What race were the Greeks —

and Romans?

athena

The evidence is clear — but often ignored

by John Harrison Sims

 
Recent films[1] about ancient Greece such as Troy, Helen of Troy, and 300, have used actors who are of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ancestry (e.g. Brad Pitt, Gerard Butler). Recent films about ancient Rome, such as Gladiator and HBO’s series Rome, have done the same (e.g. Russell Crowe). Were the directors right, from an historical point of view? Were the ancient Greeks and Romans of North European stock?

Most classical historians today are silent on the subject. For example, Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge, writes about his specialty, Sparta, for educated but non-academic readers, yet nowhere that I can find does he discuss the racial origins of the Spartans. Some years ago I asked several classics professors about the race of the ancient Greeks only to be met with shrugs that suggested that no one knew, and that it was not something worth looking into. Today, an interest in the race of the ancients seems to be taken as an unhealthy sign, and any evidence of their Nordic origins discounted for fear it might give rise to dangerous sentiments.

A hundred years ago, however, Europeans took it for granted that many Greeks and Romans were the same race as themselves. The famed 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, published in 1911, noted that “survival of fair hair and complexion and light eyes among the upper classes in Thebes and some other localities shows that the blond type of mankind which is characteristic of north-western Europe had already penetrated into Greek lands before classical times.” It added that the early Greeks, or Hellenes, were Nordic, one of “the fair-haired tribes of upper Europe known to the ancients as Keltoi.” Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).

Scholars today recoil at this pre-1960s consensus. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece, written in 1996, scoffs at the “undoubtedly dubious racial theories underlying much of this reconstruction,” but offers no theory to replace it, conceding only that “the origin of the Greeks remains a much-debated subject.” The Penguin author makes this startling admission, however: “Many of the ideas of racial origins were developed in the 19th century and, although they may have had some foundation in historical tradition, archaeology or linguistics, they were often combined with more dubious presumptions.” The author fails to list these dubious presumptions. Beth Cohen, author of Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (2000), asserts that the Thracians, distant cousins of the Greeks, had “the same dark hair and the same facial features as the Ancient Greeks.”

In fact, there was a good basis for the 1911 Britannica to write about blonds in Thebes. Thebes was the leading city of Boeotia, a rich agricultural region in south-central Greece. Fragments from an ancient 150 BC travelogue describe the women of Thebes as “the tallest, prettiest, and most graceful in all of Hellas. Their yellow hair is tied up in a knot on the top of their head.” Pindar, a fifth century Theban lyric poet, refers to the Greeks as “the fair-haired Danaoi,” using a poetical name for the Hellenes. Likewise, in his Partheneia, or “Maiden Songs,” the seventh century BC Spartan poet Alcman, praised the beauty of Spartan female athletes, with their “golden hair” and “violet eyes.” He also wrote of Spartan women with “silver eyes,” meaning light gray. The seventh-century BC Greek poet Archilochus praises the “yellow hair” of one of his lovers, and Sappho — also of the seventh century BC — writes of her “beautiful daughter, golden like a flower.”

As late as the fourth century AD, Adamantius, an Alexandrian physician and scientist, wrote in his Physiognominica, that “of all the nations the Greeks have the fairest eyes,” adding, that “wherever the Hellenic and Ionic race has been kept pure, we see tall men of fairly broad and straight build, of fairly light skin, and blond.” Several centuries of mixing had presumably changed the racial character of many Greeks, but blonds still survived, and Xanthos, which means “yellow” in Greek, was a common personal name.

Professor Nell Painter of Princeton, author of The History of White People (see “Whiting Out White People,” AR, July 2010), complains that “not a few Westerners have attempted to racialize antiquity, making ancient history into white race history.” She points out that the Greeks often painted their marble statues — “the originals were often dark in color” — that the paint wore off over time, and Europeans mistakenly concluded from the white marble that the Greeks were white.

Yes, the Greeks painted their statues, but the originals were not dark. Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, from the Greek city of Knidos, was the most famous and most copied statue in the ancient world. Hundreds of copies survive. Experts have determined from microscopic paint particles that Aphrodite was painted blonde. The Romans had their own name for this goddess, Venus, and likewise her “cult images” were ubiquitous and “painted with pale-coloured flesh and golden-blonde hair” (see Joanna Pitman’s On Blondes, 2003).

Phidias’ masterwork, the Athena Parthenos, stood in the Parthenon for nearly 1,000 years until it was lost, probably in the 5th century AD. When American sculptor Alan LeQuire set out to make a faithful copy for the full-scale Parthenon replica in Nashville’s Centennial Park he modeled it on descriptions of the original work. The 42-foot-tall Athena, unveiled in 1990, has light skin, blue eyes, and golden hair. (Note of the Editor: see detail of this image above.)

Many small terra-cotta figurines from Greece of the fourth century BC have survived with traces of paint. They show light hair, usually reddish brown, and blue eyes, as do larger statues from the time of the Persian Wars in the early fifth century BC. Even a cursory examination of ancient marble reliefs, statues, and busts reveals European features. Many of the faces could just as easily be those of Celtic chieftains or Viking kings.

There is more evidence of the appearance of the Greeks. Xenophanes, an Ionian Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC, was amused to note that different peoples believed that the gods look like themselves: “Our gods have flat noses and black skins, say the Ethiopians. The Thracians (despite Prof. Cohen’s observations above) say our gods have red hair and hazel eyes.” Indeed, a fourth century BC fresco of a Thracian woman, found in the Ostrusha Mound in central Bulgaria, shows distinctly red hair and European features.

The Greek poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) called Troy the “land of fair women.” According to the Roman historian Diodorus Sicilus, who lived in the first century BC, the Egyptian god Set had “reddish hair,” a color that was “rare in Egypt, but common among the Hellenes.” Plutarch (46–120 AD) tells us that while the Theban general Pelopidas (d. 364 BC) was campaigning in central Greece, he had a dream in which a ghost urged him to sacrifice a red-haired virgin if he wished to be victorious in the next day’s battle.

 
Two racial types

There were two racial types in ancient Greece: dark-haired whites and fair-haired whites, as well as gradations in between. The earliest known inhabitants were of the former type. These included the Minoans, who were not Greeks at all, and who built an impressive civilization on the island of Crete. The Pelasgians, which is the name later Greeks gave to the pre-Hellenic population of mainland Greece, were also dark. They tended to have black, curly hair and olive-shaped eyes. Their type is plainly visible on many Attic (Athenian) vases, and has lead some scholars to conclude that all Greeks looked as they did.

Neither the Minoans nor the Pelasgians spoke Greek — the linear A inscriptions of the Minoans have still not been deciphered — so the Greek language must have arrived with the light-haired conquerors who migrated from the north, most likely from the middle Danube River Valley. According to Greek national myth, the Hellenes were descended from Hellen (not to be confused with Helen of Troy), the son of Deucalion. Hellen had sons and grandsons, who correspond to the four main tribal divisions of ancient Greece: the Aeolians Achaeans, Ionians, and Dorians.

Scholars today tend to dismiss such myths but they would not have survived if they had not been generally consistent with the long folk memories of ancient peoples. In this case they point to what classical scholars have long believed was a series of Hellenic descents upon mainland Greece and the Aegean islands. The first Hellenes to arrive were the Ionians and Aeolians; then a few centuries later, the Achaeans, and finally the Dorians.

The early bronze-age Greek civilization (1600-1200 BC) was certainly influenced by Minoan and other eastern Mediterranean cultures, but it was unmistakably Greek. Linear B, which began to dominate Cretan culture around 1500 BC, has been deciphered and found to be an early form of Greek. Around the year 1200 BC this culture, known as Mycenaean, collapsed; its cities were destroyed and abandoned, and Greece entered a 400-year Dark Age. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions probably played a part in the destruction, and later Greeks attributed it to invasions from the north. Waves of Hellenic warriors swept down and burned the Mycenaean citadels and became the ruling race in Greece. They also sacked the city of Troy, and Homer’s Iliad is about them. They also seem to have snuffed out much of Mycenaean culture: Greeks stopped writing, and abandoned the arts, urban life, and trade with the outside world.

We know something about the early Hellenes from the Iliad. It was first written down in the late eighth century BC, at the end of the Greek Dark Age, after the Phoenicians taught the Greeks how to write again. It recounts events some four to five hundred years earlier. Although we think of the poem as being about the Greeks, Homer’s warrior heroes belong to the Achaean nobility, which suggests that it was the Achaeans who overthrew Mycenaean civilization, not the Dorians, who would descend upon Greece and displace the Achaeans a hundred years later. Archeology confirms this supposition, for Troy was burned around 1200 BC, and the traditional date for the Trojan War is 1184 BC. The Dorian invasion is dated by various ancient historians at 1149, 1100, or 1049 BC.

There is good reason to think that Homer was recording stories handed down during the Dark Age. He was a bard who lived in Ionia, a region on the Aegean coast of what is now Turkey, and if he were making the stories up he would have claimed that the heroes were Ionian. Instead, he sings praises to the light-haired Achaean nobility: Achilles, their greatest warrior, has “red-gold hair,” Odysseus, their greatest strategist, has “chestnut hair,” his wife Penelope has “white cheeks the color of pure snow,” Agamede, a healer and expert on medicinal plants, is “blonde,” and King Menelaus of Sparta, the husband of Helen, has “red hair.” Helen, likewise, has “fair hair,” and even slave girls are light-skinned: “fair-tressed Hecamede,” “fair-cheeked Chryseis,” and “blonde Briseis.” This is significant, for if even some of the slaves were blond it would mean the Nordic type was not unique to the Achaeans, that it was present elsewhere in the Aegean world.

Homer (and Pindar) describe most of the Olympian gods and goddesses as fair haired and “bright eyed,” meaning blue, grey or green. The goddess Demeter has “blond” or “yellow hair,” as does Leto, mother of Apollo, who is also described as “golden haired.” Aphrodite has “pale-gold” hair, and Athena is known as “the fair, bright-eyed one” and the “grey-eyed goddess.” Two of the gods, Poseidon and Hephaestus, are described as having black hair. As noted above, Xenophanes complained that all peoples imagine the gods to look like themselves.

It was the Dorians, the last Greek invaders, who ended Achaean rule and probably provoked a mass migration of Aeolian and Ionian Hellenes — no doubt including Homer’s ancestors — across the Aegean Sea to the coast of Asia Minor. The Dorians who settled in the fertile valley of the Eurotas in the southern Peloponnesus were the direct ancestors of the Spartans of the classical age, and they claimed to be the only pure Dorians.

Werner Jaeger, Director of the Institute of Classical Studies at Harvard, writes:

“The national type of the invader remained purest in Sparta. The Dorian race gave Pindar his ideal of the fair-haired warrior of proud descent, which he used to describe not only the Homeric Menelaus, but the greatest Greek hero, Achilles, and in fact all the ‘fair-haired Danaeans’ [another name for the Achaeans who fought at Troy] of the heroic age” (Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, 1939).

The classical Greeks made no claim to being autochthones, that is to say, “of the earth,” or the original inhabitants of the land. Rather, they took pride in being epeludes, the descendants of later settlers or conquerors. Two notable exceptions were the Arcadians and the Athenians, whose rocky soils presumably offered little temptation to armed colonizers. The historian Herodotus (484-420 BC) recorded that the Athenians were “a Pelasgian people [who] had occupied Attica and never moved from it,” as were the Arcadians. Language lends support to this view, for both the Athenians and Arcadians spoke unique dialects. They learned Greek from the northern invaders but retained Pelasgian elements.

Thus, classical Greece was a fusion, both cultural and racial, of these two types of whites. Some city-states, such as Thebes and Sparta, were predominantly Nordic. Others, such as Athens, were predominantly Mediterranean, and still others were mixtures of the two.

 
The Roman patricians

Nell Painter, author of the above-mentioned History of White People, finds it “astonishing” that the American Nordicist Madison Grant (1865-1937) argued in The Passing of the Great Race (1916) that the Roman nobility was of Nordic origin, yet there is good evidence for this view. There are many lavishly illustrated books about ancient Rome with examples of death masks, busts, and statues that clearly depict the Roman patricians not simply as Europeans but as northern European.

R. Peterson’s fine study, The Classical World (1985), which includes an analysis of 43 Greek, and 32 Roman figures, is persuasive. Dr. Peterson explains that the Romans painted their death masks to preserve the color, as well as the shape, of their ancestors’ faces. Blue eyes, fair hair, and light complexions are common. A good example of racial type is the famous portrait bust of Lucius Junius Brutus, the founder of the Roman Republic, which dates from the fourth century BC. Brutus’ face is identifiably Germanic, and so is the color of his eyes. The sculptor used ivory for the whites and blue glass for the pupils. Or take the famous marble head of a patrician woman from the late first century AD, which is often included in illustrated surveys of imperial Rome to demonstrate the fashion for curled hair. Her features are typically northern European: a delicate, aquiline nose, high cheekbones, and a face angular and long rather than round. Another classic example is the famous fresco from the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii, which shows four women undergoing ritual flagellation. They are tall, light-skinned, and brown-haired.

There is also evidence from Roman names. Rutilus means “red, gold, auburn” and stems from the verb rutilo, which means “to shine with a reddish gleam.” Rufus, meaning red, was a common Roman cognomen or nickname used for a personal characteristic, such as red hair. The Flavians were an aristocratic clan whose family name was derived from flavus, meaning golden-yellow. The Flaminians were another noble family whose clan name came from flamma, meaning flame, suggesting red hair.

According to Plutarch, Marcus Porcius Cato had “red hair and grey eyes,” Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the general and dictator, had “blue-grey eyes and blond hair,” and Gaius Octavius (Augustus), the first Roman emperor, had “bright eyes and yellow hair.” Recent analysis of an ancient marble bust of the emperor Caligula found particles of the original pigment trapped in the stone. Experts have restored the colors to show that the demented ruler had ruddy skin and red hair.

The love poetry of Publius Ovidius Naso, better known as Ovid, (43 BC to AD 17) offers much evidence of the color of upper-class Roman women during the early years of the empire. That Ovid ascribes blond hair to many goddesses — Aurora, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, and Venus — tells us something about the Roman ideal of beauty; that he describes many of his lovers the same way tells us that the Nordic type was still found in imperial Rome. “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned,” he writes in his Amores of 15 BC, but “brunettes make marvelous lovers too.” He admires the contrast of “dark-tresses against a snow-white neck,” and adores young girls who blush. One of his favorite lovers is “tall” with a “peaches-and-cream complexion,” “ivory cheeks,” and “bright eyes.” Another was a “smart Greek blonde.”

So where did the Romans come from? They were a Latin people, although according to legend that may have some basis in fact, there were also Greek colonists and Trojan refugees among the founding races. The Latins were one of eight Nordic Italic tribes — Apulii, Bruttii, Lucanians, Sabines, Samnites, Umbrians/Oscians and the Veneti — who migrated into the Italian peninsula around 1000 BC. Of course, Italy was not vacant. The Etruscans lived to the north of Rome in what is now Tuscany, and there were other darker-complexioned whites living in the peninsula. The Etruscans are likely to have been Carians from Asia Minor.

What became of the Nordic Greeks and Romans? Their numbers were reduced and thinned through war, imperialism, immigration, and slavery. Protracted internecine war was devastating. The Hellenes lost relatively few men in their two wars with the Persian Empire (490, 480-479 BC), but they were decimated by the ruinous series of inter-Hellenic wars that followed. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) pitted Athens and her subject Ionian cities against the Spartan Dorian confederacy. That was followed by 35 years of intermittent warfare between Sparta and Thebes (396-362 BC), which pitted Nordics against Nordics. These wars so weakened the Greek republics that they fell under Macedonian rule about 20 years later (338 BC), bringing to an end the classical age of Greece.

Money was, as always, a racial solvent. Theognis, a noble poet from the Dorian city of Megara wrote in the sixth century BC: “The noblest man will marry the lowest daughter of a base family, if only she brings in money. And a lady will share her bed with a foul rich man, preferring gold to pedigree. Money is all. Good breeds with bad and race is lost.”

The Roman experience was similarly tragic. All of her later historians agreed that the terrible losses inflicted by Hannibal during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC) were minor compared to the horrendous losses Rome inflicted on herself during the nearly 100 years of civil war that followed the murder of the reforming Tribune Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC.

Immigration was the inevitable backwash of imperialism as slaves, adventurers, and traders swarmed into Rome. Over time, slaves were freed, foreigners gave birth to natives, non-Romans gained citizenship, and legal and social sanctions against intermarriage fell away. By the early empire, all that was left of the original Roman stock were a few patrician families.

The historian Appian lamented that “the city masses are now thoroughly mixed with foreign blood, the freed slave has the same rights as a native-born citizen, and those who are still slaves look no different from their masters.” Scipio Aemilianus (185–129 BC), a statesman and general of the famed clan of the Aemilii, called these heterogeneous subjects “step-children of Rome.”

One hundred and fifty years later, Horace (65–8 BC) wrote in Book III of the Odes:

Our grandfathers sired feeble children; theirs
Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.

The last Roman writers therefore came to see their own people as both morally and physically degenerate. The subtext of Tacitus’ (56-117 AD) ethnological treatise Germania is a longing for the northern vigor and purity the Romans had lost. He saw the Gauls and Germans as superior to the Romans in morals and physique, and Roman women shared this admiration. Blond hair became the rage, and German and Gaulic slave women were shorn of their blond or reddish-brown hair to make wigs for wealthy women. By the time of Tertullian (160-225 AD), so many Roman women were dying their hair that he complained, “they are even ashamed of their country, sorry that they were not born in Germany or Gaul.” In the early second century AD, the satirist Juvenal complained of the dwindling stock of “the bluest patrician blood,” which is a figurative phrase for the nobility, whose veins appear blue through their light skin.

Viewed in a historical context, it is almost as if today’s northern Europeans have set out perfectly to imitate the ways in which the Greeks and Romans destroyed themselves. In both Europe and America, patriotic young men slaughtered each other in terrible fratricidal wars. In North America, the descendents of slaves are the majority in many great cities. Both continents have paid for imperial ambitions with mass immigration of aliens. Will we be able to resist the forces that brought down the ancients?

 

________________

[1] This article was originally published in 2010 by American Renaissance. Mr. Sims is an historian and a native of Kentucky.

Published in: on December 6, 2016 at 8:26 am  Comments (1)  
Tags:

National Socialism

eagle-and-swastika-reichadler-und-hakenkreuz-national-socialist-posters-third-reich-deutschland

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done.” Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

—George Orwell

 

Excerpted from “National Socialism:
The Biological Worldview”

by Povl Riis-Knudsen:

 
As a National Socialist you constantly experience the difficulty in carrying on a meaningful conversation with a non-National Socialist. You often feel that such a dialogue is outright impossible and that you live in two totally different worlds. Partly, of course, the reason for this deplorable situation lies in the propaganda image of National Socialism as the culmination of human viciousness that our enemies have created in the public mind.

As opposed to today’s carefree relativism, where all ideas—in principle at least—are equally acceptable and valid, National Socialism represents the unremitting effort to find the absolute truth and to make this truth the foundation of human society. Unlike the nebulous ravings of inane armchair philosophers and oriental mysticism, however, National Socialism is based on common sense, and it seeks its arguments in the real world, where the difference between truth and lie and between good and evil is determined by facts and not by wishful thinking and theoretic reveries.

In this light, it is obvious that National Socialism must reject the conceptions and moral norms of all the ruling ideologies, and this, naturally, leads to a comprehensibility gap that is difficult to bridge—simply because there is no common frame of reference between National Socialists and people whose thinking is determined by the ideas of the present order. National Socialism simply means an absolute, irrevocable, and uncompromising fight against the very philosophical foundations of the entire ruling world order.

Unlike other philosophies, National Socialism has never been invented—it has been derived from the eternal Laws of Nature, which have existed as long as the universe and which have governed all life since the first primitive organism came into existence. This has been expressed beautifully and clearly by Savitri Devi, the famous late National Socialist philosopher, in her book The Lightning and the Sun:

In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom, but to have made it the practical regeneration policy of world-wide scope.

In other words, National Socialism was not invented by Adolf Hitler. It is the conscious expression of the fundamental Laws of Nature governing our lives. It is based on an infinite love of the creation in all its diversity, a deep, unconditional respect for the wisdom of Nature, and an ardent will to preserve life as it has grown out of this wisdom. The only way to do so is to organize the society of man in accordance with these fundamental Laws.

Thus being against National Socialism is just as absurd and illogical as it would be to oppose the law of gravity or the fact that the earth is round! National Socialism is really nothing but the application of physical and biological laws to the political, economic, social, and religious areas of human life in the same way as they are today applied to technology.

Of course, we might sometimes wish that some of these Laws had been a little different, but we must necessarily accept that it would be impossible to change them. Laws of Nature cannot be abolished or amended through a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations, the US Congress, or any other national parliament! Perhaps everything had been easier if all human beings and all races had been created equal, and if there had not been any hereditary factors governing and limiting our individual possibilities of development. However, that is not the case, and there is absolutely no chance of changing this fact by wishful thinking, i.e., by doing as if these Laws did not exist. To build a society on such dreams is a deadly sin that can only have disastrous consequences.

These consequences are seen only too clearly when we take a look at the societies that have been built by our enemies in East and West. Unanimously, they refer to National Socialism as the “Gospel of Evil”—while they themselves rule over a world on the brink of economic and moral disaster, a world afflicted by inflation, unemployment, crime, senseless violence, drug abuse, pollution, pornography, corruption, hunger, and ecological catastrophes.

No wonder, indeed, that man lives in constant fear of what the next day has in store for him! Unfortunately, this fear and hopelessness is most widespread in the Aryan part of the world, where decadence and moral decay are most advanced. Here people have been totally alienated from all sound and natural values and made into mindless zombies, whose anxieties are soothed by material affluence—in a constant race against economic chaos. In spite of all the material goodies of the modern world, these people are neither happy nor satisfied. They completely lack ideals and enthusiasm and they have lost all faith in the future. The Aryan is simply unwilling to bring children into this world. As he sees no future, he prefers the luxuries of the moment to the preservation of his race and culture. He tries to secure as comfortable a life for himself as he can in this cesspool, and his only hope is that the inevitable catastrophe will not occur in his lifetime. Thus, he passively watches the land of his forefathers being slowly but steadily taken over by aliens, who do not yet realize that the end of the white man means the end of all civilization as we know it.

This is the Golden Age our enemies promised the world in 1945—this is what they have been able to build in the seventy years they have had absolute power. Under these circumstances, the prospects for the future sure are gloomy.

However, it does not have to be this way. That the world is in such a sinister condition is solely the result of man’s total disrespect for the Laws of Nature.

As a National Socialist you inevitably feel like someone from another planet when you have once realized the nature of the present order. You can have no part in this system and the very daily struggle to keep alive within the framework of this society must seem like a futile waste of time.

As National Socialists we envisage a totally New World Order, based on the “unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates.” Only within such a new world order can life survive on this planet in the long run. However, to establish this New Order man must accept that he is not elevated above Nature. Man is not the master of creation but an integrated part of the totality of Nature, and he is subject to exactly the same laws as all other living organisms. Likewise, he must also accept the scientifically proven fact that the races of man are different—not only in their outward appearance but also with regard to their mental and intellectual characteristics—and, finally, that all human beings are individuals created unequal, and that their lives are mainly determined by hereditary factors and not by their natural environment.

This may, of course, seem “unjust,” but one of the things man must recognize is that in Nature there is no concept of justice in the sense we normally apply to this word.

The enemies of National Socialism often claim that the biological conception of human nature, which is the very basis of National Socialism, is “unethical.” To this we can only reply that it is the so-called “ethics” of these opponents that are immoral, because they are based on norms and values that are not founded on Nature. For National Socialists there is only one truth: the Laws of Nature, and anything that is not in full accordance with this truth is absolutely wrong!
 

Christianity

This, of course, means a total rejection of Christianity, whose unnatural dualism is the very basis of the predominant “moral” code—also where this code is disguised under a liberal / humanistic or a Marxist label. According to Christianity, man enjoys a very special position among all creatures by having a divine soul. This soul is universal and unbiological.

Thus, Christianity is characterized by a distinct contempt of life and Nature. It is a religion for losers and dreamers who cannot cope with the challenges of life but just vegetate along, trusting that “the last shall be first and the first shall be last,” as Christianity regards any criminal good-for-nothing and mentally deficient fool as a more valuable human being than the industrious and creative citizen. It represents a set of norms and values that put the virgin above the mother, the monk above the father of a family, and the weak and suffering above the strong and victorious; indeed, the dead above the living. It scorns any pleasure in life and glorifies self-torture and self-abasement as positive indications that man fights his flesh and accepts that he is born as a vessel of sin because he is not all spirit.

No matter from what angle you look at it, Christianity represents a perverted and misanthropic attitude to life that can under no circumstances be tolerated in a healthy society. To put it bluntly, Christianity is a kind of spiritual AIDS that has destroyed our natural immunity against unbiological thinking. It is a contaminating disease of the mind and must be fought with all means.

Unlike the Christian, the National Socialist is supposed to live. He is supposed to expand his abilities and unfold his personality as much as he can within the boundaries of his biological nature—both physically and spiritually. He is not supposed to spend life on his knees in front of a Middle Eastern god, begging for mercy and forgiveness for the “sin” of having been born into Nature.

We want to see proud and harmonious people who are confident of themselves and their mission in life—not frightened and dejected products of misanthropic conceptions like “original sin,” which only leaves man one hope in life: that “God” will forgive him if he just believes and repents. Nor do we want the diffident and despairing victims of the pluralistic worldview with its denial of absolute values. National Socialists are not atheists. We do believe in a deity, but our deity is an absolute contrast to the Jewish-Christian Yahweh. For National Socialism there is only one true deity: the inscrutable creative power that is manifested everywhere in Nature. This is the deity we pay our tribute to by showing veneration and respect for the wisdom of the Laws of Nature.

As National Socialists, we follow no other voice than the voice of Nature and no other ethic than the ethic of Nature, and we know only one mortal sin: to try to revolt against this ethic. This is not mysticism, as some claim, but pantheism—the idea that the divine is expressed through Nature and nowhere else.

Pantheism has its roots far back in history and is one of the foundations of German idealism and romanticism in the 19th century. It is the recognition that we owe our existence to a principle of life that is not just the sum of its chemical components. Thus, National Socialism sees life as more than the materialistic scramble for maximum consumption and self-gratification—life entails an obligation to protect the divine principle that we are part of. Some might call this a religion, but it does not need the establishment of a narrative based on superstition to sustain it—and it sure is not a “faith.” It is not based on belief, but on facts.
 

Sexual roles

To create sound surroundings for life to unfold we also need healthy families, where children can grow up in harmony and be happy. Another evil of the present order is that this kind of family is being destroyed by the usual unbiological thinking and the nonsense of women’s libbers. Just as the races are different, so are the sexes, and the idea that man and woman are biologically equal is a serious threat to the survival of man.

The differences between them are not the result of socially constructed “sex roles” but of biological roles! It is not a coincidence that it is the woman who gives birth to the children. She is not only biologically fit for this task, but also mentally, and as the mother of the new generation she has the most important role in society. The idea that she must “fulfill herself” by joining the labor force and getting a job at an assembly line, while her children are left to others, is criminal.

nsdap Women can only fulfill themselves within their biological role as mothers. Without a mother, the family crumbles. The children are left to themselves or to a state education. When they get home, nobody has time for them. They are not taught any ideals and they get their idols from television, bad music, and even worse literature. They live on fast food and fall victims to the worst kind of commercial materialism—that is, if the woman does not choose to avoid having any children at all either by using some kind of “birth control” device or by murdering the child if she gets pregnant anyway. Of course, the feminists claim that it would be just as natural for the man to look after the children and the woman to go to work. The fact is that if it had been just as natural, the man would have given birth, too.

 
Miscegenation

The most serious threat to the coherence of society is, without comparison, the biological race-mixing that has always either come hand in hand with the mixing of cultures—or even being its precondition. The disintegration of culture itself can be stopped at any time and a people can find its way back to its own cultural norms and values again—as long as the racial stock is intact. The mixing of the races, however, is irrevocable—and its consequences are incalculable and disastrous.

There are only too many opportunities to study the kind of societies we have as a consequence of race mixing. Latin America, India, and Egypt are all excellent examples, and so are Hellas and the Roman Empire.

Just as the Indian, Persian, and Egyptian cultures also the Greek and Roman civilizations were created and sustained by an immigrated minority of predominantly Nordic race. This higher developed minority first suppressed the original majority and their culture, but later they slowly succumbed to their subdued peoples’ numerical superiority. Weakened by innumerous wars that had cost them their most valuable blood and subverted by Asian ideas of false humanitarianism they gradually gave increasing numbers from the subdued peoples citizenship and brought new slaves and laborers from their colonies in Africa and Asia—who were then integrated and acquired citizenship in the next generation.

Miscegenation in Ancient Rome

This sure is a familiar picture, isn’t it? And it was this disintegration of the Nordic race that changed the proud state of Hellas into present day Greece and Rome into Italy—or put in another way: civilization into chaos!

In school you still spend at least some time teaching the children about the ancient cultures, but not one word is said about the people who created those cultures. It does not seem to puzzle anybody that the ability to organize a state can disappear so completely. The truth is that most of the people who masquerade as “Romans” today racially have very little in common with their mighty predecessors. Too many of their ancestors had their home south of the Mediterranean!

When speaking about racial biology today, you soon face a whole lot of taboos. Studying racial biology—that is, if it is the human races you want to study—has become something naughty and not even medical doctors or so-called anthropologists can be expected to know anything at all about this matter. Even to want such knowledge is damaging to your career, so why care?
 

* * *

 
We do not have any time to lose. Would you care to join us? Not for our sake—but for the sake of your children.

Can you imagine a world without White people and the civilization they have created?

Mapping Indo-European racial expansion

Just ignore the PC title of this YouTube clip: “Mapping Indo-European language expansion”.

For “language” just replace “racial” and you’ll get the picture (see Arthur Kemp’s history of the white race for a textual explanation).

Published in: Uncategorized on March 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Who We Are (13)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 13 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Nordic Virtues Led Romans to World Domination
Etruscan Kings Paved Way for Rome’s Fall
Levantines, Decadence, Capitalism Sank Rome



MaxfieldParrish_1

Today, when we speak of “Latins,” we reflexively think of short, swarthy, excitable people who are inordinately fond of loud rhythms, wine, spicy food, and seduction, and who aren’t to be taken very seriously. That is not an accurate image of all speakers of Romance languages, of course. Many individuals of French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian nationality are as racially sound as the average Swede or German. Yet, the image persists, and for good reason.

But the Latini, the Northern tribesmen who settled Latium in the ninth century B.C. and founded Rome a century later, were something altogether different. Most of today’s Latins share nothing with those of twenty-eight centuries ago except the name. Not only are the two strikingly different in appearance and temperament, but every element of the culture the original Latins created as an expression of their race-soul has been fundamentally transformed by those who claim that name today.

Above all, the Latini were a people to be taken seriously. They brought with them to Italy the spirit of the northern forests whence they had come. They took themselves and life very seriously indeed.

Duty, honor, responsibility: to the early Romans these were the elements which circumscribed a man’s life. Their virtues (the Latin root of the word means “manliness”) were strength of body and will, perseverance, sobriety, courage, hardiness, steadiness of purpose, attentiveness to detail, intelligence, and the characteristically Nordic will to order. Through these virtues they brought the world under their sway and created a civic edifice of such magnificence that it has ever since provided the standard against which all others are measured.

The Romans shaped the world around them—its institution, its politics, its attitudes, and its lifestyles—more extensively and more profoundly than anyone else has, and then they perished. That fact has fascinated and occupied the energies of historical scholars as no other topic. What were the reasons that the Romans rose so high and then fell so far?


Aristocrats only

The populus Romanus, it should be noted, did not include every inhabitant of Rome. Initially, in fact, it included only those persons who were blood members of a gens: i.e., the nobles, or patricians. After the individual households (familiae), the gentes were the fundamental social units among the early Romans, just as among the other Indo-European peoples. Their origin predates the Latin invasion of Italy; those persons born into them were, thus, all descendants of the warrior clans which originally seized the land and subjugated the aborigines.

The members of this warrior nobility, the patricians, were originally the whole people; to them belonged everything: land, livestock, religion, and law. They alone possessed a clan name (nomen gentilicium) and the right to display a coat of arms (jus imaginum).

Those who were not patricians, and, hence, not members of the populus Romanus, were the plebeians (plebs). Although not originally permitted to participate in the political or religious institutions of the populus, the plebeians were technically free. Many of them were the pre-Latin inhabitants of the seven hills beside the Tiber on which Rome was built; some undoubtedly came into the area later, as Rome’s influence grew. No direct evidence remains on the matter, but it nevertheless seems certain that there was a racial as well as a social difference between patricians and plebeians, with the latter having much less Nordic blood than the former.

Several social and political developments worked to diminish the racial distinction between patrician and plebeian with the passage of time. One of these developments was the patron-client relationship; another was the incorporation of an Etruscan element into the Roman population, including the acceptance of a number of gentes of Etruscan nobles into the Roman patrician class; a third was the extension of citizenship to the plebs.

As the social bond between patricians and plebeians grew, the social distance lessened. Many plebeians became, through hard work and good fortune, wealthy enough to rival the patrician class in their standard of living. And, although marriage between patrician and plebeian was strictly forbidden, there was nevertheless a flow of patrician genes into the plebeian class as a result of irregular liaisons between patrician men and plebeian women.

Latins, Sabines, Etruscans. Very early in its history, Romulus’ hilltop village of Latins joined forces with a neighboring village of Sabines, the Titienses. The Sabines and the Latins were of very closely related Indo-European stocks, and the amalgamation did little to change social institutions, other than doubling the number of senators.

A few years later, however, the Etruscan Luceres—of non-Indo-European stock—were absorbed by the growing Rome. Although the Etruscans remained a tribe apart from the Latin and Sabine inhabitants of the city, without patrician status, this condition was destined not to last.

It was Tarquin’s successor, Servius Tullius, who wrought changes which were to have much more profound racial consequences: in essence, Servius made the plebs a part of the populus Romanus. He accomplished this by overshadowing the patrician assembly, the Comitia Curiata, with two new popular assemblies, one civil and one military.

For administrative purposes, Servius divided the city and its territory into 30 “tribes.” These 30 administrative divisions, or wards, were tribal in name only, however; they were based solely on geography, and not on birth.

The patricians still ruled in the new Comitia Tributa, or tribal assembly, and provided the magistrates for the new wards, but Servius had laid the same groundwork for future political gains by the Roman plebs which Cleisthenes, just a few decades later, laid in Athens by reorganizing the tribal basis of the Athenian state along purely geographical lines.

Servius certainly cannot be accused of being a democrat. Yet he clearly initiated the process which eventually led to the ascendancy of gold over blood in Roman society, just as Solon had done in Athens a few years earlier.

The successor of Servius Tullius, Tarquinius Superbus (Tarquin the Proud), partly repealed the changes the former had made. And Tarquin the Proud’s reign marked the end of Etruscan domination of Rome, as well as the end of the monarchy. The Tarquins were driven out of Rome by the Latins and Sabines in 509 B.C. (according to tradition), and the Roman Republic was born.

But the Etruscan kings (among whom Servius is included, although his origins and ethnicity are uncertain) had brought about two lasting changes which were racially significant: the Roman aristocracy of Indo-European Latins and Sabines had received a substantial non-Indo-European admixture by the admission of the nobility of the Luceres to patrician status, and the principle that citizenship (and its attendant rights and powers) should belong solely to the members of a racial elite had been compromised.

The following centuries saw the political power of the plebs increase greatly relative to that of the patricians, while wealth continued to gain weight relative to race and family.

The Romans survived the founding of the Republic by roughly a millennium, but we are not concerned in this series with the political and cultural details of their history, except as these details have a salient racial significance. Therefore, the emphasis in the following historical summary is rather different than that found in most textbooks on Roman history.

Let us focus on four factors: first, the growing racial diversity of the Roman state; second, the eventual decadence of Rome’s patricians; third, the differential in birthrates between Rome’s patrician and plebeian classes; and fourth, the effects on the Roman peasantry of large-scale slavery as a capitalist institution.


Non-white immigration

The Romans were an energetic and martial people, and the power, influence, and wealth which they wielded grew enormously during the period from the end of the sixth to the last quarter of the first century B.C., the life-span of the Republic. First all of Italy, then the rest of the Mediterranean world and the Middle East, and finally much of Nordic Europe came into their possession.

This vast area under Roman rule was inhabited by a great diversity of races and peoples. As time passed, the rights of citizenship were extended to more and more of them. Citizens or not, there was a huge influx of foreign peoples into Rome and the other parts of Italy. Some came as slaves, the spoils of Rome’s victorious wars, and many came voluntarily, attracted by Rome’s growing wealth.

After the Republic became the Empire, in the last quarter of the first century B.C., the flow of foreigners into Italy increased still further. The descendants of the Latin founders of Rome became a minority in their own country. Above all other factors, this influx of alien immigrants led to Rome’s demise and the extinction of the race which built her into the ruler of the world.

The importance of the immigration factor is, of course, barely mentioned, if at all, in the school history texts being published today, because those who control the content of the textbooks have planned the same fate for White America as that which overtook White Rome.

Nevertheless, the writers of Classical antiquity themselves clearly recognized and wrote about the problem, as do those few of today’s professional historians with courage enough to buck the blackout on the mention of race in history. An example of the latter is the distinguished Swedish historian Martin Nilsson, for many years professor at the University of Lund. In his Imperial Rome, Nilsson wrote:

Of greater variety than elsewhere was the medley of races in the capital, where individuals congregated from all quarters, either on business with the rulers and the government or as fortune seekers in the great city, where great possibilities were open to all. It is almost impossible for us to realize the extraordinarily motley character of the Roman mob. The only city in our own day which can rival it is Constantinople, the most cosmopolitan town in the world. Numerous passages in the works of Classical authors refer to it, from Cicero, who calls Rome a city formed by the confluence of nations, to Constantius, who, when he visited Rome, marveled at the haste with which all the human beings of the world flocked there….

There were Romans who viewed the population of the capital with deep pessimism. In Nero’s time (37-68 A.D.) Lucan said that Rome was not peopled by its own citizens but filled with the scourings of the world. The Oriental [by Oriental, Nilsson means Levantine, not Mongoloid] element seems to have been especially strong.

Jews, in particular, in order to get their hands on the wealth there, flocked to Rome in such enormous numbers that Emperor Tiberius, under pressure from the common people on whom the Jews were preying, was obliged to order them all deported in 19 A.D. The Jews sneaked back in even greater numbers, and Tiberius’ brother, Emperor Claudius, was forced to renew the deportation order against them a few years later, but without success. They had become so numerous and so well entrenched that the emperor did not have the energy to dislodge them.

Another distinguished historian, the late Tenney Frank, professor at Bryn Mawr and Johns Hopkins, made a careful survey of Roman tomb inscriptions. He studied 13,900 inscriptions, separating them into categories based on the ethnicity or probable ethnicity indicated by the names and corollary evidence. Professor Frank estimated that by the end of the first century A.D. 90 per cent of the free plebeians in Rome were Levantines or part-Levantines. Fewer than ten per cent could claim unmixed Italian ancestry, and of these even fewer were of pure Indo-European stock.

One problem which Frank ran into was the tendency of non-Italians to disguise their ancestry by changing their names. It was easy enough to separate Greek and Syrian and Hebrew names from Latin ones, but a Latin name which had been adopted rather than inherited could often only be detected by noting the non-Latin names of the parents on the same tomb.

Then too, just as Jewish name-changers today often give themselves away by choosing a non-Jewish first name which has become so popular among their brethren that few non-Jews would dream of burdening their own children with it (Murray, Seymour, Irving are examples), Frank found the same clues among many “Latin” names.

As for the Greek names, the great majority of them did not belong to Hellenes but to Levantines from the remnants of Alexander’s Oriental empire. The Roman poet Juvenal (62-142 A.D.) alluded to this when he wrote:

Sirs, I cannot bear
This Rome made Grecian; yet of all her dregs
How much is Greek? Long since Orontes’ [a river] stream
Hath fouled our Tiber with his Syrian waters,
Bearing upon his bosom foreign speech
And foreign manners…

C. Northcote Parkinson, the noted author and historian, sums up the effect of centuries of uncontrolled immigration in his East and West (1963): “Rome came to be peopled very largely by Levantines, Egyptians, Armenians, and Jews; by astrologers, tipsters, idlers, and crooks.” The name “Roman,” in other words, came to mean as little as the name “American” is coming to mean today. And yet, just as White Americans are bringing about their downfall through greed and timidity and indifference, so did Rome’s patricians cause their own end.

In Rome’s earliest days, when the populus Romanus was entirely of noble birth, duty, honor, and responsibility counted for everything, as mentioned above. A Roman valued nothing above his honor, put nothing before his obligations to the community. Even after Rome’s conquests brought wealth and luxury to her citizens, her patricians could still produce men like Regulus, stern, honorable, unyielding.


Bread and circuses

But wealth inexorably undermined the old virtues. Decadence rotted the souls of the noble Romans. While the mongrel mobs were entertained by the debased spectacles in the Colosseum (not unlike the distraction of today’s rabble by non-stop television), the patricians indulged themselves with every new vice and luxury that money and a resourceful merchant class could provide. Pampered, perfumed, manicured, and attended by numerous slaves, the effete aristocracy of the first century A.D. was a far cry from the hard and disciplined ruling class of a few centuries earlier.

Just as there are Americans today who understand where the weakness and lack of discipline of their people are leading them and who speak out against these things, so were there Romans who tried to stem the tide of decadence engulfing the Republic. One of these was M. Porcius Cato (“the Censor”), whose public career spanned the first half of the second century B.C.

Cato was born and raised on his father’s farm and then spent 26 years fighting in Rome’s legions before entering politics. Early in his career, having been appointed governor (praetor) of Sardinia, Cato set the pattern he would follow the rest of his life: he expelled all the moneylenders from the island, earning the undying hatred of the Jews and a reputation as a fierce anti-Semite.

Marco_Porcio_Caton_MajorLater Cato was elected censor in Rome. The duties of a censor were to safeguard public morality and virtue and to conduct a periodic census of people and property for military and tax purposes. Cato took these duties very seriously. He assessed jewelry and other luxury items at ten times their actual value, and he dealt promptly and severely with disorder and degeneracy.

In the Senate Cato spoke out repeatedly against the foreign influences in philosophy, religion, and lifestyle which were encroaching on the traditional Roman attitudes and manners. As a result, Rome’s “smart set” condemned him (privately, for he was too powerful to attack openly) as an archreactionary and an enemy of “progress.”

In the field of foreign policy, Cato was adamantly opposed to the integration of the Semitic East into the Roman world. He wanted Rome to concentrate on the western Mediterranean and to deal with the Levant only at sword point. Unfortunately, there were few men of Cato’s fiber left among the Romans by the second century.

Declining Birthrate. One of the most fateful effects of decadence was the drastic decline in the birthrate of the Roman nobility. Decadence is always accompanied by an increase in egoism, a shifting of focus from race and nation to the individual. Instead of looking on bearing and raising children as a duty to the state and a necessity for the perpetuation of their gens and tribe, upper-class Romans came to regard children as a hindrance, a limitation on their freedom and pleasure. The “liberation” of women also contributed heavily to this change in outlook.

The failure of the patrician class to reproduce itself alarmed those Roman leaders with a sense of responsibility to the future. Emperor Augustus tried strenuously to reverse the trend by issuing several decrees regarding family life. Heavy penalties were set for celibacy or for marriage with the descendants of slaves. Eventually, Augustus ordered that every noble Roman between the ages of twenty-five and sixty must be married or, at least, betrothed.

Suicide of the Nobility. In 9 A.D. tax advantages and other preferences were granted to the parents of three or more children; unmarried persons were barred from the public games and could not receive inheritances, while the childless married person could receive only half of any inheritance left to him.

All these measures failed. Augustus’ own daughter, Julia, was a thoroughly liberated member of the “jet set” of her time, who considered herself far too sophisticated to be burdened with motherhood; in embarrassment, Augustus banished her to an island.

From the dictatorship of Julius Caesar to the reign of Emperor Hadrian, a century and a half, one can trace the destinies of forty-five leading patrician families: all but one died out during that period. Of 400 senatorial families on the public records in 65 A.D., during the reign of Nero, all trace of half of them had vanished by the reign of Nerva, a single generation later.

Rise of Capitalism. As the patricians declined in numbers, the Roman peasantry also suffered, but for a different reason. The later years of the Republic saw the rise of agricultural capitalism, with wealthy entrepreneurs buying up vast estates, working them with slaves and driving the freeborn small farmers out of the marketplace.

By the tens of thousands the Latin and Sabine yeomen were bankrupted and forced to abandon their farms. They fled to the city, where most of them were swallowed up in the urban mob.

The capitalist nouveaux riches who came to wield much of the power and influence in Rome lost by the dwindling patricians were an altogether new type of Roman. Petronius’ fictional character Trimalchio is their archetype. Tenney Frank wrote of these “new Romans”:

It is apparent that at least the political and moral qualities which counted most in the building of the Italian federation, the army organization, the provincial administrative system of the Republic, were the qualities most needed in holding the Empire together. And however brilliant the endowment of the new citizens, these qualities they lacked. The Trimalchios of the Empire were often shrewd and daring businessmen, but their first and obvious task, apparently was to climb by the ladder of quick profits to a social position in which their children, with Romanized names, could comfortably proceed to forget their forebears. The possession of wealth did not, as in the Republic, suggest certain duties toward the commonwealth.

Many historians have remarked on the fact that the entire spirit of the Roman Empire was radically different from that of the Roman Republic. The energy, foresight, common sense, and discipline which characterized the Republic were absent from the Empire. But that was because the race which built the Republic was largely absent from the Empire; it had been replaced by the dregs of the Orient.

The change in attitudes, values, and behavior was due to a change in blood. The changing racial composition of Rome during the Republic paved the way for the unchecked influx of Levantine blood, manners, and religion during the Empire.

But it also set the stage for a new ascendancy of the same Northern blood which had first given birth to the Roman people. We will look at the conquest of Rome by the Germans. First, however, we must backtrack and see what had been happening in the North during the rise and fall of Rome.

Who We Are (18)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 18 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Christianity Spreads from Levant
to Dying Roman Empire,
then to Conquering Germans
Germans ‘Aryanize’ Christian Myths,
but Racially Destructive Ethics Retained



MaxfieldParrish_1

During the turbulent and eventful fifth century the Germans largely completed their conquest of the West. In the early years of that century German tribesmen, who had been raiding the coast of Roman Britain for many years, began a permanent invasion of the southeastern portion of the island, a development which was eventually to lead to a Germanic Britain.

In 476 Odoacer, an Ostrogothic chieftain who had become a general of Rome’s armies, deposed the last Roman emperor and ruled in his own name as king of Italy. Meanwhile the Visigoths were expanding their holdings in Gaul and completing their conquest of Spain, except for the northwestern region already held by their Suebian cousins and an enclave in the Pyrenees occupied by a remnant of the aboriginal Mediterranean inhabitants of the peninsula, the Basques.

And throughout the latter part of the century the Franks, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians were consolidating their own holds on the former Roman province of Gaul, establishing new kingdoms and laying the basis for the new European civilization of the Middle Ages. Everywhere in the West the old, decaying civilization centered on the Mediterranean gave way to the vigorous White barbarians from the North.

Oriental Infection. But the Germans did not make their conquest of the Roman world without becoming infected by some of the diseases which flourished so unwholesomely in Rome during her last days. Foremost among these was an infection which the Romans themselves had caught during the first century, a consequence of their own conquest of the Levant. It had begun as an offshoot of Judaism, had established itself in Jerusalem and a few other spots in the eastern Mediterranean area, and had traveled to Rome with Jewish merchants and speculators, who had long found that city an attractive center of operations.

It eventually became known to the world as Christianity, but for more than two centuries it festered in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, along with dozens of other alien religious sects from the Levant; its first adherents were Rome’s slaves, a cosmopolitan lot from all the lands conquered by the Romans. It was a religion designed to appeal to slaves: blessed are the poor, the meek, the wretched, the despised, it told them, for you shall inherit the earth from the strong, the brave, the proud, and the mighty; there will be pie in the sky for all believers, and the rest will suffer eternal torment. It appealed directly to a sense of envy and resentment of the weak against the strong.

Edict of Milan. By the end of the third century Christianity had become the most popular as well as the most militant of the Oriental sects flourishing among the largely non-Roman inhabitants of the decaying Roman Empire. Even as late as the first years of the fourth century, under Emperor Diocletian, the Roman government was still making efforts to keep the Christians under control, but in 313 a new emperor, Constantine, decided that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he issued an imperial edict legitimizing Christianity.

Although one of Constantine’s successors, Julian, attempted to reverse the continuing Christianization of the Roman Empire a few years later, it was already too late: the Goths, who made up the bulk of Rome’s armies by this time, had caught the infection from one of their own slaves, a Christian captive whom they called Wulfila.

Bischof_Ulfilas_erklärt_den_Goten_das_Evangelium

A Romanticized view of Wulfila
explaining the Gospels to the Goths in ca. 310

Wulfila was a tireless and effective missionary, and the Goths were an uprooted and unsettled people, among whom the new religion took hold easily. Wulfila’s translation of the Bible into Gothic greatly speeded up the process.

Conversion of the Franks. Before the end of the fourth century Christianity had also spread to the Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Gepids, and several other German tribes. A little over a century later the powerful nation of the Franks was converted. By the beginning of the second quarter of the sixth century, the only non-Christian Whites left were the Bavarians, Thuringians, Saxons, Frisians, Danes, Swedes, and Norse among the Germans—and virtually all the Balts and Slavs.

One can only understand the rapid spread of Christianity during the fourth and fifth centuries by realizing that, for all practical purposes, it had no opposition. That is, there was no other organized, militant, proselytizing church competing effectively with the Christian church.

Athanaric the Goth. The Christians had many individual opponents, of course: among the Romans several of the more responsible and civic-minded emperors, such as Diocletian, as well as what was left of the tradition-minded aristocracy; and among the Germans many farsighted leaders who resisted the imposition of an alien creed on their people and the abandonment of their ancient traditions. Athanaric, the great Gothic chieftain who led his people across the Danube in 376 to save them from the invading Huns, was notable in this regard.

Athanaric and the other traditionalists failed to halt the spread of Christianity, because they were only individuals. Although there were pagan priests, the traditional German religion never really had a church associated with it. It consisted in a body of beliefs, tales, and practices passed from generation to generation, but it had no centralized organization like Christianity.

Folk-religion. German religion was a folk-religion, which grew organically out of the people and out of the land they occupied. The boundary between a tribe’s most ancient historical legends and its religious myths, between its long-dead heroes and chieftains and its gods, was blurred at best. Because German religion belonged to the people and the land, it was not a proselytizing religion; the German attitude was that other peoples and races likewise had their own folk-religions, and it would be unnatural to impose one race’s religion on another race.

And because German religion was rooted in the land as well as in the people, it lost some of its viability when the people were uprooted from their land. It is no coincidence that the conversions of the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards, Franks, and many other German tribes took place during the Voelkerwanderung, a period of strife, disorientation, and misery for many of those involved: a period when whole nations lost not only their ancient homelands but also their very identities.

Fire and Sword. After the Voelkerwanderung ended in the sixth century, the Christianization of the remaining pagan peoples of Europe proceeded much more slowly—and generally by fire and sword rather than by peaceful missionary effort. Whereas the Franks had become Christians more or less painlessly when their king Clovis (Chlodweg) converted for political reasons at the end of the fifth century, it was another 300 years before the Frankish king Charlemagne (Karl the Great) was able to bring about the conversion of his Saxon neighbors, and he accomplished that only by butchering half of them in a series of genocidal wars.

Early Christianity, in contrast to German religion, was as utterly intolerant as the Judaism from which it sprang. Even Roman religion, which, as an official state religion, equated religious observance with patriotism, tolerated the existence of other sects, so long as they did not threaten the state. But the early Christians were inspired by a fanatical hatred of all opposing creeds.

Also in contrast to German and Roman religion, Christianity, despite its specifically Jewish roots, claimed to be a universal (i.e., “catholic”) creed, equally applicable to Germans, Romans, Jews, Huns, and Negroes.

“Every place… shall be yours.” The Christians took the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, or Jehovah, and universalized him. Originally he seems to have been a deity associated with one of the dormant volcanoes of the Arabian peninsula, a god so distinctly Semitic that he had a binding business contract (“covenant”) with his followers: if the Jews would remain faithful and obedient to him, he would deliver all the wealth of the non-Jewish peoples of the world into their hands. Observant Jews even today remind themselves of this by fastening mezuzoth to the door frames of their homes, wherein the verses from their Torah spelling out the Jews’ side of their larcenous deal with Yahweh are inscribed (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21; Yahweh’s reciprocal obligations are in the verses immediately following).

Nevertheless, the early Christian church, armed with an effective organization and a proselytizing fervor, and armored with a supreme contempt for everything non-Christian, was able to supplant Jupiter and Wotan alike with Yahweh.

The Germans, however, recreated the Semitic Yahweh in the image of their own Wotan, even as they accepted the new faith. The entire Christian ritual and doctrine, in fact, were to a large extent “Aryanized” by the Germans to suit their own inner nature and lifestyle. They played down the slave-religion aspects of Christianity (“the meek shall inherit the earth”) and emphasized the aspects which appealed to them (“I come bearing not peace, but a sword”). The incoherence and the multitude of internal inconsistencies of the doctrine made this sort of eclecticism easy.

Yule, Easter, Harvest Festival. In general, the Germans accepted without difficulty the Christian rituals—especially those which, like Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving were deliberately redesigned to correspond to pagan rituals and festivals of long standing—and the myths (parthenogenesis, turning water into wine, curing the blind, resurrection from the dead, etc.), and they ignored the ethics (turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, etc.).

A Frank of the seventh or eighth century would tremble in superstitious awe before some fragment of bone or vial of dried blood which the Church had declared a sacred relic with miracle-working powers—but if you smote him on the cheek you would have a fight on your hands, not another cheek turned.

As for the brotherhood of man and equality in the eyes of the Lord, the Germans had no time for such nonsense; when confronted with non-Whites, they instinctively reached for the nearest lethal weapon. They made mincemeat out of the Avars, who were cousins to the Huns, in the seventh century, and the Christianized Franks or Goths of that era would know exactly what to do with a few hundred thousand rioting American Blacks; they would, in fact, positively relish the opportunity to do what needed doing.

It could not have been expected to be otherwise. In the first place, a totally alien religion cannot be imposed on a spiritually healthy people—and the Germans were still essentially healthy, despite the dislocations caused by the Voelkerwanderung. Christianity had to be modified to suit their nature—at least, temporarily. In the second place, the average German did not have to come to grips with the alien moral imperatives of the Sermon on the Mount. All he had to do was learn when to genuflect; wrestling with Holy Writ was exclusively the problem of the clergy.

It was not until the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, that the laity began studying the Bible and thinking seriously about its contents. Even then, however, the tendency was to interpret alien teachings in a way that left them more or less compatible with natural tendencies.

Genealogie_der_Moral_coverSlave Morality. But Christian ethics—the slave morality preached in the Roman catacombs—was like a time bomb ticking away in Europe—a Trojan horse brought inside the fortress, waiting for its season. That season came, and the damage was done. Today Christianity is one of the most active forces working from within to destroy the White race.

From the Christian churches came the notion of “the White man’s burden,” along with the missionaries who saw in every African cannibal or Chinese coolie a soul to be saved, of equal value in the eyes of Jehovah to any White soul. It is entirely a Christian impulse—at least, on the part of the average American voter, if not the government—which sends American food and medical supplies to keep alive swarming millions of Asiatics, Africans, and Latins every time they have a famine, so that they can continue to outbreed Whites.

The otherworldly emphasis on individual salvation, on an individual relationship between Creator and creature which relegates the relationship between individual and race, tribe, and community to insignificance; the inversion of natural values inherent in the exalting of the botched, the unclean, and the poor in spirit in the Sermon on the Mount—the injunction to “resist not evil”—all are prescriptions for racial suicide. Indeed, had a fiendishly clever enemy set out to concoct a set of doctrines intended to lead the White race to its destruction, he could hardly have done better.

The “White guilt” syndrome exploited so assiduously by America’s non-White minorities is a product of Christian teachings, as is the perverse reverence for “God’s chosen people” which has paralyzed so many Christians’ wills to resist Jewish depredations.

Moses Replaces Hermann. Not the least of the damage done by the Christianization of Europe was the gradual replacement of White tradition, legend, and imagery by that of the Jews. Instead of specifically Celtic or German or Slavic heroes, the Church’s saints, many of them Levantines, were held up to the young for emulation; instead of the feats of Hermann or Vercingetorix, children were taught of the doings of Moses and David.

symbolEuropeans’ artistic inspiration was turned away from the depiction of their own rich heritage and used to glorify that of an alien race; Semitic proverbs and figures of speech took precedence over those of Indo-European provenance; Europeans even abandoned the names of their ancestors and began giving Jewish names to their children: Samuel and Sarah, John and Joan, Michael and Mary, Daniel and Deborah.

Despite all these long-term consequences of Christianity, however, the immediate symptoms of the infection which the conquering Germans picked up from the defeated Romans were hardly noticeable; White morals and manners, motivations and behavior remained much as they had been, for they were rooted in the genes—but now they had a new rationale.

Today’s Christian Patriots. And it is only fair to note that even today a fairly substantial minority of White men and women who still think of themselves as Christians have not allowed their sounder instincts to be corrupted by doctrines suited to a following of mongrelized slaves. They ignore the Jewish origins of Christianity and justify their instinctive dislike and distrust of Jews with the fact that the Jews, in demanding that Jesus be killed, became a race forever accursed (“His blood be on us and on our children”).

They interpret the divine injunction of brotherhood as applying only to Whites. Like the Franks of the Middle Ages, they believe what suits them and conveniently forget or invent their own interpretation for the rest. Were they the Christian mainstream today, the religion would not be the racial menace that it is. Unfortunately, however, they are not; virtually none are actively affiliated with any of the larger, established Christian churches.

Who We Are (20)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 20 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Unending Struggle Between European and Asian in the East
Slavic Lands Repeatedly Overrun by Asian Hordes
Sviatoslav, Viking Ruler, Stamps out Khazar Pest
Mongol Terror Rules Russia for 250 Years



MaxfieldParrish_1

Today the geographical boundary between Europe and Africa-Asia runs roughly from the Strait of Gibraltar eastward across the Mediterranean to the Aegean Sea, along the eastern and northern shores of the Black Sea, thence along the spine of the Caucasus range to the Caspian Sea, and northward along the Urals to the Arctic Ocean. Somewhat more roughly a racial boundary follows the same course, dividing Whites to the north and west from non-Whites to the south and east.

Throughout history the borderlands on either side of this boundary have been contested between White and non-White, between European and Asian, and the contest has been fiercer, bloodier, crueler, and more unrelenting than any of the wars Europeans have fought among themselves. This is as it should be, considering the vastly greater stakes: when European fought European, the outcome determined which sovereign taxes would be paid to or the language one’s descendants would speak, but when European fought Asian the issue was whether or not one’s descendants would be White.

Three-phase Struggle. The contest actually began long before the dawn of history, nearly 10,000 years ago, when the Mediterraneans of northern Africa and the Middle East began infiltrating Europe during the Neolithic period, Mediterraneanizing the southern coastal regions of the continent.

The second phase began about 6,000 years ago with a European counterattack. The Nordic Indo-Europeans sent wave after wave of conquerors, not only into Mediterraneanized Southern Europe and the Cro-Magnon realm in the North, but also into Asia and northern Africa. This phase lasted roughly 4,000 years and, as we have seen in earlier installments in this series, had mixed success.

The third phase began about 16 centuries ago, in the year 372, when the Huns came swarming around the north end of the Caspian Sea into southern Russia, a Brown pestilence from Mongolia.

Mongol_Empire_mapEurope managed to stem the Brown tide in each case, but only at enormous cost. Huge areas of Europe were overrun by the Huns and their successors: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars, Magyars, Patzinaks, Cumans, Mongols, and Ottomans. Sometimes it was more than a century before the invaders could be expelled, and a great deal of racial mixing took place meanwhile.

Some European territory was lost permanently. Even today a large section of the ancient Indo-European homeland on the western shore of the Caspian Sea remains racially Mongoloid, while pockets of racially mixed population can be found throughout Eastern and Southeastern Europe. In other areas the languages of the invaders have displaced the original European languages, even where most of the Asian genes left behind have been thoroughly diluted.

Will there be a fourth phase in the age-old struggle between Europe and Asia? Without a doubt, although it is difficult to forecast the exact form it will take, or even which side will be on the offensive. Certainly, Central Asia has thoroughly lost the threatening aura it had in the days of Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde, and modern Turkey, wracked by internal problems, does not seem a menace to Europe, except in the stream of immigrant workers it is sending into the Western nations.

On the other hand racial Europe—including both Russia and the United States—is as disunited and as spiritually confused as it has ever been. If it is to regain the initiative in the struggle for possession of the planet, it must first regain a measure of unity, based on racial consciousness, and build new spiritual foundations for itself. The principal purpose of this series is to aid in the building of the necessary racial consciousness. So, let us begin looking again at the details.

Alan-WarriorEnd of the Golden Age. Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Hun invasion was the disaster which befell the Alans. The godlike race of Odin and Frigg, of Thor and Balder, met its Ragnarok.

Although the Alan nation was not annihilated, its Golden Age was over. Some were driven south into mountain strongholds high in the Caucasus, where they maintained a national identity for another five centuries. Others fled westward, and most of these shared the fate of the Vandals in Africa. The rest became vassals of the Huns and were turned against their own race.

Then, in the middle of the sixth century, even before Europe had recovered from the desolation left by the Huns, the next Brown wave struck. Driven westward by intertribal warfare in Central Asia, an amalgamation of Mongol tribes known to Europeans as the Avars invaded the Russian steppe in 560. Conquering the Slavs as they went, they were only halted when they came up against the Franks on the Elbe, in 562.

The Avars virtually annihilated the Gepids, to which nation the noble Ardaric, vanquisher of the Huns, had belonged, and seized the Gepids’ territory in Pannonia (modern Hungary), thenceforth centering the Avar empire there. They also dislodged the German Lombards (Langobarden, i.e., “long-beards”) from their ancestral lands, and the latter then invaded Italy, seizing most of the northern half of the peninsula (568-572) and making Pavia the capital of a new Lombard kingdom.

The Avar strength peaked before 600 and declined quite rapidly thereafter, except in Pannonia. Throughout the first quarter of the seventh century one group of Slavs after another asserted its independence of the Avar rulers, and by 626, in which year an Avar attack on Constantinople was repelled, the Slavs had inherited nearly the whole of the Avar empire outside Pannonia.

In 576 another Brown wave lapped at Europe’s eastern frontier, as a Turkish tribe invaded the Caucasus and established a beachhead along the northwestern shore of the Caspian. Compared to the two waves which had preceded them, this was a relatively minor one, but it was to have by far the most lethal consequence for Europe in the long run: the new invaders called themselves Khazars.

Origin of the Ashkenazim. The Khazars themselves also underwent a transformation during the eighth century: they adopted Judaism as their religion, and thereafter their national character began to change. From a warlike, nomadic people interested mainly in raiding and fighting, they became a nation of armed merchants and tax collectors. As the principal power in the region north of the Caucasus, they controlled trade between the Arab power to the south, the Turkish power to the east, the Volga-Bulgar power to the north, the Magyar power to the west, and the Byzantine power to the southwest.

Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the trade controlled by the Khazars was in White slaves, with the Slavs bearing the brunt. So many Slavs, both male and female, were shipped southward and eastward by their Khazar rulers that their very name gave rise to the word “slave.”

Birth of a Nation. Rurik arrived in northern Russia, near Novgorod, in or about the year 856, and his arrival is considered to mark the beginning of Russian national history.

Prince Rurik, ruler of Novgorod, died in 879, and he was succeeded by his kinsman Oleg, a Norwegian by birth, who united the principalities of Novgorod and Kiev and then energetically expanded the territory under Rus rule. Viking Russia rapidly became the principal power in the east.

In 964 Rurik’s grandson Sviatoslav, later acclaimed “the Great,” ascended the throne of Russia. Christian missionaries were beginning to ply their trade in Russia, and Sviatoslav’s mother Olga had allowed herself to be baptized, but this proud Viking lord would have none of it; he insisted on holding to the faith of his Scandinavian forebears.

Khazar warrior with captive(Right: Khazar warrior with captive)

It is fitting that such a warrior, almost as soon as he took the rule, chose as his first task the elimination of the Khazar pestilence. In 965 he utterly laid waste the Khazar empire (to the accompaniment, no doubt, of loud wails protesting his “anti-Semitism”). It can only be regretted that he did not hunt down and dispatch the last member of the tribe; instead he merely scattered them to the four winds, and their descendants, who make up the bulk of eastern Europe’s Jews, are taking their revenge to this day on the White world.

Back in Central Europe the Magyars, as soon as they had taken possession of Hungary, became the scourge of their German, Slav, and Byzantine neighbors for the next half century, raiding as far afield as Bremen, Orleans, and Constantinople. In 954 a raiding party of close to 100,000 Magyars swept through Bavaria and into Franconia, crossed the Rhine at Worms, and devastated northeastern France. They raped, burned, and butchered their way through Rheims and Chalons into Burgundy, then crossed the Alps into Italy to pillage Lombardy.

Again it was the Germans to the rescue. The following year another Magyar army invaded Bavaria and besieged Augsburg. Otto I, the Saxon king, arrived with an army of only 10,000 men and annihilated the Magyar force, in the battle of the Lechfeld. The Germans pursued and slew fleeing Magyars for three days following the battle, and the Magyars were never after that a major threat to Europe.

Diversity of the Invaders. It should be noted here that there was a fair amount of diversity in the various Asian waves which had been impinging on Europe’s eastern frontier since the fourth century. All the groups involved spoke languages of the Ural-Altaic group (the Magyars spoke a Uralic language; all the others spoke Altaic); they were all mounted nomads; and they all contained a strong Mongoloid racial element.

It was primarily in this last feature that the diversity was found. Each group passed through a vast expanse of territory in reaching Europe, and this territory was not empty. Although the Sarmatians were the last White group to enter Europe from the east, there were other Whites left in Turkistan—and even further east—who didn’t make it to Europe before the first Brown wave from Central Asia washed over them and submerged them.

Some of the Asian invaders traveled quite rapidly through the peoples between their own homelands and Europe, absorbing little if any White blood on the way, while others took centuries to make the passage. Even those who did not linger among White or part-White populations often had absorbed some White genes as a result of the slave trade. From the fourth century through the 15th century there was an enormous traffic in White slaves, with millions of Slavs trudging eastward in slave caravans.

Thus, while the Mongols who struck in the 13th century passed like lightning from Mongolia to the eastern border of Europe, their chieftain, Genghis Khan, was described by contemporaries as having green eyes and reddish hair—undoubtedly a consequence of the slave trade. Some Turkish leaders were described as almost White in appearance.

Finally, we must remember that race treason is not a new phenomenon. Conquered Slav, Sarmatian, and German peoples sometimes became military auxiliaries of their Brown conquerors. When Attila was defeated by the Visigoths in 451 at Chalons, his horde consisted not only of Brown Huns but also of a number of White allies from the territories through which he had passed.

mongol.raiders“Lord of the Earth.” The first years of the 13th century saw the rise of the next and most terrible of the Asian menaces. In 1206 a Mongol chieftain, Temujin, succeeded in unifying the numerous, perennially quarreling factions and tribes of Mongolia. He then set out on a career of conquest which has never been equaled. In preparation for this career he changed his name to Genghis Khan, “lord of the earth.”

Genghis Khan’s first raiding parties reached Europe in 1221 and won several victories over the princes of southern Russia. He died in 1227, giving Europe a brief respite which it failed to put to good use. When the Mongol horde appeared on Europe’s border again in 1236, a campaign of terror not matched since the days of the Huns was unleashed.

Whole areas of southern Russia were depopulated, and Mongol raiders struck deep into the Balkans, Hungary, northern Russia, Poland, and even Germany. In scenes foreshadowing the winter of 1944-5, hundreds of thousands of terrified refugees fled westward as the Mongols, moving rapidly across frozen rivers in the dead of winter, destroyed everything in their path. In Russia the Mongols even sent squadrons back into cities which had been sacked a few days earlier, in order to hunt down and kill any survivors who might have crept out of their hiding places.

An army of Germans, Poles, and Teutonic Knights, under the command of Duke Henry II of Silesia, attempted to halt the Mongols at Liegnitz, Prussia. In a battle fought there on April 9, 1241, the Europeans were decisively defeated. Just two days later another Mongol column completely destroyed the Hungarian army at the SajoRiver, about 100 miles northeast of Budapest.

These two crushing defeats left Central Europe completely at the mercy of the Mongols, who proceeded to consolidate their hold on Hungary and made plans to invade Italy, Austria, and Germany the following winter.

Just after Christmas of 1241 they started westward across the frozen Danube—when suddenly a messenger arrived from Karakorum, 6,000 miles to the east, bearing word that Ogatai, Genghis Khan’s successor, had died. The Mongols immediately turned their army around and marched back to the east, never to return.

All of eastern and southern Russia remained under occupation by the Mongol horde, however, and the rest of Russia escaped occupation only by acknowledging itself a vassal state and paying tribute to the Mongols.

[After a few paragraphs Pierce writes of another type of calamity of Asian invaders into Europe: the Muslims]

The most effective means which the Ottomans employed in their struggle against White Europe, and the most humiliating to their White adversaries, was their corps of Janissaries. The Janissaries were the Ottomans’ elite army and they were entirely White.

During the reign of Emir Orkhan (1326-1359), the Ottoman ruler who first seized European soil, an edict was issued commanding the Emir’s White subjects to deliver to him each year exactly 1,000 young, male children.

turkey-janissaries

These children, who were required to have faces “white and shining,” were torn from their mothers’ breasts and then raised by the Turks with special care and rigor, trained in arms from a tender age and conditioned to give absolute obedience to their masters. Their military discipline was especially severe, but they were liberally rewarded for courage and proficiency.

The yearly levy of 1,000 White children was continued for 300 years, until 1648, and during that period the Janissaries came to be the most efficient and feared corps of warriors in the world. They sustained the Turkish power in Central Europe, while the Mongol power in Eastern Europe withered.

Hungary was the unfortunate battleground between Europeans and the Turks and their Janissaries during much of this time, with ownership of various parts or the whole passing back and forth from one side to the other.

At times the Turks entertained dreams of a general conquest of Europe, and it was not until the failure of their second siege of Vienna in 1683 that they began a slow retreat which lasted almost another two and one-half centuries. Even today Turkey retains a beachhead of several thousand square miles on the European side of the Bosporus.

Bastardized Balkans. The Ottoman Turks were the last of the Asian invaders of Europe, but they were certainly not the least. Their occupation has left as severe a racial imprint on the Balkan peoples—Yugoslavs, Albanians, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Rumanians—as the Mongol occupation did on the Russians.

Nevertheless, there remain today many groups throughout the Balkans which are as White as any group in Western Europe: some are immigrants from the north during recent centuries, while others are the descendants of clans and tribes which jealously guarded the purity of their blood and were able to avoid substantial racial mixture even during the darkest days of Asian occupation.

Who we are (21)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 21 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Mighty Saga of the Northmen
Ninth and 10th Centuries: Viking Triumphs in Western Europe
Purest White Heritage Survives in North Atlantic
Land Scarcity, Spirit of Heroism Impelled Vikings
Christianity, Lack of Northern Solidarity Bring End to Viking Age



MaxfieldParrish_1

Just as it was the Northmen who, by imposing order on Europe’s eastern frontier in the second half of the first millennium, stiffened that frontier and made Russia a White racial bulwark against the non-White hordes of Asia, it was also the Northmen who, in the same era, pushed Europe’s western frontier westward across the great, unknown Ocean Sea, opening up new lands for settlement by succeeding generations of our race.

Called many names—Danes, Geats, Norsemen, Rus, Swedes, Varangers—they are best known to us by the name which is also used to characterize both the age in which they flourished and the way of life of many of them: Vikings. Like two great waves of raiders, conquerors, and colonizers before them, the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, they came from the Nordic heartland: southern Sweden and Norway, the Danish peninsula, the adjoining portion of northern Germany, and the nearby North Sea and Baltic islands.

They are of special interest to us in our endeavor to understand who we are, not so much because most of us have Viking forebears (although a great many people with immediate roots in Ireland, Scotland, England, and northwestern France, as well as in Scandinavia, do), but because they give us a clearer, more detailed picture of that pure essence of Indo-Europeanism of Whiteness—which is the common heritage of all of us, whether our recent ancestors were Germans, Celts, Balts, or Slavs, than we can obtain from a study of any other European people.

German in language like the Goths and the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings retained other aspects of Germanic culture which those earlier emigrants from the Nordic heartland had already lost by the dawn of the Viking Age. In particular, the Vikings held to their Indo-European religion and world view longer than any of the other Germanic peoples. They also remained hardier, fiercer in battle, and more venturesome than those who had been softened by the more civilized living to the south.

The Vikings not only serve us as an especially useful epitome of Whiteness at a time when our survival demands a renewal of the best of our old values and strengths, but they also provide us with a clear reminder of the danger inherent in one of our most lethal weaknesses: excessive individualism and lack of racial solidarity. A study of the Vikings acquaints us with both the best and the worst (or, in this age, the least affordable) of the characteristics of our race.

A tenth-century Viking narrative poem, Rigsthula (Song of Rig), provides a fanciful account of the origins of the Scandinavian population. In it a traveler named Rig (i.e., “king”) is given lodging at three dwellings. At each he manages to impregnate the woman of the house before he leaves, thereby fathering three sons.

The first woman is old and wrinkled, and she dwells in a hovel. The son she bears for Rig is dark, stooped, and ugly. He is named Thrall, and from him is descended the race of serfs and slaves, the hewers of wood and the carriers of water.

The second woman is younger, better looking, better housed, and more industrious. Her son by Rig is a sturdy, light-eyed boy, and is given the name Karl. From Karl is descended the race of free peasants and craftsmen.

The third woman is young, tall, blond, and lovely, and the house in which she lives is large and magnificent. She bears Rig a son who is strong and straight of limb, white of skin, fair of hair, light of eyes, and quick of mind. He is named Jarl (Earl), and he quickly learns the magic of the runes and the mastery of weapons. He hunts, rides, fights, and fears no man. From him is descended the race of kings and lords of the earth.

Rig himself is identified with the Norse god Heimdall, the whitest of all the gods and the father of all mankind. Rigsthula reminds us of the ancient Aryan religious work, the Rigveda, which, more than 20 centuries earlier, also gave a fanciful account of the origins of the races. It is clear that Rig’s descendants via Thrall represent the dark, round-headed element in the Scandinavian population, and that this element was at some time in the past held in a servile status by a largely Nordic ruling class.

Scandinavian mythology may also reflect racial memories of early contacts between Nordic invaders and Cro-Magnon natives, in the numerous references to “frost giants.”

In any event, by the dawn of the Viking Age a general mixing had taken place. Thralls may still have been darker, on the average, than the free farmers or the nobility, but one could find Nordic slaves, largely the consequence of the Viking policy of enslaving prisoners of war, and one could also find darker elements among the wealthy and powerful, as evidenced by the names of such leaders as Halfdan the Black (ninth-century king of a Viking realm in southern Norway). By far the dominant racial element among the Vikings, however, was Nordic.

To the north of the Northmen, in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, were the Lapps, a very primitive race which lived a nomadic life and gained its sustenance primarily from the reindeer of the forest and tundra. The sixth-century historians Jordanes and Procopius describe the Lapps as being culturally little above the beasts on which they preyed.

Both racially and linguistically the Lapps were closely related to the Finno-Ugric tribes to the east. They were short, predominantly dark (although today some Lapps are blond, apparently having absorbed Nordic genes), broad-nosed, and extremely round-headed. They were certainly partly, and perhaps wholly, responsible for the dark element among the Vikings, although there was little mixing between Vikings and Lapps during the Viking Age, because of their entirely different lifestyles. The mixing must have taken place during the prehistoric period, perhaps shortly after the proto-Germans arrived in Scandinavia and before they had driven the ancestors of the Lapps further north.

The isolation by terrain and climate of many Viking communities did not prevent the Vikings from having a remarkable unity of culture, language, and spirit but it certainly did not encourage political unity. Viking individualism seemed to be inimical to a sense of racial solidarity. While more subjective races to the south were often drawn together by the perceived need for mutual support in the face of a hostile world, Vikings were much more inclined to face the world as individuals.

Their loyalty and sense of community seldom extended beyond the fighting band to which they belonged—or, at most, to that limited region of Norway or Denmark or whatever which they considered “home”—and they would as gladly, or almost as gladly, hew down the Vikings of a rival band as a monastery full of trembling priests in some southern land. Within the band, however, the Viking ethos demanded a solidarity as uncompromising as that of the other Germanic peoples of their time.

On the Continent too the ninth century was a period of growing pressure from the north. A Frankish chronicler writes:

The number of ships increases; the endless flood of Vikings never ceases to grow bigger, Everywhere Christ’s people are the victims of massacre, burning, and plunder. The Vikings overrun all that lies before them, and none can withstand them. They seize Bordeaux, Perigueux, Limoges, Angouleme, Toulouse; Angers, Tours, and Orleans are made deserts. Ships past counting voyage up the Seine…. Rouen is laid waste, looted, and burned. Paris, Beauvais, Meaux are taken; Melun’s stronghold is razed to the ground; Chartres occupied; Evreux and Bayeux looted; and every town invested.

Just as in England and Ireland, however, Vikings who at first came only to seize women and gold later came to seize land as well. This process reached its climax early in the 10th century when a Viking band wrested away from the West Franks a substantial piece of territory in northwestern France, south of the lower Seine. In 911 the Frankish king Charles the Simple, the great-great-grandson of Charlemagne, gave legal sanction to this conquest by recognizing the Viking leader Ganga-Hrolf as his vassal and confirming the latter in the ownership of the land which his band had already seized.

Ganga-Hrolf (i.e., Hrolf the Ganger or Ralph the Walker, so named because he was too large to be carried by any horse), called Rollo by the French, in turn submitted to baptism and settled down to the task of enlarging and consolidating his domain. He was the first Duke of Normandy, as his land came to be known, after its Nor(se)man conquerors.

First White American. In the year 986 the Viking Bjarni Herjulfsson, sailing from Norway to Greenland, missed his intended destination and instead found himself off the coast of a previously unknown land: North America. Bjarni did not land, but he carried the news of his sighting back to Greenland.

Leif, the son of Eric the Red, bought Bjarni’s ship from him and set out to see the new land for himself. He established a small settlement at a place he called Vinland, on the island of Newfoundland, but he only spent one winter there.

A few years later another Greenland Viking, Thorfinn Karlsefni, made a determined effort to establish a permanent Viking presence in America. He fitted out three longships and recruited 160 men and women to accompany him on the westward voyage. They built a community in North America which they called Straumfjord, and in 1004 Thorfinn’s wife Gudrid bore him a son, Snorri, there: the first native White American.

Unrelenting attacks by Indians—Skraelings to the Vikings—made life very difficult for Thorfinn’s American colonists, however, and after three years they abandoned their settlement and returned to Greenland.

Had the Vikings’ weapons been technologically superior to the bows and arrows of the Skraelings—as Columbus’ firearms were—then White history in America would have begun 500 years sooner than it did. As it was, the individual superiority of the Viking warriors in battle could not make up for the enormous numerical advantage enjoyed by the hordes of Red men who opposed them.

In 1962 archaeologists excavated the ruins of what is believed to have been Straumfjord, near the present Newfoundland village of L’Anse aux Meadows.

In Greenland too, with is utterly inhospitable environment, the Viking presence did not last. Initially there were no hostile Skraelings in Greenland—in fact, the first Eskimos did not arrive on the island until nearly 400 years after the Vikings—but the total lack of trees, metal ores, and other natural resources, together with the scarcity of farmland, kept the White population down to a maximum of 3,000 persons, scattered among some 300 farms.

Ironically, it seems to have been piracy which was the undoing of the Greenland Vikings. Although they were Christianized shortly after the year 1,000 and gave up their warlike ways and the raiding of other lands for gold and women, there was still a strong demand for blond slave girls in Moorish Spain and North Africa and in the Turkish lands to the southeast. The demand was met by pirates recruited in England and Germany by Jewish middlemen, who began raiding the island settlements of the North Atlantic in the 14th century.

Purest Cultural Heritage. Iceland—which suffered its last attack by White-slaving pirates as late as the 19th century—and the other Viking islands survived the raids, but Greenland did not.

Today these North Atlantic islands, of which Iceland with its quarter-million inhabitants is the most significant, preserve the Viking cultural heritage in its purest form. The modern Icelandic and Faroese languages are nearly identical to the Old Norse spoken by the Vikings, while English and the other Germanic languages have undergone great changes during the last 1,000 years. In folkways as well, many Viking traits have been preserved in the islands, especially in Iceland and the Faroes. There has even been a return to the Viking religion by some Icelanders in recent years.

Racially, Iceland does not present quite as pure a picture as one might wish, for the ninth-century Viking settlers were not all jarls and karls; they brought their thralls along with them as well. Despite this lapse, their descendants today are biologically closer to the original Viking stock than the population of any other country. This racial quality is reflected not only in the tallest average statute in the White world, but in the highest literacy rate (100 per cent) as well.

Not only do all Icelanders read and write, but a far higher proportion of them are authors than is true for any other country. And, despite her tiny population, which is able to support only a single university, Iceland is able to boast a larger per capita Nobel Laureate quota than any other nation on earth.

Iceland is outstanding in another respect as well: alone among the White nations of the world it does not bear the curse of non-White minorities; it has no Blacks, no Jews, no Vietnamese, no Mexicans. Iceland has not been invaded for the last 1,000 years, except during the Second World War, when the country was occupied by American troops. The bulk of the foreigners withdrew after the war, and Icelanders insisted that future U.S. troops sent to man the air base which the United States was allowed to maintain on the island include no non-Whites.

icelandic sagasThe greatest debt that the White race owes to Icelanders is for their preservation of the Norse literary heritage: the Viking sagas. While church officials in other European countries were rounding up and burning all the pre-Christian books they could lay their hands on during the Middle Ages, Icelandic scholars were busy writing down the sagas which still existed only in oral form and transcribing, annotating, and expanding those which had been put into writing earlier.

Even where we must use extreme caution in drawing historical data from the sagas, they give us a clear and unambiguous picture of the Viking ethos and the Viking world view, of Viking attitudes, beliefs, feelings and temperament.

Fortunately, when it is Norse history we want we have the records of the Vikings’ literate Frankish and English cousins to supplement and clarify the semi-legendary material of the sagas. From these records we can also gain a good deal of insight into some of the external forces and circumstances which raised the curtain on the Viking Age in the eighth century and then lowered it in the 11th.

One of the forces was certainly the tide of Christendom which was rising over Europe from the south during the eighth century. The Franks had become Christianized during the sixth century, after their king, Chlodwig (Clovis), accepted baptism, but the Saxons, the immediate neighbors of the Northmen, rejected the alien religion from the Levant and held to their ancestral ways, as did the Northmen themselves, of course.

Genocidal Evangelism. Beginning in 772, a year after he became sole king of the Franks upon the death of his brother Carloman, Karl, later known to the French as Charlemagne, son of Pepin the Short and grandson of Karl the Hammer, waged a 32-year campaign of genocidal evangelism against the Saxons. The campaign began with Karl’s destruction of the Irminsul, or World Pillar, the Saxon equivalent of the Norse World Ash, Yggdrasil, located in the Saxons’ most sacred grove, at Eresburg (on the site of the present Marburg), and it became bloodier, crueler, and more intolerant as it wore on.

In 774, at Quierzy, Karl issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept the sweet yoke of Jesus. Henceforth a contingent of Christian priests accompanied the Frankish army on its expeditions against the Saxons, and in every Saxon village those who refused to be baptized by the priests were slaughtered on the spot.

Karl’s savagery reached a peak in the tenth year of the evangelism: in 782, at Verden on the Aller, with the blessing of the Church, he had 4,500 Saxon nobles beheaded. Twelve years later, in 794, he introduced a policy under which every third Saxon was uprooted from his land and forced to resettle among Franks or other Christianized tribes.

Fairly early in this campaign, in 777, one of the most prominent of the Saxon chieftains, Widukind, took shelter among the Danes and appealed to their king, Sigfred, for assistance against the Franks. Although the Danes were wary of becoming involved in a full-scale war against the formidable Karl, they and the other Northern peoples were put on their guard, and they became increasingly indignant over the Frankish suppression of the Saxons’ religion.

Karl’s brutal campaign against the Saxons undoubtedly helped raise a certain consciousness in the North of the spiritual and cultural differences which separated Scandinavia from those lands which had fallen under the yoke of the Christian Church.

The internal forces leading to the eruption of the Vikings from their Northern fjords were even stronger than the external ones. Among the former was a very high birthrate specifically among the most active and aggressive of the Northmen, the result of their customary practice of polygyny.

According to the 11th-century German ecclesiastical historian, Adam of Bremen, every Swede of more than average substance kept two or three wives, while the nobility had no limit to the number of women they allowed themselves. For example, Harald Fairhair, the Norwegian warrior who unified Norway in the ninth century and became its first king, had as many as 40 sons by some accounts, at least nine of whom are known to history; and Harald’s son Erik Bloodaxe had at least eight sons who grew to manhood.

In the capitalistic South such a practice may have meant only that the cleverest and crookedest paper-shufflers—i.e., the richest men—would have more progeny, on the average, than honest workingmen, but in the hard living North, where every man’s mettle was tested almost daily by his environment and by his fellows, it was marvelously eugenic: the strong, the able, and the aggressive had proportionately more children than they would have had in a monogamous society.

Another interesting eugenic contrast between North and South is provided by the Christian practice of clerical celibacy. Although there were many periods during the Middle Ages in which violations were commonplace, as early as the fourth century the Church began insisting on total celibacy for the higher clergy. With the growing incidence of monasticism after the sixth century, a greatly increased portion of the population of Christian Europe was subjected to the rule of celibacy.

In the Middle Ages the clerical life was not, as is often the case today, simply a refuge for those who could succeed at nothing else; it was usually the only route to scholarship—and often the only route to literacy as well—and it attracted many able and intelligent men, whose genes were then lost to their race. For a thousand years, until the Reformation, there was a selective draining away of Christian Europe’s intellectual vitality.

A Mighty Hive. The high birthrate among the most active and energetic elements of the population in the Northern countries led to land-hunger and the drive for external conquests. In the words of 17th-century English statesman and writer Sir William Temple: “Each of these countries was like a mighty hive, which, by the vigor of propagation and health of climate, growing too full of people, threw out some new swarm at certain periods of time that took wing and sought out some new abode, expelling or subduing the old inhabitants and seating themselves in their rooms.” This state of affairs also held long before the Viking Age, of course.

In addition to the generalized effects of a high birthrate, two other consequences of polygyny which bore on the rise of viking as a way of life were the large numbers of second, third, fourth, and later sons in the families of Norse landholders—sons left without inheritance and without land, unless they could wrest it away from someone else—and a shortage of women.

The most popular way to solve the latter problem was to go on a raid and carry off women from Ireland, England, or France, although there was also a heavy traffic in Slav slave girls from the Rus realms. The Hrafnsmal tells of life in Harald Fairhair’s court: “Glorious is their way of life, those warriors who play chess in Harald’s court. They are made rich with money and fine swords, with metal of Hunaland and girls from the east.”

The political consolidation which began taking place in Scandinavia in the ninth century served as an especially strong impetus to Viking colonizers. As mentioned earlier, the Vikings were extremely individualistic, extremely resentful of any encroachments on their freedom of action. After Harald Fairhair won a great sea victory at Hafrsfjord over the Viking chieftains of western Norway in 872, many of them left Norway with their households and their followers and settled in Iceland and the smaller islands of the North Atlantic rather than submit to Harald’s rule.

A century later, political consolidation having been achieved, Scandinavian monarchs began to realize the policy advantages in bringing their people into the same religious camp as their neighbors to the south. The first to take the step was Denmark’s Harald Bluetooth, son of King Gorm the Old. In 965, fifteen years after Gorm’s death, Harald allowed himself to be baptized, and then he undertook the forcible conversion of the rest of the Danes: a move which did not sit well with many and led to further emigration and turmoil in the North. It also led eventually to Harald’s deposition and banishment.

Olav_Tryggvasons_sagaThe Last Viking. The coming of Christianity to the Viking world eventually meant the end of that world, but it did not change the Viking ethos immediately, as is evidenced by the life of a man who was certainly one of the most remarkable of all the Vikings, and the last of the truly great ones: Harald Sigurdsson, who, after he became king of Norway, was also known as Harald Hardraada (Hard Ruler) and Harald the Ruthless.

His deeds are the subject of one of the most fascinating of the Viking sagas (King Harald’s Saga), which we would be inclined to dismiss as an unusually imaginative work of heroic fiction, were it not solidly confirmed by the historical record.

The Vikings’ fighting spirit had been sapped by Christianity, but an even larger factor in their demise was their inability to keep in check their quarrels among themselves, combine their forces against outsiders, and thus match the growing power of kings in more unified lands than their own. Excessive individualism took its final toll.

The Scorpion and the Frog

by William Pierce

scorpionI was a guest on the Bob Grant Show in New York last week. Bob Grant’s talk radio show is enormously popular with his White male audience, despite his rough treatment of some of his guests and many of his callers. A typical comment to a caller who displeases him is, “Get off the line, you jerk!” He once told a Black welfare mother, “If I ever get hold of you, I’ll give you a tubal ligation with my bare hands!”

As I said, comments of this sort make Bob Grant enormously popular with his White male listeners, but the Jews and their bedwetting liberal fellow travelers find him much less entertaining, and he has been thrown off several stations as a consequence of Jewish threats against his sponsors. Despite this Jewish hostility directed at him and despite his frequent ridicule of Blacks, he always has been favorable in his remarks about Jews—perhaps because he knows who owns most of the radio stations, or perhaps because he just doesn’t understand what Jews are all about and admires their success and the power they wield over his own profession.

His attitude may be changing for the better now, however. Despite my reputation as being no friend of the Jews, Bob Grant was quite cordial toward me. The hour I was his guest was the afternoon rush hour for New York commuters, and there were many calls from listeners. I am pleased to report that at least three-quarters of the callers were favorable to my positions on race and on Jews. The few Jewish callers, of course, were intensely hostile, and their hostility made a noticeable contrast with the friendliness of the non-Jewish callers. One Jew who called in wanted to know why I blame the Jews for the bias of the news and entertainment media. It’s not the Jews who should be blamed, he said, but the shareholders of the media companies: the Jewish media bosses just do what the shareholders tell them to do.

Well, I responded by pointing out that the top Jewish media bosses also are in many cases the dominant shareholders in the media companies, and I gave Sumner Redstone as an example. Redstone is the majority shareholder in his Viacom Corporation, which in turn owns MTV, Paramount Pictures, and CBS. I described MTV as being the most destructive of all media influences on young, White Americans. I said that MTV deliberately and consistently encourages miscegenation. I said that this racially destructive policy is Sumner Redstone’s policy, not that of any anonymous shareholders, that it is a Jewish policy, and that it is the same policy as that of every other Jewish media boss. I was prepared to go on and talk about Michael Eisner and the Disney Company and ABC, and about Miramax and the Weinstein brothers, and about a lot of others, but Bob Grant disconnected that particular Jewish caller.

Then Bob Grant said to me: “I don’t understand. You said that Sumner Redstone and the other Jewish media bosses are deliberately trying to destroy our society. Why would they want to do that? They are rich and powerful and influential. This society has been good to them. Why would they want to destroy it? That doesn’t make sense to me.”

That was the question he asked me, and it was a very reasonable question. It was the question that almost any intelligent, honest person might ask in those circumstances. It was the natural question to ask: Why do the Jews want to destroy a society that has been so good to them—especially the richest and most powerful Jews? One can imagine some embittered Jewish cab driver or office clerk wanting to strike out at Gentile society because he is resentful over the fact that he can’t seem to strike it rich like the more fortunate members of his tribe, but why would those who are riding high—billionaire Jews such as Sumner Redstone and Michael Eisner—want to wreck the system from which they are profiting?

When Bob Grant asked me that question, I wished he hadn’t. I knew the answer, and it is a simple answer, but it’s not the sort of answer one wants to give to people who are driving home through rush-hour traffic. It is simple, but it also is profound. One needs to hear the answer and then to think about it carefully for a month, turning it over in one’s mind, thinking of specific examples, trying to find counter-examples, holding it up to the light of one’s knowledge of history, before one finally says to oneself, “Yes, that’s it. That obviously is why the Jews do what they do and always have done.” It takes a month of digesting the answer before one finally assimilates it and believes it and understands it. Rush-hour traffic is not the right environment for that sort of thing.

The answer, in its simplest form, to Bob Grant’s question is this: Jews do what they do because they are Jews. A more didactic answer, and the one I actually gave on the Bob Grant Show last week, is one you probably have heard from me already if you’ve been listening to many of my broadcasts. Here’s what I said to Bob Grant: The Jews, throughout their entire recorded history, have lived as a minority among other people. That’s their typical modus vivendi: not living among themselves in a Jewish society, but living as a small minority—usually a rich and powerful minority—in a non-Jewish society. Israel today is an exception to this pattern, but Israel is an anomaly, something that has existed for only 50 years out of the last 2000 years, and even today it encompasses only a small minority of the world’s Jews. Most of them live in the so-called “Diaspora” as members of a Jewish minority in the midst of a Gentile society.

When the Jews approach a healthy, homogeneous Gentile society with the aim of infiltrating it, they are looked upon as outsiders, as aliens, and regarded with suspicion—and often with hostility if their reputation has preceded them. Facing such suspicion the Jews find it very difficult to gain power or influence so that they can exploit the society. Their way of dealing with this obstacle is to undermine the solidarity of the Gentile society: to destroy its homogeneity, to attack its morality and its traditions, to encourage alienation among its young people. They do everything they can to make the society more “diverse,” more multicultural, more cosmopolitan, more rootless, more atomized. This is a slow process, often continuing for several generations, but as it proceeds the society’s barriers against the Jews crumble. Ultimately it allows the Jews to control and then plunder the society, to suck it dry before moving on to another Gentile society and beginning a similar process anew.

That’s essentially what I said on the Bob Grant Show last week, although I’m sure that the phrasing I used was a little different. And as I said a moment ago, even though my answer is simple and straightforward, it’s not likely to be fully digested by someone listening to his car radio while trying to get home in rush-hour traffic. It’s a statement of fact, but it needs to be substantiated with a lot of detailed explanation, with many concrete examples, in order to be convincing. What I’ll do now is try to provide some of the explanation and some of the concrete facts.

First, let’s look at what I said about the Jews being a tribe of perpetual outsiders. This is a notion many people who look only at the here and now have difficulty believing. They say to me, “Hey! The Jews aren’t outsiders. They’re as thoroughly integrated into the American melting pot as anyone. They are in every facet of American business and professional and cultural and political life. They own stores of every sort. They buy and sell every type of merchandise. They may not be farmers or welders or machinists or carpenters, but they are doctors and dentists and lawyers and teachers and writers and artists and musicians. They are politicians. There are ten of them in the U.S. Senate, four times as many as one would expect from their percentage of the overall population. There are even two of them on the Supreme Court, which is about nine times what one would expect, since they make up only 2.5 per cent of the general population. So how can you call them outsiders?”

That’s the sort of response I’ve sometimes had from people who are able to see only the present situation. The historical record, however, shows something quite different. It shows the Jews worming their way into one country in Europe after another, gradually monopolizing certain sectors of the economy and then using their monopoly to exploit the Gentile population, and eventually being expelled en masse when their depredations cause sufficient public unrest.

An example is England. The Jews entered England in the wake of the Norman conquest, purchased various privileges and trade monopolies from the ruling monarchs, and made themselves thoroughly unpopular. By the latter part of the 13th century the people of England had become so exasperated with the Jews that in 1290 King Edward the Great expelled all of them from his realm and forbade them ever to return. One might think that they wouldn’t want to go back to a place where they had become so unpopular, but they couldn’t stand the idea of all those Gentiles going unfleeced, and they never stopped scheming to get back in. It wasn’t until Oliver Cromwell and his forces had overthrown the monarchy in the middle of the 17th century, however, that they were permitted to return to England.

They also were run out of virtually every other country in Europe—several times from some of them—but they always were looking for opportunities to sneak back in and return to their old depredations. They especially welcomed the upheavals and dislocations accompanying wars and revolutions because these gave them opportunities to gain footholds in places from which public hostility or the law had excluded them. During the Napoleonic Wars at the beginning of the 19th century Jews followed Napoleon’s armies into many places from which they previously had been barred.

Usually they didn’t have to wait for a war, however: typically they would depend upon the natural tolerance of their hosts to get a toe in the door, and then they would work slowly and patiently to push that tolerance beyond all limits. They always have had an uncanny instinct for sniffing out their hosts’ natural weaknesses and vices and then using them to break down the society’s discipline and order, thereby making it possible for them to enlarge their toehold and gain more influence. Thus, the Jews always have had a proclivity for the liquor business, casinos and other gambling activity, prostitution, the White slave trade, pornography, and the like. It is no coincidence that for many years the Jewish Bronfman family owned the biggest producer and distributor of liquor in North America, the Seagram Company. There are many non-Jews involved in the hotel business around the country, but in Las Vegas, where gambling is so intimately associated with hotels, the business is completely dominated by Jews. In the booming new business of Internet pornography, the biggest operator, the so-called “Bill Gates of e-porn,” is a nice, Jewish boy named Seth Warshavsky, who owns clublove.com and many other of the largest pornography sites.

And so it goes. They find their way to whatever corrupts and weakens their hosts, to whatever is morally destructive, to whatever makes their hosts forget their own traditions and values. They attack order and discipline: those things are no fun, those things are old-fashioned, those things are not cool, they tell the young people. They ridicule the concepts of personal honor and personal responsibility. They distract the people from the important things and fill their minds with foolishness. They encourage every alienating tendency, every tendency that separates people from their roots. They preach “tolerance” as the supreme virtue: their hosts should be tolerant of every sort of filth and weakness and perversity. And all the while they worm their way into the host society more and more deeply.

And indeed, in America today they are in very, very deep. At the beginning of the last century there were signs in the lobbies of New York’s better hotels: “Jews Are Not Welcome.” The better universities had quotas to keep the Jewish presence from becoming too obtrusive. The Jews were pushy, unpleasant outsiders. But they kept on pushing, kept on breaking down the order and structure in the society that was trying in a very feeble and excessively civilized way to keep them out, and today, no less pushy and unpleasant than a century ago, they seem to have achieved the status of insiders everywhere.

And so one might ask, as Bob Grant did, why, having become privileged insiders, are they still bent on destroying our society? Why do even the richest and most powerful Jews—Jews such as Sumner Redstone and Michael Eisner—who have access to anything in our society they want, still work day and night to corrupt and degrade us? Why, having wormed their way in, do all of them push for increasing the flood of non-Whites into the United States from the Third World, thereby weakening their own position? Why do they still encourage our young girls to have sex with Blacks, thereby generating hatred against themselves? Why, having gotten so much of our wealth and power into their hands, don’t they strive to strengthen our society instead of continuing to destroy it?

Well, there are several reasons for that, but let me again give you the simplest answer, which also is the most profound answer: Jews do what they do because they are Jews.

scorpDo you remember the old fable about the scorpion and the frog? The scorpion wants to cross a stream, but he can’t swim. He sees a frog and asks the frog to carry him across on the frog’s back. The frog says, “No, I don’t trust you. I’ve heard about how treacherous scorpions are. I’m afraid that if I let you get on my back you’ll sting me.” The scorpion replies, “Why should I do that? That wouldn’t be in my interest. If I sting you, then we’ll both drown.” So the frog agrees to let the scorpion get on his back and begins swimming across the stream. Halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog. As the frog is dying and beginning to sink, he asks, “Why did you do that? Now we’ll both die.” The scorpion answers, “I couldn’t help myself. It is in my nature to sting.” And it is in the nature of the Jews to deceive and to destroy. That is what they always have done, from the days of ancient Egypt to the present, and it is what they will continue to do as long as they continue to exist as a coherent, self-conscious group.

Now, there also are longer answers to the question, for those who aren’t ready yet to accept the profound answer. Many ethnic groups came to America from Europe and at first were considered as outsiders but sooner or later became insiders, and the interests of the majority became their interests. In a sense every group that didn’t come here from Great Britain began as outsiders. The German mercenaries from Hessen who fought for King George and stayed here after the American Revolution very quickly became insiders. The Irish, the Poles, and the Italians all went through a similar evolution. Why is it so different with the Jews—aside from the fact that their roots are not European but are Middle Eastern?

For one thing these other groups, the non-Jewish groups, never had deceit and destruction as their primary tactics for becoming insiders. These tactics are not part of their history. Their aim was to become part of the society, not to break it up so that they could exploit it more easily. This difference is manifested in the difference in self-image between non-Jews and Jews. Every healthy ethnic or racial group has a distinct sense of group identity and a distinct self-image. The Scots and the English, for example, have distinct self-images, with their own distinct ancestral languages, their own historical traditions and customs and so on. But despite their history of conflict and hostility toward one another in Europe, either group can blend into the other and adopt the other’s interests without difficulty.

The Jews are different in both degree and kind. For one thing they are much more strongly ethnocentric than any other group. Look in the Yellow Pages under the heading “associations” in any large American city. Compare the number of Jewish associations or clubs or societies or organizations with those of the Irish or the Germans or the Poles. Of course, you also must have some idea of what percentage of the city’s population is Jewish or Irish or whatever in order to get a meaningful comparison. For the best statistics, go to a library that has a copy of the Encyclopedia of Associations. Jews make up just 2.5 per cent of the population of the United States, and yet you will find more Jewish associations listed than for any other ethnic or religious group. They do stick together and support each other more than the members of any other group.

The Jews also are different in kind. What is the essential element in being a Jew? It is being “chosen.” It is believing that one is a member of a tribe or a race or a people that has been chosen by their tribal god to inherit the earth and all that’s in it. It is being superior to all who have not been chosen. If you are able to read the Old Testament with an open mind, the message there is quite clear. If you want more detail, read their Talmud. They don’t like for you to go poking around in their Talmud, but if you are reasonably resourceful you can find a set of volumes of the Talmud and read what they think about themselves in contrast to non-Jews. If that’s too much trouble for you, there are other books available—books written by race-conscious Jews themselves—that spell it out for you. My sponsor, National Vanguard Books, carries several such books.

The book You Gentiles, by the Jewish leader Maurice Samuel, is excellent for a start. Then there are the very revealing books on the doctrines and practice of Judaism by Israeli Professor Israel Shahak. And there are dozens of other books, many of them written by Jews themselves, that can help you in digesting and assimilating what I told Bob Grant last week.

But most fundamentally the Jew, like the scorpion and every other creature, does what it is in his nature to do. He has always lived not by settling down on a piece of turf of his own and planting his own crops and building his own house, but rather by breaking into someone else’s house. And once in he doesn’t try to repair the damage he did by breaking in, but he continues to cause more and more damage as he loots everything of value and then, when there is nothing of value remaining, finding another house to break into—and then another—and another. That is his nature.

And, I should add, there is hardly a more important thing for any of us to do now than understand why the Jews are pushing our society over the brink of ruin, and then to oppose them by every means possible.

__________________________

Free Speech
July 2001
Volume VII, Number 7

Published in: on December 19, 2012 at 4:26 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: ,

Who We Are (22)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 22 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Centuries of Colonialism Yield Benefits, Perils
Nearly All Black Slaves Went to Iberian America
Economic Colonialism Is Racial Treason



MaxfieldParrish_1

With the close of the Viking Age in the latter half of the 11th century, we left the prehistoric period, with all its pagan vigor, behind us in the previous installment and entered an era described more or less fully by contemporary written accounts. Our aim here, in accord with the purpose of this entire series, is to select from the wealth of historical material covering the events of the last 900 years that which is especially pertinent to racial developments, rather than to political, religious, economic, artistic, scientific, or other cultural aspects of life—keeping always in mind, of course, that, in the final analysis, race and culture are inseparable.

We have already noted, however briefly, the racial developments in Iberia through the 15th century (installment 19) and in Eastern Europe through the 17th century (installment 20). Most of what follows will be concerned with the North and the West of Europe: more specifically, with the people of that region and their expansion over the globe.

For five centuries after the abandonment of the settlements in North America, Europe staggered along under the burden of a number of problems: battling Moors, Turks, and Mongols on its southern and eastern frontiers and often well inside those frontiers; yielding up the last of its spiritual and mental freedom and settling into a straitjacket of superstition and orthodoxy, as the Christian Church tightened its grip on all of Europe; succumbing to the Black Death by the tens of millions, as this dread scourge swept over the land in the 14th century and killed every fourth European. In addition to these problems imported into Europe from Asia, the Europeans were no slouches at generating problems of their own, and territorial and dynastic warfare continued to take their toll throughout the Middle Ages.

By the beginning of the 15th century, however, the indomitable spirit of the White race was clearly making gains on several fronts: material, intellectual, and spiritual. On the first of these, European energy and inventiveness had kept up a slow but steady increase in productivity, both in agriculture and in the crafts, so that, despite the ravages of war and plague, the accumulation of wealth in all social strata had resulted in an average standard of living vastly higher than in any Asian land.

In the fifth decade of the century the German printer Johann Gutenberg of Mainz developed the process of printing with movable, metal type to the point that the mass production of books could be undertaken. For the first time in the life of the race the recording and general dissemination of man’s accumulated knowledge to all with the wit and the will to profit by it became a practical matter.

And it was only in Europe that this wit and will were manifested. Some of the earlier developments in the printing craft had come from Asia—ink and paper, for example—but the explosion in knowledge resulting from Gutenberg’s work was confined almost entirely to our own European ancestors. By the end of the 15th century 1,000 new titles per year were being produced by Europe’s book printers. By 1815 the number had climbed to 20,000 per year.

Even on the spiritual front there was progress. The Church, grown soft, corrupt, and overconfident in the centuries since the Saxons and the Vikings had been forced to the baptismal font, was spoiling for an upset by the end of the 15th century. It had laid the basis for its own downfall, and early in the following century its monopoly in matters of the spirit was dealt two lethal blows, first by Martin Luther in Germany (1517), and, a little over a decade later, by King Henry VIII in England. It is one of history’s sweetest ironies that Martin Luther was a Saxon and King Henry was the descendant of Norman Vikings.

last-days-of-tenochtitlanAmerind Fate. The native Amerinds found by the Spaniards in the West Indies were, like those of the mainland, of Mongoloid derivation, being the descendants of Mongoloid peoples who had begun crossing the Bering Strait from Siberia to North America some 12,000 years ago and had then gradually propagated throughout the empty North and South American continents and the adjacent islands.

Since the Spaniards’ entire purpose in the New World was economic exploitation, not the propagation of their own race, they did not deliberately liquidate the native population. In some areas, however, that was the inadvertent effect of the Spanish conquest. The Indians were not constitutionally suited to the unremitting slave labor in the gold and silver mines and on the sugar plantations which was forced on them by their new masters, and they died like flies under the Spanish yoke.

An enormous toll was also taken by smallpox, a disease endemic among the Europeans but one to which the Amerinds, isolated as they had been for thousands of years, had no natural immunity. It virtually depopulated the Caribbean islands and then wreaked havoc among the mainland Indians. (The Indian revenge was syphilis, a New World disease entirely new to the Europeans—at least, in the new and virulent form in which it existed among the Amerinds.)

Beginning of the Black Tide. Because of the inadequacy of the Indians as a local labor force, the Spaniards almost immediately began importing Negro slaves from West Africa. The latter belong to a race ideally suited to the plantation labor of that era. The Blacks were first used in the West Indies, then on the Brazilian mainland. Approximately a million of them were imported in the period 1550-1650, and by the latter date they had completely replaced the Amerind natives as a slave labor force on the Caribbean islands.

Approximately 150,000 Spaniards and Portuguese had migrated to the New World by the middle of the 17th century, and natural increase had raised their number to about 400,000. They ruled over about 9,000,000 Indians—and a growing population of mestizos (Indian-White mixed breeds), Blacks, mulattos, and Indian-Black mixed breeds. Only on the island of Cuba was there anything approaching a truly White Spanish or Portuguese community.

Northerners Arrive. From the beginning of the 17th century, however, Northern Europeans—English, French, and Dutch—began seriously contesting the Iberians’ claims on the New World. By 1650 nearly 50,000 English (and a few thousand French and Dutch) immigrants were settled on Caribbean land wrested away from the Spaniards, and another 50,000 had landed in North America.

In sharp contrast to the Spanish and Portuguese colonists, the great bulk of the Northern Europeans came to the New World not to exploit non-White labor and make money, but to settle and work the land themselves, in all-White communities. Thus, colonialism acquired two quite distinct meanings in the 17th and 18th centuries: a strictly economic meaning, which applied to all the Southern European and some of the Northern European colonies; and a racial meaning, which applied almost exclusively to the colonies of the Northerners.

The tropical climate of the Caribbean did not treat the Northerners as well as it did the Southern Europeans, however, and about half of those who settled there were killed off by fever. After reaching a total of around 100,000 by 1700, most of them moved on to North America. The ones who remained switched to Iberian-style colonialism and began importing Blacks to work Caribbean sugar plantations in much greater numbers than the Spanish and Portuguese had.

The Pollution of the South. During the 18th century nearly three million Black slaves were brought into the Caribbean by the English. Another three million were imported by the Iberians, the great majority of them going to Brazil. This established an overwhelmingly non-White population base for the Central and South American area.

It was only in the 19th century that this bleak racial picture for Latin America began to change, and then only in the southernmost part of the region, the consequence of a large influx of new European immigrants (most of them from Southern Europe) into an area which had previously had a very sparse Amerind population and had not been considered suitable for economic exploitation with Black labor by the early Spanish and Portuguese colonists. Today the only countries in South America which are substantially White are Uruguay (nearly 100 per cent), Argentina (between 80 and 90 per cent), and Chile (approximately 50 per cent).

Of the 9.5 million Negroes imported in the three centuries between 1550 and 1850, 4.25 million went to Brazil and other parts of northern South America, and 4.5 million went to the Caribbean and Central America. Another quarter of a million went to southern South America, and only half a million went to the southernmost colonies of North America.

african-slave-trade

As mentioned above, most of the Northern Europeans who came to the New World had quite different motives than did the Spanish and Portuguese. Most of the latter came only to make money, and relatively few brought their women with them; from the beginning miscegenation was common in the areas controlled by the Iberians.

The Northerners, on the other hand, came for the land and the opportunity for a new life on a new frontier. They brought their women and their plows with them, and for the most part, they did their own labor. They saw in the Indians no opportunity for economic exploitation, but only a danger to their families. Until missionaries began making Christians of the Indians and taking their side against the Whites, the latter just pushed them aside, took their land, and formed all-White communities of farmers, craftsmen, and tradesmen, as they had in Europe.


Colonization elsewhere

In Australia the Europeans (nearly all British) encountered an extremely primitive native race—in some features even more primitive than the Negro—numbering around a quarter of a million. Disease and deliberate liquidation by the Europeans had reduced the Australian aborigines to about 60,000 by the beginning of this century. Even today, under protection from the Australian government, they have recovered to only 80,000 and remain largely isolated from the predominantly Northern European population of 13 million.

In New Zealand the non-White native population was less primitive, being of Polynesian stock. The European settlers reduced the number of these Polynesians (Maoris) from an initial 250,000 to about 40,000 at the beginning of this century. Since then a misguided White policy of deliberate coddling has resulted in a population explosion back up to the quarter-million mark. Today, among a White New Zealand population of only three million, the still-expanding Maori minority, mostly urbanized, poses a growing racial threat.

England in India. First the Portuguese, then in succession the Spanish, the Dutch, the English, the Danes, the French, and the Austrians attempted to control the trade between Europe and India. In every case the motivation was strictly economic, not racial.

Although the long English experience in India had a profound influence on the national psyche of England, it provided no net benefits to the White race. The soldierly spirit of duty and uncomplaining self-sacrifice in the service of one’s kind eventually was perverted into a maudlin sense of obligation to the conquered scum of the earth. Again it was Kipling who said it best:

Take up the White Man’s burden
Send forth the best ye breed
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half child….
Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard.



Collier_1891_rudyard-kiplingThe hard lessons learned on the plains of Afghanistan were soon forgotten. Too many years of ease intervened, and moral rot set in. When the Indians became restless again after the Second World War, superstition and moral softness kept the English from dealing with them as Robert Clive had. In the end, though colonialism in its day had made some Englishmen very rich, nothing was left except the superstition and the softness. And because of that superstition and softness, it is now the Indians and the other conquered races who are colonizing England without opposition from the English.

South Africa. The story of southern Africa is different, but equally instructive. Although the Portuguese first found it, they saw no economic opportunities there and did not colonize it.

It was, in the 15th century, an almost empty land, with only a few thousand yellow-skinned Bushmen eking out an existence there by hunting and gathering. The Negroes still had not emerged from their jungles, far to the north.

The Dutch established the first settlement in southern Africa in 1652, at the Cape of Good Hope, but its purpose was only to provide a way station for their maritime traffic between Europe and the East Indies. Five years later, however, the first Dutch farmers arrived and established farmsteads in the vicinity of the way station.

By 1671 Dutch colonists were expanding from the Cape Colony deep into the interior of southern Africa, driving herds of cattle and horses before them and building farms and villages as they went.

Mixed with the Dutch trekkers into the interior were an increasing number of German colonists. In 1688 a group of French Huguenot refugees from the anti-Protestant massacres of the Counter-Reformation arrived. From this group are descended the many South Africans of today bearing French names.

Although southern Africa had become a de facto racial colony by the beginning of the 18th century, it was still a de jure economic colony, under the control of the Dutch East India company. The Company, whose sole interest was profit, saw itself losing control of what had been intended to be only a provisioning facility for its ships on the way to and from the East Indies. Consequently, in 1707 it made the fateful decision to stop providing assistance to European families who wanted to settle in its African colony.

In 1717, guided by the same profit-oriented reasoning, it decided to import Black slaves rather than bring more White craftsmen and artisans into the colony to meet a labor shortage.

The consequence of these capitalist policies was that, when the Dutch East India Company finally disappeared from the scene in 1795, a century and a half after the arrival of the first settlers, there were still only 15,000 Whites in southern Africa. Furthermore, they had started down the deadly path of dependence on Black labor, rather than total White self-sufficiency.

The loss of homogeneity had far-reaching, negative results, which are still felt today. The final end for the Whites there can be, at most, a matter of two decades away.

south-africaThe hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

Who We Are (23)

The following is my abridgement of chapter 23 of William Pierce’s history of the white race, Who We Are:

Jew vs. White: More than 3,000 Years of Conflict
Jewish Religion Holds Jews To Be “Chosen” as Rulers of World
Jewish Leaders Find Hatred Necessary
There Can Be No Peace Between Predator and Prey



MaxfieldParrish_1

The purpose of this series of historical articles is the development of a fuller knowledge and understanding of the White past in its readers, in the hope that these things will in turn lead to a stronger sense of White identity and White solidarity. Other races—Arabs, Mongols, Amerinds, Negroes, and the rest—have come into the story only to the extent that they have interacted with Whites and influenced the White destiny. One can turn to other sources for more information on them.

There is one alien race, however, which has exerted such a strong influence on the White destiny since Roman times—and especially during the past century—and which poses such an overwhelming threat to that destiny today that it deserves special treatment.

That race—which in the taxonomic sense is not a true race at all, but rather a racial-national-ethnic entity bound together partly by ties of blood; partly by religion; partly by common traditions, customs, and folkways; and wholly by a common sense of identity and perceived common interests—is, of course, the Jewish race.

Desert Nomads. In early Neolithic times the ancestors of the Jews shared the Arabian peninsula with their Semitic cousins, the Arabs, and presumably were indistinguishable from them. Desert nomads like the other Semites, they gained their sustenance from their herds of camels, sheep, and goats.

In the first half of the second millennium B.C. the first written references to the Jews appeared, the consequence of their contacts with literate peoples in Egypt and Mesopotamia during their roamings. The reviews were uniformly unfavorable.

In a research paper published this year, for example, the noted Egyptologist, Professor Hans Goedicke, chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University, associates an inscription on an Egyptian shrine of the goddess Pakht, dated to the 15th century B.C., with the departure of the Jews of Egypt which is fancifully related in the Old Testament’s Book of Exodus. The inscription reads, in part: “And when I allowed the abomination of the gods to depart, the earth swallowed their footsteps.”

ExodusThe Egyptians had reason enough to consider their departing Jewish guests “the abomination of the gods,” if there is any truth in the Biblical description of the Jews’ sojourn in Egypt. In the Book of Genesis the Jewish narrator boastfully tells of his fellow tribesmen’s takeover of the Egyptian economy and virtual enslavement of the Egyptian farmers and working people through the sort of financial chicanery which still seems to be their principal stock in trade today: When Joseph, the son of Israel (Jacob), became “ruler over all the land of Egypt” after gaining a corner on the local commodities market, he invited all his relatives in to “eat the fat of the land.” (Genesis 41-45)

But eventually, according to the first chapter of the Book of Exodus, there ascended the throne of Egypt a new pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” and who liberated the country from the grip of the Jewish moneylenders and grain brokers, eventually driving them from Egypt.

So the Egyptians may have been “prejudiced”—but, then, so was everyone else. The great Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-117 A.D.) wrote: “When the Assyrians, and after them the Medes and Persians, were masters of the Oriental world, the Jews, of all nations then held in subjection, were deemed the most contemptible.” (Histories, book 5, chapter 8)

Jewish Invasion of Palestine. The Jews first came into contact with Whites in the Middle East no later than the 12th century B.C., during the Jewish migration into Philistia (Palestine). The Philistines themselves, an Indo-European people, had invaded the area and conquered the native Canaanites only a few years before the Jews arrived (see the 11th installment in this series for a narrative of the Philistine-Jewish conflict).

In later centuries the Jews spread beyond Palestine into all the corners of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern world, in part by simply following their mercantile instincts and in part as a consequence of their misfortunes in war. In the eighth century B.C. they were conquered by the Assyrians, who deported some 27,000 of them, and in the sixth century by the Babylonians, who hauled another batch of them away. It was during these forcible dispersions that the Jews’ view of themselves as a “chosen people,” infinitely superior to their conquerors, first stood them in good stead by helping them maintain their solidarity.

Esther Turns a Trick. The sort of resentment and hostility which the Jews generate among their Gentile hosts by behavior based on the deep-seated belief that the world is their oyster is illustrated well by the Old Testament tale of Esther. Set in the fifth century B.C., it suggests that the Persians of that era had already had their fill of Jewish arrogance and pushiness and wanted badly to get rid of their Semitic guests.

The Jewish response to Persian anti-Semitism was to slip a Jewish prostitute into the palace of the Persian king, concealing her Jewishness until she had used her bedroom skills to win the king’s favor and turn him against his own nobles. The ensuing slaughter of 75,000 Persian noblemen described in the Book of Esther is probably a figment of the Jewish imagination, but it is nevertheless still celebrated with glee and gloating, more than 2,400 years after the event, by Jews around the world in their annual Purim festival.

Unfortunately, later massacres instigated or perpetrated by the Jews against their non-Jewish hosts in response to anti-Semitism were all too real. The great English historian Edward Gibbon describes some of these which took place in the first and second centuries A.D.:

From the reign of Nero (54-68) to that of Antoninus Pius (138-161) the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections.

Edward-Gibbon

Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives, and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government but of human kind.

In Cyrene they massacred 220, 000 Greeks; in Cyprus 240,000, in Egypt a very great multitude. Many of these unhappy victims were sawn asunder, according to a precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies. (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter XVI)

Actually, very little of humanity is shocked at the recital of these Jewish atrocities today, for the simple reason that the carefully laundered “approved” textbooks used in the schools omit any mention of them. Instead, humanity is treated to one television “documentary” after another, from “Holocaust” to “Masada,” in which the blameless, longsuffering Jews are “persecuted” by their enemies.

When one looks at all of Jewish history from the time of the Egyptian sojourn to the present, the outstanding feature which emerges is its endless series of cycles, each consisting of a period of increasingly arrogant and blatant depredations by the Jews against their hosts, followed by a period of reaction, in which either the exasperated Gentiles slaughter, drive out, and otherwise “persecute” the Jewish offenders; or the Jews manage to get the drop on their hosts instead and arrange a slaughter of Gentiles; or both.

Dual Existence. Indeed, this feature of Jewish history is not only outstanding, it is essential: without it the Jews would have ceased to exist by Roman times, at the latest. For the Jews are a unique people, the only race which has deliberately chosen a dual mode of national existence, dispersed among the Gentile nations from which they suck their sustenance and at the same time fiercely loyal to their center in Zion, even during the long periods of their history when Zion was only an idea instead of a sovereign political entity.

Without the diaspora the concrete Zion—i.e., the state of Israel—could not exist; and without the abstract Zion—i.e., the concept of the Jews as a united and exclusive whole, divinely ordained to own and rule the world—the diaspora could not exist.

Israel would not survive a year, were it not for the flow of “reparations” payments from West Germany, the billions of dollars in economic and military aid from the United States, and, most of all, the threat of armed retaliation by the United States against any Arab nation which actually makes a serious effort to dispossess the Jews of their stolen Arab territory.

It is certainly not love for the Jews on the part of the masses of Germans and Americans which maintains this support for Israel. It is instead a combination of two things: first, the enormous financial and political power of the Jews of the United States, the latter exercised primarily through the dominant Jewish position in the controlled news media; and second, the influence of a relatively small but vocal and well-organized minority of Jew-worshipping Christian fundamentalists, who accept at face value the Jews’ claim to be the divinely ordained rulers of the world.

And the diaspora would survive little more than a generation, were it not for the Jewish consciousness, the concept of Zion. It is this alone which keeps the dispersed Jews from becoming assimilated by their Gentile hosts, for the Jewish consciousness inevitably raises a barrier of mutual hatred between Jews and Gentiles.

How can a Jew of the diaspora, who is taught from the cradle that he belongs to a “chosen race,” do other than despise the goyim around him, who are not even considered human beings by his religious teachers? How can he do other than hate them for holding back him and his fellow Jews from the world dominion which he believes belongs rightfully to the Jewish nation? And how can Gentiles fail to sense this contempt and hatred and respond in kind?

Action and Reaction. In recapitulation, the dynamic of the interaction between Jew and Gentile is this: as soon as the Jews have infiltrated a Gentile land in sufficient numbers so that their organized efforts can be effective, they begin exploiting and manipulating. The more wealth and power they accumulate, the more brazenly and forcefully they attempt to accumulate still more, justifying themselves all the while with the reminder that Yahweh has promised it all to them anyway.

Any tendency to empathize or identify with their hosts is kept in check by a nonstop recitation of all the past wrongs the Gentile world has done them. Even before anti-Semitism exists in reality, it exists in the Jewish imagination: the Gentiles hate them, they believe, and so they must stick together for self-protection.

Sure enough, before the Jews’ solidarity has a chance to erode appreciably, the Gentiles are hating them. The Gentiles react to the Jews mildly at first and then with more and more resentment and energy as the Jewish depredations continue. It is this action-reaction combination, the hatred and counter-hatred, which keeps the Jews from being absorbed into the host nation.

Finally there is an explosion, and the most nimble Jews flee to begin the cycle over again in another Gentile land, while the slow ones remain to suffer the pent-up fury of their outraged hosts. The memory of this explosion is assiduously cultivated by the surviving Jews and becomes one more grudge they bear against the Gentile world. They still remember and celebrate the explosions of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, and two dozen other Gentile peoples over the last 35 centuries or so, exaggerating their losses and embellishing the details every time in order to make the memories more poignant, while the Gentiles in each case forget within a generation or two.

These periodic outbursts against the Jews have actually served them doubly well: not only have they been invaluable in maintaining the Jewish consciousness and preventing assimilation, but they have also proved marvelously eugenic by regularly weeding out from the Jewish stock the least fit individuals. Jewish leaders, it should be noted, are thoroughly aware of the details of this dynamic. They fully recognize the necessity of maintaining the barrier of hatred between their own people and the rest of the world, just as they understand the value of an occasional explosion to freshen the hatred when assimilation becomes troublesome.

Raphael_Study_for_St_Paul_PreachingThe blame for the decay of the Roman world has often been placed on the Jews. Indeed, some especially brazen Jewish writers have proudly accepted that blame and have even boasted that Christianity was invented deliberately by zealous Jews to further subvert and weaken the Roman Empire.

The truth of the matter, however, is that, so long as Roman society was healthy and the Roman spirit strong and sound, both were immune to Jewish malice and Jewish scheming. It was only after Rome was no longer Roman that the Jews were able to work their evil there.

After the old virtues had already been largely abandoned and the blood of the Romans polluted by that of a dozen races, the Jews, of course, did everything to hasten the process of dissolution. They swarmed over decaying Rome like maggots in a putrefying corpse, and from there they began their infiltration of the rest of Europe.

Thus, the Jews established themselves in every part of Europe over which Rome claimed dominion, and, wherever they could, they remained after that dominion ended. Except in the Mediterranean provinces and in Rome itself, however, their numbers remained relatively small at first.

Despising farming and all other manual activity, they engaged almost exclusively in trade and finance. Thus, their presence was confined entirely to the towns, and even a relatively large commercial center of 10 or 15 thousand inhabitants might have no more than a few dozen Jews.

Even their small numbers did not prevent nearly continuous friction between them and their Gentile neighbors, however. As Europe’s population, commerce, industry, and wealth grew during the Middle Ages, so did the numbers of Jews everywhere and with them the inevitable friction.

Everyone has heard of the wholesale expulsions of Jews which occurred in virtually every country of Europe during the Middle Ages: from England in 1290, from Germany in 1298, from France in 1306, from Lithuania in 1395, from Austria in 1421, from Spain in 1492, from Portugal in 1497, and so on. What many do not realize, however, is that the conflict between Jew and Gentile was not confined to these major upheavals on a national scale. Hardly a year passed in which the Jews were not massacred or expelled from some town or province by an exasperated citizenry. The national expulsions merely climaxed in each case a rising popular discontent punctuated by numerous local disturbances.

Bred to Business. In addition to the benefits of racial solidarity, the Jews were probably better businessmen, on the average, than their Gentile competitors. The Jews had been bred to a mercantile life for a hundred generations. The result was that all the business—and all the money—of any nation with a Jewish minority tended to gravitate into the hands of the Jews. The more capital they accumulated, the greater was their advantage, and the easier it was to accumulate still more.

Of course, the Jews were willing to share their wealth with their Gentile hosts—for a price. They would gladly lend money to a peasant, in return for a share of his next crop or a lien on his land; and to a prince, in return for a portion of the spoils of his next war. Eventually, half the citizens of the nation were hopelessly in debt to the Jews.

Such a state of affairs was inherently unstable, and periodic explosions were inevitable. Time after time princes and people alike found that the best way out of an increasingly tight financial squeeze was a general burning of the Jews’ books of account—and of the Jews too, if they did not get out of the country fast enough. The antipathy which already existed between Jews and Gentiles because of the Jews’ general demeanor made this solution especially attractive, as did the religious intolerance of the times.

One would think that one episode of this sort in any country would be enough for the Jews, and that they would thenceforth stay away from a place where they were so manifestly unwelcome. But they could not. Any country in Europe temporarily without a Jewish minority to soak up the country’s money like a sponge had an irresistible attraction for them. Before the embers of the last general Jew-burning were cool, other Jews were quietly sneaking in to take the place of the ones who had been slaughtered.

The great 19th-century Russian writer Nikolai Gogol embodied this extraordinary Jewish peculiarity in a character in his Taras Bulba, the story of a Cossack chieftain. The character, Yankel, is one of a group of Jewish, merchants and their dependents who have attached themselves to the Cossacks’ camp. One day the Cossacks rid themselves of the Jewish pests by throwing them all in the Dnieper and drowning them—all except Yankel, who hides beneath a wagon.

Russian pogromWhile the massacre is taking place, Yankel trembles in fear of being discovered. As soon as it is over and things have quieted down again, he creeps from his hiding place. The reader expects that Yankel will then waste no time putting as much distance between himself and the Cossacks as possible. But, no; Yankel instead rushes to set up a stall and begin selling gunpowder and trinkets to the men who have just drowned his kinsmen. His eagerness to resume business seems doubled by the fact that now he has no competitors.

The Jews were often able to ameliorate their situations greatly during the Middle Ages by establishing special relationships with Gentile rulers. They served as financial advisers and tax collectors for the princes of the realm and of the Church, always ready with rich bribes to secure the protection of their patrons when the hard-pressed common folk began agitating against them. They made themselves so useful to some rulers, in fact, that they were favored above Christian subjects in the laws and decrees of those rulers.

The Frankish emperor Charlemagne was one who was notorious for the favors and privileges he bestowed on the Jews, and his successor followed his example.

The medieval Church was at least as much at fault as the royalty in showing favor to the Jews. There were exceptions to the rule, however: several Church leaders heroically stood up for the common people and condemned the Jews for exploiting them. One of these was Agobard, a ninth-century bishop of Lyons.

Agobard lost his struggle with Louis, but his efforts had a long-range effect on the conscience of many of his fellow Franks. Despite the enormous financial power of the Jews and the protection their bribes bought them, they were continually overreaching themselves: whenever they were given a little rope, they eventually managed to hang themselves. No matter how much favor kings, emperors, or princes of the Church bestowed on them, the unrest their usury created among the peasants and the Gentile tradesmen forced the rulers to slap them down again and again.

The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was so intense by the 12th century that virtually every European country was obliged to separate the Jews from the rest of the populace. For their own protection the Jews retreated into walled ghettos, where they were safe from the fury of the Gentiles, except in cases of the most extreme unrest.

And for the protection of the Gentiles, Jews were obliged to wear distinctive clothing. After the Church’s Lateran Council of 1215, an edict forbade any Jew to venture out of the ghetto without a yellow ring (“Jew badge”) sewn on his outer garment, so that every Gentile he met could beware him.

But these measures proved insufficient, for they failed to deal with the fundamental problem: so long as the Jews remained Jews, there could be no peace between them and any other people.

Edward the Great. In England, for example, throughout the 13th century there were outbreaks of civil disorder, as the debt-laden citizens sporadically lashed out at their Jewish oppressors. A prominent Jewish historian, Abram Sachar, in his A History of the Jews (Knopf, 1965), tells what happened next:

At last, with the accession of Edward I, came the end. Edward was one of the most popular figures in English history. Tall, fair, amiable, an able soldier, a good administrator, he was the idol of his people. But he was filled with prejudices, and hated foreigners and foreign ways. His Statute of Judaism, in 1275, might have been modeled on the restrictive legislation of his contemporary, St. Louis of France. He forbade all usury and closed the most important means of livelihood that remained to the Jews. Farming, commerce, and handicrafts were specifically allowed, but it was exceedingly difficult to pursue those occupations.

Difficult indeed, compared to effortlessly raking in capital gains! Did Edward really expect the Jews in England to abandon their gilded countinghouses and grub about in the soil for cabbages and turnips, or engage in some other backbreaking livelihood like mere goyim? God’s Chosen People should work for a living?

Eduard_IEdward should have known better. Fifteen years later, having finally reached the conclusion that the Jews were incorrigible, he condemned them as parasites and mischief-makers and ordered them all out of the country. They were not allowed back in until Cromwell’s Puritans gained the upper hand 400 years later. Meanwhile, England enjoyed an unprecedented Golden Age of progress and prosperity without a Jew in the land.

Unfortunately, the other monarchs of Europe, who one after another found themselves compelled to follow Edward’s example, were not able to provide the same long-term benefits to their countries; in nearly every case the Jews managed to bribe their way back in within a few years.

[The next chapter of Pierce’s book continues to explain the history of the Jewish Problem]