon the Anglicans earned her the title of Bloody Mary.

• In 1655, Cromwell also ruled that Jews could be allowed back into England in 1656, the first time since their expulsion in 1290.

• Elizabeth I, Queen of England, ordered the deportation of all Blacks from London in 1601, after objecting to the presence of approximately 20,000 Black slaves in the capital city. This single act ensured that Britain had no large scale Black presence until the late 20th Century.

• The occupation of India however led to a significant amount of racial mixing between British officers stationed in that country and Indian women—and many of these Indian wives were taken back to Britain (and Ireland, as Irishmen served in the British army at that time, the latter country also being controlled by Britain). The product of these mixed unions can still be detected amongst the modern day British and Irish populations.

• Politics in Victorian Britain became dominated by the liberal party under William Gladstone and the Conservative Party under Benjamin Disraeli, who traded places as prime minister and opposition leader twice during their long careers. Disraeli was a Christianized Jew whose writings on race were profound: they are however ignored by modern historians. In his book Tancred, published by Frederick Warne, London, in 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race—there is no other truth” (page 106). And in his book Endymion, published by Longmans, London, he wrote:

No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood. [pages 249-250]

• The most important feature of post World War Two Britain has been the large immigration into that country from the Third World, a process which showed no signs of slowing down during the last quarter of the 20th Century. This process and its implications are discussed in another chapter.

Sparta – XVIII

Translated from EVROPA SOBERANA

“I think that civilization tends more to refine vice than perfecting virtue.”

—Edmond Thiaudière


The lesson of Sparta

A nation as exceptional as Sparta, which ravaged its enemies in an era when man was infinitely harder than now; a nation that was feared in “an age that everything grinds and splashes of blood” had an exceptional mission: to point out a path to us, the children of the West and therefore heirs of Sparta. That was the purpose of Lycurgus, and the Delphic Sibyl grasped it as soon as she saw these peoples, sanctifying their mission. But Sparta also signaled to us the only weakness of such a civilization, so that its decline may be a lesson for us, so that the great pain of Spartan discipline and military asceticism had not been in vain.

What happened to Sparta has happened to every civilization: it succumbed to the multiracial curse, the gold of the traders, the corruption of women, the softness of men, the relaxation, the luxuries and the fratricidal wars; although the laws of Lycurgus extended their glory and agony. The best and bravest men in Greece were finished. Then its body was trampled by purer and more vigorous and youthful peoples.

But what is the moral of the story? That the awakening of European humanity, as once the awakening of Sparta, can occur only after the advent of a terrible racial trauma that acts as an initiation of the sort of a “mystical death.” Who will give Europe the dreaded initiation?

Sparta also teaches us something that we can not afford, something we should avoid at all costs, that quality men die without leaving abundant offspring: pure, protected and cultivated; procreated with congeners of identical racial quality. To cultivate the best blood is the solution. Having a garden perfectly ordered and distributed is the solution. And Sparta was successful for a long time, but ended up failing. And it fell gnawed at its roots from the inside.

If today, therefore, we had to ask which country is more like Sparta in terms of its strategic location and methods, only Israel could give an answer. Jewry has realized that losing their head and being seduced by the confidence that overwhelms the victor is the moment of greatest danger, and therefore has established something so outrageous and incomprehensible at first glance as the State of Israel. Despite having conquered the West, thanks to Israel Jewry can even afford to be in an environment of danger and war. There, the enemy lies inside and constantly threatens to attack. There, only the oppression of the Palestinians and keeping themselves in perpetual guard ensures their safety and mentalizing to avoid decay. There they have a fanatical, hysterical, heavily armed and militarized people, surrounded by hostile neighbors that increase even more their paranoia, their racism, their self-defense mentality and eagerness to compensate, through quality, their numerical inferiority: feeding a feeling to be alone with the danger—an absolutely false feeling as they have on their feet the media of almost all the West.

Compared to the barbarism prevailing in the slums and shanty towns of the Third World; the Asian corporate organizations in the East, the troglodyte immigrants on the streets of the West, and the barbaric state consolidated in the State of Israel, the West appears to be extremely soft, old, head down, sissy, with no instincts or spine, and doomed. Today, the West transits its most vulnerable stage and this condition is increasing at accelerated pace. Our civilization will not be saved if it cannot awaken its primal instincts.

Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

Spanish version of this entry: here.

Below, my excerpts of the general introduction by Karlheinz Deschner of his maximum opus, the ten-volume Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (in English, “Criminal History of Christianity”):

Deschners maximus opus

To begin, I will say what the reader should not expect. As in all of my criticisms of Christianity, here there will be missing many of the things that also belong to history, but not to the criminal history of Christianity that the title indicates. That which, also belongs to history, may be found in millions of works that fill up the libraries, archives, book stores, academies and the lofts of the parish houses. He who wants to read those materials can do so long as he has life, patience and faith.

This religion has thousands, hundreds of thousands of apologists and defenders; it has books in which many boast of “the luminous march of the Church through the ages” (Andersen), and that the Church is “one” and “the living body of Christ” and “holy” because “its essence is holiness; sanctification, its end” (the Benedictine von Rudioff).

It is understood, on all this, that the unfortunate side details (religious wars, persecutions, fighting, famine) happened in the designs of God; often inscrutable, always just, full of wisdom and salvific power.

Given the overwhelming predominance of the silly, misleading and deceitful glorifyings, was it not necessary to show, to be able to read, sometime, the opposite view insofar as it is much better proven? At any event, those who always want to see the bright side are shielded from the ugly side, which is often the truest.

The distinction between the Church and Christianity is relatively recent.

As is known, there is a glaring contradiction between the Christians’ lives and the beliefs they profess: a contradiction which has always been tried to be downplayed by pointing to the eternal opposition between the ideal and the real. Nobody dares to condemn Christianity because it has not fulfilled all its ideals, or has fulfilled half of them, or not at all. But such an interpretation “equals to carry too far the notion of the human and even the all too human, so that when century after century and millennium after millennium someone does the opposite of what he preaches then he becomes, per share and effect of all his history, epitome and absolute culmination of world-wide and historical criminality,” as I said during a conference in 1969 which earned me a visit to the courthouse.

Because that is really the question. Not that they have failed the ideals in part or by degrees, no: it is that those ideals have been literally trampled, without which the perpetrators lay down, for a moment, their claims of self-proclaimed champions of such ideals, nor stop their self-declaration of being the highest moral authorities in the world.

Western Christianity, in any case, “was essentially created by the Catholic Church”; “the Church, organized from the papal hierocracy down to the smallest detail, was the main institution of the medieval order” (Toynbee).

Part of our question are the wars started or commanded by the Church: the extermination of entire nations: the Vandals, the Goths, and the relentless slaughter of East Slav peoples—all of them, according to the chronicles of the Carolingian and the Ottos, criminals and confused peoples in the darkness of idolatry that was necessary to convert by any means not excepting betrayal, deceit and fury.

Of the fourteen legislated capital crimes by Charlemagne after subduing the Saxons by blood and fire, ten offenses relate exclusively to the religious camp. Under the old Polish criminal law, those guilty of eating meat during the Easter fast were punished by pulling their teeth out.

We will also discuss ecclesiastical punishments for violations of civil rights. The ecclesiastical courts were increasingly hated. There are issues that we will discuss extensively: sacrificial practices (the stolen goods from the Church to be repaid fourfold, and according to Germanic law up to twenty times); ecclesiastical and monastic prisons, especially of the ergastulum type (the coffins were also called ergastula), where they were thrown both “sinners” as the rebels and madmen, and usually installed in basements without windows or doors, but well equipped with shackles of all kinds, racks, handcuffs and chains. We will document the exile punishment and the application of it to the whole family in case of murder of a cardinal; which extended to the male descendants up to the third generation. Also very fashionable were torture and corporal punishment, especially in the East where it became furiously popular to mutilate limbs, pull out eyes and cut off noses and ears.

It is quite plausible that not all authorities indulged themselves in such excesses, and certainly not everyone would be as insane as the Abbot Transamund, who tore off the eyes of the monks of the Tremiti Convent, or cut their tongues (and, despite this, enjoyed the protection of Pope Gregory VII, who also enjoyed great notoriety).

Without doubt, the churches, particularly the Roman Church, have created significant cultural values, especially buildings, which usually obeyed no altruistic reasons (representing power), and also in the domain of painting, responding to ideological reasons (the eternal illustrations of biblical scenes and legends of saints). But aside from such opted love of culture that contrasts sharply with paleo-Christianity—that with eschatological indifference contemplated the “things of this world”, as they believed in the imminent end of all (a fundamental error in which Jesus himself fell)—, it should be noted that most of the cultural contributions of the Church were made possible by ruthlessly exploiting of the masses, enslaved and impoverished century after century. And against this promotion of culture we find further cultural repression, cultural intoxication and destruction of cultural property.

The magnificent temples of worship of antiquity were destroyed almost everywhere: irreplaceable value buildings burned or demolished, especially in Rome itself, where the ruins of the temples served as quarries. In the tenth century they still engaged in breaking down statues, architraves, burning paintings, and the most beautiful sarcophagi served as bathtubs or feeders for pigs.

But the most tremendous destruction, barely imaginable, was caused in the field of education. Gregory I, the Great, the only doctor Pope of the Church in addition to Leo I, according to tradition burned a large library that existed on the Palatine.

The flourishing book trade of antiquity disappeared; the activity of the monasteries was purely receptive. Three hundred years after the death of Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, the disciples were still studying with manuals written by them. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s official philosopher, writes that “the desire for knowledge is a sin when it does not serve the knowledge of God.”

In universities, the Aristotelian hypertrophy aborted any possibility of independent research. To the dictation of theology were subject philosophy and literature. History, as a science, was completely unknown. The experimentation and inductive research was condemned; experimental sciences were drowned by the Bible and dogma; scientists thrown into the dungeons, or sent to the stake. In 1163, Pope Alexander III (remember in passing that at that time there were four anti-popes) forbade all clerics studying physics. In 1380 a decision of the French parliament forbade the study of chemistry, referring to a decree of Pope John XXII.

And while in the Arab world (obedient to Muhammad’s slogan: “The ink of scholars is more sacred than the blood of martyrs”) the sciences flourished, especially medicine, in the Catholic world the bases of scientific knowledge remained unchanged for more than a millennium, well into the sixteenth century.

The sick were supposed to seek comfort in prayer instead of medical attention. The Church forbade the dissection of corpses, and sometimes even rejected the use of natural medicines for considering it unlawful intervention with the divine. In the Middle Ages not even the abbeys had doctors, not even the largest. In 1564 the Inquisition condemned to death the physician Andreas Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, for opening a corpse and for saying that man is not short of a rib that was created for Eve.

Consistent with the guidance of teaching, we find another institution, ecclesiastical censure, very often (at least since the time of St. Paul in Ephesus) dedicated to the burning of the books of pagans, Jews or Saracens, and the destruction (or prohibition) of rival Christian literature, from the books of the Arians and Nestorians until those of Luther. But let us not forget that Protestants sometimes also introduced censorship, even for funeral sermons and also for non-theological works, provided they touched on ecclesiastical matters or religious customs.

This is a selection of the main issues that I refer to in my history of the crimes. And yet, it is only a tiny segment of the overall history.


Like any other historian, I only contemplate a history of the countless possible histories, a particular one, worse or better defined, and even this biased aspect cannot be considered the whole “complex of action”: an absurd idea, given the volume of existing data; theoretically conceivable, but practically impossible and not even desirable.

No. The author who intends to write a criminal history of Christianity is constrained to mention only the negative side of that religion… which weight has exceeded ultimately that of the perceived or real positives. Those who prefer to read about the other aspects ought to read other books: The Joyful Faith, The Gospel as Inspiration, Is it True that Catholics are No Better Than the Others?, Why I Love My Church?, The Mystical Body of Christ, Beauties of the Catholic Church, Under the Cloak of the Catholic Church, God Exists (I Have Known Him), The Way of Joy toward God, The Good Death of a Catholic, With the Rosary to Heaven, SOS from the Purgatory, The Heroism of Christian Marriage.

The pro-Christian literature! More numerous than the sands of the sea: against 10,000 titles just one of the style of this Criminal History of Christianity, not to mention the millions of issues if we add the countless religious periodicals.

It turns out that there truly are among the Christians men of good will, as in all religions and in every game, which should not be taken as data in favor of those religions and parties, because if that were allowed how many crooks would testify against such belief!

And good Christians are the most dangerous, because they tend to get confused with Christianity, or to borrow the words of Lichtenberg, “unquestionably there are many righteous Christians, only that it is no less true that in corpore their works as such have never have helped much.”

What is the basis of my work?

As with most historical studies, it is based on sources, “tradition,” contemporary historiography; especially texts. But when I expose my subjectivity bluntly, my “point of view” and my “positioning,” I think I show my respect to the reader better than mendacious scribes who want to link their belief in miracles and prophecies; in transubstantiations and resurrections from the dead; in heavens, hells and other wonders with the pretense of objectivity, accuracy and scientific rigor.

Could it not be that, with my confessed bias, I am less biased than them? Could it be that my experience, my training, did not authorize me to form a more independent opinion about Christianity? At the end of the day I left Christianity, despite having been formed in a deeply religious household, as soon as it ceased to seem real.

Let’s face it: we are all “partial,” and he who pretends denying it is lying. It is not our bias what matters, but confessing it, without pretense of impossible “objectivities.”

We are all biased. This is particularly true in the case of historians who are more bent on denying it, because they are the ones who lie the most—and then they throw to one another the dogs of Christianity. How ridiculous, when we read that Catholics accused the Protestants of “bias”; or the Protestants the Catholics, when thousands of theologians of various confessions throw over each other so common reproach. For example, when the Jesuit Bacht wants to see in the Protestant Friedrich Loofs “an excess of zeal against monastic status as such,” for which “his views are too one-sided.” And how would not the Jesuit Bacht opine with partiality when he refers to a reformed; he, who belongs to an order whose members are required to believe that white is black and black white, if mandated by the Church?

Like Bacht, unquestioning obedience is imposed upon all Catholic theologians in the habit through baptism, dogma, the chair, the ecclesiastical license to print and many other obligations and restrictions. And so they live year after year, enjoying a steady income in exchange for advocating a particular view, a particular doctrine, a particular interpretation of history, strongly impregnated with theology… not so much to deceive themselves but to continue cultivating the deception of others. For example, accusing of bias the opponents of their confession and pretending to believe that, notwithstanding, Catholics are safe from such defect; as if it didn’t exist, for two thousand years, another bias sneakier than the Catholic.

Historiography… is no more than the projection into the past of the interests of the present. The conservative historian who compared his job to that of the priest (for heaven’s sake!) and issued for himself reports of maximum impartiality and objectivity, claimed that he “erased his subjectivity”!

This unshakable faith for objectivism, called “ocularism” by Count Paul York Wartenburg and lampooned as a proposal for a “eunuch objectivity” by Droysen (“only the unconscious can be objective”), is illusory. Because there is no objective truth in historiography, nor history as it happened. “There can only be interpretations of history, and none is definitive” (Popper).

All historiography is written against the background of our personal vision of the world. It is true that many scholars lack such a worldview and thus are often considered, if not markedly progressive, at least notably impartial, honest and truthful. Those are the champions of “pure science,” the representatives of an alleged stance of neutrality or indifference as to value statements. They reject any reference to a particular point of view, any subjectivity, as if they were unscientific sins or blasphemies against the postulate of true objectivity they advocate; against that sine ira et studio which they have as sacrosanct and that, as Heinrich von Treitschke ironizes, “nobody respects, let alone the speaker himself.”

The fiction of the concealment of the ideological premises of the historical presentation can serve to conceal many things: an ethical relativism and a cowardly escapism fleeing categorical decisions on principles—which still is a decision: irresponsibility on behalf of scientific responsibility! For a science that does not make assessments, with that, whether they like it or not, is an ally of the status quo; it supports the dominating and hurts the dominated. Its objectivity is only apparent, and in practice it means nothing but love to one’s own tranquility, security and attachment to a career.

But our life does not run value-free, but full of them; and scientists, insofar as they start from life, if they claim they are value-free incur in hypocrisy. I have had in my hands works of historians who were dedicated to the wife, who had died in the bombings, or maybe dedicated to two or three fallen sons on the fronts; and yet, sometimes, these people want to keep their writing as “pure science,” as if nothing had happened.

That’s their problem. I think otherwise. Even if it existed, and I say it does not, a totally apolitical historical research, oblivious to all kinds of judgments, such an investigation would serve no purpose but to undermine ethnics and make way for inhumanity. Moreover, it would not be true “research” because it would not be dedicated to reveal the relationships between things; as much as it would be mere preparatory work, mere accumulation of materials, as noted by Friedrich Meinecke.

Now, to what extent does the reality of history coincides with my statement?

I prefer life on principle to science, especially when it starts to become apparent as a threat to life in the broadest sense. This is often objected that “science” is not to blame, but some scientists (the problem is that there are many, at worst almost all): quite a similar argument that says that we should not take Christianity to task for the sins of Christendom.

All this does not mean that I am a supporter of pure subjectivism, which does not exist. A limited capacity of conviction would my thesis of the criminal character of Christianity have if to prove it I would confine myself to provide only some examples. But, being a multi-volume work, no one will say that these are isolated or inconclusive examples. Because I write “out of hostility,” the story of those I describe has made me their enemy. And I would not consider myself refuted by having omitted what was also true, but only when someone proves that something I have written is false.

There are even those who believe that it is very wrong to criticize, especially when they are criticized, although the latter they would never confess. Quite the contrary, they always claim they have nothing against criticism: that all critiques are welcome but, yes, provided they are positive critiques, constructive; not negative or deleterious. With swollen anger they set those high standards, precisely against the “mania of judging” (Aitmeyer), and display their scandal with “scientific” trims when an author dares to “value”; when “the historian, given his inability as moralist, assumes the role of prosecutor.”

Is it not grotesque that the sworn representatives of an ancient mystery cult, those who believe in trinities, angels, demons, hell, virgin births, celestial assumptions of a real body, conversion of water into wine and wine into blood, want to impress us with their “science”? And could it not be the height of grotesqueness that such people continue to receive the honors of the scientific world itself?

We are invited to take care on behalf of the “zeitgeist” so that we understand and forgive. But the very Goethe satirized it in his Faust: What you call spirit of the times, is ultimately the spirit of the masters.

If we are not worth the testimony of the poet for being notoriously anti-Christian and not less anticlerical, let us go to St. Augustine: “Times are hard, miserable times, people say. Let us live well, and times are good. Because we ourselves are the times that run; so that how we are, so will our time be.”

In his other sermons, Augustine reiterated this idea that there is no reason to accuse the times or the “zeitgeist,” but the very humans that (as the historians of today) blame everything on the times, those miserable, difficult and murky times. Because “time does not offend anyone. The offended are men, and other men are the ones who inflict the offenses. Oh pain! It offends men who are robbed, oppressed, and by whom? Not lions, snakes or scorpions, but men. And so men live the offenses on pain, but will not themselves do the same, if they can, and as much as they have censored it?”

Augustine knew what he meant, as he himself fits perfectly in the last sentence of the quotation (see Chapter 10).

As this, ultimately, cannot be denied by the apologists, they object that sometimes (i.e., every time it was necessary, whatever the historical period under consideration) the agents “were not true Christians.”

But look, when there were true Christians? Were they the bloodthirsty Merovingians, the Franks so fond of plundering expeditions, the despotic women of the Lateran period? Was Christian the great offensive of the Crusades? Was it the burning of witches and heretics? The Thirty Years War? The First World War, the Second or the war of Vietnam? If all those were not Christians, then who was it?

In any case, the spirit of the times was not ever the same at each particular time. While Christians were spreading their gospels, their beliefs and dogmas; while they were transmitting their infection to always larger territories, there were not a few men, such as the first great debunkers of Christianity in the second century, Celsus; and Porphyry in the third, who knew how to raise a comprehensive and overwhelming criticism, which we still feel justified.

As Christianity was guilty of appalling outrages, Buddhism, which never had a Western-style organized church in India or central authority dedicated to homogenize the true faith, gave signs of a much higher tolerance. Non-priest believers contracted no exclusive commitment, nor were forced to recant other religions, or converting anyone by force. Their peaceful virtues can be seen, for example, in the history of Tibet, whose inhabitants, a warrior nation among the most feared of Asia, became one of the most peaceful under the influence of Buddhism.

In every century there was a moral conscience, even among Christians, and not less than among “heretics.” Why should we not apply to Christianity its own scale of biblical standards, or even occasionally patristic standards? Do not they themselves say that “by their fruits ye shall know them”?

For me, history (and what I said is but a drop in an ocean of injustices) cannot be cultivated sine ira et studio. It would be contrary to my sense of fairness, my compassion for men. He who has not as enemy many enemies, is the enemy of humanity. And is not anyone who pretends to contemplate history without anger or affection similar to the one who is present to a large fire and sees how victims suffocate and does nothing to save them, limiting himself to take note of everything? The historian who clings to the criteria of “pure” science is necessarily insincere. He wants either to deceive others or deceive himself. I would add: he is a criminal, because there can be no worse crime than indifference.

And if the sentence of St. John Chrysostom retains its validity today, “he who praises the sin is guiltier than he who commits it,” would then praising the crimes of history and glorifying the criminals be even worse than these crimes? Would not human affairs be better, and also the affairs of history, if historians (and schools) illuminated and educated based on ethical criteria, condemning the crimes of the sovereigns rather than the praising? But most historians prefer to spread the feces of the past as if they had to serve as fertilizer for the future havens.

An example of it, to cite only one, is the daily glorification of Charlemagne (or Charles the Great). The worst looting expeditions and genocides of history come to be called expansions, consolidation, extension of the catchment areas, changes in the correlation of forces, restructuring, incorporation domains, Christianization, pacification of neighboring tribes.

When Charlemagne oppresses, exploits, as liquidates what is around, that is “centralism,” “pacification of a great empire.” When there are others who rob and kill, those are “raids and invasions of enemies across the borders” (Saracens, Normans, Slavs, Avars) according Kampf. When Charlemagne, with bags full of holy relics, sets fire and kills on a large scale, thus becoming the nobly smith of the great Frank empire, the Catholic Fleckenstein speaks of “political integration.” Some specialists use even safer, more peaceful and hypocritical expressions as Camill Wampach, professor of our University of Bonn: “The country invited immigration, and the neighboring region of Franconia gave inhabitants to newly liberated lands.”

The law of the jungle, in a word: the one which has been dominating the history of mankind to date, always where a State intended it (or another refused to submit), and not only in the Christian world, naturally.

Because, of course, we will not say here that Christianity is the sole culprit of all these miseries. Perhaps someday, once Christianity disappears, the world remains equally miserable. We do not know that. What we do know is that, with it, everything will necessarily remain the same. That’s why I have tried to highlight its culpability in all cases I have found it essential, trying to cover as many cases as possible but, yes, without exaggeration; without taking things out of proportion, as those could judge who either do not have idea about the history of Christianity, or have lived completely deceived about it.


March of the Titans (prologue)

Excerpted from the prologue of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp:

When reviewing the historical development of all nations, quite often mention is made of a “rise and fall” of a particular civilization. This poses a major question: Why have some civilizations lasted a thousand years or more, while others rise and collapse within a few hundred? Why is it, for example, that nations such as Japan, Sweden, and England—all nations with limited natural resources—could have progressive active cultures for more than one thousand years; whereas mighty civilizations such as Classical Rome, Greece, or Persia, amongst others, collapse after only a few centuries?

Politically correct historians blame the rise and fall of the great nations of the past on politics, economics, morals, lawlessness, debt, environment, and a host of other superficial reasons. However, Japan, England, and Sweden have gone through similar crises scores of times, without those countries falling into decay. It is obvious that there must be some other factor at work—something much more fundamental than just variations in politics, morals, lawlessness, or any of the other hundreds of reasons that historians have manufactured in their attempts to explain the collapse of civilizations.

Originally created by Proto-Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans, and then influenced by waves of Indo-European invaders, the white civilizations in the Middle East all flourished, producing the wonders of the ancient world. These regions were either invaded or otherwise occupied (through the use of laborers, immigration, or in rare cases, by conquest) by nonwhite nations of varying races. When the original white peoples who created those civilizations vanished or became an insignificant minority (through death and absorption into other races), their civilizations “fell” in exactly the same way that the Amerind civilization in North America “fell.”

500 BC—First Turning Point

It was around the year 500 BC that the first great turning point in white history was reached. This was the decline of the first great white civilizations in the Middle East and their subsequent replacement by nations and peoples of a substantially different racial makeup.

Up until this time the development of the white race’s territorial expansion was such that they were a majority in Europe and all of Russia west of the Urals. They formed a significant component of the population of the Middle East and their rule extended into the Indus River Valley in Northern India.

In India, the invading Indo-Aryans established a strict segregation system to keep themselves separate from the local dark skinned native population. This system was so strict that it has lasted to this day and has become known as the caste system.

However, even the strictest segregation (and Aryan laws prescribing punishments such as death for miscegenation) did not prevent the majority population from eventually swallowing up the ruling Aryans until the situation has been reached today where only a very few high caste Brahmin Indians could still pass as Europeans.

Exactly the same thing happened in Central Asia, Egypt, Sumeria, and to a lesser degree, modern Turkey. Slowly but surely, as these civilizations relied more and more on others to do their work for them, or were physically conquered by other races, their population makeup became darker and darker.

Miscegenation with Nonwhite Slaves Caused Egyptian Decline

From the time of the Old Kingdom, the original white Egyptians had been using Nubians, blacks, and Semites (or Arabs) to work on many of their building projects or as general slaves.


Egypt: Same country, different people. Above left: The white pharaoh, Queen Nefertiti, circa 1350 BC; Above center: The effects of racial mixing are clearly to be seen on the face of this coffin portrait of a Roman lady in Hawara, Egypt, 100 AD; Above right: The mixed race Egyptian, Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt in the twentieth century. Nefertiti ruled over an advanced civilization; Sadat ruled over a third world country. The reason for the difference in cultures between Nefertiti’s Egypt and Sadat’s Egypt was that the Egyptian people had changed.

At various stages the pharaohs also employed Nubian mercenaries, and ultimately Nubia and Sudan were physically occupied and incorporated into the Egyptian empire. Although the buildings of ancient Egypt are very impressive—many having survived through to the present day, their construction was dependent on the Egyptian ability to organize an unprecedented mass of human labor.

Several attempts were made to prevent large numbers of Nubians from settling in Egypt. One of the first recorded racial separation laws was inscribed on a stone on the banks of the southern Nile which forbade Nubians from proceeding north of that point. Nonetheless, the continuous use of Nubians for labor eventually led to the establishment of a large resident nonwhite population in Egypt, with their numbers being augmented by natural reproduction and continued immigration.

The region was also occupied for two hundred years by the Semitic Hyksos, who intermarried with the local population, and this was followed by other Semitic/Arabic immigration, fueled by the long existing black settlement on the southernmost reaches of the Nile River.

Once again the factors which led to the extinction of the Aryans in India came into play in Egypt: a resident nonwhite population to do the labor, a natural increase in nonwhite numbers, physical integration, and a decline in the original white birthrate.

All these factors compounded to produce an Egyptian population makeup of today that is very different from the men and women who founded Egypt and designed the pyramids.

As the population makeup shifted, so the cultural manifestations, or civilization, of that region changed to the point where the present day population of the Middle East is not by any stretch of the imagination classifiable as white. The Egyptians of today are a completely different people, racially and culturally, living amongst the ruins of another race’s civilization.

Identical Reasons for Decline in Middle East

The decline and eventual extinction of the white population in the Middle East marked the end of the original civilizations in those regions. In all the Middle Eastern countries the Semitic (Arabic) and black populations grew as they were used as labor by the ruling whites. In the case of Sumer, the white rulers were physically displaced by military conquest at the hands of Semitic invaders.

This process continued until almost all remains of the original whites in the greater region were assimilated into the darker populations. Only the occasional appearance of light colored hair or eyes amongst today’s Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians serve as reminders of the original rulers of these territories.

Lesson—Role of Racially Foreign Labor in the Decline of a Civilization

The lesson is clear: a civilization will remain intact as long as its creating race remains in existence. This applies to all races equally—white, black, Mongolian or any other. As long as a civilization’s founding race maintains its territorial integrity and does not use large numbers of any other alien race to do its labor, that civilization will remain in existence.

If a civilization allows large numbers of racial aliens into its midst (most often as laborers) and then integrates with those newcomers, that civilization will change to reflect the new racial makeup of the population.

Any civilization—be it white, black, Asian, or Aboriginal—stands or falls by the homogeneity of its population, and nothing else. As soon as a society loses its homogeneity, the nature of that society changes. This simple fact, often ignored by historians, provides the key to understanding the rise and fall of all civilizations.


Evidence of black slaves in Egyptian and Grecian society. Left: Nubian (African) slaves as depicted in ancient Egyptian art, and right two Greek vases, dating from the fifth century BC, show the racial types of two slaves, a Semite and a black.

History Is a Function of Race

The early white civilizations in Greece and Rome also fell to this process. The last great Grecian leader, Pericles, actually enacted a law in the year 451 BC limiting citizenship of the state according to racial descent. However, some four hundred years later this law was changed as the population shifts had become more and more evident. Certain Roman leaders tried to turn back the racial clock, but their efforts were in vain. The sheer vastness of the Roman Empire meant that all sorts of races were included in its borders, and this brew ultimately led to the dissolution of the original Roman population.

Those who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that territory. This is an immutable law of nature. It is the iron rule upon which all of human endeavour is built—that history is a function of race.

The Rise and Fall of Civilizations Explained

A civilization “rises and falls” by its racial homogeneity and nothing else. As long as it maintains its racial homogeneity, it will last—if it loses its racial homogeneity, and changes its racial makeup, it will “fall” or be replaced by a new culture.


Note: Why I am reposting this entry is explained: here

March of the Titans


In one of the addenda of WDH, Chechar’s, I reproduced chapter excerpts of Arthur Kemp’s monumental history of the white race but started from the last chapter, so that when clicking on this link the reader would not find himself in the awkward position of reading the book backwards.

Starting tomorrow I’ll repost those excerpts here but in reverse order; that is, starting from the Prologue.

For white nationalism, an elemental history of the white race is exactly like my studying the capital letters A-E-I-O-U during my first classes of Elementary School when I was a six year-old kid. But since Kemp’s book has been unfairly criticized by people who have not even read it, I’d like to quote a couple of comments that I discovered in the blogosphere:

It was about ten years ago when I discovered it online [March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race, now only available in printed form]. I read it three times in a row, looking for historical errors and inaccuracies. There were very few!

It turned my world upside down… I had never considered history from a racial perspective. Within two years I purchased a hard copy as an essential addition to my library.

The above is my genuine unsolicited opinion.

—Anonymous reviewer

This book has attracted criticism largely from do nothings possibly due to envy that someone has the energy and dedication to produce an all-encompassing history of our race. It is of course a “work in progress” and the author will be pleased to hear of any errors spotted by readers.

—Tony Hancock


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 197 other followers