This piece has been moved
to a single entry: here.
Category: Philosophy of history
This piece has been moved
to a single entry: here.
My commented excerpts of Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation can now be read orderly, starting with chapter 1 (here). Keep in mind that when I typed those excerpts last year Civilisation was still unavailable online. Typos are my fault, not of Clark’s editors.
Categories
Hunter – 9
This entry has been moved: here.
Categories
Heathenhank on GD crackdown
Harold:
Your views on the Greeks within the European racial paradigm is fine, but we really must understand that GD is so important because it has been the only non-marginal, successful and openly racial-nationalist movement in the Western world since the fall of Nazi Germany.
Things fall apart first in the periphery. Outposts of the empire are overrun before the barbarians are battering at the gates of Rome. Greece is a backwater to London-Washington-Tel Aviv power elite, but it clearly scares the shit out of them, as seen by the squealing propaganda pieces of the European newspapers. They know that if ever a single example of a Nation that runs on the ethos of “for the blood of the people, for the future of the children,” came to be, the entire facade of totalitarian humanism would rapidly begin to fall.
We’re kidding ourselves thinking they have “nothing to do with us.” This is a global war for European extinction, from Athens, to Oslo to Seattle. So, is not the first battle of this war more important than any other? We cannot stand aside of the battles of our European brothers today in some hope that we’ll be “saving ourselves” to fight them in our lands in the future.
(Source: here)
Below, translated excerpts from the first pages of Deschner’s 10-volume Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums, published in German in 1986.
______ 卐 ______
Introduction
To begin, I will say what the reader should not expect. As in all of my criticisms of Christianity, here there will be missing many of the things that also belong to history, but not to the criminal history of Christianity that the title indicates. That, which also belongs to history, may be found in millions of works that fill up the libraries, archives, bookstores, academies and the lofts of the parish houses. He who wants to read those materials can do so long as he has life, patience and faith.
This religion has thousands, hundreds of thousands of apologists and defenders; it has books in which many boast of ‘the luminous march of the Church through the ages’ (Andersen), and that the Church is ‘one’ and ‘the living body of Christ’ and ‘holy’ because ‘its essence is holiness; sanctification its end’ (the Benedictine von Rudloff). It is understood, on all this, that the unfortunate side details (religious wars, persecutions, fighting, famine) happened in the designs of God; often inscrutable, always just, full of wisdom and salvific power. Given the overwhelming predominance of the silly, misleading and deceitful glorifying, was it not necessary to show the opposite view insofar as it is much better proven? At any event, those who always want to see the bright side are shielded from the ugly side, which is often the truest.
The distinction between the Church and Christianity is relatively recent. As is known, there is a glaring contradiction between the lives of the Christians and the beliefs they profess: a contradiction which has always been downplayed by pointing to the eternal opposition between the ideal and the real. Nobody dares to condemn Christianity because it has not fulfilled all its ideals, or has fulfilled half of them, or not at all. But such an interpretation ‘equals to carry too far the notion of the human and even the all too human, so that when century after century and millennium after millennium someone does the opposite of what he preaches then becomes, per share and effect of all his history, epitome and absolute culmination of worldwide and historical criminality’ as I said during a conference in 1969 which earned me a visit to the courthouse.
Because that is really the question. Not that they have failed the ideals in part or by degrees, no: it is that those ideals have been literally trampled, without which the perpetrators lay down, for a moment, their claims of self-proclaimed champions of such ideals, nor stop their self-declaration of being the highest moral authorities in the world.
Western Christianity, in any case, ‘was essentially created by the Catholic Church’; ‘the Church, organised from the papal hierocracy down to the smallest detail, was the main institution of the medieval order’ (Toynbee).
Part of our question are the wars started or commanded by the Church, the extermination of entire nations: the Vandals, the Goths, and the relentless slaughter of East Slav peoples—all of them, according to the chronicles of the Carolingian and the Ottos, criminals and confused peoples in the darkness of idolatry that was necessary to convert by any means not excepting betrayal, deceit and fury. Of the fourteen legislated capital crimes by Charlemagne after subduing the Saxons by blood and fire, ten offenses relate exclusively to the religious camp. Under the old Polish criminal law, those guilty of eating meat during the Easter fast were punished by pulling their teeth out.
We will also discuss ecclesiastical punishments for violations of civil rights. The ecclesiastical courts were increasingly hated. There are issues that we will discuss extensively: sacrificial practices (the stolen goods from the Church to be repaid fourfold, and according to Germanic law up to twenty times); ecclesiastical and monastic prisons, especially of the ergastulum type (the coffins were also called ergastula), where they were thrown both ‘sinners’ as the rebels and madmen, and usually installed in basements without windows or doors, but well equipped with shackles of all kinds, racks, handcuffs and chains. We will document the exile punishment and the application of it to the whole family in case of the murder of a cardinal; which extended to the male descendants up to the third generation. Also very fashionable were torture and corporal punishment, especially in the East where it became furiously popular to mutilate limbs, pull out eyes and cut off noses and ears.
It is quite plausible that not all authorities indulged themselves in such excesses, and certainly not everyone would be as insane as the Abbot Transamund, who tore off the eyes of the monks of the Tremiti Convent, or cut their tongues (and, despite this, enjoyed the protection of Pope Gregory VII, who also enjoyed great notoriety). Without a doubt, the churches, particularly the Roman Church, have created significant cultural values, especially buildings, which usually obeyed no altruistic reasons (representing power), and also in the domain of painting, responding to ideological reasons (the eternal illustrations of biblical scenes and legends of saints). But aside from such opted love of culture that contrasts sharply with paleo-Christianity—that with eschatological indifference contemplated the ‘things of this world’, as they believed in the imminent end of all (a fundamental error in which Jesus himself fell)—, it should be noted that most of the cultural contributions of the Church were made possible by ruthlessly exploiting of the masses, the enslaved and the impoverished, century after century. And against this promotion of culture we find further cultural repression, cultural intoxication and destruction of cultural property.
The magnificent temples of worship of antiquity were destroyed almost everywhere: irreplaceable value buildings burned or demolished, especially in Rome itself, where the ruins of the temples served as quarries. In the 10th century they still engaged in breaking down statues, architraves, burning paintings, and the most beautiful sarcophagi served as bathtubs or feeders for pigs. But the most tremendous destruction, barely imaginable, was caused in the field of education. Gregory I, the Great, the only doctor Pope of the Church in addition to Leo I, according to tradition burned a large library that existed on the Palatine. The flourishing book trade of antiquity disappeared; the activity of the monasteries was purely receptive. Three hundred years after the death of Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, the disciples were still studying with manuals written by them. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s official philosopher, writes that ‘the desire for knowledge is a sin when it does not serve the knowledge of God’.
In universities, the Aristotelian hypertrophy aborted any possibility of independent research. Philosophy and literature were subject to the dictation of theology. History, as a science, was completely unknown. The experimentation and inductive research were condemned; experimental sciences were drowned by the Bible and dogma; scientists were thrown into the dungeons, or sent to the stake. In 1163, Pope Alexander III (remember in passing that at that time there were four anti-popes) forbade all clerics studying physics. In 1380 a decision of the French parliament forbade the study of chemistry, referring to a decree of Pope John XXII. And while in the Arab world (obedient to Muhammad’s slogan ‘The ink of scholars is more sacred than the blood of martyrs’) the sciences flourished, especially medicine, in the Catholic world the bases of scientific knowledge remained unchanged for more than a millennium, well into the 16th century. The sick were supposed to seek comfort in prayer instead of medical attention. The Church forbade the dissection of corpses, and sometimes even rejected the use of natural medicines for considering it unlawful intervention with the divine. In the Middle Ages, not even the abbeys had doctors, not even the largest. In 1564 the Inquisition condemned to death the physician Andreas Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, for opening a corpse and for saying that man is not short of a rib that was created for Eve.
Consistent with the guidance of teaching, we find another institution, ecclesiastical censure, very often (at least since the time of St. Paul in Ephesus) dedicated to the burning of the books of pagans, Jews or Saracens, and the destruction (or prohibition) of rival Christian literature, from the books of the Arians and Nestorians until those of Luther. But let us not forget that Protestants sometimes also introduced censorship, even for funeral sermons and also for non-theological works, provided they touched on ecclesiastical matters or religious customs.
The above is a selection of the main issues that I refer to in my history of the crimes. And yet, it is only a tiny segment of the overall history.
History!
Like any other historian, I only contemplate a history of the countless possible histories, a particular one, worse or better defined, and even this biased aspect cannot be considered the whole ‘complex of action’: an absurd idea, given the volume of existing data; theoretically conceivable, but practically impossible and not even desirable. The author who intends to write a criminal history of Christianity is constrained to mention only the negative side of that religion which weight has exceeded ultimately that of the perceived or real positives. Those who prefer to read about the other aspects ought to read other books: The Joyful Faith, The Gospel as Inspiration, Is it True that Catholics are No Better Than the Others?, Why I Love My Church?, The Mystical Body of Christ, Beauties of the Catholic Church, Under the Cloak of the Catholic Church, God Exists (I Have Known Him), The Way of Joy Toward God, The Good Death of a Catholic, With the Rosary to Heaven, SOS from the Purgatory, The Heroism of Christian Marriage.
The pro-Christian literature! More numerous than the sands of the sea: against 10,000 titles just one of the style of this Criminal History of Christianity, not to mention the millions of issues if we add the countless religious periodicals.
It turns out that truly there are among Christians men of good will, as in all religions and in every game, which should not be taken as data in favour of those religions and parties, because if that were allowed how many crooks would testify against such belief? And good Christians are the most dangerous, because they tend to get confused with Christianity, or to borrow the words of Lichtenberg, ‘unquestionably there are many righteous Christians, only that it is no less true that in corpore their works as such have never have helped much’.
What is the basis of my work? As with most historical studies, it is based on sources, tradition, contemporary historiography; especially texts. But when I expose my subjectivity bluntly, my ‘point of view’ and my ‘positioning’, I think I show my respect to the reader better than the mendacious scribes who want to link their belief in miracles and prophecies; in transubstantiations and resurrections from the dead; in heavens, hells and other wonders with the pretence of objectivity, accuracy and scientific rigor. Could it not be that, with my confessed bias, I am less biased than them? Could it be that my experience, my training, did not authorise me to form a more independent opinion about Christianity? At the end of the day I left Christianity, despite having been formed in a deeply religious household, as soon as it ceased to seem real.
Let’s face it: we are all ‘partial’, and he who pretends denying it is lying. It is not our bias what matters, but confessing it, without the pretence of impossible ‘objectivities’. We are all biased. This is particularly true in the case of historians who are more bent on denying it, because they are the ones who lie the most—and then they throw to one another the dogs of Christianity. How ridiculous, when we read that Catholics accused the Protestants of ‘bias’; or the Protestants accusing the Catholics, when thousands of theologians of various confessions throw over each other so common reproach; for example, when the Jesuit Bacht wants to see in the Protestant Friedrich Loofs ‘an excess of zeal against monastic status as such’, for which ‘his views are too one-sided’. And how would not the Jesuit Bacht opine with partiality when he refers to a reformed; he, who belongs to an order whose members are required to believe that white is black and black white, if mandated by the Church? Like Bacht, unquestioning obedience is imposed upon all Catholic theologians in the habit through baptism, dogma, the chair, the ecclesiastical license to print and many other obligations and restrictions. And so they live year after year, enjoying a steady income in exchange for advocating a particular view, a particular doctrine, a particular interpretation of history strongly impregnated with theology… not so much to deceive themselves but to continue cultivating the deception of others. For example, by accusing of bias the opponents of their confession and pretending to believe that Catholics are safe from such defect; as if it didn’t exist, for two thousand years, another bias sneakier than the Catholic.
Historiography is no more than the projection into the past of the interests of the present. The conservative historian who compared his job to that of the priest (for heaven’s sake!) and issued for himself reports of maximum impartiality and objectivity, claimed that he ‘erased his subjectivity’! This unshakable faith for objectivism, called ‘ocularism’ by Count Paul York Wartenburg and lampooned as a proposal for a ‘eunuch objectivity’ by Droysen (‘only the unconscious can be objective’), is illusory. Because there is no objective truth in historiography, nor history as it happened. ‘There can only be interpretations of history, and none is definitive’ (Popper). All historiography is written against the background of our personal vision of the world. It is true that many scholars lack such a worldview and thus are often considered, if not markedly progressive, at least notably impartial, honest and truthful. Those are the champions of ‘pure science’, the representatives of an alleged stance of neutrality or indifference as to value statements. They reject any reference to a particular point of view, any subjectivity, as if they were unscientific sins or blasphemies against the postulate of the true objectivity they advocate; against that sine ira et studio [without anger and affection] which they have as sacrosanct and that, as Heinrich von Treitschke ironizes, ‘nobody respects, let alone the speaker himself’.
The fiction of the concealment of the ideological premises of the historical presentation can serve to conceal many things: an ethical relativism and a cowardly escapism fleeing categorical decisions on principles—which still is a decision: irresponsibility on behalf of scientific responsibility! For a science that does not make assessments, whether they like it or not, is an ally of the status quo: it supports the dominating and hurts the dominated. Its objectivity is only apparent, and in practice it means nothing but love to one’s own tranquillity, security and attachment to a career. Our life does not run value-free, but full of it; and scientists, insofar as they start from life, if they claim they are value-free incur in hypocrisy. I have had in my hands works of historians who were dedicated to the wife who had died in the bombings, or perhaps dedicated to two or three fallen sons on the fronts; and yet, sometimes, these people want to keep their writing as ‘pure science’, as if nothing had happened.
That’s their problem. I think otherwise. Even if it existed, and I say it does not, a totally apolitical historical research, oblivious to all kinds of judgments, such an investigation would serve no purpose but to undermine ethics and make way for inhumanity. Moreover, it would not be true ‘research’ because it would not be dedicated to revealing the relationships between the factors; as much as it would be mere preparatory work, the mere accumulation of materials, as noted by Friedrich Meinecke.
Now, to what extent does the reality of history coincides with my statement? I prefer life on principle to science, especially when it starts to become apparent as a threat to life in the broadest sense. It is often objected that ‘science’ is not to blame, but only some of the scientists (the problem is that there are many, at worst almost all): quite a similar argument that says that we should not take Christianity to task for the sins of Christendom. All this does not mean that I am a supporter of pure subjectivism, which does not exist. A limited capacity of conviction would have my thesis of the criminal character of Christianity if, to prove it, I confined myself to only some examples. But, being a multi-volume work, no one will say that these are isolated or inconclusive examples. Because I write ‘out of hostility’ the story of those I describe has made me their enemy. And I would not consider myself refuted by having omitted what was also true, but only when someone proves that something I have written is false.
There are even those who believe that it is very wrong to criticise, especially when they are criticised, although the latter they would never confess. Quite the contrary, they always claim they have nothing against criticism: that all critiques are welcome but, yes, provided they are positive critiques, constructive; not negative or deleterious. With swollen anger they set those high standards, precisely against the ‘mania of judging’ (Aitmeyer), and display their scandal with ‘scientific’ trims when an author dares to ‘value’; when ‘the historian, given his inability as a moralist, assumes the role of prosecutor’. Is it not grotesque that the sworn representatives of an ancient mystery cult, those who believe in trinities, angels, demons, hell, virgin births, celestial assumptions of a real body, conversion of water into wine and wine into blood, want to impress us with their ‘science’? And could it not be the height of grotesqueness that such people continue to receive the honours of the scientific world itself?
We are invited to take care on behalf of the ‘zeitgeist’ so that we understand and forgive. But precisely Goethe satirised it in his Faust: ‘What you call the spirit of the times, is ultimately the spirit of the masters’. If we are not worth the testimony of the poet for being notoriously anti-Christian and not less anticlerical, let us go to St. Augustine: ‘Times are hard, miserable times, people say. Let us live well, and times are good. Because we ourselves are the times that run; so that how we are, so will our time be’. In his other sermons, Augustine reiterated this idea that there is no reason to accuse the times or the ‘zeitgeist’, but the very humans that (as the historians of today) blame everything on the times: those miserable, difficult and murky times. Because ‘time does not offend anyone. The offended are men, and other men are the ones who inflict the offenses. Oh, pain! It offends men who are robbed, oppressed, and by whom? Not by lions, snakes or scorpions but by men. And so men live the offenses on pain, but will not themselves do the same, if they can, and as much as they have censored it?’ Augustine knew what he meant, as he himself fits perfectly in the last sentence of the quotation (see the last chapter of this volume). As this, ultimately, cannot be denied by the apologists, they object that sometimes—i.e., every time it was necessary, whatever the historical period under consideration—the agents ‘were not true Christians’.
But look, when there were true Christians? Were they the bloodthirsty Merovingians, the Franks so fond of plundering expeditions, the despotic women of the Lateran period? Was Christian the great offensive of the Crusades? Was it the burning of witches and heretics? The Thirty Years War? The First World War, the Second or the war of Vietnam? If all those were not Christians, then who was it? In any case, the spirit of the times was not ever the same at each particular time. While Christians were spreading their gospels, their beliefs and dogmas; while they were transmitting their infection to always larger territories, there were not a few men, such as the first great debunkers of Christianity in the 2nd century, Celsus; and Porphyry in the third, who knew how to raise a comprehensive and overwhelming criticism, which we still feel justified. As Christianity was guilty of appalling outrages, Buddhism, which never had a Western-style organised church in India or central authority dedicated to homogenise the true faith, gave signs of a much higher tolerance. Non-priest believers contracted no exclusive commitment, nor were forced to recant other religions, or converting anyone by force. Their peaceful virtues can be seen, for example, in the history of Tibet, whose inhabitants, a warrior nation among the most feared of Asia, became one of the most peaceful under the influence of Buddhism. In every century there was a moral conscience, even among Christians, and not less among ‘heretics’. Why should we not apply to Christianity its own scale of biblical standards, or even occasionally patristic standards? Do not they themselves say that ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’?
For me, history (and what I said is but a drop in an ocean of injustices) cannot be cultivated sine ira et studio. It would be contrary to my sense of fairness, my compassion for men. He who has not as enemy many enemies, is the enemy of humanity. And is not anyone who pretends to contemplate history without anger or affection similar to the one who witness a large fire and sees how victims suffocate and does nothing to save them, limiting himself to take note of everything? The historian who clings to the criteria of ‘pure’ science is necessarily insincere. He wants either to deceive others or deceive himself. I would add: he is a criminal, because there can be no worse crime than indifference.
And if the sentence of St. John Chrysostom retains its validity today, ‘he who praises the sin is guiltier than he who commits it’, would then praising the crimes of history and glorifying the criminals be even worse than these crimes? Would not human affairs be better, and also the affairs of history, if historians (and schools) illuminated and educated the public based on ethical criteria, condemning the crimes of the sovereigns rather than the praising? But most historians prefer to spread the faeces of the past as if they had to serve as fertiliser for the future havens.
An example of it, to cite only one, is the daily glorification of Charlemagne (or Charles the Great). The worst looting expeditions and genocides of history come to be called expansions, consolidation, extension of the catchment areas, changes in the correlation of forces, restructuring, incorporation domains, Christianization, pacification of neighbouring tribes. When Charlemagne oppresses, exploits, and liquidates what is around him, that is ‘centralism’, ‘pacification of a great empire’. When there are others who rob and kill, those are ‘raids and invasions of enemies across the borders’ (Saracens, Normans, Slavs, Avars) according to Kampf. When Charlemagne, with bags full of holy relics, sets fire and kills on a large scale, thus becoming the noble smith of the great Frank empire, the Catholic Fleckenstein speaks of ‘political integration’. Some specialists use even safer, more peaceful and hypocritical expressions as Camill Wampach, professor of our University of Bonn: ‘The country invited immigration, and the neighbouring region of Franconia gave inhabitants to newly liberated lands’.
The law of the jungle, in a word: the one which has been dominating the history of mankind to date, always where a State intended it (or another refused to submit), and not only in the Christian world, naturally. Because, of course, we will not say here that Christianity is the sole culprit of all these miseries. Perhaps someday, once Christianity disappears, the world remains equally miserable. We do not know that. What we do know is that, with it, everything will necessarily remain the same. That’s why I have tried to highlight its culpability in all cases I have found it essential, trying to cover as many cases as possible but, yes: without exaggeration, without taking things out of proportion, as those could judge who either do not have idea about the history of Christianity, or have lived completely deceived about it.
Excerpted from the prologue of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp:
When reviewing the historical development of all nations, quite often mention is made of a “rise and fall” of a particular civilization. This poses a major question: Why have some civilizations lasted a thousand years or more, while others rise and collapse within a few hundred? Why is it, for example, that nations such as Japan, Sweden, and England—all nations with limited natural resources—could have progressive active cultures for more than one thousand years; whereas mighty civilizations such as Classical Rome, Greece, or Persia, amongst others, collapse after only a few centuries?
Politically correct historians blame the rise and fall of the great nations of the past on politics, economics, morals, lawlessness, debt, environment, and a host of other superficial reasons. However, Japan, England, and Sweden have gone through similar crises scores of times, without those countries falling into decay. It is obvious that there must be some other factor at work—something much more fundamental than just variations in politics, morals, lawlessness, or any of the other hundreds of reasons that historians have manufactured in their attempts to explain the collapse of civilizations.
Originally created by Proto-Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans, and then influenced by waves of Indo-European invaders, the white civilizations in the Middle East all flourished, producing the wonders of the ancient world. These regions were either invaded or otherwise occupied (through the use of laborers, immigration, or in rare cases, by conquest) by nonwhite nations of varying races. When the original white peoples who created those civilizations vanished or became an insignificant minority (through death and absorption into other races), their civilizations “fell” in exactly the same way that the Amerind civilization in North America “fell.”
500 BC—First Turning Point
It was around the year 500 BC that the first great turning point in white history was reached. This was the decline of the first great white civilizations in the Middle East and their subsequent replacement by nations and peoples of a substantially different racial makeup.
Up until this time the development of the white race’s territorial expansion was such that they were a majority in Europe and all of Russia west of the Urals. They formed a significant component of the population of the Middle East and their rule extended into the Indus River Valley in Northern India.
In India, the invading Indo-Aryans established a strict segregation system to keep themselves separate from the local dark skinned native population. This system was so strict that it has lasted to this day and has become known as the caste system.
However, even the strictest segregation (and Aryan laws prescribing punishments such as death for miscegenation) did not prevent the majority population from eventually swallowing up the ruling Aryans until the situation has been reached today where only a very few high caste Brahmin Indians could still pass as Europeans.
Exactly the same thing happened in Central Asia, Egypt, Sumeria, and to a lesser degree, modern Turkey. Slowly but surely, as these civilizations relied more and more on others to do their work for them, or were physically conquered by other races, their population makeup became darker and darker.
Miscegenation with Nonwhite Slaves Caused Egyptian Decline
From the time of the Old Kingdom, the original white Egyptians had been using Nubians, blacks, and Semites (or Arabs) to work on many of their building projects or as general slaves.
Egypt: Same country, different people. Above left: The white pharaoh, Queen Nefertiti, circa 1350 BC; Above center: The effects of racial mixing are clearly to be seen on the face of this coffin portrait of a Roman lady in Hawara, Egypt, 100 AD; Above right: The mixed race Egyptian, Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt in the twentieth century. Nefertiti ruled over an advanced civilization; Sadat ruled over a third world country. The reason for the difference in cultures between Nefertiti’s Egypt and Sadat’s Egypt was that the Egyptian people had changed.
At various stages the pharaohs also employed Nubian mercenaries, and ultimately Nubia and Sudan were physically occupied and incorporated into the Egyptian empire. Although the buildings of ancient Egypt are very impressive—many having survived through to the present day, their construction was dependent on the Egyptian ability to organize an unprecedented mass of human labor.
Several attempts were made to prevent large numbers of Nubians from settling in Egypt. One of the first recorded racial separation laws was inscribed on a stone on the banks of the southern Nile which forbade Nubians from proceeding north of that point. Nonetheless, the continuous use of Nubians for labor eventually led to the establishment of a large resident nonwhite population in Egypt, with their numbers being augmented by natural reproduction and continued immigration.
The region was also occupied for two hundred years by the Semitic Hyksos, who intermarried with the local population, and this was followed by other Semitic/Arabic immigration, fueled by the long existing black settlement on the southernmost reaches of the Nile River.
Once again the factors which led to the extinction of the Aryans in India came into play in Egypt: a resident nonwhite population to do the labor, a natural increase in nonwhite numbers, physical integration, and a decline in the original white birthrate.
All these factors compounded to produce an Egyptian population makeup of today that is very different from the men and women who founded Egypt and designed the pyramids.
As the population makeup shifted, so the cultural manifestations, or civilization, of that region changed to the point where the present day population of the Middle East is not by any stretch of the imagination classifiable as white. The Egyptians of today are a completely different people, racially and culturally, living amongst the ruins of another race’s civilization.
Identical Reasons for Decline in Middle East
The decline and eventual extinction of the white population in the Middle East marked the end of the original civilizations in those regions. In all the Middle Eastern countries the Semitic (Arabic) and black populations grew as they were used as labor by the ruling whites. In the case of Sumer, the white rulers were physically displaced by military conquest at the hands of Semitic invaders.
This process continued until almost all remains of the original whites in the greater region were assimilated into the darker populations. Only the occasional appearance of light colored hair or eyes amongst today’s Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians serve as reminders of the original rulers of these territories.
Lesson—Role of Racially Foreign Labor in the Decline of a Civilization
The lesson is clear: a civilization will remain intact as long as its creating race remains in existence. This applies to all races equally—white, black, Mongolian or any other. As long as a civilization’s founding race maintains its territorial integrity and does not use large numbers of any other alien race to do its labor, that civilization will remain in existence.
If a civilization allows large numbers of racial aliens into its midst (most often as laborers) and then integrates with those newcomers, that civilization will change to reflect the new racial makeup of the population.
Any civilization—be it white, black, Asian, or Aboriginal—stands or falls by the homogeneity of its population, and nothing else. As soon as a society loses its homogeneity, the nature of that society changes. This simple fact, often ignored by historians, provides the key to understanding the rise and fall of all civilizations.
Evidence of black slaves in Egyptian and Grecian society. Left: Nubian (African) slaves as depicted in ancient Egyptian art, and right two Greek vases, dating from the fifth century BC, show the racial types of two slaves, a Semite and a black.
History Is a Function of Race
The early white civilizations in Greece and Rome also fell to this process. The last great Grecian leader, Pericles, actually enacted a law in the year 451 BC limiting citizenship of the state according to racial descent. However, some four hundred years later this law was changed as the population shifts had become more and more evident. Certain Roman leaders tried to turn back the racial clock, but their efforts were in vain. The sheer vastness of the Roman Empire meant that all sorts of races were included in its borders, and this brew ultimately led to the dissolution of the original Roman population.
Those who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that territory. This is an immutable law of nature. It is the iron rule upon which all of human endeavour is built—that history is a function of race.
The Rise and Fall of Civilizations Explained
A civilization “rises and falls” by its racial homogeneity and nothing else. As long as it maintains its racial homogeneity, it will last—if it loses its racial homogeneity, and changes its racial makeup, it will “fall” or be replaced by a new culture.
______________
Note: Why I am reposting this entry is explained: here
Cited in my last post:
The decline of a people’s culture is always the result of race mixing and a decline in racial quality…
While reading Heinrich Himmler’s insightful text the thought came to my mind that American white nationalists have been trying to reinvent the wheel. Why so many of them haven’t studied the literary output of the National Socialists, starting with the Reichsführer?
I tell you why: Liberals have produced a virus for the white mind so strong that we just can’t say that, as Himmler did in the text I reproduced yesterday, “destroying Jewry will remove the final cause that led to the decline and fall of Europe and its culture.”
My italics and I would add that, as a vaccine for the white mind against the liberal morality, we have been recommending the transvaluation of values. Himmler said:
It is equally false to think that cultures, like individual organisms, follow the laws of growth and decline; that every culture must eventually perish. History provides many examples of peoples that endure for millennia, reaching ever new levels, as long as they maintain their racial purity.
This passage says something that William Pierce and Arthur Kemp would say decades later in their histories of the white race (talking about reinventing the wheel…!).
I find it amazing that a German politician in the 1940s got it right while Oswald Spengler and Francis Parker Yockey—idealized intellectuals in the white nationalist scene—got it all wrong.
The message of Himmler, Pierce and Kemp is that, if you keep you gene pool intact through a very strong group surviving strategy, your people won’t decline even with millennia.
Once again a world of appearances collapsed, which had concealed from our eyes the true nature of humanity… A new epoch is coming, one perhaps even more revolutionary than that resulting from Copernicus’s work. Ideas about humanity and peoples that have endured for millennia are collapsing… The Nordic spirit is struggling to free itself from the chains that the Church and the Jews have imposed on Germandom.
But precisely the moment when the old sky started to fall apart and the Aryan to awaken the Anglo-Saxons, so sinfully committed to the old paradigm, did everything in their power to defend it by means of genociding their awoken ancestors… If their lands now burn with rioting blacks and Muslims after the dollar crashes, shouldn’t we start calling the societal collapse poetic justice?
Let Himmler live at least within our hearts.
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.