Food for thought from chapter 4 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
As the Neolithic revolution became more widespread and larger fixed settlements began to spring up, it became inevitable that these Old Europeans and Proto-Nordic types would start establishing formal societies. The Old European civilisations then came into being, laying much of the groundwork for the later development of Classical Greece and Rome.
Although these Old European civilisations were in fact quite distinct from classical Greece and Rome, they are often mistakenly thought of as one and the same thing.
The original, or Old European settlements, dominated huge areas of Europe and Russia, stretching from Italy right through to the Black sea, including all of modern Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and part of the Ukraine.
The crucial difference is however that the Old European civilisations were created by the original continental Europeans (Proto-Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean, with the latter two being in the majority) while the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome received their impetus from Indo-European or Nordic invasions which had started around 5000 BC.
The continental Old European civilisations in the Aegean were the Cretan civilisation, centered at Knossos on the island of Crete; the city state of Troy situated slightly south of the Bosporus straits in Asia Minor; certain smaller city states on the Greek mainland; and the Etruscans in Italy.
These city-states were the first to fall before the great Indo-European invasions, people who had mastered the art of copper working. Absorbed into the Indo-European peoples, the Old Europeans largely disappeared and this mix of White peoples laid the basis for the Mycenaean culture which replaced the Cretan civilisation as the dominant force in the Aegean.
11 replies on “Titans, 4”
Here’s where the new racial classification becomes handy. If old Meds were a mix of Red Nordids, Armenids, White Nordids, Congids in small proportion (and sometimes Mongolids in a minimal proportion), they should not be considered perfect “Whites”. It was a good thing that they were conquered by Indo-European Nordics.
While Madison Grant and the Germans used to think along these lines (albeit using the old classification), today’s white nationalists are suffering a failure of the nerve regarding their own race and history.
How does Kemp’s book compare in terms of scientific and biological accuracy as well as history?
Pretty good in my opinion. White nationalists hate him because, like Grant and the NS Germans, Kemp is a nordicist: a sin according to many WNsts.
I love Kemp’s book, but there – of course – some errors.
First you have to know, that this incredible work covers allmost White peoples.
For this reason, the individual chapters can only be a brief overview, similar to a wikipedia article.
For further employment with a topic is special literature necessary.
There are many careless mistakes. (Times is a statue wrongly labeled, times a year reversed).
It is simply explained everything with race.
Race is of course the most important historical factor, without question.
And it is understandable that the author concentrates so much on this subject, since all other contemporary authors ignore it – but it simply blurs out all other explanatory approaches for historical events.
Nevertheless, it is a fascinating reading. For the beginning, I recommend the section on the Tocharans (Chapter 6) and the chapter on Spain and Portugal.
BTW: You can easily buy the Kindle version, because the print output is not particularly beautifully designed and the pictures are all black and white.
Despite its mistakes, the book is the only modern story of the white race, genetic studies are quoted as well as millennial old original sources. The chapters may be short, but are ingenious arranged.
I could wrote many pages more about this book und go deeper into detail.
With one word: I love and I hate this Book.
In my opinion, Pierce’s Who We Are is better because it’s much shorter, and you can read it from cover to cover.
Also, Pierce advocates extermination or expulsion of non-whites in WWA, something that Kemp, who somehow subscribes Neo-Christian ethics, won’t dare.
But what do you hate of Kemp’s book?
Only a proverb. I do not ‘hate’ Kemps book. 🙂
And Kemp, with whom I have already changed a few words, is a really fine man.
But all the flaws in the book make me insane. Really tiny things, but in every chapter you find a handfull of them.
In our focus on race, we are equally monocausalists, César, like the WNs.
Actually, it needs a work that has a monokausal angle of view, but sets race in the first place.
I think the books of Pierce and Kemp are a good start for the historians of the Fourth Reich.
Did you know that I visit him in England three years ago?
I will never forget your journey through the Heart of Darkness (London). 😉
The country in England, where Kemp lives, has to be very beautifull.
If you knew Spanish I’d send you a memoir of my experiences in the UK after the first (black) day of arriving in London… No one has read it, not even a Spanish-speaking female friend who read my first autobiogra-phical books—for the simple reason that I’ve just finished it.
It’s a pitty I dont’t lnow Spanish, although I learned it a couple of years in school.
Thanks for the offer.
In my opinion, if you learnt something new from March of the Titans, I’m glad for you, but you clearly had no idea about history prior. But I’m coming from the Soviet/Russian education system, so that’s probably the case. Or my love of maps.
Ricardo is right. For example, explaining the revival of the Byzantine empire in the X century, which had been suffering miscegenation for 1.5k years, by the addition of the Varangian Guard is hilarious. It completely omits the role the local brownish troops from all the themata played. It’s also downright dangerous to think that non- and half-Whites cannot fight. It’s as if that very Varangian Guard had not been utterly destroyed at Manzikert at the very peak of its existence.
Michael VIII Palaeologus’ story would read like an adventure thriller, or like our future with various warring factions scrambling for glory in the last years before the samum from the East engulfs all. Not a word about him.
By the way, the wisest of the Westerners will talk all day about Tours and Vienna, but even they will have no idea about Manzikert and Kalka. And that disgusts me.
Also, it doesn’t explain the Chinese inventions, the early Islamic Golden Age, and the later might of the Ottoman, Persian and Mughal empires.
P.S. I’m checking the whole book right now for “Sicily”. As expected, this greatly interesting part of history is largely omitted in this boring work. The author barely mentioned the weird character of Frederick II von Hohenstaufen, the last “old” German emperor. He was a religious skeptic, returned Jerusalem without bloodshed, and lived peacefully with the local Muslims (see: [wiki]).
Such a great and complicated story! A foreshadowing almost. But who cares, right?