Category: Miscegenation

Parrott’s article: a clarification

Post author By C .T.
Post date June 1, 2013
7 Comments on Parrott’s article: a clarification

I don’t claim to have studied carefully Matt Parrott’s, “The Causes of Causes, a Subterranean Perspective,” published yesterday at Youth Network. But after posting this reply here at WDH, which only deals with a few paragraphs where Matt mentions me, I’ll do it. Parrott said:

I believe that Chechar’s mistaken in identifying Christianity as the root cause, and I believe the examples from Byzantium and Medieval Europe, examples where the church’s true interests and influences could actually be observed, confirm that Nietzschean models of suicidal ressentiment and exegeses of multicultural humanist globalism are fundamentally flawed.

Two different places: Constantinople and Europe.

Byzantium cannot be fairly compared to Medieval Europe insofar as, by the time it fell in the 15th century, the city had already suffered a great deal of mongrelization—a mongrelization that undoubtedly contributed to its decline and eventual fall. (That Parrott puts the two together corroborates my view that white nationalists should read the two histories, by William Pierce and Arthur Kemp, that have been written about the white race.)

Medieval Europe is a more complex subject because, unlike Constantinople, it was not a mongrel empire. But even here Kevin MacDonald’s Separation and Its Discontents shows that the broadly positive role that the Church played by elaborating a collectivist defense mechanism to counter Jewish influence was not exactly the best way to do it. In that book MacDonald also says that National Socialism (a movement which left Christianity behind) was the most dangerous enemy that Judaism has confronted in its entire existence. In other words, from the point of view of ethno-preservation the German movement was an improvement over the defense mechanism elaborated by the Roman Catholic Church against Jewry. (See my review of MacDonald’s book here.)

I mention MacDonald’s second book of his trilogy because, even though I agree with him that Christendom more or less protected Europe from alien influence, the protection was not enough, not nearly enough, as shown in the fate of post-Christendom Europe and precisely because of the universalist ideals proclaimed by the Church.

Chechar’s also unconvinced by the Jews as Primary Cause model. Being a White Mexican, he perceives the problem from the vantage point of a White civilization which choked and died on introgression and decadence, largely devoid of Jewish influence. He’s settled on a Christianity as Primary Cause model, answering the question of suicide affirmatively.

I don’t say “Christianity as Primary Cause,” and my analysis goes beyond Mexico. Let’s talk about Europe and remind my readers that, during my previous debates with Pat Hannagan, he conceded that while the Iberian whites committed suicidal mestization in the Americas they remained genetically pure in the Iberian Peninsula itself. But my friend Pat was misinformed. The peninsular Portuguese violated the “One-drop Rule” to the point that contemporary genetic studies reveal a Negro gene in their blood absent in other Europeans (see e.g., the first comment after this post). In other words, even leaving Mexico and Latin America aside, many Iberian whites committed racial suicide within their homelands, and both Christianity and the “One Ring” (see below) are the culprits.

The Catholic Church that Chechar envisions destroying Latin America and the Protestant Yankees Hunter Wallace envisions destroying Dixie are merely the zombie carcasses of Christianity, spearheads of the capitalist impulse to expand into their respective societies and steamroll over all the institutional and ideological obstacles to the profit which feeds the power structure.

I agree with Parrot that the “economics over race policies” are a gigantic factor of white decline, perhaps as big as the axiological meme that’s killing both Mediterraneans and Nordics. Therefore, I am not an anti-Christian reductionist so to speak. Yes: I blame the egalitarian software that we may call the Christian / Secular Christian problem (liberalism run amok after the French Revolution) and, as I just said, the One Ring of greed and power (economics over race—again, see both Pierce’s and Kemp’s magnificent histories of the white race for an explanation of the “Ring”). These factors constitute part of the ingredients of the formula that’s killing us—plus the Jewish ingredient.

From this point of view the Jewish problem would be a very strong catalyst that has accelerated the process in the last centuries since the emancipation of Jewry, but certainly not the “active ingredient” of the brew (what monocausalists believe).

So you can see that my position goes far beyond both Christian reductionism and Jewish reductionism. I believe that individualism, universalism, weak ethnocentrism (“hardwired” characteristics in the White psyche since prehistoric times) + egalitarianism, liberalism, capitalism (cultural “software” after the Revolution which ironically strengthened Christian axiology) + the Jewish culture of critique in the 20th century = a truly lethal brew for the White peoples.

By the way, Hunter Wallace has also responded to Parrott’s article, but he naturally focuses on other issues.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Europe, Jewish Question (JQ), Latin America, Materialism / capitalism, Middle Ages

Emigration / immigration Kali Yuga London Miscegenation

Body-snatched white pods

Or:

White Nationalism, a hopeless cause

by John Martínez

Today The Drudge Report linked this article about the fifth day in a row of “youths” in Stockholm burning the city.

If you guys have any delusions about regular Whites watching appalling events like these (or, for that matter, the beheading of a British soldier by a repellent Black Muslim in London two days ago), and awakening to the racial dimension of the trouble mass immigration has put them in, you just have to read the comment section of this article to be disabused. Even when the commenters agree that there may be something wrong with “youths” supposedly protesting against perceived social injustices by destroying public and private property at random, they just can’t see the larger pattern of non-Whites terrorizing the White majority—in Stockholm, in London, in Paris—year after year, after year.

This commenter is particularly illustrating of what I’m trying to point at—more specifically, check this specific comment of hers. Here you have a chick who is obviously a Mestiza of whatever ethnic background (Pakistani? Indian?) lecturing European Whites about their moral obligation of feeding, housing, educating and providing jobs to non-white immigrants and their offspring, in the absence of which the said immigrants and their offspring are entitled to burn their cities to ashes.

How could these European societies have gone so low as to allow this surreal situation to become possible? Whatever the answer, one thing is certain in my mind after seeing the popular reaction at these events: trying to save these White societies as a whole is a mission doomed to failure, not only due to the level of moral decadence that the bulk of the public has sunk to, but also due to the pace of miscegenation of the native populations with the non-white immigrants. Whites with non-White relatives are an ever increasingly growing number of people and these folks will never support a White Nationalist movement in their countries. Never. The moronic Mestiza whose comments I linked above very probably has British relatives and they no doubt support her “right” to spit these obnoxious views on the British press.

The point I’m trying to make is this: the cause of White Nationalism is such a hopeless one given the disconnect between the White public at large and our views (which they see as abhorrent and despicable) that, maybe, the most feasible strategy would be to try and save a number of Whites that is just enough not to let the race go extinct; and then proceed to get a Lebensraum somewhere by whatever means. When a huge fire ravages through your house, you don’t try to save everything, just what is really indispensable.

Let’s be honest to ourselves: racially-conscious Whites are by a long shot the most far sighted individuals of their societies. I know that. You guys know that to. But I just don’t believe it is realistic to expect the average white to achieve this level of consciousness.

Historically speaking, Whites hardly ever have seen themselves as Whites proper—but rather as British, French, Germans or simply as Christians. It is true that a number of Germans during the Third Reich and, until a recent past, a number of Americans while in contact with Blacks and Indians did see themselves as Whites proper, but the question is: how long did this racial consciousness last? And if all it takes to root out this racial awareness from their minds is some amount of politically-correct propaganda, then the notion of a solid White, racially conscious nation is a hopeless one indeed—it’s like to consider building a castle on a sandbank.

As a Brazilian, I know where today’s White nations are headed to. Something like 15% of Brazil’s population is pure White, which makes up something like 30 million people. The problem is, the overwhelming majority of these people has non-White friends; has a relative married to a non-White, has married a non-White and/or has himself/herself non-White children. That is to say, the overwhelming majority of these folks are forever lost to the White Nationalist cause—and this will be your situation pretty soon.

In such a depressing scenario, maybe the lesser evil would be to try and close ranks among ourselves instead of trying to save people who do not want to be saved.

Pessimist as I may sound, there is an ultimately successful precedent for our cause: the kikes and their founding of modern Israel. If they have managed to get their own land, Whites can do the same—especially if we give up the naive notion that all Whites deserve to be saved from wholesale miscegenation and the world chaos that will ensue from it. In my humble opinion the Jewish State should be put side by side with works like Mein Kampf as road map for the White Nationalist movement.

__________

Chechar’s note: For articles explaining the meaning of the “Pod” metaphor in the title, just click on the category “Body-snatched pods” below. One of these articles, “Dies Irae,” pretty much summarizes my feelings about mankind in general and whites in particular. It’s probably the most inflammatory piece that has been written in the whole pro-white blogosphere.

Tags Brazil, Degeneracy, Sweden

Goths Judeo-reductionism Miscegenation Portugal Tom Sunic

Bicausalism

Armor, a commenter in another thread, said:

“The way you use the word monocausalist reminds me of how Hunter Wallace liked to divide the white nationalist scene between the vanguardists and the mainstreamers.”

It’s because, perhaps, I have not been clear enough:

1.- Monocausalists – Most of the commenters at Age of Treason, and people like Dave Duke whom I deeply respect. These people believe that there’s but one cause of our woes: the subversive Jews. For instance, Tanstaafl here, in late Summer 2007, quotes himself:

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews.

For strict monocausalists, “there is nothing wrong with whites.”

2.- Bicausalists Type A – Those who, like Greg Johnson, Alex Linder and some commenters at Linder’s VNN Forum, believe that Jews are the primary cause of our woes, though there are other important factors as well. Unlike Tanstaafl, these bicausalists also blame our parents’ religion. For instance, Johnson recently commented against Christianity at Counter Currents and last Saturday Linder briefly discussed with Carolyn Yeager the role of Christianity in debilitating the Aryan mind when dealing with the subversive tribe.

3.- Bicausalists Type B – Those who, like Tom Sunic, Manu Rodríguez and I believe that there’s something seriously wrong with us, extremely wrong actually. Whites’ mental issues (which include a Calvinist type of Old Testament Christianity that conquered North America) are the primary infection, and the Judaization of the West, a secondary infection (like AIDS / pneumonia, etc).

A popular image to visualize this later type of bicausalism would be through the archetype of Isildur, a character of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.

Armor said:

“Now of course, if White people were naturally as aggressive and prone to violence as the Arabs, their society would be harder to penetrate for the Jews…”

But ethnically we were even more aggressive and prone to violence than the Arabs (who became sand-niggers with time). I trust you have read my controversial entry on Portugal, where several of my sources agreed on the fact that in the first centuries of our era the Iberian Goths burned at the stake their fellow Aryans that dared to mix their precious blood.

Pace Duke, James Edwards, Yeager and so many white nationalist Christians who have been saying “Happy Easter” in the white blogosphere these days, Christianity changed all that, and not only in Iberia: something that they’ll never acknowledge.

We need a new generation of nationalists who, unlike the conservative Spaniards of today (whom I find intolerable by the way) or of yesterday (silly burners of heretics instead of dispatching the miscegenators) leave universal Christianity behind.

(This entry was expanded on April 27)

Tags Christian problem (CP), Jewish Question (JQ), Spain

Miscegenation Portugal

Portugal

Post author By C .T.
Post date February 13, 2013

The Departure of the Portuguese
Royal Court to Brazil in 1808

The blog Anthrocivitas: The Gate of All Nations reposted my post “Portugal and the One-Drop Rule” adding images that didn’t appear in my original entry. A commenter of that forum said:

What is wrong with a Portguese [sic] having black blood or mixing with a black person? I am not saying that the Portuguese aren’t white, but what is wrong with Portugal being swarthy?

I registered yesterday to respond but even today I have not been allowed to respond. Surely the admin has not given me commenting privileges. But a female commenter that blogs under the penname of Honest Guy responded to the above comment:

There is nothing wrong with it my opinion. The authors and commentators of the above blog, including a Brazilian, a Mexican and a suspicious looking South African seem to think that there is something wrong with it. In fact, their thesis is that if you have black blood and mix with black persons you will end up like Portugal, with the assumption that Portugal and being Portuguese is inherently negative or undesirable.

Firstly, although I was born in Mexico, I feel being called “Mexican” almost an insult. Physically and psychically I don’t resemble the average Mexican at all. But to respond directly to the above, these guys didn’t even read the article properly (that’s why I’m calling them “dishonest”). Both John Martínez and I made very clear in that post that, to steal a phrase from William Pierce, “a 5% decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse.”

This is exactly what happened in Portugal after reaching the height of European power some centuries ago, before they committed the sin against the holy ghost. And this is what’s happening throughout the West: many whites are repeating Portugal’s blundering on a colossal scale.

Ancient Rome Catholic Church Celts Christendom Egalitarianism Emigration / immigration Hans F. K. Günther Islam Julius Caesar Kali Yuga Liberalism Miscegenation New Testament Oliver Cromwell St Paul Tom Sunic Universalism

Assisted suicide

“Mental AIDS” is the collapse of a people’s immune system in the face of their enemies. Practically all whites throughout the West suffer from mental AIDS insofar as they are not defending their sacred lands against an invasion of millions of non-whites. However, some white nationalists get mad when hearing the expression “suicide” as a value judgment about the pathological passivity among present-day whites. Most nationalists speak, instead, of “homicide”: the Jews being the primary infection that infected the white soul.

But what if they are a secondary infection? After all, the white people contracted Christianity (HIV) in the 4th century, which after a long incubation period eventually developed into liberalism (AIDS) during the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Liberalism, or Neochristianity as I like to call it, weakened the West’s immune system. After Napoleon, Neochristians opened the door to the subversive tribe throughout continental Europe—Jews—: a “mental AIDS”-related opportunistic infection, such as pneumonia is an infection of the somatic equivalent of AIDS.

See the HIV link above. If Christianity and its secular offshoots are massively involved in the West’s darkest hour, and I cannot conceive a biggest blunder than emancipating the Jew, why not start diagnosing the situation as “assisted suicide,” with the Jew only being too happy to comply the deranged Neochristian’s will to bring about his own death?

I am not alone in this apparently wild opinion. Below, my abridgment of Tom Sunic’s “Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man,” published in three parts at The Occidental Observer:

♣

Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down—which may soon be the case—alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself—both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21st century it preaches inclusive racism. By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker—of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation—except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that”—is a waste of time. The American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding—with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics is religiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game.

[White suicide]

The pristine, pastoral and puerile picture of the White race, so dearly longed for by modern White nationalists, is daily belied by permanent religious bickering, jealousy and character smearing within the White rank and file. Add to that murderous intra-White wars that have rocked Europe and America for centuries, one wonders whether the proverbial and much vaunted Aryan, Promethean, and Faustian man, is worthy of a better future.

Surely, the White man saved Greco-Roman Europe from the Levantine Hannibal’s incursion, which nearly resulted in a catastrophe in 216 b.c. at Cannae, in southern Italy. The White man also stopped Attila’s Hunic hordes on the Catalaunian Fields in France in 451 a.d. The grandfather of Charlemagne, Charles Martel, defeated Arab predators near Tours, in France in 732. One thousand years later in 1717, a short and slim Italo-French Catholic hero, Prince Eugene of Savoy, finally removed the Islamic threat from the Balkans.

But… the power of the newly discovered universal religion and the expectancy of the “end of history,” later to be followed by bizarre beliefs in “global democracy,” often eclipsed racial awareness among Whites. As a rule, when White princes ran out of Muslim or Jewish infidels—they began whacking each other in the name of their Semitic deities or latter day democracies. The 6’4” tall Charlemagne, in the name of his anticipated Christian bliss, went on the killing spree against his fellow pagan Germans. In 782 a.d. he decapitated several thousand of the finest crop of Nordic Saxons, thereby earning himself a saintly name of the “butcher of the Saxons” (Sachsenschlächter).

[I wish that Sunic had mentioned how Julius Caesar ordered the massacre of the 40,000 inhabitants of Avaricum during the Gaul wars; how this monster destroyed 800 towns and enslaved millions of Celts; how “hundreds of thousands of blond, blue-eyed Celtic girls were marched south to be pawed by Semitic flesh merchants” in Rome’s slave markets. Also, in 408 a.d. the Romans, in all the Italian cities, butchered the wives and children of their German allies—60,000 of them.]

And on and on the story goes with true Christian or true democracy believers. No Jews, no Arabs, no communists have done so much damage to the White gene pool as Whites themselves. The Thirty Years War (1617–1647) fought amidst European Christians with utmost savagery, wiped out two thirds of the finest German racial stock, over 6 million people. The crazed papist Croatian mercenaries, under Wallenstein’s command, considered it a Royal and Catholic duty to kill off Lutherans, a dark period so well described by the great German poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller. Even today in Europe the words “Croat years” (Kroatenjahre) are associated with the years of hunger and pestilence.

Nor did Oliver Cromwell’s troops—his Ironsides—during the English civil war, fare much better. Surely, as brave Puritans they did not drink, they did not whore, they did not gamble—they only specialized in skinning Irish Catholic peasants alive. Not only did their chief, the Nordic looking fanatic Cromwell consider himself more Jewish than the Jews—he actually brought them back from continental Europe, with far-reaching consequence both for England and America.

A slim, intelligent, Nordic looking, yet emotionally unstable manic depressive, William Sherman, burnt down Atlanta in 1864—probably in the hopes of fostering a better brand of democracy for the South. We may also probe some day into the paleocortex of the Nordic skull of an airborne Midwest Christian ex-choir boy, who joyfully dropped firebombs on German civilians during WWII.

The faith or the sacred?

No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion. It is commendable to lambast Muslims, who are on the respectable hit-parade of the Axis of Evil. Jews also come in handy in a wholesale package of evil, which needs to be expiated—at least occasionally. But any critical examination of Judeo-Christian intolerance is viewed with suspicion and usually attributed to distinct groups of White people, such as agnostics or modern day self-proclaimed pagans.

Why did the White man accept the Semitic spiritual baggage of Christianity even though it did not quite fit with his racial-spiritual endowments? The unavoidable racialist thinker Hans Günther—a man of staggering erudition and knowledgeable not only of the laws of heredity, but also of comparative religions—reminds us that the submissive and slavish relation of man to God is especially characteristic of Semitic peoples. In his important little book, The Religious Attitudes of the Indo-Europeans, he teaches us about the main aspects of racial psychology of old Europeans. We also learn that Yahweh is a merciless totalitarian god who must be revered—and feared.

The messianic, chiliastic, or “communistic” mindset was unknown among ancient Europeans. They could not care less which gods other races, other tribes or other peoples believed in. Wars that they fought against the adversary were bloody, but they did not have the goal of converting the adversary and imposing on him the beliefs contrary to his racial heritage. Homer’s epic The Iliad is the best example. The self-serving, yet truly racist liberal-communistic endeavour, to wage “final and just war” in order to “make the world safe for democracy,” was something inconceivable for ancient Europeans.

A German-British racialist author of the early 20th century, Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century writes that “a final judgment shows the intellectual renaissance to be the work of Race in opposition to the universal Church which knows no Race” (p. 326). Unlike Christianity, which preaches individual salvation, for ancient Europeans life can only have a meaning within the in-group—their tribe, their polis, or their civitas. Outside those social structures, life means nothing.

In the 1st century, words of far-reaching consequence for all Whites were pronounced by a Jewish heretic, the Apostle St. Paul, to the people of Galatia, an area in Asia Minor once populated by the Gauls (i.e., Celts). Galatia was then well underway to become a case study of multicultural debauchery—similar to today’s Los Angeles:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28).

Christianity became thus a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.

Although Christian Churches never publicly endorsed racial miscegenation, they did not endorse racial segregation either. This was true for the Catholic Church and its flock, as observed by the early French sociologist and racialist Gustave Le Bon. Consequently, Catholic Spaniards of White racial stock in Latin America could not halt decadence and debauchery in their new homelands as WASPs in North America did.

Later, in 1938, in light of eugenic and racial laws adopted not only in Germany and Italy, but also in other European countries and many states in America, Pope Pius XI made his famous statement: “It is forgotten that mankind is one large and overwhelming Catholic race.” This statement was to become part of his planned encyclical under the name The Unity of the Human Race.

“The unity of the human race”, as noble as these words may sound, is a highly abstract concept. On a secular level communist and liberal intellectuals constantly toy with it—in order to suppress real tribes, real nations, real peoples and their real racial uniqueness.

The folly of the compound noun: “anti-Semitism”

Civil religions also have their holy shrines, their holy relics, their pontiffs, their canons, their promises and their menaces. Failure to believe in them—or failure to at least pretend to believe in them—results, as a legal scholar of Catholic persuasion, Carl Schmitt wrote, in a heretic’s removal from the category of human beings. Among new civil religions one could enumerate the religion of multiculturalism, the religion of antifascism, the religion of the Holocaust, and the religion of economic progress.

Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset which, when combined with an inborn sense of tolerance and congenial naïveté of the White people, makes them susceptible to their enchanting effects.

As a result of semantic sliding of political concepts, the Jewish-born thinker and the father of the secular religion of communism, Karl Marx, would likely be charged today with “anti-Semitism” or the “incitement to racial hatred.” Leftist scholars usually do not wish to subject his little booklet, On the Jewish Question (1844) to critical analysis. Consider the following:

The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews.

Of particular significance is Marx’ last sentence “insofar as the Christians have become Jews.” In fact the White man has “jewified” himself by embracing the fundaments of the Jewish belief system, which, paradoxically, he uses now in criticizing Jews.

Christian anti-Semitism can be described, therefore, as a peculiar form of neurosis. Christian anti-Semites resent the Jews while mimicking the framework of resentment borrowed from Jews. Accordingly, even the Jewish god Yahweh was destined to become the anti-Semitic God of White Christians! In the name of this God, persecutions against Jews were conducted by White non-Jews. Simply put, the White non-Jew has been denying for centuries to the Jew his self-appointed “otherness” i.e. his uniqueness and his self-chosenness, while desperately striving to re-appropriate that same Jewish otherness and that same uniqueness, be it in the acceptance of Biblical tales, be it the espousal of the concept of linear time, be it in the belief of the end of history.

To face up to the purported bad sides of Judaism by using Christian tools, is futile. This is the argument of the German philosopher Eugen Dühring, who notes that “Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism” and “a Christian, when he rightfully comprehends himself as such, cannot be a serious and complete anti-Semite.” (Die Judenfrage als Frage des Rassencharakters, 1901). Dühring was a prominent German socialist philosopher, contemporary, but also a foe of Marx. Like most German socialist thinkers of the late 19th century he was an anti-Semite, in so far as he saw in the Jewry the incarnation of capitalism. Dühring notes that “historical Christianity, when observed in its true spirit, and all things considered, has been a backlash within and against Judaism, but it has also emerged from it and to some extent in its fashion.” (p. 25-26).

What German geneticists and anthropologists, such as Fritz Lenz, Hans Günther, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and thousands of other scholars wrote about Jews had already been written and discussed—albeit from a philosophical, artistic and literary point of view—by thousands of European writers, poets and artists. From the ancient Roman thinker Tacitus to the English writer William Shakespeare, from the ancient Roman thinker Seneca, to the French novelist and satirist, L. Ferdinand Céline, one encounters in the prose of countless European authors occasional and not so occasional critical remarks about the Jewish character—remarks that could easily be called today anti-Semitic. Should these “anti-Semitic” authors, novelists, or poets be called insane? If so, then the entire European cultural heritage must be banned and labeled insane.

Excluding the Jew, while using his theological and ideological concepts is a form of latent phobia among Whites, of which Jews are very well aware of. Criticizing a strong Jewish influence in Western societies on the one hand, while embracing Jewish religious and secular prophets on the other, will lead to further tensions and only enhance the Jewish sense of self-chosenness and their timeless victimhood. In turn, this will only give rise to more anti-Jewish hatred with tragic consequences for all. The prime culprits are not Jews or Whites, but rather a civil religion of egalitarianism with its postmodern offshoots of universalism and multiculturalism.

The issue that needs to be addressed is why Whites, for two thousand years, have adhered to an alien, out-group, non-European conceptualization of the world.

Tags Christian problem (CP), England, Europe, Jewish Question (JQ), United States

American civil war Aryan beauty Blacks Demography Emigration / immigration Justice / revenge Lothrop Stoddard Madison Grant Metaphysics of race / sex Miscegenation Neanderthalism Racial studies Sex Winston Churchill

The Sin against the Holy Ghost

Post author By C .T.
Post date February 1, 2013
11 Comments on The Sin against the Holy Ghost

O splendour of the flesh! O ideal splendour!
O love renewed, triumphant dawn aurora,
Where, at their feet the Gods and Heroes,
Callipyge the white and her little Eros,
Drowned in the snow of rose-petals, press
Women and flowers beneath their feet’s caress!

—Rimbaud

Since English roses are the Crown of the Evolution, that Nature took unfathomable ages to create, when I lived in Manchester nothing shocked me more than the spectacle of watching snow-white women with Neanderthalesque partners on the streets: dysgenics to the maximum degree.

Below, paragraphs from Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans:

♣

The world today is dominated by technology as never before. It is impossible to travel anywhere without seeing some vestiges of or manifestations of technological wizardry which have shaped all life on the planet today, particularly those innovations developed at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

While this fact is commonly known and countless books and works have been written on the subject, all have ignored one crucial feature of this astonishing technological revolution: the plain facts are that the great technological innovations which have set the pace for the entire world are exclusively the product of a tiny minority of Whites.

This fact, like so many other unpalatable truths in history, is ignored because of the political implications it carries: it is possibly the most politically incorrect view which can be made, although the facts leave any objective observer with no other option but to arrive at this inescapable conclusion.

[Kemp goes on to explain the origins of technology and science. He sketches the lives of dozens of white inventors and scientists, a long list from the ancient Greeks to modern inventors: all whites. In other chapters he writes about immigration and eugenics in the US until 1945. He also writes about monstrous dysgenics: what I call the Sin against the Holy Ghost, non-white interbreeding with Aryan women:]

Having established itself as the second White heartland, a second Europe, North America immediately became the focus for massive development, advances—and a magnet for further immigration from all parts of the world. America’s rise to greatness depended to a great degree upon its large racial homogeneity.

Following the banning of further Black immigration in 1808 (when the further importation of slaves was outlawed) American immigration policy was specifically geared to ensuring that as few non-Whites as possible entered that country. As a result of this policy, the White population did indeed increase: great industries sprang up and America soon almost equaled Europe in terms of population numbers.

In the period immediately following the end of the American Civil War, the Republican Party dominated American politics, partly through the disenfranchisement of the Whites in the South and their replacement with Republican supporting Black voters. The Republicans remained in control of both houses of Congress until 1875, and of the presidency from 1869 until 1885, in the latter year losing it to the Democrats.

After 1900 the legislation enforcing segregation was carried to new heights:

• a 1914 Louisiana statute required separate entrances at circuses for Blacks and Whites;

• a 1915 Oklahoma law segregated telephone booths;

• a 1920 Mississippi law made it a crime to advocate or publish “arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between Whites and Negroes.”

• Arkansas provided for segregation at race tracks;

• Texas prohibited integrated boxing matches;

• All states had segregated schools; and

• All states prohibited mixed race marriages.

Segregation was not, as is commonly believed, restricted to the South. In 1910, the northern city of Baltimore in Maryland became the first city in America to officially delineate separate Black and White suburbs, and was followed by Dallas, Texas, Greensboro, North Carolina, Louisville, Kentucky, Norfolk, Virginia, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Richmond, Virginia, Roanoke, Virginia, and St. Louis, Missouri.

The policy of segregation was carried out at the highest level: when Woodrow Wilson became president in 1913, the first action he took upon arriving in Washington DC, was to order the segregation of all federal facilities in the American capital.

Eugenics

During the last part of the 19th Century and the early part of the 20th Century, America became the world’s center for racial science. By the time that Theodore Roosevelt became president of America in 1913, and lasting right until the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, explicitly racial policies were followed by virtually all American presidents.

When D.W. Griffith’s classic 1915 film, Birth of a Nation, which told the story of the Reconstruction period and the rise of the original Ku Klux Klan, was publicly praised by American president Woodrow Wilson, the film was an immediate hit, with audiences all over America flocking to see the epic.

Madison Grant

The chief racial theorist at the time in America was Madison Grant (1865-1937) who counted amongst his personal friends at least two American presidents. Grant wrote two of the most influential works of American racialism: The Passing of the Great Race (1916) and The Conquest of a Continent (1933). In both these books Grant expounded on racial anthropology and the need for eugenics—or racial improvement by selective breeding (in the same way that specific breeds of animals are reared).

In his book, The Passing of the Great Race, Grant called for a halt to non-White immigration into the United States. The book was an international best seller, being favorably reviewed by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and numerous other equally influential publications.

Lothrop Stoddard

American president Warren G. Harding publicly praised eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard’s book, The Rising Tide of Color, at a public speech on 26 October 1922; this was followed the same year by the appointment of one of Grant’s compatriots, Harry Laughlin, as an expert witness on eugenics and racial differences in IQ (as had been measured in the U.S. military) by the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Immigration.

1924 Immigration Law

A huge wave of immigrants to the United States occurred between the 1840s and the 1920s. During this era, approximately 37 million immigrants arrived in the United States. Census figures indicate that about 6 million Germans, 4.5 million Irish, 4.75 million Italians, 4.2 million people from England, Scotland and Wales, approximately the same number from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 2.3 million Scandinavians, and 3.3 million people from Russia and the Baltic states entered the United States. Between the 1840s and the 1870s, Germans and Irish groups predominated. Between 1854 and 1892, more Germans arrived in any given year than any other ethnic group, except for three years when the Irish predominated.

Starting in 1880 however, the waves of immigrants started to come increasingly from Eastern Europe: millions of Eastern European Jews and Southern Europeans, all considerably “darker” than the original White settlers in America who had all virtually exclusively come from the Nordic sub-racial dominated countries of Northern and Western Europe.

The influx of Southern Europeans, in particular, was opposed by the American eugenicists, and became the subject of much work and investigation. The end result of this work, combined with the earlier investigations and evidence by Harry Laughlin, produced the 1924 Immigration law. In 1924, the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion put before the Congress led to the Johnson Act of 1924, which cut down to little less than a tiny trickle the number of immigrants into America, limiting those who did enter to those of specific Northern and Western European ancestry only.

This law remained in force until 1965. Grant was acknowledged as the father of these immigration laws; and he went on to found the American Eugenics Society with Laughlin, the U.S. Congress appointed eugenics advisor.

The suppression of American eugenics

The science of eugenics became international: the First World Eugenics Congress was held in London in 1912. The later British prime minister, Winston Churchill, was one of the official sponsors, with the then British prime minister, Arthur Balfour, delivering the inaugural address.

The Second Eugenics Congress was hosted by the American Museum of Natural History in New York, with more than 300 delegates from all over the world—except Germany, as that country was still ostracized after the First World War. The guest list was impressive: including the future American President Herbert Hoover and the scientific genius Alexander Graham Bell, who was also the Congress’s honorary president, amongst many others.

The Third World Eugenics Congress—and the last—was held at the American Museum of Natural History in New York again in 1932, where prominent attendees included Dr. J. Harvey-Kellogg (from Kellogg’s cereals) and Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, the developer of the theory of evolution.

Grant’s second major work then appeared in 1933: The Conquest of a Continent, detailing the racial make-up of the United States and warning that racial integration would cause modern America to disappear. The book, published by the well-known Scribner and Sons publishing house, became the focus of a boycott organized mainly by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.

This occurred despite Grant making no specific remarks about Jews in the book: but by this time the Nazi Party had come to power in Germany and the American racialist movement was to a large extent held responsible for helping to prepare the scientific background to Nazi policy, and as such the propaganda mills were turned against Grant as much as they were turned against the Nazis.

Finally the Jewish anthropologist, Franz Boas, launched an all out campaign against eugenics. Combined with the propaganda linking Grant’s work to the openly anti-Jewish Nazi government in Germany, fewer and fewer public figures were prepared to associate themselves with eugenics, and by the end of the Second World War the science had been successfully suppressed in America.

Non-white immigration into the white heartlands

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

According to Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities) in their publication Migration Statistics, 1996, there is not one of the 15 countries in Western Europe which, at the beginning of 1994, did not have less than 3 -10 per cent of what they euphemistically call “non-nationals resident”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

I blame Christianity’s secular offshoots for this, and look forward to participate in the Day of the Rope…

Tags Australia, Europe, Jewish Question (JQ), National Socialism, United Kingdom, United States

Blacks French Revolution Miscegenation Napoleon

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.

Tags France, History, Jewish Question (JQ)

Blacks Demography Free speech / association Goths Intelligence quotient (IQ) Judaism Miscegenation Philosophy of history Portugal Racial studies Recceswinth Wikipedia

Orwellian rewriting of History

Post author By C .T.
Post date January 23, 2013
26 Comments on 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.

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.

This 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:]

The 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.

While 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.

The 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.

Tags Christian problem (CP), Degeneracy, New Spain, Spain, United States

Ancient Rome Augustus Demography Miscegenation Nero Racial studies Tacitus

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.

Tags Degeneracy, History

Miscegenation Who We Are (book) William Pierce

Who We Are, 1

Post author By C .T.
Post date January 19, 2013

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.