Nietzsche on the Aryan race

Friedrich_Nietzsche
Excerpted from
Twilight of the Idols,
chap. The “Improvers” of Mankind:




1.-

My demand of the philosopher is well known: that he take his stand beyond good and evil and treat the illusion of moral judgment as beneath him.

2.-

A first, tentative example: at all times morality has aimed to “improve” men—this aim is above all what was called morality.

To call the taming of an animal its “improvement” sounds almost like a joke to our ears. Whoever knows what goes on in kennels doubts that dogs are “improved” there. They are weakened, they are made less harmful, and through the depressive effect of fear, through pain, through wounds, and through hunger, they become sickly beasts. It is no different with the tamed man whom the priest has “improved.” In the early Middle Ages, when the church was indeed, above all, a kennel, the most perfect specimens of the “blond beast” were hunted down everywhere; and the noble Teutons, for example, were “improved.” But how did such an “improved” Teuton look after he had been drawn into a monastery? Like a caricature of man, a miscarriage: he had become a “sinner,” he was stuck in a cage, tormented with all sorts of painful concepts. And there he lay, sick, miserable, hateful to himself, full of evil feelings against the impulses of his own life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy. In short, a “Christian”…

3.-

Let us consider the other method for “improving” mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of “the law of Manu.” Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras. Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

Manu himself says: “The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding).”

4.-

These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of “pure blood” is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan “humaneness” has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

Kemp on the United States



Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race

by Arthur Kemp:



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.


Scalping shocks white explorers and settlers

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.

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.

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?

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.

[After recounting well-known American history, in another chapter Kemp writes about the so-called Civil Rights movement of the 20th century:]

The forty five years following the end of the Second World War were dominated by three issues: the decolonization process; the development of the concept of Civil Rights, and the hostility between the “West” and the “East,” also known as the Cold War.

The first time that the black bloc vote played a significant role in helping to elect an American president occurred as early as 1948, when Harry Truman was elected to the office through a combination of the bloc Black vote and a minority of White votes. Truman had gained the support of Blacks by issuing an executive order that eventually desegregated the armed forces and by supporting a pro-civil rights policy for the Democratic Party over strong opposition from Southerners.

Whites in the Southern states bitterly opposed the moves to desegregate schools. In September 1957, the governor of Arkansas, Orval E. Faubus, ordered the state’s National Guard to prevent nine Black students from attending Central High School in Little Rock. On 23 September, following a number of racial clashes between Blacks and Whites in the town, Eisenhower dispatched federal troops to force White students to attend the school, frog-marching the protesting Whites at gunpoint with bayonets drawn, into the classrooms.

Where intentional segregation existed in the north, as in the city of Boston, the federal courts ordered redrawing of neighborhood school district lines, starting the practice of “bussing”— where children of different races were transported, sometimes 50 miles or more—across huge distances to force them to attend schools attended predominantly by other races. This bussing system caused a great many racial clashes and violence. Very little point was achieved by sending 100 White children into a school of 2000 Black children, or vice versa, apart from increasing racial tensions dramatically. The practice of bussing then spread all over America, soon becoming a major national political issue which was debated right up to presidential level.

The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy as Democratic Party president of America—again with overwhelming Black voter support—saw a new surge in laws designed to strike down the last of the segregationist measures in America.

The long established American laws forbidding intermarriage between Whites and Blacks were also then challenged in courts and repealed: between 1942 and 1967, 14 states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. In the case known as Loving v. Virginia (1967), the US Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage and by 1968, all forms of de jure segregation had been declared unconstitutional.


Black riots erupt despite social changes

Black riots started in the 1960s. The first serious disturbances broke out in Cambridge in 1963 and 1964, and the National Guard was called in to restore order. Then in 1965, a particularly severe Black riot erupted in Watts, a Black ghetto in Los Angeles. The Watts riots lasted six days, taking 34 lives and causing $40 million in property damage. Black riots then spread across more than 30 major American cities, turning almost every major center into a battle zone of White policemen trying to control mobs of Blacks rioting and burning and looting anything they could.

Baffled by the Black riots—in theory there should have been less reason to riot than ever before—president Johnson appointed a commission, headed by the former governor of Illinois, Otto Kerner, to investigate the causes of Black unrest. The report of the Kerner Commission, issued in 1968, warned of the increasing racial polarization in the United States and said that the “nation is moving toward two societies, one white, one black—separate and unequal.”

Increasing Black urbanization, coupled with its associated problems of an increased crime-rate, increased racial tensions and resultant integrated schools—which in every measured case led to fall in educational standards—created in the 1970s the phenomena of “White flight”. Entire neighborhoods of Whites started moving, lock stock and barrel, out of the major American cities into outlying suburbs. In this way many city centers became almost overnight Blacks-only areas: and this, combined with the dropping of any type of voter qualification, meant that by the mid-1970s, a number of these major cities had elected Black mayors and city councils for the first time.

Civil rights in review: a colossal failure

In real terms, the decades of civil rights programs have been a failure. Not only have average living standards for all but an elite of Blacks declined, but they have also dropped on every other social indicator.

In 1997, over one million Black American men were in prison, and homicide was the leading cause of death among Black men aged 15 to 34. Nationwide, blacks—although only 12 per cent of the population—account for 64 per cent of all violent-crime arrests and 71 per cent of all robbery arrests (Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, Jared Taylor, Carroll & Graf, 1993).

In 1988, there were fewer than ten cases of white-on-black rape—as opposed to 9,405 cases of black-on-white rape. Taylor reports that black men appear three to four times more likely to commit rape than whites, and more than sixty times more likely to rape a white than a white is likely to rape a black. This black crisis still disproportionately hurts whites. Black criminals choose white victims in more than half of their violent crime; the average black criminal seems over 12 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa. Homicide is now the leading cause of death for black men between 15 and 44; one in four black men in their twenties is either in jail, on probation, or on parole.

All this has happened despite the USA subsidizing its Black poor, publicly and privately, to the tune of more than $2.5 trillion in federal moneys alone since the 1960s. The cities run by Black Americans—Washington DC, Detroit and others—are marked by collapse, decay, exceedingly high levels of violent crime, drugs, gang wars and economic decline.

The words of the 1968 Kerner Report have remained as valid as ever: America is a society of racially separate unequals.


Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Kemp on France

Excerpted from chapter 26 of March of the Titans: A History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp:


The French Revolution soon took a sub-racial undertone—often it was enough to have blond hair to be declared a noble and be beheaded. This was taken to an extreme under a bloodthirsty period known as the “reign of terror” and led to civil and foreign wars for ten years.

During this period, revolutionary tribunals and commissions beheaded close on 17,000 people—when the numbers of Frenchmen who died in prison or who were shot out of hand is added in, the victims of the Reign of Terror totaled approximately 40,000.

Of those executed, approximately 8 percent were nobles, 6 percent were members of the clergy, 14 percent belonged to the middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants charged with draft dodging, desertion, hoarding, rebellion, and various other “anti-revolutionary” crimes.

One step taken by the new French Republic was the official emancipation of the French Jews, and for the first time they were allowed to participate fully in public office in France. For this reason French and European Jewry became outspoken supporters of the revolution.

Striving to establish a “Republic of Virtue,” the leaders of the revolution stressed devotion to the republic and instituted measures against corruption and hoarding—two trademarks of the Church. This led directly to the November 1793 closing of all churches in the Commune of Paris, a measure soon copied by authorities elsewhere in France. A non-Christian cult was established, known as the Cult of Reason, with its main center being the then desanctified Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Although the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars did not result in the importation of any large numbers of non-Whites into France, huge numbers of White Frenchmen, both nobles and commoners, lost their lives in the period from 1789 to 1815, with the Napoleonic Wars alone resulting in the deaths of over a million White Frenchmen—a huge slice of the population at that time, possibly as much as 35 per cent of all able bodied Frenchmen of all ages. The French Revolution itself had dealt a serious blow to the Nordic element of French society, as Nordic features were associated with nobility and made immediate targets for the revolutionary mobs. This led to a denordicization of the French population which is still evident today in the relatively small number of blonds amongst the modern French population.

[After explaining how the Second Republic’s constitution created a presidential republic with a parliament elected by universal male suffrage—one of the greatest blunders of the West that with time would provoke the suffrage for women and non-whites—, Kemp writes about white suicide:]

By 1919, the French population had been battered by more than two centuries of major wars, and had started to go into a serious decline. The French government then started allowing French speaking Black Africans and non-White Algerians into France, mainly for use as labor, but also as army troops, in order to make up population shortfalls. In this way the German territory of the Rhineland was occupied by Black French troops, creating much anger amongst the Germans and becoming a political issue in the latter country.

According to official French statistics, some three million North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (This figure is probably an underestimation, as it does not take into account illegal immigration, which probably accounted for a least half a million more).

Although the majority of Frenchmen did not integrate with this non-White influx, a significant minority did, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. This integration process did not however reach anywhere near the level of the Spanish, and was certainly nowhere near the Portuguese example. Nonetheless, it is possible to see the traces of the large Black influx in a minority of modern Frenchmen to this day.

Pierce on Christianity

The following are excerpts of William Pierce’s thoughts on Christianity, a 1992 text included in the original edition of the National Alliance Membership Handbook (pages 46-51).

This important policy guideline was removed in the second edition that was published by those who took over the National Alliance after the death of Pierce.


The immediate and inevitable fact which forces us to come to grips with Christianity is that the mainstream Christian churches are all, without exception, preaching a doctrine of White racial extinction. They preach racial egalitarianism and racial mixing. They preach non-resistance to the takeover of our society by non-Whites. It was the Christian churches, more than any other institution, which paralyzed the will of White South Africans to survive. It is the Christian establishment in the United States which is preeminent in sapping the will of White Americans to resist being submerged in the non-White tide sweeping across the land.

Beyond the immediate conflict between us and the Christian churches on racial matters there is a long-standing and quite fundamental ideological problem with Christianity. It is not an Aryan religion; like Judaism and Islam it is Semitic in origin, and all its centuries of partial adaptation to Aryan ways have not changed its basic flavor. It was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later known as Paul), from the Levant to the Greco-Roman world. Its doctrines that the meek shall inherit the earth and that the last shall be the first found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome. Centuries later, as Rome was succumbing to an internal rot in which Christianity played no small part, legions of Roman conscripts imposed the imported religion on the Celtic and Germanic tribes to the north.

Eventually Christianity became a unifying factor for Europe, and in the name of Jesus Europeans resisted the onslaught of Islamic Moors and Turks and expelled the “Christ-killing” Jews from one country after another. But the religion retained its alien mind-set, no matter how much some aspects of it were Europeanized. Its otherworldliness is fundamentally out of tune with the Aryan quest for knowledge and for progress; its universalism conflicts directly with Aryan striving for beauty and strength; its delineation of the roles of man and god offends the Aryan sense of honor and self-sufficiency.

Finally Christianity, like the other Semitic religions, is irredeemably primitive. Its deity is thoroughly anthropomorphic, and its “miracles”—raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame and the blind with a word and a touch—are the crassest superstition.

Australia is gone

The following is a recent comment by
Pat Hannagan on The Occidental Observer:



Australia is rapidly being shutdown in terms of any “free speech” that is not in full concordance with the ruling media and political dynasty of communist anti-Western / anti-White policy and propaganda.

We have the media inquiry instigated by Labor PM Ms Gillard, driven by the appointed Jew Mr Ray Finkelstein QC. (link)

We have NSW “conservative” Premier Mr O’Farrell “…who is concerned there have been no successful criminal prosecutions in the history of the NSW laws and that they have fallen out of step with community expectations”, now demanding an “inquiry that will consider strengthening anti-discrimination laws to make it easier to convict people for serious racial vilification”.

Note well: The inquiry has been welcomed by the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board, Stepan Kerkyasharian, as “a great opportunity to deal with this matter”. Mr Kerkyasharian is, of course, a Jew. (link)

As is the Chairman of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Mr John Searle.

It is illegal in Australia to point out what I have above, that certain drivers of anti-discrimination legislation and proponents of racial vilification laws in Australia are Jews.

The prominent neoconservative opinion writer Andrew Bolt, himself a lover of Israel and all things Jewish, was himself set upon by a coterie of Jews and taken to court for “hate speech” towards Aboriginals.

You can read about that also in Quadrant, and note all the Jews who orchestrated the campaign against him, as well as the aforementioned Justice Finkelstein. But, Bolt will never note that the Jews, on the whole, despise and revile him—he loves them! (link)

Furthermore, it is illegal to do so in Australia. That is why it is important that blogs such as Occidental Observer, administered out of the U.S.A. continue to allow comments.

You cannot rely on Australia to lead anything. Our bi-party system is in lock-step to shutdown White Australia, and criminalise White Australians.

Orwellian rewriting of History

Or:

Portugal and the one-drop rule

Below, (1) my abridgement of Ray Smith’s The Black Man’s Gift to Portugal from “The Best of Attack and National Vanguard Tabloid,” Ref: Issue No. 6, 1971; (2) Arthur Kemp’s more recent views on Portugal in March of the Titans; (3) the comments of John Martínez whose native language is Portuguese, and (4) my impressions on Iberian miscegenation.



Ray Smith

In view of the fact that we are now being forced to integrate with the Negroes and grant them equal participation, it might be instructive to look at other countries which have integrated with Negroes in the past to see what the Negroes gave them. What is the historical evidence?

There is a wealth of material here for study in such places as Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Brazil, etc., but the nearest parallel to the United States today is Portugal in the 16th century.

It may come as a surprise to hear of the Negroes’ role in the history of Portugal, for in spite of all the emphasis on “Black studies” in our schools, no one seems to talk about the Blacks’ contribution to Portugal—neither the Portuguese, the Blacks, nor our modern historians who are rewriting our history books to make the Negroes look good. It takes considerable digging in books written before our modern era of forced integration to uncover the story of Portugal.


Poets and explorers

By the middle of the 16th century, Portugal had risen to a position analogous to that of the United States today. Portugal was the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, with a large empire and colonies in Asia, Africa and America. The Portuguese people were, like the Elizabethans in England, poets and explorers, a race of highly civilized, imaginative, intelligent, and daring people. They showed great potential and had already made important contributions to the Renaissance. But, unlike England and other European countries, Portugal had a large and rapidly growing Negro population and, at the same time, its white population was declining.

Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal [especially in Lisbon] was 10 percent Negro (the U.S. is 13-14 percent Negro today).

Defilement of the blood

There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal. The present-day population of Portugal is described by the New York Times Encyclopedic Almanac, 1971, as follows: “Ethnic Composition: The people are a mixture of various ethnic strains, including Celtic, Arab, Berber, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Lusitanian, and other racial influences. The present population is one of the most homogeneous in Europe, with no national minorities.” (Note that the Negro strain is not listed by the New York Times).

What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race—a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1911, in its article on Portugal states, “The Portuguese intermarried freely with their slaves, and this infusion of alien blood profoundly modified the character and physique of the nation. It may be said without exaggeration that the Portuguese of the ‘age of discoveries’ and the Portuguese of the 17th and later centuries were two different races.”

The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backwards country in Europe…

Portugal and America

In spite of the close similarity between the situation of Portugal in the 1550’s and the United States today, we cannot predict that the outcome of our racial integration with Negroes will be exactly the same. The historical significance, however, is that any country, society, or group which has integrated to any appreciable extent with the Negroes has suffered drastically in its ability to maintain a civilized standard of living and its ability to compete with others. There is no evidence that any other country ever gained anything from integration with Negroes.

It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550’s does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers—sailing, settling in the colonies, and marrying native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced—an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as “pets”. They also married them.

The situation in the U.S. today is not too different. The radical-chic Whites have their Black pets.

Our percentage of the Negro element today does not represent the final amalgam. The Negro birth rate is almost twice as high as that of the Whites. There is no White population explosion in America, or anywhere in the world. It is all colored. The colored woman has the children; the White women are on the pill or have abortions.

What the final amalgam in America will be we can not say, but if the present trends continue, the Negro element will be much more than 14 percent.

Why did Portugal integrate?

The British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese all engaged in the Negro slave trade, but only Portugal brought them to their own country. The question arises—why did Portugal so willingly accept racial integration with Negroes while other European countries kept the Negroes out and maintained their racial integrity? What was the climate of opinion, the current ideology, teaching, or propaganda that led the Portuguese to depart from the behavior of the other countries? What was the difference about Portugal?

You will not find the answer to these questions in our modern history books and recently published encyclopedias, for the whole subject of the decline has become taboo. You will have to dig into older sources and discover your own answers.

You might also ask yourself why America is accepting racial integration while most of the rest of the world is “racist.” Why are we different?

History rewritten

Our encyclopedias and history books have been purged and rewritten. If you look up Portugal in the 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, you will not find anything about the role of the Negroes and Jews in the history of Portugal, or anything about the decline and fall of Portugal.

The Jews are briefly mentioned among others who “exerted various influences over the territory which in the 13th century acquired the frontiers of modern Portugal.” There is no elaboration of what this influence was.

The Negroes have been eliminated entirely. They are not listed with the other ethnic groups in the ancestry of the Portuguese people. In the entire 15-page article, there is no clue that Negroes were ever present in Portugal or that they had any role or influence in Portuguese history.

The 1970 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana also makes no mention of the presence of Negroes in Portugal.

In all these sources you find “facts,” i.e., names and dates, but with no meaning and no indication of what actually happened or why. However, if you can manage to find some older sources, you can learn a great deal about the history of Portugal.

African-Presence-2

Blacks and Jews: Jewish police officers
haul away a black man
in this anonymous depiction
of a Lisbon street scene
(Walters Art Museum, Baltimore)

The article on Portugal in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica contains more real information than you can get in reading a hundred history books of more recent vintage. From our modern point of view, this article would probably be called “racist,” but the point is that the presence and activities of the Negroes and Jews are recorded. The information is there, and you can draw your own conclusions. The article is actually pro-Jewish. There is also a scholarly analysis of the factors in the decline and fall of Portugal, with the author tending to blame the Inquisition, the Jesuits, and anti-Semitism. However, neither his conclusions nor his bias prevents him from including factors or information which might lead the reader to a different conclusion.

Our modern scholars and authorities eliminate information which might lead the reader to the “wrong” conclusion.

Suppressing the evidence

The 1964 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica still briefly lists the Negroes and Jews, along with others, as Portuguese racial elements, but with no details or elaborations. By 1966, the Negroes have vanished completely.

Now, what has happened between 1911 and 1966 that makes us purge and rewrite history in such a way? Have we decided that race no longer is, or ever was, a factor in history? This cannot be, since “Black Studies” are flourishing at our universities. Historians are supposedly trying hard to discover all they can about the role of the Negroes in history.

In a trial, a lawyer tries to suppress evidence that would be damaging to his client. He tries to prevent this evidence from reaching the jury. Our modern historians and scholars are trying to suppress evidence. The Negro is their client. We are the jury—and we must not reach the “wrong” verdict.

Liberals in the United States often became very self-righteous and superior when the former Soviet Union purged and rewrote its encyclopedias, eliminating from its history current undesirables and making them “unpersons.” We ridicule their lack of objectivity and irrational scholarship.

But we do exactly the same thing when we rewrite history of Portugal and make “unpersons” of the Negroes (and Jews). In terms of rewriting and deliberately falsifying history, we are much closer to Orwell’s 1984 than the Soviet Union ever was. Big Brother protects us from dangerous knowledge.

Quo Vadis, Aryan man

There is a great need for the American people to know what happened in Portugal in the 16th century, for we are repeating their experience. We are in the same predicament, at the same juncture, at the same crossroads in history. There is an amazing similarity between our situation today and Portugal’s in the 1500’s. Shall we take the same road?

Travelers from other European countries were amazed to see so many Negroes in 16th-century Lisbon, as are travelers today in Washington, D.C. Our own capital is a large percentage Black, and, as was the case in Lisbon, the Negroes do all the manual labor and service jobs. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments, “While the country was being drained of its best citizens, hordes of slaves were imported to fill the vacancies, especially into the southern provinces. Manual labor was thus discredited; the peasants sold their farms and emigrated or flocked to the towns; and small holdings were merged into vast estates.”

Manual labor has been “discredited” for many White people these days, and Negroes fill these jobs. We are “too good” for it.

Stout hearts—and pure blood

In analyzing the catastrophe which befell Portugal, the historian H. Morse Stephens (in his book, Portugal, written in 1891) concludes:

They [the Portuguese] were to produce great captains and writers, and were able to become the wealthiest nation in Europe. But that same sixteenth century was to see the Portuguese power sink, and the independence, won by Alfonso Henriques and maintained by John the Great, vanish away; it was to see Portugal, which had been one of the greatest nations of its time, decline in fame, and become a mere province of Spain. Hand in hand with increased wealth came corruption and depopulation, and within a single century after the epoch-making voyage of Vasco da Gamma, the Portuguese people, tamed by the Inquisition, were to show no sign of their former hardihood. This is the lesson that the story of Portugal in the sixteenth century teaches: that the greatness of a nation depends not upon its wealth and commercial prosperity, but upon the thews and sinews and the stout hearts of its people.

This is rather old-fashioned language, but what Stephens is saying is that, by the end of the 16th century, the quality of the people was lacking. Other European nations suffered military defeat, but continued to grow and develop. Portugal stopped dead in its tracks. It had nothing to build on. Portugal can now only look nostalgically to the past. We Americans must use this information as insight into our future. It is too late to save the White Aryan people of Portugal, but we must save ourselves.



Arthur Kemp

Lessons in decline: Spain and Portugal

Spain and Portugal are two countries in Western Europe which have both been marked by phases of great wealth and power and then decline—the classic characteristics of the rise and fall of civilizations. Bearing in mind the lessons already manifest from the ancient civilizations, it is therefore easy to look for the population shifts which, as always, closely track the rise and fall of all civilizations. As to be expected with both Spain and Portugal, the population changes are also evident—and are also directly linked to the leading and then reduced roles these nations have played in not only White history, but also of world history.

One of the first laws which the Gothic kingdom in Spain established was a ban on all mixed marriages. Goths were only allowed to marry Goths, and punishment for violating this ban was burning at the stake.

stakeThis overtly racial law kept the intermixing of Goths with all others to an absolute minimum—and particularly with the growing Jewish population. Gothic Spain settled down into a period of relative peace and resultant prosperity, with the only discordant note being sounded by the large Jewish population.

[However], partly because of a fanatic Christianizing zeal (which was common to all early Christians), partly because of Jewish domination of the Spanish financial world, and partly because of the exclusivity and separation which the Jewish religion gave to the Jews, ill feeling between the Christian Goths and Jews in Spain reached a height which had not been seen since the time of the Roman-Jewish war 550 years previously.

In 620 AD, the Spanish Gothic king, Sisbert, ordered 80,000 Jews to be baptized as Christians in an attempt to break Judaism in Spain. This was the start of the Conversos—Spanish Jews who publicly espoused Christianity but in secret kept up Jewish traditions. They were also known by the less complimentary name of “Marranos”—pigs.

Although the 80,000 Jews baptized by Sisbert remained in Spain, about an equal number left Spain for other parts of Europe to escape the growing anti-Semitic feeling in Iberia. Their departure was not a moment too soon—fifty-three years later, in 673 AD, another Spanish Gothic king, Wamba, formally expelled all Jews from Spain who would not convert to Christianity.

Wamba’s immediate predecessor, King Recesuinto [Recceswinth], had taken a step which was to have far reaching consequences. He abolished the long standing ban on mixed marriages, replacing it with a law stating that anyone of Christian beliefs was allowed to marry anyone else of similar beliefs. Henceforth the only ban on intermarriage would be on religious grounds, not racial.

This step allowed any person of any racial origin, as long as they professed Christianity, to intermarry and mix with the Goths. In this way the first steps were taken that would lead towards the dissolution of the Gothic tribe in Spain.

[In his book Kemp proceeds to describe the following centuries, then he writes of Spain’s Golden Age:]

st-martin-and-the-beggar-detailThe racial divisions emerge. This famous painting by El Greco, (1548 -1614), Saint Martin and the Beggar, is a vivid depiction of the emerging division of Spain into those who had mixed with the non-White Muslims and those who had not. Saint Martin is portrayed as completely White. The beggar is clearly of mixed race.

The change in the racial face of Spain, combined with its disastrous European wars, brought about that country’s decline as a great power, perfectly in line with the law that societies create cultures in the image of their populations, and change those societal norms as their populations change. Spain is a significant example of this principle, because, like Italy after the Germanic Lombard invasion, that country essentially became a bi-racial nation: White in the North, with a gradually darkening population to the south.

By 1648, Spain had been so weakened that it conceded Dutch independence in that year. French provinces were handed back to France in 1659, and Portugal was once again granted independence in 1668.

In 1497, the Portuguese King, Emanuel, mirrored the Spanish example and expelled non-Christian Jews and all Christianized Moors. A law was also introduced which forbid persons of mixed race from holding public office—the law had as its formal title the “Purity of Blood Law” [Limpieza de sangue]. In addition to this, similar restrictions were placed on what was called “New Christians”—Jews who had converted to Christianity to avoid persecution by the Inquisition, which also reached into Portugal.

[In Portugal] there were no social restrictions on the Black population, and intermarriage was as frequent as not. Over the passage of time, the entire Black population was completely absorbed into the Portuguese population, to the point where by the start of the 20th Century, there were no full-blooded Blacks left in Portugal at all.

potrugal1While not every Portuguese person today is a product of this absorption process, it is true to say that a very large number of Portuguese today are in fact of mixed racial descent, with a small amount of Moorish blood, dating from that non-White race’s occupation of the Iberian peninsula, thrown in for good measure.

portugal2The absorption of the ten percent Black population into the Portuguese population also identically mirrors the disappearance of Portugal as a world power. The Portuguese of the Age of Discoveries and those of today are essentially two different peoples. The effects of the absorption of the Black slaves has retarded Portugal’s history ever since. The rapid decline of Portugal following the intake of the vast numbers of Black slaves mirrors her decline.

In 1580, Spain annexed Portugal after the Portuguese king died heirless, and only regained its independence in 1680 once Spain itself had also gone into decline for precisely the same reasons—although the admixture of Black slaves into Spain was never as far reaching as it was in Portugal.

After 1600, Portuguese domination of trade with the East Indies was lost to the Dutch and the English. Partly in response to objections from the mixed race element in society, and partly in response to the reality that many Portuguese citizens were already of mixed racial heritage, the Purity of Blood Law was repealed in 1773, the same year that slavery was abolished in Portugal itself, and the restrictions on the “New Christians” (the Jews) in that country, were lifted.

Portugal’s dramatic and extremely quick decline from the most powerful and richest country in Western Europe to the most backward and poor country in that region, contains an extremely significant lesson. It only required an influx and absorption of just over ten per cent of non-White blood into mainstream Portuguese society to cause a significant shift in population make-up of that country. This shift in make-up immediately affected Portugal’s position and status in the world, with its decline being clearly linked to the absorption process.




John Martínez

I’ve just read the article about Portugal you sent me the other day [Ray Smith’s, abridged above]. It’s awesome, very educative.

I think you remember that I said [in a previous email] that in 19th-century Portuguese novels you never see Blacks in the plots. Despite that, I also said that there is something weird about the Portuguese as far as race is concerned, because those folks are palpably more stupid than other Europeans by and large, and I went on to mention that in Southern Portugal the Arab/Northern African racial admixture with the locals through the centuries probably had been considerable. Now, do you remember a post you prepared for your blog, concerning the frailty of the White genetic material, whose good qualities are lost by any minimum admixture with non-white genetic input? I found it so striking I even translated it and posted it on my blog.

Well, if you put together all these data I think you have a reasonable explanation for what happened to Portugal: Until the 14th century, there had been some Arab/North African amalgamation in the south, but the north remained more or less intact. In the course of the 15th century, due to Portugal’s conquests in Africa, dozens of thousands of Negroes were brought to the country, especially to Lisbon. Since there had never been anything like a racial consciousness in Portugal, racial amalgamation was rife and unchecked. Then, after a few generations, the country imploded economically and became the cultural/economic backwater we see today, especially if we keep in mind that the Black influx into Portugal most likely went on for the following centuries.

In other words, the one-drop rule should indeed be heeded. A relatively small-level racial intermixing on the part of the Portuguese was enough to destroy their character as a White people, even if not enough to give the average Portuguese of today a distinctively Black/Arab/Northern African phenotype.

Choices have consequences indeed…

As soon as I started reading those online articles [critical of both Smith and Kemp’s views on Portugal] I realized they were the work of Portuguese antifas who call Kemp a racist and, paradoxically, at the same time try hard to prove their country is not a Negroes’ nation. Pathetic.

The passage you sent me from Wikipedia says everything, and I’d like to draw your attention to the following data:

In Iberia the mean frequency of Haplogroup L lineages reaches 3.83% and the frequency is higher in Portugal (5.83%) than in Spain (2.90%) and without parallel in the rest of Europe. [emphasis added]

Now, and this is really important, you can’t lose sight of something: since the slave traffic into Portugal must have ended at some point between the 18th and 19th century, in the meantime (at least until the 1960’s and 70’s, when apparently there was a resurgence of African Black immigration into the country), the amount of Black blood among the general population necessarily decreased over time. Therefore, this 5.83% mentioned above certainly was an even higher figure a couple of centuries ago. And now that Blacks are once more migrating en masse to Portugal, the risk they might run of becoming a White nation again in the future has definitely been removed.

About the allegations one of the articles tries to make to the effect that Portugal is no backwater, that it has a vibrant culture which unfortunately is not given attention by the big media… bull. Ever since Camões, arguably the greatest European poet in the 16th century after Shakespeare, the only relevant contributions the country has given to Europe are 19th-century novelist Eça de Queiroz and 20th-century poet Fernando Pessoa. It is true that the insufferable José Saramago won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998, but so what? Even Toni Morrison won it—although Tolstoy, Joyce and Borges didn’t. In fact, I’m surprised Paulo Coelho hasn’t received it yet. The antifas in Stockholm will bestow prizes to their brothers anyway and commie Saramago would do just as well as any other.


My 2 ¢

Before discovering white nationalist literature I was completely unaware that the Portuguese ruined their gene pool by interbreeding with Blacks. And I ignored also that the Spanish had imported vast amounts of Black slaves into New Spain—presently Mexico—and that with time the Blacks merged genetically with the Amerind mestizos.

But what shocked me the most is that long ago the pure Aryans in Spain—by 476 AD a Visigoth king, Euric, controlled nearly all the Iberian Peninsula—were tricked into degrading their gene pool by means of Christian conversion and marrying non-whites, as explained by Kemp (and William Pierce).

Incidentally, in the first comment of the comments section below I reproduce the whole section on current Iberian genetic studies that Martínez used to pick a quotation. I am reproducing it in addition to linking to it above because in the past I endured the bitter experience of Wikipedia administrators deleting an entire section I had written about aboriginal infanticide in Australia in spite of the fact that it was well sourced. The article “Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula” at Wikipedia could be censored as well.

He who controls the past controls the future! Rewriting history is therefore one of the hobbies of our anti-white culture.

Kemp on Christianity



Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race

by Arthur Kemp:



Although originating within the Semitic world, the religion of Christianity has played such a major role in the post Roman European world that its origins must be clearly dealt with for the sake of understanding its later influence.



Genocidal evangelism

Coercive Christianity takes root

With the use of violent and bloody coercion, Saxon and German paganism was quite literally killed off, and most of the survivors became Christians more out of fear than out of genuine conviction. Christianity finally spread to the Goths themselves, through a Christian slave named Wulfila, who translated the Bible into Gothic.

Before the end of the fourth century, Christianity had spread to the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards and other German tribes within the direct sphere of influence of the Western Roman Empire.

By the year 550 AD, the only non-Christian tribes were to be found in Bavaria and those parts of Germany north from there—including virtually all of the Danes, Scandinavians, Balts and Slavs to the east.


Charlemagne organizes the murder of all non-Christians under his control

In 768, Pepin’s son, Charlemagne (Charles the Great), inherited the Frankish kingdom. It was this king who was directly responsible for the introduction of Christianity to the Germans.

To destroy German paganism, Charlemagne proclaimed harsh laws applicable to those Germans under his control who refused to be baptized into Christianity. Eating meat during Lent, cremating the dead and pretending to be baptized were all made punishable by death.

In 768, Charlemagne started a 32 year long campaign of what can only be described as genocidal evangelism against the Saxons under his control in western Germany.

The campaign started with the cutting down of the Saxon’s most sacred tree, their version of the World Tree or Yggdrasil (the symbol of the start of the earth and the source of all life in the ancient Indo-European religions) located in a sacred Saxon forest near present day Marburg.

Yggdrasil_by_Ludwig_Burger

The norns Urðr, Verðandi,
and Skuld beneath
the world tree
Yggdrasil


Charlemagne quickly turned to violence as a means of spreading the Christian word. In 772, at Quierzy, he issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept Jesus Christ, and from that time on he kept a special detachment of Christian priests who doubled as executioners, and in every Saxon village in which they stopped, these priests would execute anybody who refused to be baptized.

Then in 782, at Verden, Charlemagne carried out the act for which he is most notoriously associated—he ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons in one day who had made the error of being caught practicing paganism after they had agreed to be Christians.

Charlemagne’s constant companion and biographer, the monk Einhard, vividly captured the event in his biography of the Frankish king. In it is written that the King rounded up 4,500 Saxons who “like dogs that return to their vomit” had returned to the pagan religions they had been forced to give up upon pain of death.

After having all 4,500 Saxons beheaded “the king went into winter camp, and there celebrated mass as usual.”

Twelve years later, in 794, Charlemagne introduced a law under which every third Saxon living in any pagan area was kidnapped and forced to resettle and be raised amongst Christian Franks.

Teutonic Knights exterminate the last white pagans

The only significant grouping of Whites left in Europe who were not—nominally at least—Christians by the year 1000 AD were to be found in the Baltic and Eastern European regions. To destroy this last bastion of paganism the Church employed the services of some of the most fanatic Christians of all—the Teutonic Knights.

By 1198, however, these knights had changed from being purely passive and took an active part in the war against the non-White Muslims, becoming known as the Teutonic Knights. Membership in the order was strictly limited to Christian German noblemen. The Teutonic Knights received official recognition from Pope Innocent III in 1199, and adopted the official uniform of a white tunic with a black cross.

Soon their deeds on behalf of Christendom became famous. In 1210 they were invited to Hungary by the king of that country to participate in a war against the non-Christian pagan tribes in Eastern Europe.

The Teutonic Knights jumped at the chance, and by using violence and mass murder, soon became known as effective Christianizers amongst the pagan Whites of Eastern Europe. This genocidal evangelism soon became the sole obsession of the Teutonic Knights—by 1226 the order had set up permanent settlements in north eastern Europe.

In 1226, the Holy Roman Emperor granted the Teutonic Knights control over what was then Prussia (today northern Poland) to rule as a fiefdom on condition that they convert all the locals to Christianity. In 1234, Pope Gregory IX granted the Knights control over any other territory that they might conquer from the pagans. The Teutonic Knights soon built a series of imposing castles to defend their new territory, some of which still stand today.

From the safety of these castles they waged their own brand of evangelicalism, which was limited to the Frankish king Charlemagne’s recipe—once a number of pagans had been captured, they were offered the choice of either being baptized and accepting Christianity, or being killed on the spot.

Unsurprisingly, almost all chose conversion. The price for being caught practicing paganism after being baptized, was instant death.

The Teutonic Order in 1260

As was the case with the genocidal evangelicalism of Charlemagne, the first one or two generations of converts were in all likelihood not genuine—usually they paid lip service to Christianity in order not to be killed. By about the third generation however, the children knew no other religion, and in this way Christianity replaced the original Indo-European religions.

The Teutonic Knights also encouraged already Christianized Germans to settle in Prussia. This served a double purpose—not only could the new arrivals police the new converts, but also the Teutonic Knights realized very clearly that the easiest way to change the nature of a society was to change its inhabitants.

By 1300, the Teutonic Knights were one of the most powerful organizations in Germany, controlling territory which stretched from the Baltic Sea into central Germany, a private empire which saw them engaging in, on average, eight major wars every year.

However, the Teutonic Knights slowly ran out of pagans to convert. By 1386 the last of the major non-Christian tribes in the north, the Lithuanians, had all more or less been converted, and the order started to lose the reason for its existence.


Later Christianity

So it was that Christianity came to be the dominant religion of Europe—the first religion to convert by mass murder.

The original White religion had never tried to convert followers upon pain of death, and had never waged a war in its name—and as such it was psychologically unprepared to do battle with a Middle Eastern religion which engendered a genocidal fanaticism amongst its followers.

Once the Christians had run out of pagans to kill, they turned upon themselves in a violent and bloody fratricidal conflict which saw the Church split and the various protagonists kill each other in a crazed blood lust.

Fully one third of the entire White race was killed in a series of major Christian Wars in Europe—these events are dealt with in a later chapter, along with the effect of Christianity upon the development of science, history, art and social life.


The Dark Ages

The Dark Ages was a period in European history which has been arbitrarily set at between approximately 800 AD and lasting until the Renaissance. Although this is by no means a fixed definition, the common thread throughout this period of history was the total dominance of Christianity and the repression of all art, science and progress that was not Christian in nature.

In this way the great scientific, philosophical and cultural works of the thousands of years of pre-Christian civilization were suppressed, all being ascribed to the work of pagans and therefore of devil authorship. The era became known as the Dark Ages because of the introduction of theocracy as the only guideline in all fields of endeavor. This created a halt to all progress and centuries of cultural stagnation, which marked the time between the glory of Classical antiquity and the rebirth of that glory in the Renaissance and the beginnings of the modern world.

In the field of the study of history, the dominance of the Church had a massive effect. The Lux Ex Orient (“the Light Comes from the East”) doctrine was established which said that all civilization originated in the Middle East, as this was where the events of the Bible had supposedly been played out. The Lux Ex Orient doctrine is still to this day the “popular” interpretation of history, with most people having been taught that “civilization originated in the fertile river valleys”.


Racial effects of the age of theocracy

The spread of Christianity unquestionably affected the growth of the European peoples: particularly in the policy, still held in the Catholic Church to this day, of celibacy for leading church officials.

Although this policy of enforced celibacy amongst the priesthood, monks and nuns only ever applied to a relatively small number of Whites, it was nonetheless often the most intelligent members of society who became monks or nuns. This was so because during the Dark Ages, only the cleverest candidates were allowed to enter the priesthood: as the keepers of the arts and writing, the only way to gain any sort of education was to join the priesthood.

Although there can be little doubt that, given human nature, the celibacy rule was broken, it must also be so that the policy of deliberate celibacy saw many thousands of Europe’s cleverest people dying childless, their genes lost forever. The persecution of these great minds with the accusation of paganism also unquestionably stripped Europe of many of its cleverest people: the cumulative effect of the Dark Ages was to set Europe back centuries in development.


The Christian Wars

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that he had come to bring the sword, to “set father against son and mother against daughter” (Luke 12:53) and called on his followers to “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

These words have, in the history of Christianity, been enacted in bloody reality many times—starting when an important political rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church took on a religious slant—leading to the split in European Christendom between Catholic and Protestant. This split sparked off a series of religious wars which were ultimately to be responsible for the death of nearly a third of the entire White race.

The Reformation is the name given to this 16th century religious uprising. Its major outpouring happened in the middle of the Renaissance, there can be little doubt that the two events were linked: added to this was a political problem which the countries in Northern Europe had with the all powerful role the pope had assumed from Rome.

Emerging European nationalism objected to the fact that the pope—usually an Italian—had to approve the appointment of any head of state everywhere else in Europe. The pope’s ability to even charge tax from foreign countries to support the Church headquarters in Rome also irked those living thousands of miles from Rome. It has been estimated that the Church ended up owning as much as one third of all the land in Europe in this manner: what the various national states must have secretly thought of this does not need to be imagined.

[After a few pages describing the religious wars, Kemp writes:]

The Danes were defeated: the Catholics followed up their victory with another Danish defeat in August of that year at Lutter am Barenberge, Germany.

The Danes fled back north, and the Catholic armies set about pillaging, looting and destroying every Protestant north German town they seized. Catholic victory seemed complete: in March 1629, the Catholic king issued the Edict of Restitution which effectively nullified all Protestant titles to all Roman Catholic property expropriated since the Peace of Augsburg in 1555.

The German Protestant city of Magdeburg then rose in revolt: it was besieged by a German Catholic army and crushed in May 1631, with every single Protestant inhabitant—tens of thousands of people—being massacred by the victorious Catholics. The city was also virtually burned to the ground in the looting that followed.


Racial consequences of the Thirty Years’ War – One Third of German population killed

The racial consequences of the Christian Wars, and in particular the Thirty Years’ War, were vast. The German population was reduced by at least one third, and probably more: when combined with the effects of the Great Plague of the 1300s, the German population actually shrunk by over 50 per cent in the course of 300 years: a massive decline which, if avoided, would certainly have changed the course of world history.

When the history of the Christian Wars is read in conjunction with the suppression of learning and science caused by the Christian Dark Ages, and the division the White populations into opposing Christian camps, then no other conclusion is possible except to say that the introduction of Christianity has to count as the single greatest ideological catastrophe to ever strike Europe.


Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Why Rome fell



Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race

by Arthur Kemp:



All civilizations fall only if the people who made those civilizations vanish. This is a truth, which applies to all races, nations, and people: as long as the people who created a particular civilization survive, and are present in significant numbers, the civilization that they created, will continue. Once those people vanish, then their civilization vanishes with them. There is no escaping this iron law of nature.

Classical Rome, one of the mightiest nations of the ancient world, was no exception to this rule. Although historians tend to focus on economic, moral, or military reasons for the fall of Rome, the real reason why this mighty civilization fell was because the very people who established the Roman civilization, ceased making up the majority population in and around Rome.

Although many historians have either ignored the racial factor in the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire—and some have never even thought about it—there have been many who have recognized race as the critical element. Amongst the more famous of these were professor Tenney Frank, from the Johns Hopkins University. Professor Frank, a recognized authority on the history of ancient Rome, is most famous for his work An Economic History of Rome (New York, Cooper Square Publishers, 1927, reprinted 1962) but his other works included the important “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire” published in the American Historical Review, volume 21 pages 689-708.

Along with Frank, many other well-known and respected historians dealt with the issue of how the Roman population changed. Amongst these were professor A.M. Duff; Charles Merivale; George La Piana; Theodor Mommsen; and the multiple authors of both the Cambridge Ancient History and the Encyclopedia Britannica’s The Historians’ History of the World.

Frank’s first clue

Frank outlined how he first realized that race mixture was the cause of the change in Roman society. By studying the names of graves on the Appian Way in Rome, he found that huge numbers of late Roman Republic inhabitants had names which originated in the Levant, or Middle East, in strong contrast to the early inhabitants of Rome, who had Latin names. Frank then went on to make a determined study of the tombs and monuments in Rome and surrounds, drawing up a database of over 13,900 different names. His analysis of those names drew the conclusion that about 75 percent of those names were not Latin in origin. The “Greek” names were for the greatest part not Greeks at all, and were Middle Easterners who had adopted Greek names, particularly after the conquest of their region by Alexander the Great. The writer Juvenal, speaking of the Roman population, actually points out the Levantine origin of many of these people in his writings, referring to the Syrian River, the Orontes: “These dregs call themselves Greeks but how small a portion is from Greece; the River Orontes has long flowed into the Tiber” (Juvenal, III, 62).

Frank went on to explain the push and pull effect that led to the racial makeup change in Rome: of how native Romans were drawn away from Rome by colonization and military service, and of how their places were taken up by slaves, in serfdom and as freedmen, in Rome itself.

It is estimated that the slave population of Rome and its immediate surrounding area at the time of Augustus (circa 30 BC) was some 300,000-350,000 out of a population of about 900,000-950,000 (Hopkins, K. Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Volume 1. Cambridge, 1978). For all of Italy, the figure is approximately the same. A figure of around two million slaves out of a population of about six million at the time of Augustus is accurate—this means that at this early stage one in every three persons in Rome and Italy was a slave.

Charles Merivale points out how Julius Caesar himself saw the danger of slave labor flooding Rome, and actually passed a law forbidding certain types of labor-intensive work from using only slaves.

Roman fate sealed

Professor A.M. Duff pointed out that even by the time of Octavian Augustus, there were significant numbers of “Orientals” in Rome. Duff goes on to describe the social change process at work in Roman society. The desire of Romans to emigrate to other areas of the empire, is mentioned by the Roman writer Seneca, who stated that Romans looked for every opportunity to leave their native country. Freed slaves, mostly of Syrian or Eastern extraction, soon became numerically strong in Rome itself. The Emperor Philip was in fact born in Syria, and became known as “Philip the Arabian” as a result. Tacitus complains that in Nero’s day most of the senators and members of the aristocracy were now men of ex-slave status—and most of these were of Eastern origin.

By the Third Century AD, many of the emperors were actually descendants of the slaves of earlier centuries. George La Piana states it this way: “The denationalized capital of the great empire, came to be ruled by the offspring of races which originally had come to the city only to serve” (La Piana, Foreign Groups in Rome, p. 223).

Based on his research, Frank goes on to estimate that as much as 90 percent of the population of the city of Rome was of “servile extraction.” While this 90 percent would not all have been of foreign race, the majority most certainly were. “This Orientalization of Rome’s populace has a more important bearing than is usually accorded it upon the larger question of why the spirit and acts of imperial Rome are totally different from those of the republic. There was a complete change in the temperament!” (Frank, p. 705).

The Historians’ History of the World, edited by H.S. Williams, and published by the Encyclopedia Britannica underlines the importance of slavery in this change in Roman society: “Slavery was the most determined enemy of that spirit of conservatism and tradition which had been the strength of the Roman race.”

The replacement of the original Roman people by immigrants was marked first at the lowest levels or society, but then gradually made its way up through all levels. Septimus Severus was the first Roman Emperor who was not of Roman extraction, born as he was a Phoenician from North Africa. His wife was Julia Domna, a Syrian. Severus was succeeded by his two sons, who reigned for awhile together then successively. The throne later came to two grandsons. In all, the Syro-Phoenicians dominated the Roman Empire from 193 A.D. to 235 A.D.

A suppressed view of history

It is therefore clear that many famous historians who studied the classical Roman era in depth, saw clearly the change in race which took place as being the primary cause of the fall of that civilization. In summary:

1. The original Roman people were dissipated by war, foreign service in the military and emigration to their colonies;

2. Their place in Rome and surrounds was taken by the wholesale importation of slaves, the majority of whom had come from the mixed race southeastern reaches of the empire;

3. Eventually not even the emperors themselves were of Roman extraction; and

4. As a result, the remaining Roman population became increasingly of mixed racial origin as time progressed.

The importance of this racial change was not lost on many famous historians, but the modern era’s censorship of the issue of race as a determining factor, has led to the deliberate suppression of the work of Frank (and others). Nonetheless, the accuracy and validity of their observations remain as true as ever, and provide the real answer for the fall of the classical Roman civilization.


Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Kemp on the Jews



Excerpted from
March of the Titans:
A History of the White Race

by Arthur Kemp:



The saga of the European Jews

Anti-Semitism—or, more accurately, anti-Jewishness—was not an invention of Hitler nor of his National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Anti-Jewish sentiment has always stalked the Jews, where-ever they went: it seems as if their very presence always elicited a negative and hostile response from virtually all the nations in which they settled. Anti-Jewish sentiment existed long before Christianity, and the introduction of that religion and its distortions merely provided another means of expression for the latent anti-Jewish feeling which always followed the Jews like a shadow.

Origins of anti-Jewish sentiment. The origins of this original anti-Jewish feeling lie within the nature of Jewish society itself: exclusively ethno-centric with a binding religion and inward looking culture, the Jews always managed to maintain themselves as an isolated community in all of the nations in which they settled. This tradition has maintained itself to this day.

For this reason, Jews tended to live together in tightly knit communities in cities: these Jewish blocks came to be called ghettoes, and it is important to realize that the first ghettoes were entirely voluntary Jewish neighborhoods. This was then re-inforced by religious laws limiting membership of the Jewish community by race—only people born of Jewish women could be accepted as Jews. This is another practice which has survived to the present day—people of no direct Jewish ancestry can only become Jews with great difficulty, and even then a large section of the Jewish community, the orthodox Jews, will not recognize converts as true Jews.

Finally, the well-known Jewish propensity for business and the ability to accumulate vast amounts of money—a phenomena well known to this day—was the source of much original anti-Jewish feeling. Gentiles (or, Goy as the Jewish Talmud) refer to non-Jews of all races, with the literal translation of cattle—which in itself is an important insight of how the writers of the Talmud viewed the outside world.

The true origins of anti-Jewish feeling therefore lies in a combination of three major factors:

• the self imposed isolation of the Jewish people;

• the open hostility to Non-Jews as espoused in their ethno-centric and tightly binding religion; and

• the propensity of their financial dealings.

Thus it was that the first anti-Jewish outbursts occurred long before the introduction of Christianity. Christianity merely added to these emotions: as the wave of Christian fanaticism swept Europe, all sense of reason or rationality was lost, and, forgetting that Christianity itself had sprung from Judaism, the Christians gave vent to their long simmering dislike of the Jews by accusing them of being the killers of Christ to boot.

The hostility was however, reciprocated: the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical writings added to the Old Testament, contains many violently anti-Gentile remarks, comparing non-Jewish women to whores and providing specific instruction on how it is permissible for Jews to cheat non-Jews in business.

Both Christians and Jews then, altered their religious teachings in attempts to whip up hostility to each other in a bizarre semi-religious and semi-racial clash.

Jews occupy high posts in Moorish Spain and Portugal. After the decline of the Roman Empire, Jews started settling in larger numbers in Western Europe, with many Sephardic Jews crossing over from Africa into Spain. Hot on their heels came the Muslim Moors, who gave the Jews favored status in Moorish occupied Spain: Jews came to fill the highest position in the Moorish republic of Granada in Spain and owned one-third of all the real estate in Barcelona.

When the Moorish occupation of Spain was finally ended, the Christian victors did not take kindly to what they correctly saw as Jewish collaboration with the Moors. This led to the Spanish version of the inquisition, which was primarily aimed at Jews who had falsely converted to Christianity in an attempt to escape the revenge attacks on Jews carried out by the victorious Christian armies. Finally, the Jews were formally expelled from Spain in 1492, the same year that Christopher Columbus set foot in the Americas.

France. As avid supporters of the French Revolution, Jews were rewarded when the National Assembly enfranchised Jews in 1791, simultaneously stripping all restrictions which had been placed on them.

Napoleon Bonaparte was given much support by Europe’s Jews in his campaigns across Europe, for where ever he went he lifted whatever restrictions there had been upon the Jews. Once again, this was only good for Jews over the short term. The downside came when Napoleon was finally beaten: Jews were associated with the destruction that his military adventures had wrought; virtually all of the reforms he had instituted were reversed as a result.

However, by the 1860s, most of the Jewish communities in Western Europe had more or less been de-ghettoized, and Napoleon’s reforms had for the greatest part been re-instituted.

Jewish domination of media in the West. Whether by deliberate plan or accident, the situation has arisen whereby Jews have ended up dominating the mass media forms of both the USA, and to a slightly smaller extent, of Western Europe. The ownership of the mass media by a small group of Jews is well documented and full details are easily obtainable on the Internet.

This Jewish domination of the media can, and does, have serious consequences, so vividly illustrated by the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. These events were triggered exclusively by the unflagging US support given to Israel against the Palestinians.

The fact that the USA—and much of the West—continues to support Israel at any cost, including the deaths of thousands of its own citizens, is the surest evidence yet of the power of the Jewish lobby in both the mass media (which generates “public opinion”) and of the Jewish lobby’s famed control over the US government, and to a lesser extent, the governments of Western Europe.


The expulsion of the Jews

The Spanish Jews were amongst the first to feel the full effects of the fall of the Moors from power in Spain. In 1492 Isabella and Ferdinand formally expelled all Jews from that country, punishing the Spanish Jews for having actively collaborated with the Moors during their 780 year long occupation. The victorious Moors (who, because of their common Semitic ancestry with the Spanish Jews and the already poor relations between the Jews and the Goths) employed several Spanish Jews in their administration of Spain in some of the highest posts, even though there were occasional outbursts of anti-Jewish feeling amongst the Arabs themselves.

In the city of Grenada, the last to fall to the White armies, the Spanish were enraged to learn that the Moorish king’s prime minister and most of his leading advisors were Jews. A massacre of Jews in the city followed that discovery. This alliance between a number of Spanish Jews and the Moors inflamed the anti-Semitic feeling amongst the subdued Goths even further; a sentiment which would later flare up in the form of the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Jews from Spain.

The Inquisition. When Spain was finally liberated from the non-White Moors, the long suppressed anti-Jewish sentiment broke out in full fury. In that year all unbaptized Jews were expelled en masse from Spain, and the infamous Spanish Inquisition, set up to enforce Christendom, was used to persecute Jews, who, because of their collaboration with the Moors, were regarded as the implacable enemies of White Spain.

Earlier Isabella had obtained from the Pope in Rome a dispensation to establish the Inquisition in Spain, which soon turned into a fully fledged anti-Jewish campaign under the name of Christianity. The first hearings against the Conversos were held in February 1481 in Castile; it combined with the outbreak of the bubonic plague. Many Christian fanatics linked the outbreak of the plague to the start of proceedings against the Conversos, and the Jews were blamed for the plague as well as their other real or imagined crimes, which included accusations that they had betrayed the city of Toledo to the invading Moors by opening the city gates at a crucial junction in the siege of that city.

The leading Conversos held a secret meeting to resist the Inquisition with force. Isabella’s spies however found out about the planned rebellion and arrested the ringleaders, most prominent amongst them a rabbi named Diego de Susan. He, along with six other Jews, was tried for subversion, found guilty and executed by burning at the stake in late 1481.

The Conversos then broke rank in panic, and starting fleeing Spain in large numbers, some going to Italy, but many going to Muslim held Turkey, where they once again enjoyed special status. Much property belonging to the Converso Jews—who by some estimates made up as much as 20 per cent of Spain’s pre-Inquisition population—was seized by Isabella and added to the state treasury.

After the expulsion of the Moors and the Jews, Spain entered its Golden Age. It created a huge empire, and along with Portugal, became one of the most powerful nations in Europe.


The First Great Brothers’ War

The World Zionist movement, a nationalist Jewish organization founded by European Jews to create a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, saw an opportunity open up with the British occupation of Palestine, and persuaded the British foreign minister, Lord Arthur Balfour, to issue a public promise in 1917 to the effect that Britain would support the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This public promise became known as the Balfour Declaration.

In return for this undertaking, the World Zionist Movement then promised Britain that it would marshal the world’s Jews behind the Allied cause and, more importantly, endeavor to use their influence to bring the United States of America into the war. In this way, considerable pressure was brought to bear on the American government to enter the war against Germany, although by this stage they hardly needed much prompting.

The United States enters the war. While the World Zionist Congress was actively working behind the scenes with the powerful Jewish lobby in the American government, the course of the war at sea presented the American president, Woodrow Wilson, with an opportunity to enter the war against Germany, despite his presidential election campaign having been specifically fought on a non-interventionist ticket.

In February 1917, the US broke off diplomatic relations with Germany and formally declared war in April. The timing of the US entry into the war—virtually simultaneously with the Balfour Declaration—is too good to be coincidental. By June 1917, more than 175,000 American troops were already in France; by the end of the war more than two million Americans had been deployed in France.

Waves of fresh American troops captured 14,000 exhausted and virtually starving German troops at Saint-Mihiel, and then pushed on through the Argonne forest, breaking the German lines between Metz and Sedan.

With this major defeat, the German government asked for an armistice in October 1918—this attempt to end the war failed when the American president Woodrow Wilson insisted on negotiating only with a democratic German government. The British then pushed home an attack in Belgium and Northern France and early in November American and French forces reached Sedan. By early November, the Hindenburg line had been broken and the Germans were in disarray.

The suppressed link – Jews and communism

The creation of the Soviet Union was to impact upon history for the greater part of the 20th Century—and an understanding of the sub-racial and ideological divisions it caused is crucial to understanding not only the events of that century, but also to understanding the flare up of anti-Jewish sentiment which culminated in the creation of the Third Reich in Germany.

For the Soviet Union’s best kept secret was that the Bolshevik elite had one outstanding characteristic: it had an inordinately large number of Jews in its controlling body.

Virtually all of the important Bolshevik leaders were Jews: they included the “father of the revolution,” Leon Trotsky (whose real name was Lev Bronstein: in an attempt to hide his Jewishness, he adopted the name Trotsky); Lev Kamenev, the early Bolshevik leader who later went on to become a leading member of the Politburo, was born with the surname Rosenfeld; Grigori Zinoviev, head of the Petrograd Soviet, was born with the surname Apfelbaum; and many other famous Communists of the time, such as Karl Radek, Lazar Kaganovich; and Moses Urtisky, (the head of the Cheka) who all changed their names for reasons similar to that of Trotsky.

The Bolshevik’s Party’s Central Committee chairman, Yakov Sverdlov, was also Jewish—and it was he who gave the order to the Jewish Soviet secret policeman, Yurovsky, to murder the Tsar—Yurovsky personally carried out this order.

As if the Russian Revolution was not enough, the originator of the Communist ideology itself, Karl Marx, was also a Jew, with his family name in reality being Levi.

The large Jewish role in the Russian revolution, combined with the fact that Marx had been born a Jew, was manna from heaven for the European anti-Semitic movement, and the link between Jews and Communism was exploited to the hilt, particularly by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist (Nazi) movement in Germany during the 1920s.

It was not only in Germany that the association of Jews with Communism was made: all over the world Jews became associated with radical political movements, sometimes justifiably so, other times not. Nonetheless, the presence of so many Jews in the creation of the Soviet Union played a massive role in justifying anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe prior to, and with, the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Directly after the First World War, there were another three specifically Jewish Communist revolutions in Europe itself:

• the German Jew, Kurt Eisner, led a short lived communist revolution in Munich, Bavaria from November 1918 to February 1919 (at the same time that Adolf Hitler was an unknown soldier in that city—the effect of being a first hand witness to a Jewish and Communist-led revolution helped to cement Hitler’s anti-Communist and anti-Jewish feelings);

• the short lived Sparticus uprising in Berlin (September 1918 to January 1919) led by the German Jews, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg; and

• the short lived Communist tyranny in Hungary led by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohen), from March to August 1919.

These incidents all helped to identify Jews with Communism in the public mind: in this light it becomes perfectly explicable why the Nazi Party was able to win support on an anti-Communist and open anti-Jewish platform.

Jews in the later Soviet Union. Jews retained their leading roles in Soviet society until growing anti-Semitism within the Communist Party itself led to a change in policy. Trotsky was the first major Jewish casualty: he split with Stalin over the issue of international socialism and the need to spread the revolution: he was forced into exile in 1929. He was then assassinated in Mexico City in 1940, allegedly by a Stalinist agent.

By the middle 1930s, Stalin had started purging the Soviet Communist Party of other important Jews. The period immediately following the end of the Second World War and the creation of the state of Israel saw another rise in Soviet anti-Semitism: by 1953, Stalin had started purging all Jews in the Soviet hierarchy who were also Zionists.

The Communists, quite correctly, saw Zionism as Jewish nationalism and contrary to the interests of an international socialist brotherhood. Many leading Russian Jews were also fervent Zionists: and it was this group that was then targeted for persecution, and who became famous throughout the rest of the lifetime of the Soviet Union as the victims of Soviet anti-Semitism.

Zionism, as an expression of Jewish separatism was declared a crime against the Soviet state, and Zionist organizations were forced to close down their operations inside the Soviet Union. East Germany, as an official Soviet satellite, was forbidden by Moscow to make any reparations payments to the Zionist created state of Israel for the treatment of Jews by the Nazi government.

Not all Russian Jews were Zionists: those who were not, were generally left alone and some did achieve prominent positions within the post Stalin Soviet Union. Many thousands of Jews did however leave the Soviet Union—estimates putting the total number at over the one million mark, with most settling in Israel or the United States.

The Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel, by Jews, is available at most large public libraries and is in English. This reference book for all things Jewish is quite open about the Jewish role in Communism, particularly early Communism, and contains a large number of admissions in this regard.

The Volume 5 of the 1971 edition of the
Encyclopedia Judaica, published in Jerusalem, Israel,
from where all of the extracts below have been taken.

Under the entry for “Communism”: in Volume 5, page 792, the following appears: “The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II.” On page 793, the same Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to say that “Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to reveal that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as “not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.”

The Encyclopedia Judaica then goes on to describe the overwhelming role Jews played in creating the Soviet Union. On page 792 it says: “Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet Regime”.

On page 794, this Jewish reference book then goes to list the Jews prominent in the upper command of the Russian Communist party: these included Maxim Litvinov (later foreign minister of Soviet Russia); Grigori Zinoviev, Lwev Kamenev, Jacob Sverdlov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Karl Radek, amongst many others.

The organizer of the Revolution was Trotsky, who prepared a special committee to plan and prepare the coup which brought the Communists to power. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, this committee, called the Military Revolutionary Committee, had five members—three of whom were Jews. The Politburo—the supreme governing body of Russia immediately after the Communist Revolution—had four Jews amongst its seven members, according to page 797 of the Jewish Encyclopedia Judaica.

While many have alleged that Lenin was also Jewish, or at least of part Jewish origin, there is little concrete evidence of this. However, Lenin was ardently pro-Jewish, branding anti-Semitism (correctly) as “counter revolutionary” (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798). A statement against anti-Semitism was made by Lenin in March 1919 and was “one of the rare occasions when his voice was put on a phonograph record to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews,” according to the Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798. One of the first laws passed by the new Soviet Communist government was to outlaw anti-Semitism (Encyclopedia Judaica, page 798).

Winston Churchill on the Jewish role in communism. The preponderance of Jews in the inner sanctum of the Communist revolution in Russia was in fact well known at the time that the revolution took place: it is only in the post Second World War II era that this fact has been suppressed.

A good example of the contemporary awareness of the Jewish nature of early Russian Communism can be found in the writing of the young Winston Churchill, later to become prime minister of Great Britain, who, in 1920, was also working as journalist.

In 1920, Churchill wrote a full page article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920 detailing the Jewish involvement in the revolution. Churchill discusses in this article the split between Jews: some are Communists, he wrote, while others are Jewish nationalists. Churchill favored the Jewish nationalists, (and of course they indeed fall foul of the Jewish Communists, eventually becoming bitter enemies) and he appealed to what he called “loyal Jews” to ensure that the Communist Jews did not succeed. Churchill went even further and blamed the Jews for “every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century”, writing:

This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.

It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.

Churchill also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) of wanting to establish a “world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination” in this article.

Churchill was not the only journalist to note the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution: Robert Wilton, the chief correspondent for the London Times, who was stationed in Russia at the time, wrote in his book The Last Days of the Romanovs (Hornton Butterworth, London, 1920, pages 147, 22-28, 81,118, 199, 127, 139-148) that “90 per cent” of the new Soviet government was composed of Jews. The correspondent for the London Morning Post, Victor Marsden, went further and actually compiled a list of names of the top 545 Bolshevik officials: of these, Marsden said, 454 were Jews and only 23 Non-Jewish Russians (All These Things, A.N. Field, Appendix B pages 274-276).

The US Army’s telegrams . The American Army Intelligence Service had its agents in Russia at the time of the Communist Revolution, and the Jewish nature of that revolution is accurately reflected in those reports.

An American Senate subcommittee investigation into the Russian Revolution heard evidence, put on congressional record, that “In December 1919, under the presidency of a man named Apfelbaum (Zinovieff), out of the 388 members of the Bolshevik central government, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest (with the exception of a Negro from the U.S.) were Jews” (U.S. Senate Document 62, 1919).

[Kemp includes here photocopy images of these telegrams from official US National Archives, and then he adds:]

Both describe the domination of the Bolshevik Communists by Jews, using the words “Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type.”

Copies of documents from the US National Archives are freely available to anyone from the Washington DC, USA, office.

However, none of these authorities quoted above dared to use quite the language of a US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, who sent two reports to Washington in March and June 1919, describing in graphic detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution. Both these reports were only declassified in September 1957 and the originals are still held in the US National Archives in Washington, open for public inspection.

The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph: “it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type”.

The second report, dated 9 June 1919, and sent from Vladivostok, said that of the “384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

Both these American army military intelligence reports are freely available from the US National Archives in Washington DC. The importance of this information does not need to be overemphasized in the light of the crucial governing role the commissars played in the running the early Soviet society.

It therefore came as no surprise when anti-Semitism was duly entered into the Soviet law books as a death penalty crime.


Note:

For excerpts of all chapters of Kemp’s book see: here.

Who We Are, 1

The following is my abridgement of chapter 1 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Unity & Diversity in Nature, but Never Equality
Miscegenation Stifles Evolutionary Progress
Changing Climate Sped Eurasian Evolution

 

No people is morally and spiritually healthy unless it is imbued with a strong sense of its own identity. Essential to that sense of identity are an awareness and an understanding of all the qualities which the members of the people share in common.

It is doubly imperative that every man and woman who claims the privilege of membership in a community based on the bonds of common race and common culture knows and takes pride in his racial and cultural history.

When such knowledge and pride are lacking, a community is subject to a host of ills and cannot long endure.
 

Meaning of “species”

Consider just what the designations “species” and “race” (subspecies) actually mean. Historically both terms—especially race—have had many different meanings. Today a species is usually defined, very roughly, by zoologists as an interbreeding group of animals; and a race, or subspecies, as a morphologically distinct subdivision of a species.

An attempt at a more precise definition of species has been made by Theodosius Dobzhansky. According to Professor Dobzhansky (who is an unabashed propagandist for the cause of racial equality), two groups of sexually reproducing animals constitute two separate species when the groups “are reproductively isolated to the extent that the exchange of genes between them is absent or so slow that the genetic differences are not diminished or swamped.”

What does Dobzhansky’s definition really mean? Certainly, where the exchange of genes between two groups of animals is physically impossible, because no offspring or only infertile offspring can result from a mating, the groups are specifically distinct. Thus, for example, donkeys (Equus asinus) and horses (Equus caballus) belong to separate species, because their mongrel offspring, mules, are always sterile.

But, as already noted, there are a great many instances of pairs of groups which can interbreed with each other but, under natural conditions, either do not or do so relatively seldom, so that their genetic differences are not “swamped.” Such groups are customarily regarded as specifically distinct, in accord with Dobzhansky’s criterion.

One example of such a pair is provided by two very similar species of gazelles, Grant’s gazelle and Thomson’s gazelle. The two intermingle with each other in the wild, and they are interfertile, but they do not mate with each other. Although the morphological difference between the two species is slight—much less than the difference between a Nordic and a Mediterranean, not to mention the difference between a White and a Negro—the gazelles are able to recognize this difference (probably with their sense of smell), and mating is psychologically blocked.

Many other examples—not only among mammals, but also among birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and even invertebrates—could be given of pairs of species, potentially interfertile, whose separateness is maintained only by an instinctive, psychological barrier against miscegenation. This general revulsion in Nature against miscegenation has long been recognized by zoologists, and more than a century ago the distinguished French surgeon and naturalist Paul Broca wrote: “Animals that live in complete liberty and only obey their natural instincts seek ordinarily for their amours other animals that are altogether similar to their own kind, and mate almost always with their own species.”

Were this not almost universally the case, the evolutionary process would be vastly less efficient than it is at producing new species. It would depend entirely upon geographical isolation. In fact, however, psychological isolation has played at least as important a role in preventing the recombination of incipiently divergent branches of the Tree of Life.

It should be noted, however, that psychological isolation often breaks down when animals are not in their natural state. In captivity or under domestication many of an animal’s built-in behavior patterns become inoperative or distorted, and this is especially true where mating is concerned. When confined, bulls may mount mares, roosters will sometimes attempt to copulate with ducks, and baboons have been known to lust after women.

The domestic dog, Canis familiaris, provides the classic example of the breakdown of the psychological inhibition against miscegenation, where races as divergent as the St. Bernard and the Chihuahua are not only interfertile but are willing to mate. Dogs have been domesticated and bred by men for at least the last 10,000 years, and constant interbreeding has prevented their separation into distinct species, despite the enormous range of somatic and psychic traits they display—a range approached by no other mammal except man.

Domesticated Man. Man, of course, is the most domesticated of all animals, and it is not surprising that his natural inhibition against miscegenation has become confused—even without the perverse efforts of the egalitarians to promote racial mixing. We should instead wonder at the degree to which this healthiest and most essential of our natural sexual predispositions has survived centuries of a most unnatural lifestyle.

There is a great deal of evidence, historical and otherwise, indicating that in the past the White race, at least, felt a much stronger inhibition against miscegenation than it does today. As urbanization has spread, so has racial mixing. The evidence also indicates a marked variation from race to race in the strength of the inhibition against miscegenation—a variation which, to be sure, may only reflect the effect of different racial lifestyles.

Aryans, Dorians, Goths. The ancient Nordic tribes of Europe universally abhorred racial mixing. The Aryans who conquered India more than 35 centuries ago imposed a strict ban on any sexual contact with the non-White indigenous population, a ban which survives in vestigial form to this day as the Indian caste system. The Dorians who conquered the Peloponnessus at about the same time—and were later known by the name of their chief city, Sparta—likewise forbade miscegenation with the non-Nordic Pelasgian natives. And the Goths who conquered Italy 2,000 years later refrained from mating with the mixed, partly Mediterranean population they encountered there.

In every case the inhibition eventually broke down, as the hardy conquerors settled into a new and softer lifestyle and departed more and more from their ancestral ways. As warriors, hunters, farmers, and craftsmen living in close communion with Nature in their northern fields and forests, their sexual instincts remained sound. But when they became city dwellers and merchants and clerks and administrators, their instincts became blunted, and this fact was reflected in gradually changing sexual mores.

Latin Miscegenation. In other races and subraces the pattern has been different. The Mediterranean peoples of southern Europe have generally shown less disinclination to mate with other races than have Nordics. One can see the effect of this difference most strikingly in the different colonial histories of North America and South America. The early colonists who settled the former were predominantly Nordic, and racial mixing with the indigenous Indians was minimal. But the latter continent was settled by Portuguese and Spaniards, both of whom had a heavy Mediterranean admixture. They interbred widely with the indigenous population, as well as with the Black slaves they imported from Africa.

The same difference can be noticed in the European colonization of Africa. The Portuguese interbred with the Blacks in their colonies of Angola and Mozambique, while the Dutch and English in South Africa and Rhodesia kept their blood largely untainted. Such mongrels as the Nordic settlers did produce were not absorbed into the White population, whereas those produced by the Portuguese were.

It is possible that this Nordic-Mediterranean difference can be partly accounted for in the two different religions the two races of colonizers brought with them to their colonies. The present pattern in America does not support such an accounting, however. Irish, Italian, Polish and other predominantly Catholic ethnic groups are displaying better instincts, on the whole, than the Protestant majority.

It must be remembered, of course, that both Catholicism and Protestantism have undergone significant changes in the last few decades, and that, with the exception of some Italian elements (primarily from southern Italy) and a few other elements from the Mediterranean area, most (White) Catholic ethnic groups in the United States today are very similar racially to the Protestant majority. Certainly, they are far less Mediterranean in their makeup than the Spanish and Portuguese colonizers of South America and Africa were.

Anything that Moves. In the case of the Negroes, their notorious lack of sexual discrimination clearly cannot be blamed on their religion. It is true that a civilized environment is even more unnatural for them than it is for Whites, but even in controlled situations, such as prisons, there remains a strong racial difference in behavior between Blacks and Whites. As anyone unfortunate enough to have spent any time in close confinement with them can testify, Blacks will attempt to copulate with anything that moves.

We can now see that the lumping together of Negroes, Whites, Mongolians, Australian aborigines, and others in a single species, H. sapiens, can be justified only because, under the unnatural conditions in which they live, they often interbreed with one another. Under natural conditions, where psychological barriers against miscegenation become more fully operative and the various races no longer form a single, interbreeding group, they must be classified as separate species.

Furthermore, if any one race achieves a sense of identity sufficient to make feasible the full reactivation of its natural loathing of racial mixing, whether by means of education or some other form of psychological conditioning capable of overcoming the instinct-blunting effects of an unnatural lifestyle, it thereby achieves for itself the status of a separate species.

Thus, the basis on which the concept of a single human species rests is quite tenuous. It is not a physical basis—the morphological differences among the races are more than sufficient to qualify them as separate species—but a psychological basis, and a basis in abnormal psychology, at that.

It is important to understand this, because with understanding comes freedom from the superstition of “human brotherhood.” We are one with the Cosmos and are, in a sense, brothers to every living thing: to the ameba, to the wolf, to the chimpanzee, and to the Negro. But this sense of brotherhood does not paralyze our will when we are faced with the necessity of taking certain actions—whether game control or pest control or disease control—relative to other species in order to insure the continued progress of our own. And so it must be with the Negro.

The enlightened attitude for which we should strive is one which places more emphasis than has been customary in the past on the unity of life, and which consequently values non-human life—whether redwood trees or whales—more than it does a minor human convenience or a temporary economic advantage, but which at the same time maintains a proper perspective toward all forms of life, whether closely related to us or not. No neo-humanistic superstition must allow any species—or sub-species, if one accepts the all-inclusive definition of H. sapiens now in vogue—to stand between us and our race’s evolutionary destiny.

Published in: on January 19, 2013 at 11:52 am  Comments Off on Who We Are, 1