During the last ice age (the Würm glaciation), geographic pockets surrounded by glaciers formed in the Heartland, and it is in the extreme conditions of one of these icy pockets that an extraordinary human type, ruthlessly selected by the environment, was able to develop. In the article on racial classification, we saw that the Nordic Central Asian race, progenitor of the R1a and R1b genetic lineages and thus paternal ancestor of most of the world’s modern ethnic Europeans, was born in the Palaeolithic in the heart of Eurasia, the Zungaria and Altai regions being proposed as possible Urheimaten of this evolutionary type. Mackinder himself, who lived at a time when eugenics and the study of human biodiversity were not politically incorrect taboos, related the Heartland to brachycephalic skulls and considered the Central European ‘Alpine’ racial type to be an appendage of the anthropological world of ancient Central Asia,[1]separating the dolichocephalic populations of southern Europe (‘Mediterranean’) from the dolichocephalic populations of northern Europe (‘Nordic’) like a wedge.
After the deglaciation, the hunter-gatherer way of life was still dominant throughout the world, but two new ways of life had emerged: in the Near East, the farmer (evolution of gathering), and in the Heartland, the herdsman (evolution of hunting). From the Neolithic onwards, the Heartland did not cease to spew horde upon horde of pastoralist and mountain peoples over the margins of Eurasia, these peoples eventually forming the aristocracies of many ancient Middle Eastern civilisations.
Through the Persian plateau and the mountainous areas of the Middle East, the R1b lineage will reach Europe, up the Danube and accumulate in breeding nuclei in the Alpine region (Unetice and related cultures), as well as in the French-Cantabrian strip. The R1a took the simpler steppe path to end up in Eastern Europe and the German-Polish Plain. It is here that the properly ‘Indo-European’ world was born, linked to the mobility of large conquering troops, the use of the chariot and the horse, patriarchy and the sense of vast spaces and horizons that would give rise to empires, to such an extent that millennia later, ‘knight’ continues to designate a man considered worthy of respect. It is therefore in the pastoralist-herding cultures of Yamna (or Yamnaya), Poltovka and the Volga battle-axe that we must look for the origins of the chivalric and imperial traditions of history.
The earliest metal-age culture typical of the steppe Heartland is probably that of Sintashta-Petrovka. The Arkaim site in the southern Ural Mountains in the middle of the steppe, dated 1600-1900 b.c.e. is the best-known material evidence of this mother culture. Called the ‘swastika city’, ‘mandala city’, ‘Russian Stonehenge’ (located at approximately the same latitude as the English Stonehenge) and even the ‘capital of the ancient Aryan civilisation’, Arkaim is a fortress-village of concentric circles, oriented according to the cardinal points and the stars, and its inhabitants were probably the ancestors of the Aryans described in the Rigveda (India) and the Avesta (Persia).
Birth and expansion of the use of the two-wheeled radial war chariot, the forerunner of modern armoured military formations. Its emergence is within the Heartland, in the southern Urals, now Kazakhstan, which according to Mackinder was ‘the very pivot of the Pivot Area’. Here the Sintashta-Petrovka culture flourished, where animal husbandry, copper mining and bronze metallurgy played a central role, along with the war chariot and well-fortified human settlements, such as the Arkaim site. Later came the Andronovo (orange) culture with its burial complexes where the warrior was buried in burial mounds along with his weapons, horses and chariot. In Anatolia and Syria, the chariot came from the Hittites, in Egypt from the Hyksos, in Mesopotamia from the Kassites and in Europe from the Celts.
In the Bronze Age, the entire steppe is in ferment. On their chariots and horses, the Mitanni fall on Penthalasia, the Mycenaean Achaeans invade Greece and the Hyksos conquer Lower Egypt. The Rigvedarecounts how three and a half millennia ago the blond Arya, led by the god Indra, swept through the cities of the Indus civilisation, scattering the ‘black skin’ and establishing themselves as the new aristocracy of the region. In India and Persia, conquered by pseudo-Scythian Indo-European peoples from the Heartland, the most important gods are depicted as chariot drivers. In Greece, the Homeric ‘Iliad’ is a hymn to the lifestyle of the Indo-European warriors of the Bronze Age. Even in far-off, inhospitable Scandinavia, the red-haired Thor was conceived as driving a chariot pulled by billy goats. Even after the civilisation of vast areas of Europe and the Middle East, the steppes of the continental interior will continue to be inhabited by peoples of Iranian (‘Aryan’) stock who, like the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans, will maintain a barbaric modus vivendi until they are swept away or pushed back by new migrations from the interior.
Metal Age cultures where horse husbandry was established. The use of the horse was closely related to a landscape of open spaces and flat horizons such as the Eurasian steppe, as well as to forms of warfare based on speed. This culture would end up having tremendous social and military success across the globe.
These Indo-European steppe societies had a clear predominance of R1a paternal lineages – associated with the Slavs, Persians and North Indian high castes – and bequeathed to archaeology (first Soviet and then international) the phenomenon of kurgans: earthen burial mounds in which important men were buried, found from Western Europe to Central Asia. Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, was buried in a burial mound. This imaginary ritual is the origin of the legends of the lost king: missing and often red-haired rulers (such as King Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa or Genghis Khan) who sleep inside a mountain waiting for ‘the moment of greatest need’ for their people.
Kurgan in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine. The origin of myths about kings sleeping inside mountains is to be found in the kurgans (burial mounds) of the Metal Age, where important warriors were buried together with their weapons, horses and other belongings. This is where the genesis of the Indo-European world is to be found.
In the article on Indo-European genetic heritage in Central Asia we saw, in addition to some maps illustrating the subject under discussion, to what extent many anthropological-physical traits considered Europoid survive in some ethnic pockets of Central Asia, including Mongolia and Uyghuristan. Precisely from China come references to Western peoples called Dinlins and Boma, who surprised the indigenous population with their ruddy appearance, blue eyes and reddish hair. Some Russian archaeologists link these peoples with descendants of the Afanasiev culture.
European culture as a whole is eminently patriarchal, but even within the West, I believe I can observe the clash between patriarchal and matriarchal mentalities, expressed in the nations possessed by these concepts. Thus, France and Italy, as modern nations, traditionally represent a soft and decadent mentality tending towards matriarchy, while Russia, Germany, England, and the United States represent the more patriarchal and aggressive tendency.
Within our civilisation, it is obvious and undisputable that the two principles are in debate and that patriarchy has been slowly being overturned in favour of a pseudo-matriarchy for some time now.
It also seems obvious to me that patriarchal societies are superior and more advanced than matriarchal societies and, especially, have much greater potential. There is simply no point of comparison in terms of achievements and superiority between the ridiculous pacifist matriarchy and the glorious, all-conquering patriarchy. For me, it is enough to glance over mythology, or to read The Iliad, to feel deep sympathy for authentically patriarchal societies, besides the fact that patriarchy is inevitably associated with Aryan or ‘Indo-European’.
Editor’s Note: Real men (‘Yang’), not the white trash we see today throughout the West—except for the Russians who, in Ukraine, are now fighting the globo-homo ‘Empire of the yin‘.
As a sign of the ‘Oedipus complex’ that plagues our civilisation, we have the passions and fears that the word ‘fascism’ arouses in the modern world. What communists, socialists, progressives, democrats and the like hate and fear from ‘fascism’ is the organising severity of a patriarchal society that puts everyone in his place.
What do I think the future of this issue might be? The present abortion of matriarchy is doomed to disappear as soon as the slightest turmoil is unleashed. On the one hand, it has produced a weak society incapable of defending itself and will be overwhelmed by those who have not fallen prey to its scourge (e.g. Islam). On the other hand, the current pseudo-matriarchal society is doomed to extinction for the simple reason that those who profess it don’t preach the need to have children, falling into the most immense contradiction, for a society that believes it is indisputably in possession of the absolute truth (like the current one), should preach offspring to eternalise itself and ensure a future at all costs, in the face of societies that think differently, which are the majority. Over time, his surrealistic utopia will lose ground to the merciless harshness of the times to come, and will eventually be replaced by a patriarchal reaction more in tune with the reality of the world and of man, which is the need for abundant and strong offspring.
The awakening of the white race will, of necessity, be accompanied by a reworking of the old Aryan patriarchy. Sorry to spoil your party, oh herd of decadent Loewe-scented cattle, but the subnormalities are over and so much of what you took for granted is over. There will come a day when you will have to fight to the death just to enjoy the 1% of goods that now seem normal to you! Your disgusting promiscuity, your mental vacuity, your superficiality and your stilted bourgeois sophistication will be extirpated and woe betide you if you cry, stamp your feet or call Superman. Considering the past decadence and the catastrophic situation in which the race—which is the only thing that matters in this world—finds itself thanks to your repellent moral and spiritual baseness, the coming reaction must be exactly the opposite.
By way of Appendix: The peoples of the north and the ‘civilisation of the mother’, from Adriano Romualdi’s La Question d’une Tradition Européenne:
The emergence of a European physiognomy from the mists of High Prehistory took place in the fifth millennium b.c.e. This event was accompanied by a spiritually significant choice: the rejection of the ‘Mother Civilisation’ and the affirmation of the Indo-European Urvolk (‘original people’, German) as an essentially virile and patriarchal community.
The Neolithic, the age of the first agriculture and the first settlements, the age in which families become tribes and tribes become villages, is inaugurated on the European continent with the penetration of the Eastern and Mediterranean elements. These are the Thessalian Sesklo-Dimini cells, heirs of the near-eastern communities that spread up the Danube and proliferated throughout Central and Balkan Europe. This is the so-called Danubian culture, with its banded pottery (Bandkeramik), rough wooden hoes and large collective houses. This culture conveys its spiritual message through small figures depicting a naked female deity. She is Mother Earth (Gê Metêr), the Great Mother of harvests, the dispenser of fertility who holds the keys to life and death. She is the naked goddess, whose kingdom extends from Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, Crete, Malta and beyond. Throughout Western and Atlantic Europe, from the Iberian Peninsula to the British Isles, the dagger-wielding goddess also appears in megalithic engravings. The Eurasian and Euro-African sky of the Mother penetrates, through the Mediterranean race with its Lybian, Ligurian, Iberian and Pelasgic proliferations, to the heart of the European continent.
However, the Mother’s domain does not extend as far as northern Europe. This is the region around the southern Baltic, the area of the beech, yew, birch, and spruce; the area of the wolf, the bear, the salmon, the beaver; the territory that linguistic geography presupposes for the Indo-European Urheimat (‘original home’, German). It is also the territory of the Nordic race where, from the beginning of the 5th millennium, local groups of hunters and fishermen, heirs of the Magdalenian community of the Ice Age, reorganised themselves into a new agricultural culture alien to the world of the Danubians and the Great Mother.
The Norse megalithic culture, with its great stone tombs bearing witness to a firm political and gentile structure, together with its two offshoots, the culture of globular amphorae and the culture of chorded pottery, constitute the original matrix of the Indo-European languages and are responsible for a violent transformation that will affect Europe and vast regions of Asia.
From 3200 b.c.e. onwards, the whole of central, eastern and Balkan Europe was raided by the Northern Peoples. The Globular Amphorae Culture and the Stringed Pottery Culture, departing from their headquarters in the Germanic plain, invade the peaceful communities of the Motherland with their hammer axes, transforming the archaeological picture as far as Greece and Ukraine.
Significantly, this irruption was accompanied by the irruption of solar symbols. The Swastika was born, the oldest example of which appears on a ceramic from the Globular Amphorae Culture found in Poland; the radiated cross and the squared discs, with a dot in the centre or surrounded by rays, were born.
This is a vast symbolic range that finds its greatest flowering in Troy, the frontier city between Europe and Asia, marking the passage of Indo-European peoples into Asia Minor. The Swastika, the primordial symbol of generation and the resurrection of light is associated with the first appearance of the Indo-European peoples in the heart of the fourth millennium, and only fifteen hundred years later it reached India and China.
In the heart of Anatolia, the tombs of Alaja Hüyük, as a prelude to the future splendour of the Hittite kingdom, show us, alongside hammer-headed pins of the northern barbarians, banners decorated with swastikas and other solar symbols. One of these banners features a large stag in the middle of two smaller bulls. We are witnessing the subjugation of telluric, southern, maternal symbolism.
The bull, a symbol of the blind generative force, linked to the ideology of fertility, crudely represented alongside the naked goddess in the most archaic European agricultural cultures, is contrasted with the deer, the animal of the hunters of the North, Seelentier des nordischen Menschen (‘animal of the soul of Nordic men’, German) and, according to Weisweiler, ‘animal of the Arctic civilisation’.
The deer is significantly associated with the symbolism of the sun and light:
Den Sonnenhirsch sah ich von Süden her gehen Seine Füsse standen auf der Erde aber die Hörner reichten zum Himmel
These verses of The Edda are illustrated by several prehistoric figures, starting with those from Valcamonica, in which the stag’s horns are stylised in the form of a sun disc.
Similarly, it is significant that in Ireland, when the Celtic element meets the aborigines of Iberian stock, the stag and the bull play a central role in the sagas. Where the words oss, dag and ag, which in the Leinster saga name the stag, in the Ulster saga have come to mean bull.
Behind this clash of symbols, behind the spread of the battle-axe peoples and the spread of the Indo-European languages, lies an event of great spiritual significance.
The paternal principle is pitted against the ‘Mother Civilisation’; Olympian virility against the taurine and maternal myth of fertility; the ethos of the ‘societies of men’ against the enthusiastic promiscuity of ancient Matriarchy.
The echoes spread throughout Europe, where more than a thousand years later, Doric and Latin migrations would create the premises of the classical view of life. But, even more, the effects of this sudden expansion of the Nordic, white and Indo-European stock are felt in the most distant centres of irradiation: on the plateaus of Persia and the threshold of India.
Wikipedia has the problem that many of its editors and administrators are either white traitors to the West or Jews like those of deMause’s journal. Although some scholars contribute to editing it, there is always an anti-westerner who censures the passages opposing the anti-white zeitgeist. For example, regarding the articles on infanticide I edited in 2008, a couple of Australian administrators from the English Wikipedia abused their powers. Not only did they eliminate most of the section on Australia within the article “Infanticide.” They went so far as to erase, from that online encyclopedia, an entire article that another editor had started. This last article focused on expanding the subject of the infanticide committed by aboriginal Australians. (Part of what was censored by Wikipedia is covered in this chapter, in the section on Australia.) Almost a decade later I learned that, since the 1970s, it has been a common practice in that continent to censor studies on infanticide, insofar as the aborigines have been idealized. Rewriting the history of the natives by vaporizing, in Stalin’s style, part of the collective memory of a nation misinforms visitors to the encyclopedia. But not all Wikipedia editors have behaved like that pair of administrators, so zealous in idealizing the natives in their country. In the archived Wikipedia talk page of Psychohistory, Loren Cobb said:
In my view, the psychohistory of Lloyd deMause is indeed a notable approach to history, in the sense in which Wikipedia uses the term “notability.” I am not personally involved in psychohistory—I am a mathematical sociologist—but here are some thoughts for your consideration.
Psychohistory as put forth by deMause and his many followers attempts to explain the pattern of changes in the incidence of child abuse in history. This is a perfectly respectable and non-fringe domain of scientific research. They argue that the incidence was much higher in the past, and that there has been an irregular history of improvement. This is a hypothesis that could just as easily have been framed by an epidemiologist as a psychologist. DeMause proposes a theory that society has gone through a series of stages in its treatment and discipline of children.
Again, this is well within the bounds of social science. None of these questions are pseudoscientific. Even the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, a bastion of scientific epidemiology, is interested in these kinds of hypotheses.1
I exchanged a few e-mails with Cobb, who like me is very critical of the psychoanalytic tail in deMausean legacy, and his position piqued my interest.
This chapter summarizes the data collected in the first exhaustive study on infanticide: a book by Larry Milner, Hardness of Heart, published in the last year of the 20th century. That so many researchers have produced astronomical figures on the extent of infanticide moves me to think that Milner’s initiative to devote ten years of his life researching the topic should be undertaken by others. Only then can we be sure if such large numbers are accurate.
Joseph Birdsell believes in infanticide rates of 15-50 percent of the total number of births in prehistoric times.2 Laila Williamson estimated a lower rate ranging from 15-20 percent.3 Both believe that high rates of infanticide persisted until the development of agriculture.4 Some comparative anthropologists have estimated that 50 percent of female newborn babies were killed by their parents in the Paleolithic.5 These figures appear over and over in the research of other scholars.
Paleolithic and Neolithic
Decapitated skeletons of hominid children have been found with evidence of cannibalism. Neanderthal man performed ritual sacrifices of children. As shown in the bas-reliefs of a Laussel cave, a menstruating goddess is appeased only by the sacrifice of infants.6
Marvin Harris, the creator of the anthropological movement called cultural materialism, estimated that in the Stone Age up to 23-50 percent of newborns were put to death. However, Harris conceived a rational explanation. In his book Cannibals and Kings: Origins of Cultures, published in 1977, he says that the goal was to preserve the population growth to 0.001 percent. This explanation of more “civilized” cavemen than us has not been taken seriously among other scholars. But the renowned geneticist James Neel surpasses him. Through a retroactive model to study the customs of contemporary Yanomami Indians he estimated that in prehistoric times the infanticidal rate was 15-20 percent. However, Neel wrote: “I find it increasingly difficult to see in the recent reproductive history of the civilized world a greater respect for the quality of human existence than was manifested by our remote ‘primitive’ ancestors.” Ark would have scoffed at this claim. The fact that Neel published such praise for the infanticidal cavemen in Science,7 one of the most prestigious scientific journals, shows the levels of psychogenic regression that we suffer in our times.
Ancient World
As we have seen, the sacrifice of children was much more common in the Ancient World than in present times. Three thousand bones of young children, with evidence of sacrificial rituals, have been found in Sardinia. Infants were offered to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Pelasgians offered a sacrifice of every tenth child during difficult times. Syrians sacrificed children to Jupiter and Juno. Many remains of children have been found in Gezer excavations with signs of sacrifice. Child skeletons with the marks of sacrifice have been found also in Egypt dating 950-720 B.C. In Carthage “[child] sacrifice in the ancient world reached its infamous zenith.”8 Besides the Carthaginians, other Phoenicians, and the Canaanites, Moabites and Sepharvites offered their first-born as a sacrifice to their gods.
Carthage. Charred bones of thousands of infants have been found in Carthaginian archaeological sites in modern times. One such area harbored as many as 20,000 burial urns. It is estimated that child sacrifice was practiced for centuries in the region. Plutarch (ca. 46-120 AD) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius, Diodorus Siculus and Philo. The Hebrew Bible also mentions what appears to be child sacrifice practiced at a place called the Tophet (from the Hebrew taph or toph, to burn) by the Canaanites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. Writing in the 3rd century B.C., Kleitarchos, one of the historians of Alexander the Great, described that the infants rolled into the flaming pit. Diodorus Siculus wrote that babies were roasted to death inside the burning pit of the god Baal Hamon, a bronze statue.9
Greece and Rome. In the Persian mythology of Zoroastrianism, at birth some children are devoured by their parents: a fable reminiscent of Cronus. Rhea hid Zeus and presented a stone wrapped in strips, which Cronus took as a swaddled baby and ate it. Cronus represents the archaic Hellas.
The historical Greeks considered barbarous the practice of adult and child sacrifice.10 It is interesting to note how conquerors like Alexander are diminished under the new psychohistorical perspective. If we give credence to the assertion that Thebes, the largest city in the region of Boeotia, had lower rates of exposure than other Greek cities, its destruction by Alexander was a fatal blow to the advanced psychoclass in Greece. A few centuries later, between 150 and 50 B.C. an Alexandrian Jew wrote Wisdom of Solomon, which contains a diatribe against the Canaanites whom he calls perpetrators of “ruthless murders of their children.” (Note how the biblical classics, the 16th-century chroniclers, and the 19th-century anthropologists wield value judgments, something banned in an academy under the shadow of Franz Boas.)
In The Histories Polybius was already complaining in the 2nd century B.C. that parents severely inhibited reproduction, and by the 1st century there were several thinkers who spoke out against the exposure of babies. Epictetus wondered “A sheep does not abandon its own offspring, nor a wolf; and yet does a man abandon his?” In the Preface we saw that in the same century Philo was the first philosopher to speak out against exposure.11
“The greatest respect is owed to a child,” wrote Juvenal, born in 55 AD. His contemporary Josephus, a Romanized Jew, also condemned exposure. And in Heroides, an elegiac poem that he wrote before his exile, Ovid asked, “What did the child commit, in so few hours of life?” However, two centuries after Augustus, in times of Constantine Rome struggled with a decreased population due to exposure. The legend of Romulus and Remus is also revealing: two brothers had been exposed to die but a she-wolf saved them. Romulus forced the Romans to bring up all males and the first female and forbade killing them after a certain age. As Rhea saving his son Zeus, this legend portrays the psychogenic landmark of classical culture compared with other cultures of the Ancient World. But even so, exposure was practiced. A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife, dating from 1 B.C., demonstrates the casual nature with which infanticide was often viewed:
Know that I am still in Alexandria. […] I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered, if it is a boy, keep it, if a girl, discard it.12
In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tablets of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed. Infanticide became a capital offense in Roman law in 374 AD but offenders were rarely if ever prosecuted.13
Hebrew people. Although the Bible says many Hebrews sacrificed their children to pagan gods, Judaism prohibits infanticide (I will approach the subject of the recent studies on the Israelites in the last chapter). Tacitus recorded that the Jews “regard it as a crime to kill any late-born children.”14 Josephus, whose works give an important insight into first-century Judaism, wrote that God “forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward.”15
Pagan European tribes. John Boswell believed that in ancient Germanic tribes unwanted children were exposed, usually in the forest. “It was the custom of the pagans that if they wanted to kill a son or daughter, they would be killed before they had been given any food.”16 In the most influential archeological book of the 19th century, Prehistoric Times, John Lubbock invented the terms Paleolithic and Neolithic. He described that burnt bones indicated the practice of child sacrifice in pagan Britain.17
The Christian Era
Something goes completely unnoticed for the modern mind. In a world plagued by sacrifices like the Old World, the innocent son has to die ordered by his father: a well-known practice. It is impossible to understand the psychoclass that gave rise to Christianity by overlooking this reality converted into a powerful symbol. This is true despite, as I have stated in the previous pages, that forms of upbringing should have suffered, in general terms, a regression throughout the Middle Ages. The Teachings of the Apostles or Didache said: “You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.”18The Epistle of Barnabas stated an identical command.19 So widely accepted was this teaching in Christendom that apologists Tertullian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Justin Martyr and Lactantius also maintained that exposing a baby to death was a wicked act. In 318 AD Constantine considered infanticide a crime but reinstated the practice of selling one’s own children. The West took its time to consider criminal the late forms of infanticide. The author of the Codex Theodosianus complained in 322 AD:
We have learned that in provinces where there are shortages of food and lack of livelihood, parents are selling or pledging their children. Such an ignominious act is repugnant to our customs.
Towards 340 AD Lactantius argued that strangling newborns was sinful. Already within the historical period known as Christendom, infanticide was not officially banned in Roman criminal law until 374 AD when Valentinian I mandated to rear all children (exposing babies, especially girls, was still common). However, both exposure and child abandonment continued in Europe.
Middle Ages. The practice was so entrenched, as well as the sale of children, that it had been futile to decree the abolition of such customs. Until 500 AD it could not be said that a baby’s life was secure. The Council of Constantinople declared that infanticide was a homicide, and in 589 AD the Third Council of Toledo took measures against the Spanish custom of killing their own children.20 Whereas theologians and clerics preached to spare their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.21 More archaic forms of infanticide, such as sacrifice, were practiced by the Gauls, Celts and the Irish. “They would kill their piteous wretched offspring with much wailing and peril, to pour their blood around Crom Cruaich,” a deity of pre-Christian Ireland.22 Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn.23 In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.24 According to William Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages “was practiced on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference.”25 By the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber River even in daylight.26 In Russia, peasants sacrificed their sons and daughters to the pagan god Perun. Some residents of rural areas got rid of their babies by throwing them to the hogs. In Medieval Russia secular laws did not deal with what, for the church, was a crime.27 The Svans killed the newborn females by filling their mouths with hot ashes. In Kamchatka, babies were killed and thrown to wild dogs.28
The darkness of Europe would begin to fade in the 12th century. As explained above, the “little Renaissance” of that century reminds me the famous series of Kenneth Clark, the first of its kind that showed us the personal view of an intellectual in a television series. Other cultures would be arrested in their ways of treatment of women and children.
China and Japan. The American explorer George Kennan noted that among the Koryaks, a Mongoloid people of north-eastern Siberia, infanticide was still common in the 19th century. One of the twins was always sacrificed.29 Since the 17th century Jesuit missionaries had found thousands of babies, mostly women, abandoned on the streets of China. Marco Polo, the famed explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi.30 China’s society promoted gendercide. The philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century B.C., who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.”31 Among the Hakka people, and in Yunnan, Anhwei, Szechwan, Jiangxi and Fukien a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water.” 32 Even before feudal Japan infanticide was performed. The common slang for infanticide was mabiki which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. It has been estimated that 40 percent of newborn babies were killed in Kyushu.33 A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose.34Mabiki persisted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.35
India and Pakistan. Female infanticide of newborn girls was systematic in feudatory Rajputs in India. According to Firishta (approx. 1560-1620), as soon as a female child was born she was holding “in one hand, and a knife in the other, that any person who wanted a wife might take her now, otherwise she was immediately put to death.”36 The practice of female infanticide was also common among the inhabitants of Kutch, Kehtri, Nagar, Gujarat, Miazed, Kalowries and also among the Sind in Pakistan.37 It was not uncommon that parents threw a child to the crocodiles in the Ganges River as a sacrificial offering. The British colonists were unable to outlaw the custom until the beginnings of the 19th century.38
Arabia and Islam. Female infanticide was common all over Arabia during pre-Islamic Arabia, especially by burying alive the newborn female.39 Later it would be explicitly prohibited by the Koran: “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance and yourselves too; Surely to kill them is a great wrong.”40 However, in spite of this emergent psychoclass, if compared with their infanticidal neighbors of the Arabian peninsula, the forms of childcare and the treatment of women in Islam would be stagnant for centuries.
Tribes
Infanticide in tribal societies was, and in some tribes still is, more frequent than infanticide in both Western and Eastern civilizations.
Africa. In this continent newborns were killed because of fear that they were an evil omen or because they were considered unlucky. Twins were usually put to death in Arebo; as well as by the Nama Hottentots of South West Africa; in the Lake Victoria Nyanza region; by the Tswana in Portuguese East Africa; among the Ilso and Ibo people of Nigeria; and by the !Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert.41 The Kikuyu, Kenya’s most populous ethnic group, practiced ritual killing of twins.42 Lucien Lévy-Brühl noted that, as a result of fearing a drought, if a baby was born feet first in British East Africa, she or he was smothered.43 The Tswana people did the same since they feared the newborn would bring ill fortune to the parents.44 Similarly, William Sumner noted that the Vadshagga killed children whose upper incisors came first.45 If a mother died in childbirth among the Ibo people of Nigeria, the newborn was buried alive. It suffered a similar fate if the father died.46 In The Child in Primitive Society, Nathan Miller wrote in the 1920s that among the Kuni tribe every mother had killed at least one of her children.47 Child sacrifice was practiced as late as 1929 in Zimbabwe, where a daughter of the tribal chief used to be sacrificed as a petition of rain.48
Oceania and the Pacific Islands. Infanticide among the autochthon people in the Oceania islands is widespread. In some areas of the Fiji islands up to 50 percent of newborn infants were killed.49 In the 19th-century Ugi, in the Solomon Islands almost 75 percent of the indigenous children had been brought from adjoining tribes due to the high incidence rate of infanticide, a unique feature of these tribal societies.50 In another Solomon island, San Cristóbal, the firstborn was considered ahubweu and often buried alive.51 As a rationale for their behavior, some parents in British New Guinea complained: “Girls […] don’t become warriors, and they don’t stay to look for us in our old age.”52
Australia. According to Bronislaw Malinowski, who wrote a book on indigenous Australians in the early 1960s, “infanticide is practiced among all Australian natives.”53 The practice has been reported in Tasmania, Western Australia, Central Australia, South Australia, in the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Anthropologist Géza Róheim wrote:
When the Yumu, Pindupi, Ngali, or Nambutji were hungry, they ate small children with neither ceremonial nor animistic motives. Among the southern tribes, the Matuntara, Mularatara, or Pitjentara, every second child was eaten in the belief that the strength of the first child would be doubled by such a procedure.54
Family units usually consisted of three children. Brough Smyth, a 19th century researcher, estimated that in Victoria about 30 percent of the births resulted in infanticide.55 Mildred Dickeman concurs that the figure is accurate in other Australia tribes as a result of a surplus of the birthrate.56 Cannibalism was observed in Victoria at the beginning of the 20th century. The Wotjo tribe, as well as the tribes of the lower Murray River, sometimes killed a newborn to feed an older sibling.57 Thomas Robert Malthus said that, in the New South Wales region when the mother died sucking infants were buried alive with her.58 In the Darling River region, infanticide was practiced “by a blow on the back of the head, by strangling with a rope, or chocking with sand.”59 In Queensland a tribal woman only could have children after the age of thirty. Otherwise babies would be killed.60 The Australian Aranda tribes in the Northern Territory used the method of choking the newborn with coal, sand or kill her with a stick.61 According to James George Frazer, in the Beltana tribes in South Australia it was customary to kill the first-born.62 Twins were always killed by the Arrernte in central Australia.63 In the Luritcha tribe occasional cannibalism of young children occurred.64 Aram Yengoyan calculated that, in Western Australia, the Pitjandjara people killed 19 percent of their newborns.65 In the 19th century the native Tasmanians were exterminated by the colonists, who regarded them as a degenerate race. Richard H. Davies (fl. 1830s-1887), a brother of Archdeacon Davies, wrote that Tasmanian “females have been known to desert their infants for the sake of suckling the puppies,” which were later used for hunting.66 Like other tribal Australians, when the mother died the child was buried as well.67
Polynesia. In ancient Polynesian societies infanticide was fairly common.68 Families were supposed to rear no more than two children. Writing about the natives Raymond Firth noted: “If another child is born, it is buried in the earth and covered with stones.”69 In Hawaii infanticide was a socially sanctioned practice before the Christian missions.70 Infanticidal methods included strangling the children or, more frequently, burying them alive.71 Infanticide was quite intense in Tahiti.72 Methods included suffocation, neck breaking and strangulation.73
North America. Infanticide and child sacrifice was practiced in the New World at times when in Western Europe it had been largely abandoned. There is no agreement about the actual estimates of the frequency of newborn female infanticide in the Eskimo population. Carmel Schrire mentions diverse studies ranging from 15-50 percent to 80 percent.74 Polar Eskimos killed the child by throwing him or her into the sea.75 There is even a legend in Eskimo folklore, “The Unwanted Child,” where a mother throws her child into the fjord. The Yukon and the Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die.76 In Arctic Canada the Eskimos exposed their babies on the ice and left them to die.77 Female Eskimo infanticide disappeared in the 1930s and 1940s after contact with the Western cultures of the South.78 The Handbook of North American Indians reports infanticide and cannibalism among the Dene Indians and those of the Mackenzie Mountains.79 In the Eastern Shoshone there was a scarcity of Indian women as a result of female infanticide.80 For the Maidu Native Americans in the United States twins were so dangerous that they not only killed them, but the mother as well.81 In the region known today as southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practiced infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighboring groups.82
South American tribes. Although data of infanticides among the indigenous people in South America is not as abundant as data from North America, the estimates seem to be similar. The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman, and no more than two had to be of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.83 The people in the Bororo tribe killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.84
While Capacocha sacrifice was practiced in the Peruvian large cities, child sacrifice in the pre-Columbian tribes of the region is less documented. However, even today studies on the Aymara Indians reveal high incidences of mortality among the newborn, especially female deaths, suggesting infanticide.85 Infanticide among the Chaco in Paraguay was estimated as high as 50 percent of all newborns in that tribe, who were usually buried.86 The infanticidal custom had such roots among the Ayoreo in Bolivia and Paraguay that it persisted until the late 20th century.87
Conclusion
As can be gathered from the above data, it is possible to support psychohistory’s cornerstone, the idea of an infanticidal psychoclass, with sources other than those used by deMause. The main criticism of historian Julie Hofmann Kemp to the deMausean model has, therefore, been solved.
References
1 Loren Cobb signs under a penname in Wikipedia. His post appeared in the talk page of Psychohistory (03:41, April 3, 2008).
2 Birdsell, Joseph, B. (1986), “Some predictions for the Pleistocene based on equilibrium systems among recent hunter-gatherers,” in Richard Lee and Irven DeVore, Man the Hunter, Aldine Publishing Co., p. 239.
3 Williamson, Laila (1978), “Infanticide: an anthropological analysis,” in Kohl, Marvin, Infanticide and the Value of Life, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 61-75.
4 Milner, Larry S. (2000). Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide. Lanham/New York/Oxford: University Press of America, p. 19.
5 Hoffer, Peter, N.E.H. Hull (1981). Murdering Mothers: Infanticide in England and America, 1558-1803. New York University Press, p. 3.
6 Simons, E. L. (1989). “Human origins.” Science, 245: p. 1344.
7 Neel, James. (1970). “Lessons from a ‘primitive’ people.” Science, 1: p. 816.
8 Milner: Hardness of Heart (op. cit.) p. 324.
9 Brown, Shelby (1991). Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 22s. See also: Stager, Lawrence, Samuel R. Wolff (1984). “Child sacrifice at Carthage—religious rite or population control?” Biblical Archaeology Review 10: pp. 31-51.
10 Hughes, Dennis D. (1991). Human Sacrifice in Ancient Greece. Routledge, p. 187.
11 Philo (1950). The Special Laws. Harvard University Press, Vol. VII, pp. 117s, 551, 549.
12 Naphtali, Lewis, ed. (1985), “Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 744,” Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, Oxford University Press, p. 54.
13 Radville, Samuel X. (1974), “A history of child abuse and infanticide,” in Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Murray A. Strauss, Violence in the Family, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., pp. 173-179.
14 Tacitus (1931). The Histories. London: William Heinemann, Vol. II, p. 183.
15 Josephus (1976). The Works of Flavius Josephus, “Against Apion.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press, II.25, p. 597.
16 John Boswell (1988). The Kindness of Strangers. New York: Vintage Books, p. 211.
17 Lubbock, John (1865). Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate, p. 176.
18 Robinson, J. Armitage (translator) (1920), “Didache,” Barnabas, Hermar and the Didache, Vol. D.ii.2c, New York: The MacMillan Co., p. 112.
19 Ibid., Epistle of Barnabas, xix. 5d.
20 Radbill, Samuel X. (1974), “A history of child abuse and infanticide,” in Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Murray A. Straus, Violence in the Family, New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., pp. 173-179.
21 John Boswell (1984). “Exposition and oblation: the abandonment of children and the ancient and medieval family.” American Historical Review 89: pp. 10-33.
22 Dorson, Richard (1968). Peasant Customs and Savage Myths: Selections from the British Folklorists. University of Chicago Press, p. 351.
23 Westrup, C.W. (1944). Introduction to Roman Law. Oxford University Press, p. 249.
24 Turville-Petre, Gabriel (1964). Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, p. 253.
25 Langer, William L. (1974). “Infanticide: a historical survey.” History of Childhood Quarterly, 1, pp. 353-366.
26 Trexler, Richard (1973). “Infanticide in Florence: new sources and first results.” History of Childhood Quarterly, 1: p. 99.
27 Ransel, David (1988). Mothers of Misery. Princeton University Press, pp. 10-12.
28 McLennan: Studies in Ancient History (op. cit.), pp. 105s.
29 Kennan, George (1986 [originally published in 1871]). Tent Life in Siberia. New York: Gibbs Smith.
30 Polo, Marco (1965). The Travels. Middlesex: Penguin Books, p. 174.
31 Yu-Lan, Fung (1952). A History of Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press, p. 327.
32 Yao, Esther S. Lee (1983). Chinese Women: Past and Present. Mesquite: Ide House, p. 75.
33 Kushe, Helga and Peter Singer (1985). Should the Baby Live? Oxford University Press, p. 106.
34 Shiono, Hiroshi and Atoyo Maya, Noriko Tabata, Masataka Fujiwara, Junich Azumi and Mashahiko Morita (1986). “Medico-legal aspects of infanticide in Hokkaido District, Japan.” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 7: p. 104.
35 Vaux, Kenneth (1989). Birth Ethics. New York: Crossroad, p. 12.
36 Westermarck, Edward (1968). A Short History of Marriage. New York: Humanities Press, Vol. III, p. 162.
37 Panigrahi, Lalita (1972). British Social Policy and Female Infanticide in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, p. 18.
38 Davies, Nigel (1981). Human Sacrifice. New York: William Morrow & Co, p. 18.
39 Milner: Hardness of Heart, (op. cit.), p. 59. See also: Smith, William Robertson (1903). Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia. London: Adam & Charles Block, p. 293.
40 The Koran, XVII:31. See also LXXXI:8-9, XVI:60-62, XVII:42 and XLII:48.
41 Milner: Hardness of Heart (op. cit.) pp. 160s.
42 LeVine, Sarah and Robert LeVine (1981), “Child abuse and neglect in Sub-Saharan Africa,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 39.
43 Lévy-Brühl, Lucien (1923). Primitive Mentality. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., p. 150.
44 Schapera, I.A. (1955). A Handbook of Tswana Law and Custom. Oxford University Press, p. 261.
45 Sumner, William (1956 [originally published in 1906). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Oxford University Press, p. 274.
46 Basden, G.T. (1996). Niger Ibos. New York: Barnes & Noble, pp. 180-184, 262s.
47 Miller, Nathan (1928). The Child in Primitive Society. New York: Bretano’s, p. 37.
48 Davies: Human Sacrifice (op. cit.), p. 143.
49 McLennan, J.F. (1886). Studies in Ancient History, The Second Series. New York: MacMillan & Co., Ltd., pp. 90s.
50 Guppy, H.B. (1887). The Solomon Islands and Their Natives. London: Swan Sonnenschein, p. 42.
51 Frazer, J.G. (1935). The Golden Bough. New York: MacMillan Co., pp. 332s.
52 Langness, L.L. (1984), “Child abuse and cultural values: the case of New Guinea,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 15.
53 Malinowski, Bronislaw (1963). The Family Among the Australian Aborigines. New York: Scocken Books, p. 235.
54 Róheim, Géza (1962). “The Western tribes of Central Australia: childhood.” The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, 2: p. 200.
55 Smyth, Brough (1878). The Aborigines of Australia. London: John Ferres, p. 52.
56 Dickeman, Mildred (1975). “Demographic consequences of infanticide in man.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 6: p. 121.
57 Howitt, A.W. (1904). The Native Tribes of South-East Australia. MacMillan & Co., Ltd., pp. 749s.
58 Malthus, Thomas Robert (1963). On Population. New York: The Modern Library, I.III, p. 170.
59 Bonney, Frederic (1884). “On some customs of the aborigines of the River Darling.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 13: p. 125.
60 Cowlishaw, Gillian (1978). “Infanticide in aboriginal Australia.” Oceania, 48: p. 267.
61 Murdock, G.P. (1971). Our Primitive Contemporaries. New York: Macmillan, p. 34.
62 Frazer, James George (1963). The Dying God. New York: Macmillan, p. 180.
63 Murdock: Our Primitive Contemporaries (op. cit.), p. 34.
64 Spencer, Baldwin, F.J. Gillen (1904). The Northern Tribes of Central Australia. London: MacMillan & Co., p. 475.
65 Yengoyan, Aram (1972). “Biological and demographic components in aboriginal Australian socio-economic organization.” Oceania, 43: p. 88.
66 Roth, H. Ling (1899). The Aborigines of Tasmania. Halifax: King & Sons, pp. 162s.
67 Murdock: Our Primitive Contemporaries (op. cit.), p. 7.
68 Ritchie, Jane and James Ritchie (1979). Growing Up in Polynesia. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, p. 39.
69 Firth, Raymond (1983). Primitive Polynesian Economy. London: Routledge, p. 44.
70 Dibble, Sheldon (1839). History and General Views of the Sandwich Islands Mission. New York: Taylor & Dodd, p. 123.
71 Handy, E.S. and Mary Kawena Pukui (1958). The Polynesian Family System in Ka-’U, Hawaii. New Plymouth, New Zealand: Avery Press, p. 327.
72 Ritchie: Growing Up in Polynesia (op. cit.), p. 189.
73 Oliver, Douglas (1974). Ancient Tahitan Society. Honolulu: University Press of Hawii, Vol. I, p. 425.
74 Schrire, Carmel and William Lee Steiger (1974). “A matter of life and death: an investigation into the practice of female infanticide in the Artic.” Man: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society, 9: p. 162.
75 Fridtjof, Nansen (1894). Eskimo Life. London: Longmans, Green & Co., p. 152.
76 Garber, Clark (1947). “Eskimo Infanticide.” Scientific monthly, 64: p. 98.
77 Langer: “Infanticide: a historical survey” (op. cit.), p. 354.
78 Balikci, Asen (1984), “Netslik,” in Damas, David, Handbook of North American Indians (Arctic), Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution, p. 427.
79 Savishinsky, Joel and Hiroko Sue Hara (1981), “Hare,” in Helm, June, Handbook of North American Indians (Subarctic). Smithsonian Institution, p. 322. See also: Gillespie, Beryl (1981), “Mountain Indians,” in Helm, June, Handbook of North American Indians (Subarctic). Smithsonian Institution, p. 331.
80 Shimkin, Demitri, B. (1986), “Eastern Shoshone,” in D’Azevedo, Warren L., Handbook of North American Indians (Great Basin). Smithsonian Institution, p. 330.
81 Riddell, Francis (1978), “Maidu and Konkow,” in Heizer, Robert F., Handbook of North American Indians (California). Smithsonian Institution, p. 381.
82 Campbell, T.N. (1983), “Coahuitlecans and their neighbors,” in Ortiz, Alonso, Handbook of North American Indians (Southwest). Smithsonian Institution, p. 352.
83 Johnson, Orna (1981), “The socioeconomic context of child abuse and neglect in native South America,” in Korbin, Jill, Child Abuse and Neglect, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 63.
84 Cotlow, Lewis (1971). The Twilight of the Primitive. New York: Macmillan, p. 65.
85 de Meer, Kees, Roland Bergman and John S. Kushner (1993). “Socio-cultural determinations of child mortality in Southern Peru: including some methodological considerations.” Social Science and Medicine, 36: pp. 323, 328.
86 Hastings, James (1955). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. NY: Scribner’s Sons, Vol. I, p. 6.
87 Bugos, Paul E. and Lorraine M. McCarthy (1984), “Ayoreo infanticide: a case study,” in Hausfater, Glenn and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Infanticide, Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, New York: Aldine, p. 510.
___________
The objective of Day of Wrath is to present to the racialist community my philosophy of The Four Words on how to eliminate all unnecessary suffering. If life allows, next time I will reproduce the penultimate chapter. Day of Wrath will be available again in printed form.
A passage from the first chapter of Eugenics and Race,
a booklet now available from Daybreak Publications (here):
This theory of an African origin is interesting as the African Negro remains the most ape-like in appearance of all the existing races of man…
With the improvement in climatic conditions he [Cro-Magnon man] started to roam the earth, and in Europe, in a few centuries, probably, he exterminated Neanderthal sub-man: the evidence of broken skulls would tend to suggest, at least, that the disappear-ance of the latter was due to his work. He exterminated them—all, that is, except the females, some of whom he definitely retained.
Like all conquering races of mankind, he would appear to have kept for his own use females from the tribes he conquered, for several fossils of this period show characteristics which point clearly towards an admixture of the two species, the one highly advanced, the other considerably lower on the scale; and isolated throw-backs to Neanderthal characteristics have ever since appeared amongst the various human races, admixture being greater in some areas such as Asia than in others.
Ever since man became more mobile, this retrogressive tendency towards the mixing of the sub-species has progressed with increasing rapidity, until we have the complex and generally blurred pattern which we know today.
Food for thought from chapter 6 of March of the Titans:
The Complete History of the White Race:
Lost white migrations / Megaliths in North America
As part of the legal wrangling, the Paiute have consistently refused to allow DNA testing of the corpse.
This is not the only case where American Indians have blocked the study of obviously non-Amerind remains. Another case, that of Kennewick Man was similarly held up by Indian objections; and in 1993 another skeleton was found near Buhl in the state of Idaho.
The latter remains were some 10,600 years old, making them the oldest ever found in North America. The skeleton was however turned over to local Indians, the Shoshone-Bannock tribe, and reburied before any comprehensive testing could be undertaken.
In this way several unique anthropological specimens have already been returned to, and buried by, Indian tribes. In Montana, naturally shed human hair discovered by one archaeologist elicited an Amerind claim. Although the hair had not been buried in any kind of ritual, the US federal government has prevented testing of the hair to commence.
The reasons for the American Indian sensitivity over the issue are obvious proof that Whites—even if only in small numbers—walked the continent of North America before the Amerinds themselves would undermine the latter’s claim to be the original “Native Americans”. For the sake of political correctness, much valuable scientific data is being suppressed.
The fact that America’s Stonehenge is still largely unknown to the wider public is an example of malicious suppression of an important archaeological site for the political implications which it carries.
Editor’s note: Left, some of the rocks at America’s Stonehenge.
Food for thought from chapter 5 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
Born of the Black Sea
Many present-day whites are either direct or partial descendants of a great wave of white peoples who swept into Europe from about 5500 BC till around 500 BC.
These peoples, largely Nordic in terms of the white racial sub-groupings, had their original heartland in the region known today as central and southern Russia. Genetic studies of European populations which have emerged since the year 2000 have confirmed the Indo-European invasion.
Melt waters from the retreating ice-sheets at the end of the Pleistocene caused the world’s oceans to rise by almost 100 meters. In 5600 BC, the rising waters of the Mediterranean Sea burst through the narrow neck of the Bosporus, inundating and destroying the civilisations ringing the fertile Black Sea basin. It is this catastrophe which triggered the great Indo-European migrations and spawned the Biblical legend of the flood, familiar to adherents of the Christian faith.
From this heartland in northern Europe—the womb of nations (vagina gentium, as the Romans called the region) successive waves of Indo-European Nordic invaders swept down over a period of centuries into all parts of Europe and into the Near East, conquering or displacing the peoples they found.
Food for thought from chapter 4 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
As the Neolithic revolution became more widespread and larger fixed settlements began to spring up, it became inevitable that these Old Europeans and Proto-Nordic types would start establishing formal societies. The Old European civilisations then came into being, laying much of the groundwork for the later development of Classical Greece and Rome.
Although these Old European civilisations were in fact quite distinct from classical Greece and Rome, they are often mistakenly thought of as one and the same thing.
The original, or Old European settlements, dominated huge areas of Europe and Russia, stretching from Italy right through to the Black sea, including all of modern Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and part of the Ukraine.
The crucial difference is however that the Old European civilisations were created by the original continental Europeans (Proto-Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean, with the latter two being in the majority) while the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome received their impetus from Indo-European or Nordic invasions which had started around 5000 BC.
The continental Old European civilisations in the Aegean were the Cretan civilisation, centered at Knossos on the island of Crete; the city state of Troy situated slightly south of the Bosporus straits in Asia Minor; certain smaller city states on the Greek mainland; and the Etruscans in Italy.
These city-states were the first to fall before the great Indo-European invasions, people who had mastered the art of copper working. Absorbed into the Indo-European peoples, the Old Europeans largely disappeared and this mix of White peoples laid the basis for the Mycenaean culture which replaced the Cretan civilisation as the dominant force in the Aegean.
Food for thought from chapter 3 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
Europe and the Middle East—equally advanced around 5000 BC
The existence of an original civilisation on the continent of Europe which predated the civilisations in the Middle East, has to a large degree been ignored by traditional history writers, particularly those who wrote during the dominant Christian Era in Europe.
This was largely because of a biblical Judeo-Christian bias which held that all civilisation started in the Middle East (the biblical Old Testament deals exclusively with events in the Middle East, and conventional wisdom during the Age of the Church held that the Garden of Eden was in that region).
Food for thought from chapter 2 of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:
These three groups: Proto-Nordics, original Mediterraneans, and Alpines, settled large parts of Europe and the Middle East, a situation which remained stable until the entire continent was subject to invasions by Nordic tribes—called the Indo-European peoples, which started around 5000 BC.
The Indo-Europeans, the original European groups, and the Alpines, together form the basis of the white race which today inhabits Europe. These three white subgroups eventually combined to dominate territory which stretched from Britain to the Ural Mountains: from Scandinavia to North Africa and the Middle East.
If our classics, for proper assimilation, must be read on paper why aren’t white nationalists devouring the printed books of Ostara Publications? Recently, after purchasing Hans Günther’s The Racial Elements of European History I was surprised to see that in the US there existed flourishing Nordicist societies when my grandparents were young. (Because of the outcome of the Second World War, now those societies are long gone.)
As explained in my previous post, white nationalists usually respond with emotional non-sequiturs when confronted with the ABC of physical anthropology, or more specifically raciology (human race studies). Starting with Gobineau (1816-1882), there is a breach between the ideas of our classics that culminated in the Third Reich, and the egalitarian ideology of American white nationalists who, religiously, believe that all whites have been created equal.
Not even so-called race realists try to define scientifically the concept of “White” or “Aryan.” To bridge the gap between us I have now extensively reviewed, corrected the many syntactic mistakes of the original translation, and substantially abridged and adapted “The New Racial Classification,” published in Spanish some years ago on the site Evropa Soberana.
For those who will take the trouble of saving this jewel of the novel approach to raciology in their hard drives, pay special attention to the following sentences keeping in mind the second interpretation of the 14 words:
The White Nordid race, even before being identified as such, has been taken in many cases (the classical era, the Renaissance, neoclassicism, German Nazism) as a prototype and an ideal goal to achieve… Abundance of athletic and active women, attractive and of great beauty, have resulted in a very high reproductive success of White Nordid maternal lineages.
But the most beautiful race has an Achilles heel:
…also innocent, unable to cheat and useless in diplomacy. This race is not shrewd not because it lacks intelligence but due to an “angelical” way of understanding the world. This makes them vulnerable in a degraded and debased modern society, so that darker and more primitive racial types tend to take advantage of them. This race represents the myth of the unworried and trusting Siegfried and the “stab on the back” archetype.
As Aryan males are allowing their women to become increasingly debauched with mudbloods, sand-niggers and even niggers—:
The only option in this regard would be biopolitics, biosocial engineering, and a positive eugenics program to rescue the hereditary information that remains, hidden and badly combined, in the genetic pool of the modern “white race.”
Inspired in a Nietzschean sentence from The Antichrist, when interracial sex produces mongrels I call miscegenation the sin against the holy ghost. It is unforgivable because it took an extremely long time to create the White Nordid race, and this generation—the worst generation ever since Prehistory—is destroying the labor of millennia within a single generation!
Geneticists believe that 850,000 years of isolation and segregated selection to be necessary for the development of the extraordinary White Nordid phenotypic traits… Even so, it seems difficult that a race like the White Nordid has arisen randomly and by chance: it seems to be the result of a “directed evolution.”
Sexual selection, an intuitive knowledge of the 14 words, was apparently the driver in the prehistorical times of the peoples whose descendents have produced the West.
I can only hope that Nordicist societies flourish again in the US once white nationalism gives way to the much saner and coherent worldview of National Socialism.
Since the text “The New Racial Classification” is a mini-book I have now made it available in PDF so that it may be printed for a comfortable reading in English: [1]
