The West’s Darkest Hour does not comment on the news unless one of them changes the course of History.
Reading the US racial timeline made me think of something. In that country, the bad guys always won the most important wars.
In the American Revolution the English should’ve won, as they believed in hierarchy and aristocracy. Egalitarianism, even among white man and white man, is toxic to the sacred words and lends itself to what Alexis de Tocqueville saw early on: it is a cancer whose metastasis demands more and more equality.
Thus, in the American Civil War the bad guys won again, and this time the race factor (metastasis) was introduced.
And let’s not talk about the Second World War and its child: today’s Anti-white Cold War when the final metastasis has taken over almost the entire American body.
With due respect to Jared Taylor’s patriotism, because of those wars that have marked Western history (remember that the French revolutionaries who guillotined blond aristocrats were inspired by the American revolutionaries), the US has been the spearhead of an egalitarian crusade throughout the West. Therefore, from the point of view of the 14-word priest, anything that leads to the dollar being repudiated as the reserve currency must be good news. And the sanctions that the Biden administration is applying to Russia will only bring the US closer to what we have been predicting since 2011: the dollar will collapse.
That doesn’t mean I like Putin, who just said he is invading Ukraine to ‘denazify’ it, whatever that means. The Soviets are also responsible for the Hellstorm Holocaust, as can be seen in this book that I still have to read. But it’s the North Americans—I include the silly Canadians—who, at present, suffer from anti-white psychosis in its most acute phase, not the Russians.
In short, ‘political chaos is a ladder’ that Littlefingers could take advantage of if the situation deteriorates with Putin’s show that is now starting…
‘If you are going to talk about serious matters (like killing someone or a coup) don’t ever let the women know about it’. —Jamie
In 2015 I published the first guideline I came up with for a ‘New Aryan code’, which can be summed up in these words ‘Thou shalt only speak to Aryan males’.
Even I, who coined the term fourteen-word priest, fail to comply with the first priesthood guideline.
Ever since my sister got very upset with me when I tried to defend Richard Wagner against the accusations she had been taught at school about Wagner’s attitude to Jews, an argument that ended when my sister not only walked out of the family room but told her teenage son to go with her so as not to listen to me, I had promised myself never to sit with them again.
And I kept it: not even at Christmas did I sit with my family.
But even the priest falters when he lives among little women. Not long ago, still keeping my promise that I wouldn’t sit with her, standing in the kitchen she advised me to go back to school. Since, trying to keep my promise, I didn’t sit at the table, I made the mistake of telling her why that didn’t make sense (can you imagine me in a woke university?).
My sister not only disregarded my arguments, me still standing and her sitting. She escalated her motherly advice to insulting levels. And because I didn’t give an inch to the grotesque advice to go back to college, she was so offended with me that she didn’t speak to me for the next few days!
But the fault was mine. I violated the priest’s first guideline: in profound matters, speak only to Aryan men.
It is easier for a hundred per cent Aryan male, at least genetically, to listen to a priest in private than if we try to do it with one of these little women.
In June this year I published ‘Best Russian film’ about Andrei Rublev. Although the whole film has now been removed from YouTube, it’s worth getting hold of a DVD and watching it at home: an art that is light years ahead of American cinema, and portrays with infinitely more verisimilitude the real world than that of the Hollywood Jews.
It really is worthwhile for the apprentice priest to pause in the torrent of information coming from a media monopolised by Jewry and look into the Russian Middle Ages. Tarkovsky’s film, I said in my June post, has a masterful scene that perfectly portrays the psychology of women. I mean when a Russian girl, after the Tartars destroyed her village and horribly tortured some male villagers (one had liquid metal poured into his mouth with a funnel), still willingly gave herself up to one of the polygamous Tartars!
Not that the Russian girl was a bad woman: her nature is simply to go with the strongest. (That’s why I criticised American Renaissance’s recent conference yesterday, insofar as it only shows that unlike the Nazis those speakers are exactly like Andrei Rublev.) But once one understands the nature of women it becomes obvious that one should never argue with them, although there are great exceptions, such as Savitri Devi.
I write all this because of the email I received today:
César,
Last week I got into a conflagration with my sister that you might have some expertise in:
My sister is a big BLM supporter, who had a BLM sign in her yard for quite some time in 2020. She is also the single mother of two green-eyed, blonde-headed little boys. The fact that the mother of my nephews stumps for a black-supremacist organization is truly galling.
In an angry letter to my cousin, I was ranting something along the lines of: ‘Where does it all lead to? What does she want? For her children to grow up to become the bottom bitches of Mexicans?’
My cousin did not understand my hypothetical, tongue-in-cheek tone, and sent photos of my letter to my sister, who took great offense and is no longer on speaking terms with me.
I sent the below email to her trying to explain the basis of my disdain, and my worry over the long-term prospects of my nephews, but I received no meaningful response in return.
What is occurring in the United States is the institutionalized soul-murder of our children, César! And their mothers are too programmed to stop it.
Regards,
-Ed
Among the racialists only Andrew Anglin and Roger Devlin (one of the speakers at the recent AmRen conference) know the nature of women. The problem with the conservative Devlin is that, as a typical American conservative, he is so feminised that he cannot see that only a revolution à la The Turner Diaries could save us. Nor does Anglin speak of revolutionary violence in the future, but at least his anti-feminist humour is so brutal that he comes a little closer to the priest’s guidelines.
New visitors who wish to educate themselves on the subject should read On Beth’s Cute Tits, linked in the sidebar.
Those who have read Pierce and Kemp’s books will know of other very dark hours for the white race. But without images or a good novel, like Julian by Vidal, it’s almost impossible to convey what happened with the proper emotions. Since Hollywood is in enemy hands, what is filmed there about the past distorts historical reality to the point of axiological reversal. But the best movie ever made in Russia, Andrei Rublev, transports us to one of these terrible moments as if we were in the cave of the three-eyed raven retrocognitively seeing the historical past. Tarkovsky’s film is three hours long and was shot in black and white (YouTube link here).
In the second part of the film, while the Russian Prince is away his younger brother, hungry for power, allies with a group of Tartars and attacks Vladimir. We see flashbacks of the Prince and his brother attending a church service. The non-white invasion of the combined armed forces on horseback and the resulting carnage is shown in great detail. The city is burned, the citizens are murdered and the women raped and murdered.
One scene shows a horse falling from a flight of stairs and being stabbed by a spear. Another shows that a cow is being set on fire. Fomá narrowly escapes being killed in the city and escapes to the nearby countryside, but when he crosses a river he is shot in the back with an arrow and killed.
The Tartars make their way to the barricaded church, now completely decorated with Andrei’s paintings, where most of the citizens have taken refuge. The Tartars show no mercy and slaughter the people inside and burn all the painted wooden altarpieces.
Andrei saves Dúrochka from being raped by killing a Tartar with an axe. The bishop’s messenger is cruelly tortured into revealing the location of the city’s gold. After being repeatedly burned, he has liquid metal from a melted crucifix poured into his mouth and is dragged away tied to a horse.
After that, only Andrei and Dúrochka are left alive in the church. A traumatised Andrei imagines a conversation with the late Theophanes the Greek, mourning the loss of his work and the evil of humanity, while Dúrochka absentmindedly braids the hair of a dead woman. Andréi decides to leave his profession of Orthodox Church painter and takes a vow of silence to atone for his sin due to the idiotic Christian commandment to never kill another man, even if he was a Tartar invader.
In the next film segment, Andrei is once again in the Andronikov monastery while famine and war dominate the country. He no longer paints or speaks but keeps the girl Dúrochka with him as a silent companion. After a few scenes, a group of Tartars stops at the monastery. The blonde Dúrochka is the perfect paradigm of Andrew Anglin’s words that I quoted in On Beth’s cute tits:
What I am ‘claiming’—which is in fact simply explaining an objective reality, based on accepted science—is that women have no concept of ‘race’, as it is too abstract for their simple brains. What they have a concept of is getting impregnated by the dominant male.
This girl, Dúrochka, ignores the atrocities that the Tartars had done in the Russian town and is fascinated by one of the soldier’s shiny breastplates. Still sitting on their horses, the Tartars tease her and play with her, but a soldier likes her, puts on her a horned helmet and dresses her as a bride, and finally decides to take her with him as his eighth wife, the only Russian wife of the non-white Tartar. Andrei tries to stop her from leaving him, but she spits in the face of the miserable Russian monk to let her go with the powerful Tartars. The scene perfectly portrays the mentality of white women but ultimately it is the fault of men like Andrei who, instead of fighting, obey the ‘love thine enemy’ gospel message.
Today in the morning when I went out for a walk to warm my feet on a cloudy day, a revelation came to me about all those scenes which can be seen in the video embedded above from 1:25 to 2:10. Yes: white women of our time are behaving like Dúrochka, jumping on the horse of the mighty: the Allies and Jews who wrote history books after WW2. Otherwise they would be on the side of their ethnic group, which would mean transvaluing all values concerning the Third Reich.
However, what Stalin’s hordes did in Germany is no different than what the Tartars did in the segment linked in the previous paragraph. And none of the main WN authors complains about this on their misleadingly called ‘white nationalist’ websites. That’s why I said yesterday that not even the commenters who visit this site are priests of the 14 words.
For any of them to become a priest, he wouldn’t only have to want to multiply with Aryan girls like the SS booklet I’ve been quoting. In practical terms this means hostilely taking over the State and destroying feminism in a single day through a massive rape of the Sabine women (insofar as today’s Western women are not as decent as the women whose pics appear in the SS booklet I’ve been quoting). See the section in On Beth’s cute tits where an MGTOWer says that in patriarchy men have the power of sexual reproduction, while in feminist society it’s women who have that power.
It also means founding, in the new extremely brutal ethnostate, a kind of reply to Hollywood’s brainwashing machine by filming the Allied atrocities in Germany and in the forced labour and extermination camps of the Soviet Union, where huge numbers of Germans were deported never to return. No one who doesn’t feel compassion for the slaughtered Germans has the right to comment here, since besides the 14 words I am also a priest of the 4 words.
Remember that.
The Dúrochka-like women in today’s West are simply jumping on the horses of the powerful. And the American and European males aren’t really men but a kind of neochristian monks (see for example what Mauricio recently said about Greg Johnson: a perfect paradigm of today’s ‘white nationalism’). Even their WN websites remind me of Andrei Rublev who, in those apocalyptic moments for Russia, instead of transvaluing Xtian values plunged himself into theological discussions and felt guilty for killing a single Tartar.
Only those who, unlike Rublev, have left Xtian ethics behind will be capable of saving their race.
George Floyd Riots are irrelevant for he who lives under the weirwood. What matters is how the past explains the present in the US. Incidentally, if this site is taken down visit the backup.
1918
With Lenin, in 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a true Holocaust, a massive genocide that would continue until three years after Stalin’s death. Those who haven’t read Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s book about the genocide of tens of millions of goyim in the archipelago of forced labour and extermination camps of the Gulag (see map below) also ignore that the Jews were involved to the core (see also Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together). It isn’t enough to know the figures: it is imperative to read the testimonies of the 250 survivors that Solzhenitsyn collects in order to feel the pathos of this Russian Holocaust (I recommend the abridged version of The Gulag Archipelago to English speakers).
The honest Jew Ron Unz recently said: ‘In per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass-murderers of the twentieth century, holding that unfortunate distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe’.
1932
The Ukrainian Holocaust or Holodomor, which would continue until the following year, killed more Ukrainians than the propaganda figure of 6 million holocausted Jews with which the MSM media has deceived the white man. After this true Holocaust of goyim, among the feminised Europeans only the Germans reacted:
1933
January 30: President Paul von Hindenburg appoints Adolf Hitler as Chancellor. Hitler was given the Chancellorship right after the Jewish Bolsheviks deliberately starved at least six million Ukrainians to death. (Compare this figure to the figure in the paragraph above. What chutzpah! And the stupid goyim, loyal cattle of the Jews, still swallow it!) Can there be any real doubt that the threat of the Bolshevik terror influenced both the German voters and the decision to give Hitler the Chancellorship? (The Holocaust exposed by Solzhenitsyn has never been consistently dramatised in films or TV documentaries, not even after a century! It would break their little narrative.)
March 5: The National Socialist Party gets 44 percent of the votes in the elections to the German Parliament.
August 12: A spiritual heir to the philo-Semite Cromwell, Winston Churchill, before becoming prime minister begins to sow discord against the German state in a public speech.
December 20: Eugenics begins to be put into practice. The German government announces the sterilisation of 400,000 residents for hereditary defects. (For an introduction to eugenics, and the SS doctrine about Nordicism see: here.)
1934
February 6: In Paris, right-wing groups gather in front of the National Assembly in a frustrated coup attempt against the French Third Republic. (Much of the egalitarian ideology that is destroying the white race and the West had come out of the nefarious French Revolution.)
1935
February 26: Hitler orders to create the Luftwaffe, ignoring the unfair Treaty of Versailles.
December 12: SS leader Heinrich Himmler creates the Lebensborn Program, aimed at increasing the births of Aryan children: the diametrically opposite of what is happening across the West today (in the London of this century, for example, mass street propaganda encourages white women to have black husbands).
1936
November 3: Roosevelt achieves a landslide victory in his re-election in the US, which cannot but reflect that the American people deserve the type of leaders they choose, and deserve to get them good and hard!
1937
April 28: The Luftwaffe bombs Guernica in Spain. Pablo Picasso lied, claiming that the bombing inspired the painting of the same name. (Picasso was not in Guernica. Alice Miller suggests that the famous painting had as ferment the experience of a three-year-old Pablo in the arms of his father who was running scared; his eyes recorded the tremendous earthquake of 1884 in Malaga. José María Juarranz, a scholar of Picasso agrees with this interpretation. See Miller’s insightful book The Untouched Key.)
November 5: Hitler explains his Lebensraum plan for Eastern Europe at a secret meeting at the Reich Chancellery. Unlike today’s cucked racialists, those who dreamed of a new Germania knew that the race needed an entire continent to flourish.
1938
October 30: The radio broadcast of Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds unleashes panic in the Americans, who believe all the bullshit they hear on MSM as fantastic as it is including propaganda against National Socialist Germany, the noblest nation the West has produced.
November 9: On the Night of Broken Glass, Jewish shops and synagogues are looted—which whites on the other side of the Atlantic should have imitated but, so addicted to their (((Bible))), regarded the Jews as the chosen people.
1939
February 27: France and England recognise the Spanish government of Francisco Franco.
March 15: Czechoslovakia ceases to exist as a state after the occupation of the rest of Bohemia and Moravia by German troops.
May 17: Sweden, Norway and Finland rejected German offers of non-aggression pacts. (Apparently, it is not enough to be pure Aryan: You must be noble in spirit like those Germans who dreamed of Germania.)
September 1: Hitler invades Poland and extremely cucked England declares war on Germany. The Second World War begins.
December 15: The romantic film Gone with the Wind is released in the United States. Who would have guessed that the anti-German wind that was already blowing those years would produce a suicidal zeitgeist that would blow away not only the Old South, but the entire American nation in the following decades?
1940
January 4: Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, takes control of the German war industry.
May 10: British Prime Minister resigns, Neville Chamberlain, and is replaced by Winston Churchill, who would intensify the anti-German winds. (After the war, such anti-white winds would also blow away across the UK, including Scotland and Ireland. Remember what I said above about ubiquitous propaganda in Britain to promote mixed couples between monkeys and English roses. Nowadays, the ethnic death-wish of brainwashed Anglo-Saxons seems almost absolute.)
May 14: The Dutch army surrenders after an intense bombardment of Rotterdam.
June 14: German troops occupy Paris (a symbolic place for the West is the city where, by emancipating the Jews, the incredibly imbecile Napoleon Bonaparte opened Pandora’s box).
August 3-6: Stalin annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the USSR (compared to the handsome Aryan Tsar and his beautiful family that the kike revolution had assassinated, Stalin looks like a fucking mudblood).
October 16: The most treacherous and vile nation in the entire world, the United States of America, recruits 16 million sucker soldiers to prevent Germania from being born if they conquer the lands of Lenin and Stalin’s (((willing executioners))).
1941
June 22: Germany invades the Soviet Union.
December 7: The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.
1942
January 20: The Berlin government and the SS launch a plan to expel Jews from Europe. The gringos, who have practiced fellatio on the god of the Jews since 1776—and even before, since the times of John Winthrop—were horrified and continue to be horrified until 2020!
October 3: Pius XII criticises the racial restrictions on marriages dictated by the National Socialists. (Unlike the eugenics that healthy Judaism practices, dysgenics reigns in sick Christianity. In Greco-Roman times Whites had a higher IQ than that of the Jews. It had been precisely Christian dysgenics throughout the centuries that not only matched the IQs after the Middle Ages, but nowadays the Jew surpasses the Aryan in IQ!)
1943
April 26: Thousands of Swedish anti-fascists protest against a National Socialist congress in the royal burial mounds at Uppsala. (Apparently, many Swedes had already cucked since then, even before Jewry’s influence over their media became overwhelming.)
April 29: As Christianity and the JQ are two sides of the same coin, Lutheran pastor and theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, leader of the church resistance to National Socialism, is arrested and then hanged in the Flossenburg concentration camp.
1944
January 21: The Soviet Union (remember that the USSR had penalized anti-Semites with capital punishment), aided indirectly by the Judaised US, breaks the siege of Leningrad.
1945
From Tom Goodrich’s book:
Although forced to the shadows by growing public opprobrium, the “brutal and vicious” Morgenthau Plan for Germany was never actually abandoned by Franklin Roosevelt. Indeed, until his death in April, 1945, the American president had secretly favored the “Carthaginian” approach for the conquered Reich. When Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, met with Soviet strongman, Josef Stalin, and the new British prime minister, Clement Attlee, outside of Berlin at Potsdam in the summer, 1945, most of the teeth in Morgenthau’s murderous scheme remained on the table. With the signature of the “Big Three,” the plan went into effect.
“It is not the intention of the Allies,” argued the joint declaration, “to destroy or enslave the German people.” Virtually word for word, a similar declaration was directed at Japan, then on the verge of total collapse. Despite such solemn pronouncements meant to mollify a watching world, it soon became abundantly clear, first to the Germans, then to the Japanese, that the victors came not as peaceminded “liberators,” as propagandists were wont to declare, but as conquerors fully as ruthless, vengeful and greedy as any who ever won a war.
The plundering of Germany by the Soviet Union first began when the Red Army penetrated East Prussia in late 1944. With war’s end the following year, Stalin’s methodical looting in the Russian Occupation Zone now became prodigious. Steel mills, grain mills, lumber mills, sugar and oil refineries, chemical plants, optical works, shoe factories, and other heavy industries were taken apart down to the last nut and bolt and sent east to the Soviet Union where they were reassembled. Those factories allowed to remain in Germany were to operate solely for the benefit of Moscow.
Electric and steam locomotives, their rolling stock, and even the tracks they ran on were likewise sent east. While the Soviet government pillaged on a massive scale, the common Red soldier was even more meticulous.
“The Russians systematically cleared out everything, that was for them of value, such as all sewing machines, pianos, grand-pianos, baths, water taps, electric plants, beds, mattresses, carpets, etc.,” itemized one woman from eastern Germany. “They destroyed what they could not take away… Not in a single village did one see a cow, a horse or a pig… The Russians had taken everything away to the east, or used it up.”
Like millions of other refugees, Regina Shelton managed her way home at the end of the war. Also like millions of other refugees, the woman was warned of the utter devastation she would find in the wake of the Soviets.
Thus we expect the worst, but our idea of the worst has not prepared us sufficiently for reality. Shocked to the point of collapse, we survey a battlefield-heaps of refuse through which broken pieces of furniture rise like cliffs; stench gags us, almost driving us to retreat. Ragged remnants of clothes, crushed dishes, books, pictures torn from frames, —rubble in every room… Above all, the nauseating stench that emanates from the largest and totally wrecked living room! Spoiled contents oozes from splintered canning jars, garbage of indefinable origin is mixed with unmistakable human excrement, and dried stain of urine discolors crumpled paper and rags.
Americans were not far behind their communist counterparts and what was not wantonly destroyed, was pilfered as “souvenirs.”
“We ‘liberated’ German property,” winked one GI. “The Russians simply stole it.”
Unlike its Soviet ally which had been bled white by nearly thirty years of Marxism, the United States had no need for German plants and factories. The Reich’s hoard of treasure, however, was another matter. Billions of dollars in gold, silver and currency, as well as priceless paintings, sculptures and other art works were plucked from their hiding places in caves, tunnels and salt mines and shipped across the Atlantic. Additionally, and of far greater damage to Germany’s future, was the “mental dismantling” of the Reich. Tons of secret documents revealing Germany’s tremendous organizational talent in business and industry were simply stolen, not only by the Americans, but by the French and British. Hundreds of the greatest scientists in the world were likewise “encouraged” to immigrate by the victors. As one US Government agency quietly admitted, “Operation Paper-Clip” was the first time in history wherein conquerors had attempted to drain dry the creative power of an entire nation.
“The real gain in reparations of this war,” Life magazine openly confessed, was not in factories, treasure or artwork, but “in the German brains and in the German research results.”
While the Soviet Union came up short on German scientists and technicians simply because most had wisely fled and surrendered to the West, Russia suffered no shortage of slave labor. Added to the mil lions of native dissidents, repatriated refugees and Wehrmacht prisoners toiling in the gulags, were millions of German civilians snatched from the Reich. As was commonly the case, those who were destined to spend years or their entire lives in slavery were given mere minutes to make ready. In cities, towns and villages, posters suddenly appeared announcing that all able-bodied men and women were to assemble in their local square at a given time or face arrest and execution.
“The screaming, wailing and howling in the square will haunt me the rest of my life,” remembered one horrified female. “Mercilessly the women were herded together in rows of four. Mothers had to leave tiny children behind. I thanked God from the bottom of my heart that my boy had died in Berlin shortly after birth… The wretched victims [were] then set in motion to the crack of Russian whips.”
For those forced east on foot, the trek became little better than a death march. Thousands dropped dead in their tracks from hunger, thirst, disease, and abuse. “It took all of our remaining strength to stay in the middle of the extremely slow-moving herds being driven east,” said Wolfgang Kasak. “We kept hearing the submachine guns when ever a straggler was shot… I will never forget… the shooting of a 15-year old boy right before my very eyes. He simply couldn’t walk anymore, so a Russian soldier took potshots at him. The boy was still alive when some officer came over and fired his gun into the boy’s ear.”
“One young girl jumped from a bridge into the water, the guards shot wildly at her, and I saw her sink,” recalled Anna Schwartz. “A young man, who had heart-disease, jumped into the Vistula. He was also shot… Thirst was such a torture, and we were so tired.”
Those who traveled by rail to Siberia fared even worse. With standing room only, small, filthy freight cars were commonly crammed with over one hundred people each. After a suffocating trip of 20 or 30 days, with starvation, thirst, beatings, and rape every mile of the way, fully one third to one half of the passengers were dead when the trains reached their termini. And of those who stepped down, all, thought one viewer, more resembled “walking corpses” than living humans.
“Now the dying really began…,” as Anna Schwartz recollected.
The huts, in which we were quartered, were full of filth and vermin, swarms of bugs overwhelmed us, and we destroyed as much of this vermin as we could. We lay on bare boards so close together, that, if we wanted to turn round, we had to wake our neighbors to the right and left of us, in order that we all turned round at the same time. The sick people lay amongst us, groaning and in delirium… Typhoid and dysentery raged and very many died, but death meant rather release than terror to them. The dead were brought into a cellar, and when this was full up to the top, it was emptied. Meanwhile the rats had eaten from the corpses, and these very quickly decayed… Also the wolves satisfied their hunger.
While Anna’s camp worked on a railroad and was driven day-in, day-out “like a herd of draught animals,” and while others toiled in fields, factories, bogs, and lumber camps, thousands more were relegated to the mines.
“We sometimes had to remain as much as 16 hours down in the pit,” recounted Ilse Lau. “When we had finally finished our work by summoning up our last strength, we were not allowed to go up in the lift, but had to climb up the ladders (450 feet). We were often near to desperation. We were never able to sleep enough, and we were always hungry.”
At one large coal camp, fifteen to twenty-five people died every day. Each night the corpses were carried out and dumped without ceremony into a mass grave.
Despite the never-ending nightmare, Christians still gathered for a few minutes on each Sunday to renew their faith.
“Often a commissar came and shouted out: ‘That won’t help you!’” remembered Gertrude Schulz. But it did.
Just as faith in the Almighty was often the thin divide which separated those who lived from those who died, so too did simple acts of kindness offer strength and rays of hope in an otherwise crushing gloom. As Wolfgang Kasak and his comrades stood dying of thirst one day, a Russian woman appeared with buckets of water.
“The guards drove the woman away,” Kasak said. “But she kept on bringing water, bucket after bucket, to the places where no Russians were standing guard. I know now the Russian soldiers closed one eye and took a long time in following their orders to keep the woman from giving us something to drink.”
Siegfried Losch, a youth who had become a recruit, soldier, veteran, deserter, prisoner, and slave before he had seen his eighteenth year, was hard at work one Sunday morning when an old grandmother approached. Judging by her clothes, she was very poor. Judging by her limp she was crippled. Indeed, thought Losch, the old woman looked like the witch from Hansel and Gretl. But the grandmother’s face was different.
The face emanated… warmth as only a mother who has suffered much can give. Here was the true example of mother Russia: Having suffered under the Soviet regime, the war, having possibly lost one or more of her loved ones… She probably was walking toward her church. When she was near me, she stopped and gave me some small coins… Then she made a cross over me with tears in her eyes and walked on. I gave her a “spasibo” (thank you!) and continued my work. But for the rest of the day I was a different person, because somebody cared, somebody let her soul speak to me.
Precious as such miracles might be, they were but cruel reminders of a world that was no more. “We were eternally hungry,” recalled Erich Gerhardt. “Treatment by the Russian guards was almost always very bad. We were simply walking skeletons… From the first to the last day our life was a ceaseless suffering, a dying and lamentation. The Russian guards mercilessly pushed the very weakest people forward with their rifle-butts, when they could hardly move. When the guards used their rifle-butts, they made use of the words, ‘You lazy rascal.’ I was already so weak, that I wanted to be killed on the spot by the blows.”
“We were always hungry and cold, and covered with vermin,” echoed a fellow slave. “I used to pray to God to let me at least die in my native country.”
Cruelly, had this man’s prayers been answered and had he been allowed to return to Germany, the odds were good indeed that he would have died in his homeland… and sooner than he imagined. Unbeknownst to these wretched slaves dreaming of home, the situation in the former Reich differed little, if any, from that of Siberia. Indeed, in many cases, “life” in the defeated nation was vastly worse.
_____________
Pages 47-53. The footnotes have been omitted. Summer 1945 is a book that exposes the atrocities committed by the United States in Japan and Germany (and the Soviet Union’s atrocities on Germans). If the reader is interested in a book by the same author that focuses on the holocaust perpetrated by the Allies solely in Germany, obtain a copy of Hellstorm, The Death of Nazi Germany: 1944-1947.
The berserkers, like all paganism, ended up falling into decay. At a given moment, probably with the advent of Christianity, the esoteric religious leadership of Scandinavia received the coup de grace: it disappeared and submerged itself in the dominant culture (see footnote of pic above). All the Germanic religiosity and its external traditions fell without impulse or direction, divided and weak, functioning only by inertia.
Since then, we have tried to distinguish between two types of berserkers: the heroic berserker, brave and loyal elite warrior in the service of a great king; and the decadent berserker, a wandering bandit given to theft, pillage, indiscriminate killings and rapes. This later figure corresponds to gangs of criminals in Scandinavia, and its signs denote what happens when male impulses—which originate on the dark side and tend, in principle, to destruction—fall outside the control granted by discipline, asceticism and will.
This type of ‘berserkers’ was described as terribly ugly, with deformed features, with only one eyebrow, dark eyes and black hair, having manic and psychopathic tendencies. Such criminals, coming from the lowest social strata of Scandinavia, wandered through the villages challenging little men to a duel.
Since by rejecting the duel they would be considered cowards, the peasants accepted for honour and self-love, and generally fell dead under the arms of the bandit. He, who was not a combatant of honour or a soldier was left with the lands of the unfortunate, his possessions, his house and his wife. In the sagas, often a noble warrior ended up killing the impostor, freeing the woman and marrying her.
In the 11th century, duels and berserkers were placed outside the law. In 1015, King Erik I ‘Bloody Axe’ of Norway made them illegal. Gragas, the medieval code of Icelandic laws, also condemned them to ostracism. In the 12th century these decadent berserkers disappeared. Henceforth, the Church cultivated the belief that they were possessed by the Devil.
A case worthy of study: King Harald Hardrada of Norway (the one who appears above in St. Magnus Cathedral at Kirkwall) as an example of the Viking world and the importance of berserkers in battles
Unfairly, Harald Hardrada usually appears in history only as a Norwegian king who failed to conquer England. Harald, a blond giant over 2.10 m., lived at a time when the Scandinavian kings were polishing the political and court arts to match their European counterparts, but he was still more in tune with the free Viking warriors of previous centuries. To this day, it seems a mystery to me why nobody has made a film about this man.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s interpolated note: No white has made a film about this Norwegian king because the Weirwood trees were cut down long ago, so to speak. The Aryans have been worshiping a Semitic god.
______ 卐 ______
Harald Sigurdson was born in Norway in 1015. With fifteen years he participated in favour of King Olaf II in the battle of Stiklestad, against King Canute of Denmark (later also king of England and Norway). In this battle, which coincided with a solar eclipse, Olaf’s army lost. Wounded, Harald managed to escape from Norway with warriors loyal to his lineage and, in exile, formed a gang of loyalists who had escaped from Norway after Olaf’s death. A year later, having Harald sixteen years old, he and his Norwegians crossed Finland and entered Russia, where they served the great Prince Yaroslav I the Wise as stormtroopers, where Harald was made general of Yaroslav’s armies.
Two years later, the young Viking general was maintaining a loving relationship with Elisif (Isabel), the daughter of Yaroslav. When the prince, enraged, surprised the couple, Harald was forced to escape from Russia with his loyal gang, according to gossips, even raising his pants on the road.
Harald crossed with his men the Ukraine and the Black Sea and arrived at Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, where he enlisted in the Varangian Guard—the elite mercenary unit composed exclusively of Scandinavians. He became famous throughout the Mediterranean, earned the nickname Bolgara brennir (‘Bulgar-burner’); triumphed in North Africa, Syria, Palestine, Jerusalem and Sicily, and amassed an immense personal fortune from looted booty.
Over time, Harald was made head of the Varangian Guard, admiral of the Byzantine fleet (the most powerful of the Mediterranean) and was given great autonomy to independently carry out attacks against the enemies of Byzantium. Far from his native Norway, Harald and his men had become the spoiled children of a great Mediterranean empire. In his day, the Byzantine chronicles referred to Harald as ‘son of a Varangian emperor’. He was in the service of the Byzantines until 1042, that is, until his of twenty-seven years.
Harald left the Byzantine Empire with the promptness that had been usual in his travels. Crossing the Black Sea and the Ukraine, he again passed through the Kiev court and took away his old love, the daughter of Yaroslav, with whom he married as they travelled north through Russia.
In 1045, having thirty years, Harald, supported by his experienced warriors and as a military-political veteran with impressive wealth and extensive network of contacts, re-conquered the Norwegian throne as Harald III Sigurdson, reigning it for twenty years and earning the nickname of Hardrada (‘tough sovereign’). However, it seems that all this life of great deeds had not satisfied the Viking.
In 1066, Harald set his sights on England, the land that had been the fate of numerous Nordic migrations since the 5th century. He claimed the English throne, taking advantage of the fact that a Danish-English-Norwegian kingdom had existed in the past, and brought together 300 longships to face the Anglo-Saxon troops of King Harold. It was in this framework that the battle of the Stamford Bridge, in the north of England, took place.
Harald died with his throat pierced by an arrow. When one of his men asked him if he was seriously injured, he replied, ‘It’s just a small arrow, but it’s doing its job’. He was fifty-one years old. Only ten percent of Norwegian soldiers survived the Battle of Stamford Bridge. The Anglo-Saxons allowed the last Vikings to set sail in their longships and return to Norway.
The year of Harald’s death in 1066 coincides with the advent of Christianity in the North, and is considered the end date of the Viking Age.
Editor’s note: Due to the fact that the anti-Aryan System throughout the Anglo-Saxon world discourages discussion of the Jewish Question, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s second non-fiction work [1] has yet to be published by a respectable house in English. However, there is a preliminary translation of 200 Years Together on the internet. I’ll be reproducing it with a few syntactic corrections of my own.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:
Two Hundred Years Together
Volume I – The Jews Before the Revolution
Chapter 1: Before the 19th century
In this book the presence of the Jews in Russia prior to 1772 will not be discussed in detail. However, for a few pages we want to remember the older epochs.
One could begin, that the paths of Russians and Jews first crossed in the wars between the Kiev Rus and the Khazars—but that isn’t completely right, since only the upper class of the Khazars were of Hebraic descent, the tribe itself being a branch of the Turks that had accepted the Jewish faith.
If one follows the presentation of J. D. Bruzkus, a respected Jewish author of the mid-20th century, a certain part of the Jews from Persia moved across the Derbent Pass to the lower Volga where Atil [west coast of Caspian on Volga delta], the capital city of the Khazarian Khanate rose up starting 724 AD. The tribal princes of the Turkish Khazars, at the time still idol-worshippers, did not want to accept either the Muslim faith—lest they should be subordinated to the caliph of Baghdad—nor Christianity—lest they come under vassalage to the Byzantine emperor; and so the clan went over to the Jewish faith in 732. But there was also a Jewish colony in the Bosporan Kingdom [on the Taman Peninsula at east end of the Crimea, separating the Black Sea from the Sea of Azov] to which Hadrian had Jewish captives brought in 137, after the victory over Bar-Kokhba.
Later a Jewish settlement sustained itself without break under the Goths and Huns in the Crimea; especially Kaffa (Feodosia) remained Jewish. In 933 Prince Igor [912-945, Grand Prince of Kiev, successor of Oleg, regent after death of Riurik founder of the Kiev Kingdom in 862] temporarily possessed Kerch, and his son Sviatoslav [Grand Prince 960-972] wrested the Don region from the Khazars. The Kiev Rus already ruled the entire Volga region including Atil in 909, and Russian ships appeared at Samander [south of Atil on the west coast of the Caspian]. Descendents of the Khazars were the Kumyks in the Caucasus. In the Crimea, on the other hand, they combined with the Polovtsy [nomadic Turkish branch from central Asia, in the northern Black Sea area and the Caucasus since the 10th century; called Cuman by western historians] to form the Crimean Tatars. But the Karaim [a Jewish sect that does not follow the Talmud] and Jewish residents of the Crimean did not go over to the Muslim Faith. The Khazars were finally conquered by Tamerlane [or Timur, the 14th century conqueror].
A few researchers however hypothesize (exact proof is absent) that the Hebrews had wandered to some extent through the south Russian region in west and northwest direction. Thus the Orientalist and Semitist Abraham Harkavy for example writes that the Jewish congregation in the future Russia “emerged from Jews that came from the Black Sea coast and from the Caucasus, where their ancestors had lived since the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity.” J. D. Bruzkus also leans to this perspective (another opinion suggests it is the remnant of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel). This migration presumably ended after the conquest of Tmutarakans [eastern shore of the Kerch straits, overlooking the eastern end of the Crimean Peninsula; the eastern flank of the old Bosporan Kingdom] by the Polovtsy. According to Harkavy’s opinion the vernacular of these Jews at least since the 9th century was Slavic, and only in the 17th century, when the Ukrainian Jews fled from the pogroms of Chmelnitzki [Bogdan Chmelnitzki, Ukrainian Cossack, 1593-1657, led the successful Cossack rebellion against Poland with help from the Crimean Tatars], did Yiddish become the language of Jews in Poland.
In various manners the Jews also came to Kiev and settled there. Already under Igor, the lower part of the city was called Kosary; in 933 Igor brought Jews that had been taken captive in Kerch. Then in 965 Jews taken captive in the Crimea were brought there; in 969 Kosaren from Atil and Samander, in 989 from Cherson and in 1017 from Tmutarakan. In Kiev western Jews also emerged in connection with the caravan traffic from west to east, and starting at the end of the 11th century, maybe on account of the persecution in Europe during the first Crusade.
Later researchers confirm likewise that in the 11th century, the “Jewish element” in Kiev is to be derived from the Khazars. Still earlier, at the turn of the 10th century the presence of a “khazar force and a khazar garrison” was chronicled in Kiev. And already in the first half of the 11th century the Jewish-khazar element in Kiev played “a significant roll.” In the 9th and 10th century, Kiev was multinational and tolerant.
At the end of the 10th century, in the time when Prince Vladimir [Vladimir I. Svyatoslavich 980-1015, the Saint, Grand Prince of Kiev] was choosing a new faith for the Russians. There were not a few Jews in Kiev, and among them some educated men were suggested taking on the Jewish faith. The choice fell out otherwise than it had 250 years earlier in the Khazar Kingdom. Karamsin [1766-1826, Russian historian] relates it like this: “After he (Vladimir) had listened to the Jews, he asked where their homeland was. ‘In Jerusalem,’ answered the delegates, ‘but God has chased us in his anger and sent us into a foreign land.’ ‘And you, whom God has punished, dare to teach others?’ said Vladimir. ‘We do not want to lose our fatherland like you have.’” After the Christianization of the Rus, according to Bruzkus, a portion of the Khazar Jews in Kiev also went over to Christianity and afterwards in Novgorod perhaps one of them—Luka Zhidyata—was even one of the first bishops and spiritual writers.
Christianity and Judaism, side-by-side in Kiev, inevitably led that the learned zealously contrasted them. From this dynamics emerged the work significant to Russian literature, “Sermon on Law and Grace” [by Hilarion, first Russian Metropolitan] in the middle 11th century, which contributed to the settling of a Christian consciousness for the Russians that lasted for centuries. “The polemic here is as fresh and lively as in the letters of the apostles.” In any case, it was the first century of Christianity in Russia. For the Russian neophytes of that time, the Jews were interesting, especially in connection to their religious presentation, and even in Kiev there were opportunities for contact with them. The interest was greater than later in the 18th century, when they again became physically close.
Then, for more than a century, the Jews took part in the expanded commerce of Kiev. “In the new city wall (completed in 1037) there was the Jews’ Gate, which closed in the Jewish quarter.” The Kiev Jews were not subjected to any limitations, and the princes did not handle themselves hostilely, but rather vouchsafed protection for them, especially Sviatopolk Iziaslavich [Prince of Novgorod 1078-1087, Grand Prince of Kiev 1093-1113] , since the trade and enterprising spirit of the Jews brought the princes financial advantage.
In 1113, Vladimir, later called Monomakh, out of qualms of conscience, even after the death of Sviatopolk, hesitated to ascend the Kiev Throne prior to one of the Svyatoslavich’s, and “exploiting the anarchy, rioters plundered the house of the regimental commander Putiata and all Jews that had stood under the special protection of the greedy Sviatopolk in the capital city… One reason for the Kiev revolt was apparently the usury of the Jews: probably, exploiting the shortage of money of the time, they enslaved the debtors with exorbitant interest.” For example, there are indications in the “Statute” of Vladimir Monomakh that Kiev money-lenders received interest up to 50% per annum.
Karamsin therein appeals to the Chronicles and an extrapolation by Basil Tatistcheff [1686-1750: student of Peter the Great, first Russian historian]. Moreover, in Tatistcheff: “Afterwards they clubbed down many Jews and plundered their houses, because they had brought about many sicknesses to Christians and commerce. They had brought great damage. Many of them, who had gathered in their synagogue seeking protection, defended themselves as well as they could until Vladimir would arrive.” But when he came, “the Kievites pleaded with him for retribution toward the Jews, because they had taken all the trades from Christians and under Sviatopolk had had much freedom and power… They had also brought many over to their faith.”
According to M. N. Pokrovski, the Kiev Pogrom of 1113 had social and not national character. However the leaning of this “class-conscious” historian toward social interpretations is well known.
After he ascended to the Kiev throne, Vladimir answered the complainants, “Since many [Jews] everywhere have received access to the various princely courts and have migrated there, it is not appropriate for me, without the advice of the princes, and moreover contrary to right, to permit killing and plundering them. Hence I will without delay call the princes to assemble, to give counsel.” In the Council a law limiting the interest was established, which Vladimir attached to Yaroslav’s “Statute.” Karamsin reports, appealing to Tatistcheff, that Vladimir “banned all Jews” upon the conclusion of the Council, “and from that time forth there were none left in our fatherland.” But at the same time he qualifies: “In contrast, in the Chronicles it says that in 1124 the Jews in Kiev died in a great fire; consequently, they had not been banned.” Bruzkus explains, that it “was a whole Quarter in the best part of the city… at the Jew’s Gate next to the Golden Gate.”
At least one Jew enjoyed the trust of Andrei Bogoliubskii [or Andrey Bogolyubsky] in Vladimir. “Among the confidants of Andrei was a certain Ephraim Moisich, whose patronymic Moisich or Moisievich indicates his Jewish derivation,” and who according to the words of the Chronicle was among the instigators of the treason by which Andrei was murdered. However there is also a notation that says that under Andrei Bogoliubskii “many Bulgarians and Jews from the Volga territory came and had themselves baptized” and that after the murder of Andrei his son Georgi fled to a Jewish Prince in Dagestan.
In any case the information on the Jews in the time of the Suzdal Rus is scanty, as their numbers were obviously small.
The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that in the Russian heroic songs (Bylinen) the “Jewish Czar”—e.g. the warrior Shidowin in the old Bylina—is “a favorite general moniker for an enemy of the Christian faith.” At the same time it could also be a trace of memories of the struggle against the Khazars. Here, the religious basis of this hostility and exclusion is made clear. On this basis, the Jews were not permitted to settle in the Muscovy Rus.
The invasion of the Tatars portended the end of the lively commerce of the Kiev Rus, and many Jews apparently went to Poland. (Also the Jewish colonization into Volhynia and Galicia continued, where they had scarcely suffered from the Tatar invasion.) The Encyclopedia explains: “During the invasion of the Tatars (1239) which destroyed Kiev, the Jews also suffered, but in the second half of the 13th century they were invited by the Grand Princes to resettle in Kiev, which found itself under the domination of the Tatars. On account of the special rights, which were also granted the Jews in other possessions of the Tatars, envy was stirred up in the town residents against the Kiev Jews.”
Something similar happened not only in Kiev, but also in the cities of North Russia, which “under the Tatar rule, were accessible for many merchants from Khoresm or Khiva, who were long since experienced in trade and the tricks of profit-seeking. These people bought from the Tatars the principality’s right to levy Tribute, they demanded excessive interest from poor people and, in case of their failure to pay, declared the debtors to be their slaves, and took away their freedom. The residents of Vladimir, Suzdal, and Rostov finally lost their patience and rose up together at the pealing of the Bells against these usurers; a few were killed and the rest chased off.” A punitive expedition of the Khan against the mutineers was threatened, which however was hindered via the mediation of Alexander Nevsky. “In the documents of the 15th century, Kievite Jewish tax-leasers are mentioned, who possessed a significant fortune.”
[1] Solzhenitsyn’s first non-fiction work is The Gulag Archipelago (1973). Two Hundred Years Together (2002) was published in Russian.
While in the mediæval conflicts between Europe and Asia the latter was the aggressor, the case was otherwise in the early wars between the Nordic and the Mediterranean peoples. Here for three thousand years the Nordics were the aggressors, and, although these wars were terribly destructive to their numbers, they were the medium through which classic civilization was introduced into Nordic lands. As to the ethnic consequences, northern barbarians poured over the passes of the Balkans, Alpines, and Pyrenees into the sunny lands of the south only to slowly vanish in the languid environment which lacked the stimulus of fierce strife with hostile nature and savage rivals.
Nevertheless, long before the opening of the Christian era the Alpines of western Europe were thoroughly Nordicized, and in the centuries that followed, the old Nordic element in Spain, Italy, and France has been again and again strongly reinforced, so that these lands are now an integral part of the White World.
In recent centuries Russia was again superficially Nordicized with a top dressing of Nordic nobility, chiefly coming from the Baltic provinces. Along with this process there was everywhere in Europe a resurgence among the submerged and forgotten Alpines and among the Mediterranean elements of the British Isles, while Bolshevism in Russia means the elimination of the Nordic aristocracy and the dominance of the half-Asiatic Slavic peasantry.
Without attempting a scientific classification of the inhabitants of Eurasia, it is sufficient to describe the three main races. The first are the yellow-skinned, straight black-haired, black-eyed, round-skulled Mongols and Mongoloids massed in central and eastern Asia north of the Himalayan system.
To the west of them, and merged with them, lie the Alpines, also characterized by dark, but not straight, hair, dark eyes, relatively short stature, and round skulls. These Alpines are thrust like a wedge into Europe between the Nordics and the Mediterraneans, with a tip that reaches the Atlantic Ocean. Those of western Europe are derived from one or more very ancient waves of round-skulled invaders from the East, who probably came by way of Asia Minor and the Balkans, but they have been so long in their present homes that they retain little except their brachycephalic skull-shape to connect them with the Asiatic Mongols.
South of the Himalayas and westward in a narrow belt to the Atlantic, and on both sides of the Inland Sea, lies the Mediterranean race, more or less swarthy-skinned, black-haired, dark-eyed, and long-skulled.
On the northwest, grouped around the Baltic and North Seas, lies the great Nordic race. It is characterized by a fair white skin, wavy hair with a range of color from dark brown to flaxen, light eyes, tall stature, and long skulls.
These races show other physical characters which are definite but difficult to describe, such as texture of skin and cast of features, especially of the nose. The contrast of mental and spiritual endowments is equally definite, but even more elusive of definition.
It is with the action and interaction of these three groups, together with internal civil wars, that recorded history deals.
While, so far as we know, these three races have occupied their present relative positions from the beginning, there have been profound changes in their distribution.
The two essential phenomena, however, are, first, the retreat of the Nordic race westward from the Grasslands of western Asia and eastern Europe to the borders of the Atlantic, until it occupies a relatively small area on the periphery of Eurasia.
The second phenomenon is of equal importance, namely, the more or less thorough Nordicizing of the westernmost extensions of the other two races, namely, the Mediterranean on the north coast of the Inland Sea, who have been completely Aryanized in speech, and have been again and again saturated with Nordic blood, and the even more profound Nordicization in speech and in blood of the short, dark, round-skulled inhabitants of central Europe, from Brittany through central France, southern Germany, and northern Italy into Austrian and Balkan lands. So thorough has been this process that the western Alpines have at the present time no separate race consciousness and are to be considered as wholly European.
As to the Alpines of eastern and central Europe, the Slavs, the case is somewhat different. East of a line drawn from the Adriatic to the Baltic the Nordicizing process has been far less perfect, although nearly complete as to speech, since all the Slavic languages are Aryan. Throughout these Slavic lands, great accessions of pure Mongoloid blood have been introduced within relatively recent centuries.
East of this belt of imperfectly Nordicized Alpines we reach the Asiatic Alpines, as yet entirely untouched by western blood or culture. These groups merge into the Mongoloids of eastern Asia.
So we find, thrust westward from the Heartland, a race touching the Atlantic at Brittany, thoroughly Asiatic and Mongoloid in the east, very imperfectly Nordicized in the centre, and thoroughly Nordicized culturally in the far west of Europe, where it has become, and must be accepted as, an integral part of the White World.
As to the great Nordic race, within relatively recent historic times it occupied the Grasslands north of the Black and Caspian Seas eastward to the Himalayas. Traces of Nordic peoples in central Asia are constantly found, and when archæological research there becomes as intensive as in Europe we shall be astonished to find how long, complete, and extended was their occupation of western Asia.
During the second millennium before our era successive waves of Nordics began to cross the Afghan passes into India until finally they imposed their primitive Aryan language upon Hindustan and the countries lying to the east.
All those regions lying northwest of the mountains appear to have been largely a white man’s country at the time of Alexander the Great. In Turkestan the newly discovered Tokharian language, an Aryan tongue of the western division, seems to have persisted down to the ninth century. The decline of the Nordics in these lands, however, began probably far earlier than Alexander’s time, and must have been nearly completed at the beginning of our era. Such blond traits as are still found in western Asia are relatively unimportant, and for the last two thousand years these countries must be regarded as lost to the Nordic race.
The impulse that drove the early Nordics like a fan over the Himalayan passes into India, the later Nordics southward into Mesopotamian lands, as Kassites, Mitanni, and Persians, into Greece and Anatolia as Achæans, Dorians, and Phrygians, westward as the Aryan-speaking invaders of Italy and as the Celtic vanguards of the Nordic race across the Rhine into Gaul, Spain, and Britain, may well have been caused by Mongoloid pressure from the heart of central Asia. Of course, we have no actual knowledge of this, but the analogy to the history of later migrations is strong, and the conviction is growing among historians that the impulse that drove the Hellenic Nordics upon the early Ægean culture world was the same as that which later drove Germanic Nordics into the Roman Empire.
North of the Caspian and Black Seas the boundaries of Europe receded steadily before Asia for nearly a thousand years after our era opened, but we have scant record of the struggles which resulted in the eviction of the Nordics from their homes in Russia, Poland, the Austrian and east German lands.
By the time of Charlemagne the White Man’s world was reduced to Scandinavia, Germany west of the Elbe, the British Isles, the Low Countries, and northern France and Italy, with outlying groups in southern France and Spain. This was the lowest ebb for the Nordics and it was the crowning glory of Charlemagne’s career that he not only turned back the flood, but began the organization of a series of more or less Nordicized marches or barrier states from the Baltic to the Adriatic, which have served as ramparts against Asiatic pressure from his day to ours. West of this line the feudal states of mediæval Europe developed into western Christendom, the nucleus of the civilized world of to-day.
South of the Caspian and Black Seas, after the first swarming of the Nordics over the mountains during the second millennium before Christ, the East pressed steadily against Europe until the strain culminated in the Persian Wars. The defeat of Asia in these wars resulted later in Alexander’s conquest of western Asia to the borders of India.
Alexander’s empire temporarily established Hellenic institutions throughout western Asia and some of the provinces remained superficially Greek until they were incorporated in the Roman Empire and ultimately became part of early Christendom. On the whole, however, from the time of Alexander the elimination of European blood, classic culture, and, finally, of Christianity, went on relentlessly.
By later Roman times the Aryan language of the Persians, Parthians, and people of India together with some shreds of Greek learning were about all the traces of Europe that were to be found east of the oscillating boundary along the Euphrates.
The Roman and Byzantine Empires struggled for centuries to check the advancing tide of Asiatics, but Arab expansions under the impulse of the Mohammedan religion finally tore away all the eastern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, while from an Arabized Spain they threatened western Europe. With the White Man’s world thus rapidly receding in the south, a series of pure Mongol invasions from central Asia, sweeping north of the Caspian and Black Seas, burst upon central Europe. Attila and his Huns were the first to break through into Nordic lands as far as the plains of northern France. None of the later hordes were able to force their way so far into Nordic territories, but spent their strength upon the Alpines of the Balkans and eastern Europe.
Eastern Germany, the Austrian states, Poland, and Russia had been Nordic lands before the Slavs emerged after the fall of Rome. Whether the occupation of Teutonic lands by the Wends and Slavs in eastern Europe was an infiltration or a conquest is not known, but the conviction is growing that, like other movements which preceded and followed, it was caused by Mongoloid pressure.
That the western Slavs or Wends had been long Nordicized in speech is indicated by the thoroughly Aryan character of the Slavic languages. They found in the lands they occupied an underlying Teutonic population. They cannot be regarded as the original owners of Poland, Bohemia, Silesia, or other Wendish provinces of eastern Germany and Austria. The Teutonic Marcomanni and Quadi were in Bohemia long before the Czechs came in through the Moravian Gate in the sixth century. Pomerania and the Prussias were the home of Teutonic Lombards, Burgunds, Vandals, and Suevi, while the Crimea and the northwestern coast of the Black Sea were long held by the Nordic Goths, who, just before our era, had migrated overland from the Baltic by way of the Vistula.
No doubt some of this Nordic blood remained to ennoble the stock of the later invaders, but by the time of Charlemagne, in the greater part of Europe east of the Elbe, the Aryan language was the only bond with Europe.
When the Frankish Empire turned the tide and Christianized these Wendish and Polish lands, civilization was carried eastward until it met the Byzantine influences which brought to Russia and the lands east of the Carpathians the culture and Orthodox Christianity of the Eastern or Greek Empire.
The nucleus of Russia was organized in the ninth century by Scandinavian Varangians, the Franks of the East, who founded the first civilized state amid a welter of semi-Mongoloid tribes. How much Nordic blood they found in the territories which afterward became Russia we have no means of knowing, but it must have been considerable because we do know that from the Middle Ages to the present time there has been a progressive increase in brachycephaly or broad-headedness, to judge from the rise in the percentage of round skulls found in the cemeteries of Moscow and elsewhere in Russia.
Such was the condition of eastern Europe when a new and terrible series of Mongoloid invasions swept over it, this time directly from the centre of Asia.
The effect of these invasions was so profound and lasting that it may be well to consider briefly the condition of eastern Europe after the elimination of the Nordics and its partial occupation by the so-called Slavs. Beginning with Attila and his Huns, in the fourth century, there was a series of purely Mongoloid tribes entering from Asia in wave after wave.
Similar waves ultimately passed south of the Black and Caspian Seas, and were called Turks, but these were long held back by the power of the Byzantine Empire, to which history has done scant justice.
In the north these invaders, called in the later days Tatars, but all essentially of central Asiatic Mongol stock, occupied Balkan lands after the expansion of the south Slavs in those countries. They are known by various names, but they are all part of the same general movement, although there was a gradual slowing down of the impulse. Prior to Jenghiz Khan the later hordes did not reach quite as far west as the earlier ones.
The first wave, Attila’s Huns, were followed during the succeeding centuries by the Avars, the Bulgars, the Hunagar Magyars, the Patzinaks and the Cumans. All of these tribes forced their way over the Carpathians and the Danube, and much of their blood, notably in that of the Bulgars and Magyars, is still to be found there. Most of them adopted Slavic dialects and merged in the surrounding population, but the Magyars retain their Asiatic speech to this day.
Other Tatar and Mongoloid tribes settled in southern and eastern Russia. Chief among these were the Mongol Chazars, who founded an extensive and powerful empire in southern and southeastern Russia as early as the eighth century. It is interesting to note that they accepted Judaism and became the ancestors of the majority of the Jews of eastern Europe, the round-skulled Ashkenazim.
Into this mixed population of Christianized Slavs and more or less Christianized and Slavized Mongols burst Jenghiz Khan with his great hordes of pure Mongols. All southern Russia, Poland, and Hungary collapsed before them, and in southern Russia the rule of the Mongol persisted for centuries, in fact the Golden Horde of Tatars retained control of the Crimea down to 1783.
Many of these later Tatars had accepted Islam, but entire groups of them have retained their Asiatic speech and to this day profess the Mohammedan religion.
The most lasting result of these Mongol invasions was that southern Poland and all the countries east and north of the Carpathians, including Rumania and the Ukraine, were saturated anew with Tatar blood, and, in dealing with these populations and with the new nations founded among them, this fact must not be forgotten.
The conflict between the East and the West—Europe and Asia—has thus lasted for centuries, in fact it goes back to the Persian Wars and the long and doubtful duel between Rome and Parthia along the eastern boundary of Syria. As we have already said, the Saracens had torn away many of the provinces of the Eastern Empire, and the Crusades, for a moment, had rolled back the East, but the event was not decided until the Seljukian and Osmanli Turks accepted Islam.
If these Turks had remained heathen they might have invaded and conquered Asia Minor and the Balkan States, just as their cousins, the Tartars, had subjected vast territories north of the Black Sea, but they could not have held their conquests permanently unless they had been able to incorporate the beaten natives into their own ranks through the proselytizing power of Islam.
Even in Roman times the Greek world had been steadily losing, first its Nordic blood and then later the blood of its Nordicized European population, and it became in its declining years increasingly Asiatic until the final fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Byzantium once fallen, the Turks advanced unchecked, conquering the Alpine Slav kingdoms of the Balkans and menacing Christendom itself.
In these age-long conflicts between Asia and Europe the Crusades seem but an episode, although tragically wasteful of Nordic stock. The Nordic Frankish nobility of western Europe squandered its blood for two hundred years on the desert sands of Syria and left no ethnic trace behind, save, perhaps, some doubtful blond remnants in northern Syria and Edessa.
If the predictions of Mr. Stoddard’s book seem far-fetched, one has but to consider that four times since the fall of Rome Asia has conquered to the very confines of Nordic Europe. The Nordicized Alpines of eastern Europe and the Nordicized Mediterraneans of southern Europe have proved too feeble to hold back the Asiatic hordes, Mongol or Saracen. It was not until the realms of pure Nordics were reached that the invaders were turned back. This is shown by the fact that the Arabs had quickly mastered northern Africa and conquered Spain, where the Nordic Goths were too few in number to hold them back, while southern France, which was not then, and is not now, a Nordic land, had offered no serious resistance. It was not until the Arabs, in 732, at Tours, dashed themselves to pieces against the solid ranks of heavy-armed Nordics, that Islam receded.
The same fate had already been encountered by Attila and his Huns, who, after dominating Hungary and southern Germany and destroying the Burgundians on the Rhine, had pushed into northern France as far as Châlons. Here, in 376, he was beaten, not by the Romanized Gauls but by the Nordic Visigoths, whose king, Roderick, died on the field. These two victories, one against the Arab south and the other over the Mongoloid east, saved Nordic Europe, which was at that time shrunken to little more than a fringe on the seacoast.
How slender the thread and how easily snapped, had the event of either day turned out otherwise! Never again did Asia push so far west, but the danger was not finally removed until Charlemagne and his successors had organized the Western Empire.
Christendom, however, had sore trials ahead when the successors of Jenghiz Khan destroyed Moscovy and Poland and devastated eastern Europe. The victorious career of the Tatars was unchecked, from the Chinese Sea on the east to the Indian Ocean on the south, until in 1241, at Wahlstatt in Silesia, they encountered pure Nordic fighting men. Then the tide turned. Though outnumbering the Christians five to one and victorious in the battle itself, the Tatars were unable to push farther west and turned south into Hungary and other Alpine lands.
Some conception of the almost unbelievable horrors that western Europe escaped at this time may be gathered from the fate of the countries which fell before the irresistible rush of the Mongols, whose sole discernible motive seems to have been blood lust. The destruction wrought in China, central Asia, and Persia is almost beyond conception. In twelve years, in China and the neighboring states, Jenghiz Khan and his lieutenants slaughtered more than 18,500,000 human beings. After the sack of Merv in Khorasan, the “Garden of Asia,” the corpses numbered 1,300,000, and after Herat was taken 1,600,000 are said to have perished. Similar fates befell every city of importance in central Asia, and to this day those once populous provinces have never recovered. The cities of Russia and Poland were burned, their inhabitants tortured and massacred, with the consequence that progress was retarded for centuries.
Almost in modern times these same Mongoloid invaders, entering by way of Asia Minor, and calling themselves Turks, after destroying the Eastern Empire, the Balkan States, and Hungary, again met the Nordic chivalry of western Europe under the walls of Vienna, in 1683, and again the Asiatics went down in rout.
On these four separate occasions the Nordic race and it alone saved modern civilization. The half-Nordicized lands to the south and to the east collapsed under the invasions.
Unnumbered Nordic tribes, nameless and unsung, have been massacred, or submerged, or driven from their lands. The survivors had been pushed ever westward until their backs were against the Northern Ocean. There the Nordics came to bay—the tide was turned. Few stop to reflect that it was more than sixty years after the first American legislature sat at Jamestown, Virginia, that Asia finally abandoned the conquest of Europe.
One of the chief results of forcing the Nordic race back to the seacoast was the creation of maritime power and its development to a degree never before known even in the days of the Phœnicians and Carthaginians. With the recession of the Turkish flood, modern Europe emerges and inaugurates a counter-attack on Asia which has placed virtually the entire world under European domination.
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.
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.
The West’s Darkest Hour does not comment on the news unless one of them changes the course of History.
