Ancient Egyptians in Ancient Ireland?

The title of this video may have you intrigued and I’m sure many of you have your doubts even before watching, but there are a number of researchers that believe they have enough evidence to push forward the idea that way back in antiquity, the Ancient Egyptians settled in Ireland. With limited, but growing archaeological evidence, as well as new interpretations of ancient Irish legends, etymological studies and DNA analysis of the ancient Irish, the claims may not be as impossible as you might first imagine.

What Was The Sphinx And What Is Wrong With Its Body And Head? – There has never been a satisfactory answer to what the Sphinx actually is or was. Anyone who goes to Giza can see for himself or herself that there is something ‘wrong’ with the Sphinx. It only takes an instant. The body is gigantic and the head is just a pimple.

The Egyptians never did anything like that, they were always meticulous about proportions in their art.

So how is it that we have this monster with a tiny head sitting there in the sand, then?
There are several other things wrong with the Sphinx. They are:

  • The back is flat. Who ever saw a lion with a flat back, no big chest, and no mane?
  • The Sphinx is sitting in a deep hole in the ground. Why is that? Why is it not sitting somewhere high up so that it can show off?
  • There is a ruined temple right in front of the Sphinx, with a wall practically up against its nose, and no door in that wall. Why obstruct the view of the Sphinx from the front like that? And if the temple was for worshipping the Sphinx, why is there no access from the temple to the Sphinx, so that you can’t even get to it?
  • The pit in which the Sphinx sits seems to be deeply eroded, as if by flows of water. What caused all that? It looks as if water has poured down the sides. On the other hand, there are no such vertical erosion patterns on the Sphinx itself, which instead has clear horizontal erosion patterns. How can these two different patterns at right angles to each other be reconciled? And what could possibly have caused either of them?

None of this makes any sense if you think about it. Of course, many people don’t think. They just gawp and move on, their brains in neutral.

But when my wife Olivia and I first saw the Sphinx many years ago, we just stood there in astonishment and both agreed that the whole thing was wrong, wrong, wrong.
So now after many years of work, we think we have found some answers.

Naturally, any new idea about anything that ‘everybody knows’ makes conventionally thinking people enraged, and (2) makes anti-establishment people delighted. No prizes for guessing which side I’m on.

Let me first declare my position on what has become something of an entrenched notion amongst my fellow anti-Establishmentarians.

I do not believe that the Sphinx is 12,500 years old. Nor do I believe in ‘ancient rain’.

I do believe that the Sphinx is older than conventionally believed. But I do not believe it is thousands of years older, or anything of that kind.

I do believe there is water erosion at the Sphinx site, but I do not believe it had anything to do with ‘ancient rain’, nor do I believe there was anything there to be eroded at the time any ‘ancient rain’ fell.

So what is the answer, then?

Sphinx Island & Moat

The water of the Nile in those days, at the time of inundation once a year (which no longer happens because of the Aswan dam), came right up to the edge of the Sphinx Temple, where there are even quays in front. So what I believe happened was that the water of the Nile was let into the Sphinx Pit, which I now call the Sphinx Moat, by some simple water-raising devices, led along the narrow channel between the Sphinx Temple and the Valley Temple (the two structures in front of the Sphinx), and its flow was controlled by a series of sluices and water gates.

The signs of these sluices and gates, with their many bolt holes and so forth, no longer exist, because new stones and cement have been laid over them. But not to worry! I took plenty of photographs of them before they disappeared, and those are all reproduced in our book. Everyone can then see it all very clearly.

The reason why the temple wall is in front of the Sphinx is to act as the fourth barrier to the water. The reason why there is no door in the wall is that it would have let the water out.

The horizontal erosion on the side of the Sphinx (where it is not covered by ‘restoration stones’) is because the Sphinx was sitting in the middle of a moat filled with water. The vertical erosion on the sides of the pit, especially the south side, is because of the continual dredging of the Moat due to the windblown sand accumulating there. Every time the Moat was dredged, water poured down in torrents onto the sides, leading to vertical erosion, accentuated by the natural cavities in the limestone bedrock.

So I think the Sphinx was, amongst other things, an island!

This immediately solves the puzzle of the evidence recorded by the fifth century BCE Greek historian Herodotus, who said that King Cheops let water in from the Nile to surround an island at Giza. Here it is!

Whose Head is on the Sphinx?

So we have got an island. Now what do we do with it? And why is King Cheops’s head the size of a pimple on the front of this large flat-backed lion, surrounded by water? What’s going on?

But wait! Who says that is King Cheops’s head? Some say it is King Chephren’s head, but if you have ever seen Chephren’s head on that huge statue in the Cairo Museum, you know they look nothing alike at all, since Chephren has a long face and the Sphinx has a round face, just for starters, and there’s plenty else that’s not the same too.

At this point of my wonderings, I began to feel really uncomfortable. I generally know when something doesn’t fit. I may not know what does fit, but I more often know what does not.

And that face is neither Cheops (not that we know what he really looked like anyway, as the only likeness of him that survives is a three inch-high ivory statuette, which could be your Uncle Tony or even your Auntie Madge for that matter) nor old Chephren Long-Face. So who is it?

It was at this point that I discovered one of those forgotten sources which keep falling into my lap, and in this case it was an article written by a German archaeologist named Ludwig Borchardt long before the Sphinx was excavated, when only its head and neck were sticking above the sand.

Borchardt used to go and stand there and look at it. In those days, you could look the Sphinx in the eye and he wouldn’t even flinch, in fact he smiled back. Nowadays, he’s very stuck up, with his head high above us if we stand at his feet, so you can’t make out the details of his head all that well.

Borchardt got to thinking. He noticed that the Sphinx was wearing eye-paint stripes (no comment, pharaohs have the right to do what they like as consenting adults in the privacy of their own Sphinx Pits), and he knew that those were not worn in the period known as the Old Kingdom, when Cheops and Chephren lived. He noticed the details of the stripe patterns in the strange headdress worn by the Sphinx. The face had to be that of a pharaoh, since this headdress was the sacred religious headdress of the pharaoh known as a nemes. But Borchardt, who was head of the German Institute at Cairo and therefore knew a thing or two, realised that those stripe patterns were also not used in the Old Kingdom.

He started to do some research on nemes headdresses, and he discovered that those particular stripe patterns were only used in the Middle Kingdom period, hundreds of years later than Cheops and Chephren. He wrote this all up in technical form and published it in a distinguished scholarly periodical (in German of course, but I have translated it and it appears as an appendix to our book), and concluded that the Sphinx had been carved in the Middle Kingdom Period, not in the Old Kingdom period.

But everybody laughed at poor old Borchardt. Who ever heard of such a thing? The Middle Kingdom! Borchardt must have gone crazy! And then the Sphinx was excavated in 1926, and finally completely excavated in 1936, and it was perfectly clear to everyone that the Sphinx was much older than the Middle Kingdom. But everybody forgot that Borchardt had never seen the Sphinx’s body at the time he wrote the article, he was only talking about the head.

So I have reopened the case and concluded that the head was recarved in the Middle Kingdom, just as Borchardt said, and what is more, I believe I can even identify precisely which pharaoh’s face that is. Of course, to find that out, you really need to see the book.

However, it is all very well identifying the face on the Sphinx. Some people might be satisfied just doing that. But no, it’s like watching a film noir without knowing the ending. Even if you know whodunnit, you still want to know the motive.

“Everybody knows” Herd Mentality

So what was the Sphinx before it had that guy’s face carved on it? Well, to figure that one out you have to try to figure out what the Sphinx was before that pharaoh got his chisels on it. This draws one’s attention to the flat back. “Everybody knows” that the Sphinx has the body of a lion. As soon as I hear that “everybody knows” something, I know that it must be wrong. I have a pathologically anti-herd mentality. All you have to do is tell me “everybody knows” something, and I will instantly disbelieve it. That is because crowds are always wrong. Crowds have about as much sense as a mollusc.

I started from the premise that the Sphinx was not a lion at all. Millions of people see it every year, from all over the world, and they all “know” that it is a lion. So that means that it cannot possibly be one. They “know” it is a lion because they have been told that it is a lion. The Germans were told that Hitler was their saviour and so they “knew” it, the Russians all “knew” that Stalin was like a gentle father, who would look after them. Yes, everybody, or at least everybody they knew, “knew” these things. And people also all once “knew” that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun went round the Earth. Those things were all “known.” But were they true?

If it wasn’t a lion, what was it? Well, it had to be an animal with a straight back, with no huge chest, and no mane. It also had to be an animal that crouched like that with its legs stuck out in front of it. (There is no use looking too closely at the paws, as they are completely covered in restoration stones, and have been shaped to look like “what everybody knows,” in order to re-confirm the consensus falsehood which everybody has agreed to believe in.)

Anubis – Guardian of the Necropolis

The Sphinx is crouching there at the entrance to the Necropolis like a guardian. Well, there it is! It is a guard dog! The ancient Egyptians had a god called Anubis, who was a crouching wild dog, generally referred to as a jackal (although strictly speaking there were no jackals in Egypt, and Anubis was really a wild dog species which is now extinct).

Anubis was the guardian of the Necropolis, the guardian of the dead, and he was often depicted in the precise position of the Sphinx – and famously in a statue found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun as well – so that his image is familiar to almost anyone who has ever had an interest in ancient Egypt.

In Figure 1 I show the drawing I commissioned which shows how the recarved head of the Sphinx was carved out of the neck stump which remained on the Sphinx after the original statue was mutilated by the rampaging mobs who smashed up everything they could on the Giza Plateau during the period of chaos known as the First Intermediate Period, between 2200 and 2000 BCE.

It was the easiest thing in the world to knock the ears and nose off the Sphinx when the Sphinx was Anubis. You couldn’t put them back because the Sphinx was carved out of the solid bedrock, and the pieces must have been smashed to bits anyway. So the later exhibitionist pharaoh could even tell himself he was doing a pious act and ‘restoring’ the statue by flaunting himself, just as, say, Madonna helps the world, doesn’t she? Tom Cruise is also saving the world, remember? Yes, we all know that all celebrities are getting their pictures in the papers only for noble causes, and it has nothing to do with wanting people to look at them, or with such a low thing as vanity.

Speaking of movie stars, the Sphinx is now so botoxed and has had so much plastic surgery from crazy ‘restoration’ (which is all shown in great detail in our book) that he could easily get a lead part in a blockbuster. But his ‘nose job’ didn’t go so well, as it is still missing. It was hacked off in the 13th century by a fanatical imam named Sheikh Mohammed, who wished to purge Egypt of non-Islamic influences. He got as far as the nose, at least. (The story that the nose was shot off by Napoleon’s soldiers is false.)

So now we have a crouching Anubis as an island, surrounded by a little lake. And at last we have something which students of the ancient texts can suddenly recognise. For the most ancient surviving Egyptian texts, known as the Pyramid Texts, often speak of a sacred place associated with the Giza Necropolis called Jackal Lake. And here it is!

Now we are getting somewhere. It is all beginning to make sense. In our book we gather together the many ancient texts which refer to Anubis guarding the Necropolis, situated at Giza, being beside a causeway, and being very large. We also reproduce Fourth Dynasty Giza tomb reliefs showing a giant Anubis, which may be intended as actual depictions of the Sphinx.

Secret Chamber Beneath the Sphinx

Most people who are intrigued by Egyptian mysteries have been wondering for a long time whether there might be any secret chamber beneath the Sphinx. I have crawled around inside the Sphinx, and I describe the tunnel which exists in the rear portion of the Sphinx’s body, as well as the vertical tunnel carved out of the bedrock beneath the Sphinx’s rump, and reproduce photos of these. In Figure 2 you see a photo which Olivia took of me with my head sticking out of the Sphinx’s ass, which perhaps proves how well I know him.

Then an amazing thing happened. I came across a passage in one of the old books which I collect, in this case one published in 1715, which described a chamber beneath the Sphinx and gave an eyewitness account of it! I was astounded. The book referred to earlier accounts of this chamber, but neglected to say who had written them or when they had been published. Slight problem! How was I to find these books?

If you went into the British Library and told a librarian you needed a book published before 1715 which described a chamber beneath the Sphinx, you would be told to come back when you had the author’s name or the title of the book. All I had to go on was ‘a book mentioning the Sphinx before 1715’, so how did I do it?

That is where my special abilities come in, which enable me to obtain information which others seem not able to obtain. I am what you might call an information retrieval expert, and I do not need to know anything about the field in order to obtain its ‘concealed’ information. There is no such thing as concealed or destroyed information: it is all there in Information Space if you have access.

Everyone knows about the emails which people think they have deleted from our computers, but which can be recovered by computer data recovery experts (as part of a criminal investigation, for instance). Well, there is a higher version of that, which enables all information which has ever existed in any material form to be accessed from the wholly non-material realm of Information Space.

A book that verifies the existence of secret underground chambers beneath the Sphinx and demonstrates its origins as the Egyptian god of the dead, Anubis

• Includes an anthology of eyewitness accounts from early travelers who explored the secret chambers before they were sealed in 1926

• Reveals that the Sphinx was originally carved as a monumental crouching Anubis, the Egyptian jackal god of the necropolis

Shrouded in mystery for centuries, the Sphinx of Giza has frustrated many who have attempted to discover its original purpose. Accounts exist of the Sphinx as an oracle, as a king’s burial chamber, and as a temple for initiation into the Hermetic Mysteries. Egyptologists have argued for decades about whether there are secret chambers underneath the Sphinx, why the head-to-body ratio is out of proportion, and whose face adorns it.

In The Sphinx Mystery, Robert Temple addresses the many mysteries of the Sphinx. He presents eyewitness accounts, published over a period of 281 years, of people who saw the secret chambers and even went inside them before they were sealed in 1926–accounts that had been forgotten until the author rediscovered them. He also describes his own exploration of a tunnel at the rear of the Sphinx, perhaps used for obtaining sacred divinatory dreams.

Robert Temple reveals that the Sphinx was originally a monumental Anubis, the Egyptian jackal god, and that its face is that of a Middle Kingdom Pharaoh, Amenemhet II, which was a later re-carving. In addition, he provides photographic evidence of ancient sluice gate traces to demonstrate that, during the Old Kingdom, the Sphinx as Anubis sat surrounded by a moat filled with water–called Jackal Lake in the ancient Pyramid Texts–where religious ceremonies were held. He also provides evidence that the exact size and position of the Sphinx were geometrically determined in relation to the pyramids of Cheops and Chephren and that it was part of a pharaonic resurrection cult. Read more

Unfortunately, I have never met anyone who seems to be able to access this material methodically and systematically. Most human beings can access it in a feeble and flickering fashion, by means of what is called ‘intuition’ or ‘hunches’. Perhaps it is just as well that proper access to all this information is limited. After all, the purpose of our being here in the material world is to see how we cope without information. That is why people like myself find it so difficult to communicate what we know when we somehow, in a way we do not understand, acquire information from Information Space. It is mostly not intended for circulation, and maybe I should not even be doing it. When I reveal such information to people, they never believe me anyway, so I generally do not bother.

I cannot explain how I access it. I seem to ‘see through matter’ in some way which is difficult to describe, and I see the Information behind it on the other side. Matter becomes increasingly transparent to me every day anyway, and I no longer believe in it. On only one occasion was I so desperate that I ‘raped’ Information Space. That was when our beloved dog Kim was mistakenly locked in a room with a digital security code. Because she was old and ill and needed water, and might otherwise die before I could get someone with the code to come, I ‘accessed’ the numerical code, punched it in, the door opened, and I released her. I didn’t do it instantly. I first made two or three hysterical wrong attempts and wasted precious minutes through being over-stressed. I made myself try to remain calm and then got it right. This meant that I actually had to access the whole number of several digits, none of which was known to me. Really, we are not supposed to do this sort of thing, but my dog was more important to me than protocol.

Also important to me is a Larger Dog, the Sphinx! I feel almost as affectionate towards him as I did… well, no, that would not be fair to Kim. But I also like the Dog Star. In fact, I am a sucker for dogs, I really am. I am not a cat person, even though I am a great fan of the original version of the film ‘Cat People’ (1942). Watch it sometime! See my review of it on my website.

I was eventually able to find 281 years’ worth of published eyewitness accounts of the chamber beneath the Sphinx, including detailed information about exactly where it was, its size, and the fact that it contained the remains of a wooden coffin. Because the chamber was described as having hieroglyphics on the walls, I am certain that it was what archaeologists call ‘an intruded burial’, but it must have been a royal one, as a shaft was carefully constructed and a chamber cut in one of the most important monuments in Egypt, within the sacred precincts of the royal Necropolis. The shaft was sealed with cement by Émile Baraize in 1926.

A century earlier, Henry Salt also sealed some openings and passages elsewhere at the Sphinx, and was sharply criticised for it by the French Count de Forbin. All of this is described in full detail in our book. So, yes, there is a ‘secret chamber’ beneath the Sphinx. And the information in our book proves this beyond all possibility of doubt. But no, it is not original and does not date from the time of the Sphinx’s carving. Also, it is empty, so there is no gold or treasure. But if we could just read what it says on the walls!
Another thing I was able to demonstrate is that the Sphinx and the three Giza pyramids were part of a single unified design concept of the Giza Plateau. The position and size of the Sphinx is determined precisely in relation to the three pyramids, in a manner never before noticed. This is shown and explained at great length in the book, and it is not really possible to summarise that material, as it is too lengthy and detailed for a brief description. I can say, however, that it was part of a resurrection cult.

In the process of explaining this in detail, I even have occasion to explain the true nature of those bizarre reliefs in a crypt at Denderah which have excited a great deal of speculation, the ones with the ‘lightbulbs’, although they are 2,500 years more recent, and their only connection is through the symbolism.

I hope everybody will get a lot out of looking through our book, and, who knows, maybe even reading it. Stranger things have happened.

Written by: Robert Temple – New Dawn

This article has been republished with permission of New Dawn Magazine

Copyright © New Dawn If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

There is a whole chapter of White history we are missing.


DNA and Ancient White Egypt

DNA and Ancient White Egypt

A new analysis of DNA from ancient Egyptian mummies, carried out by scientists from the University of Tuebingen in Germany, has revealed that ancient Egyptians were indeed European—and that the present-day  Egyptian population is a mixed race group with a massive sub-Saharan element—all exactly as outlined in March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race.

The study, titled “Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods” and published in the journal Nature Communications ( 8, Article number: 15694 (2017) doi:10.1038/ncomms15694), looked at genetic differentiation and population continuity over a 1,300-year timespan, and compared these results to modern populations.

The study concluded:

“When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested, likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above. By computing f3-statistics, we determined whether modern Egyptians could be modelled as a mixture of ancient Egyptian and other populations. Our results point towards sub-Saharan African populations as the missing component, confirming the results of the ADMIXTURE analysis.”

The researchers successfully recovered and analyzed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 CE. The team sampled 151 mummified individuals. In total, the authors recovered mitochondrial genomes from 90 individuals, and genome-wide datasets from three individuals.

The study found that ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient European populations “in the Levant,” (that is, the ancient “Old Mediterranean” whites) and Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe.

The Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

by Archie Munro

(Traduit en français)

The belief that ancient Greek society maintained an indulgent attitude towards homosexuality —particularly pederasty — is widely held, both without and within WN circles. Greg Johnson, for example, says:

Homosexual pederasty, which still remains a taboo in our culture, was widely practiced by the ancient Aryan peoples of the Mediterranean world. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced it, including some of the manliest men in history and legend, like Achilles and Alexander the Great.

There is no question that homosexual behavior was not only tolerated by ancient Aryan peoples, it was considered normal, in some cases even ideal. It was ascribed to the gods (Zeus and Ganymede) and lauded by poets, philosophers, and historians. It is hard to maintain hateful Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality if one really understands and appreciates the greatness of classical pagan civilization … Queer-bashers are in the grip of Jewry without even knowing it.

Adonis Georgiades disagrees. He is the current vice-president of Greece’s New Democracy party and a man of socially conservative but economically liberal convictions (for example, he cast his vote in the Greek parliament in favour of the notorious ‘second memorandum’). His 2004 book, Homosexuality in Ancient Greece: The Myth is Collapsing (available online here), is a polemical
review of the evidence. To Georgiades, the evidence demonstrates that homosexuality was not considered acceptable, let alone ‘ideal’, in ancient Greece. The sources he examines include but are not limited to the following.

  • Greek mythology;
  • the works of Athenian comic poets, such as Aristophanes;
  • vase illustrations;
  • the laws of Athens and Sparta as seen in: descriptions by various authors of antiquity, including Plutarch, of Spartan sexual mores;
  • Timarchus’ and Demosthenes’ unsuccessful legal suit, brought in Athens in 346-5 BC, against Aeschines;
  • the counter-case successfully brought to conclusion by Aeschines against Timarchus.

Crucially, Georgiades also considers the translation of two pairs of ancient Greek words. The first, examined principally through the works of Plato and Xenophon, is erastes-eromenos. This pair is conventionally but, according to Georgiades, quite misleadingly rendered in English as ‘lover’-‘loved one’. The second is the distinction between the terms pornos (‘male prostitute’) and hetairos (‘male companion’). As the book shows, this second distinction is particularly relevant to the Aeschines-Timarchus lawsuit mentioned above. The successfully prosecuted case against Timarchus indicates that — in Athens at least — even unpaid homosexual conduct was sufficient to expose the practitioner to the risk of losing his civil rights. I will return later to Georgiades account of the primary sources.

My overall impression, as a non-specialist, is that Georgiades’ conclusions are sound, original and worthy of a wider readership. Perhaps the book’s greatest weakness is the poor quality of the translation and proofreading. The purpose I have in mind here, however, is not to review the book exhaustively. Instead I will summarise its most important arguments and then try to illuminate its most interesting, though not entirely explicit, theme: ‘pederastic’ relationships in ancient Greece, far from being motivated by the sexual drives of older men towards younger, were an aspect of what Kevin MacDonald might call the group evolutionary strategy of the Greek polis. The men of ancient Greece did not live in a Freudian haze; they were concerned with identifying transcendent reality and bringing it about in their community, for the sake of the common good. I will explain further on what I mean by this. First, though, I will say a little about my own motivations in writing this article.

The conventional position on Greek homosexuality has two main parts:

  1. homosexual behaviour was more acceptable and (therefore) prevalent in ancient Greece than in the Christian West; and
  2. pederasty in particular was commonly practiced, at least by the Greek elites.
I won’t bother to pretend that I approach these arguments with an open mind. In fact, I find them at once disturbing and logically implausible. They are disturbing mainly because they are implicitly Freudian. The underlying assumption appears to be that Greek society did not repress ‘natural’ tendencies to ‘polymorphous perversity’. This means that, for example, sexual relationships between older and younger men were thought normal. According to this view, the erastes-eromenos relationship was a sort of institutionalised pederastic cruising — at its core, merely an expression of the base sexual urges of individual men. The truth, however, is that the ancient polis was a collectivist entity which produced, for its size, a greater share of accomplished men than any other type of state in history.

There is another disquieting aspect of the theory. It is a commonplace that ancient Greece was the ‘cradle of Western civilisation’. But constantly repeated claims that the sexual mores of Greece were qualitatively different from those of the traditional West are designed to deny our perception of fundamental continuity with this heritage. I think there is in it, too, an insinuation that the absence of sexual strictures in Greek society forestalled the development of sexual neuroses in talented individuals and so allowed them to realise their own greatness. In familiar Freudian style, the theory pathologises the traditional Christian West. Even at the risk of being accused of committing the ‘moralistic fallacy’, I would say that there are very good reasons for being suspicious of claims that the free expression of homosexuality was approved of in ancient Greece.

This brings me to the theory’s prima facie implausibility. Its corollary is that we are supposed to accept that all (or most) men of all ages would engage in pederasty if it were not subject to social repression. We are asked to believe that many of the greatest men of ancient Greece — real or mythical and in all fields of endeavour — were either pederasts or homosexuals of some other kind. Among such men, allegedly, are Solon, Socrates, Sophocles, Alexander the Great, Aeschylus, Alcibiades, Achilles, the Theban Sacred Band (which may not even have fought at the decisive battles of Leuctra and Chaeronea) and the elite Spartan hippeis. Many of the Olympian gods are said to have been similarly characterised.

Perhaps there is some demonstrable correlation between homosexual behaviour and greatness; if so, I am unaware of it. But the fact is that, even in the contemporary, post-Christian West, in which traditional morality is everywhere under assault and ‘polymorphous perversity’ on the verge of wholesale institutional approval, homosexuality remains uncommon. Is the assertion of thoroughgoing homosexuality in ancient Greece credible, then, on the basis of numbers alone? I am inclined to think not.

I am equally unconvinced by the theory that the condemnation of homosexuality in the West is nothing but a Jewish artefact which came to us with Christianity. The most economical explanation, it seems to me, is that the dog wagged the tail rather than the other way around: Christian dislike of homosexuality was fundamentally a reflection of the fact that traditional Western society regarded it as undesirable. In short, I can’t see how the truth of the matter can be perceived from within either a tacitly Freudian or an anti-Christian framework.

In assessing the social acceptability or otherwise of homosexuality, it is if course important to discriminate among the respective attitudes of the law, the lower classes, the upper classes and the intelligentsia. It is conceivable, for example, that the law may have penalised the practice even as artists and philosophers — especially would-be state makers such as Plato — idealised it. Georgiades, I think, succeeds in demonstrating that homosexuality was universally thought unacceptable: penalised in law and deplored by all social classes, including by philosophers such as Plato. There are four main lines of attack in his book.

Firstly, there are the relatively short chapters on homosexuality in the Greek myths and on the treatment of the subject by the comic poets of Athens. Both chapters can be dealt with quite briefly.

Homer was the first to write down two myths which have become vital to the Greek homosexuality narrative — those of Achilles and Patroclus, and of Zeus and Ganymede. Homer himself never characterises the relationship between either pair as in any way homosexual (despite this, Wikipedia informs us that “The myth was a model for the Greek social custom of paiderastía, the socially acceptable romantic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male”).

Xenophon, in his 4th century BC Symposium, has Socrates agreeing with Homer. He argues in the following terms about the relationship between Zeus and Ganymede.

Zeus let the women he fell for to remain mortal, if he loved them for their physical beauty; but he made immortal whomever he loved for the beauty of their souls. Among them you can see Heracles, the Dioscouri and others. I also claim that Ganymede was brought to Olympus for the beauty of his soul, not of his body. His very name confirms what I am saying, as it is said about it in a passage from Homer, ‘One takes pleasure in listening to him’. There is also another passage from Homer which says ‘one who had wise thoughts’. So, if Ganymede has got his name after these two, he has been honoured among the gods not for his pleasant body, but for his wisdom.

I will come back later to the philosophical distinction between ‘celestial’ and ‘vulgar’ love.

The Athenian comic poets had an irreverently hostile attitude to homosexuality. Aristophanes, for instance, uses such epithets as katapigon (‘given to unnatural lust’) and euriproktos (‘wide-breeched’). What is more, Georgiades says:

Aristophanes, willing to express his aversion towards this act, never uses the words erastes-eromenos, ‘lover-loved one’.

This is another, highly significant, word pair I will return to in time. The plot of the famous play Lysistrata is also instructive. According to Georgiades:

In this play Athenian women decide not to have sex with their husbands, in order to force them to stop the war with Sparta. If homosexuality was so widely practiced, this decision would mean nothing to men, since they could turn to each other to satisfy their desires. But this is not what happens. On the contrary, men give way rather quickly, because they cannot stand this compulsory abstinence.

Georgiades disputes that Aristophanes was writing for a lower class audience, and therefore pandering to their prejudices against homosexuality, while the upper class had no such prejudices. The patrons of the Classical theatre were, after all, drawn from the Athenian aristocracy. If the heads of the polis were really idealisers of homosexual behaviour, why would Aristophanes have been so insulting towards it?

Next, the book re-examines the evidence from vase illustrations, the source most often cited to support the notion of widespread and socially-condoned homosexuality in ancient Greece. Georgiades states that approximately 80,000 complete pieces of Attic ware remain, an estimated 1 per cent of the total produced during the Archaic and Classical eras. In the most influential modern study of the subject, Greek Homosexuality, by Kenneth Dover, 600 of these vases are cited as containing ‘homoerotic’ themes. But, Georgiades says, only about 30 of the 600 pots depict homosexual scenes. The rest:

 … are totally irrelevant, showing heroes, battles or mythological themes, or represent heterosexual scenes.

Moreover, anal penetration involving men or boys is never shown:

Only satyrs take part in scenes [involving anal penetration], and satyrs were known to be perverted and were represented as such.

Georgiades further asserts that the remainder of the 30 homosexual scenes—pederastic acts, involving an older and a younger man or boy—show either sexual fondling or ‘intercrucial intercourse’. The latter, Georgiades believes, was not practiced in real life. Instead, it was a sort of artistic stand-in for homosexual anal sex and had to be used in a culture in which a vase painter could hint at the act but never depict it openly, likely owing to general public revulsion. If it could be unreservedly accepted, this clever speculation would further undermine the case for the normalcy of homosexuality in ancient Greece. However, this is the only aspect of Georgiades’ critique which, to my mind, is somewhat doubtful. There are, for instance, the first, seventh and ninth illustrations here, none of which appears to involve satyrs. The first is fairly obviously inauthentic—an example of the sorts of modern, mass-produced lookalikes that can be found in many tourist shops in Greece (the photo even looks as though it was taken in a tourist shop). The ninth and most egregious seems to depict Zeus and Ganymede. I am unsure of its authenticity, but the facial expression of Zeus is anomalous. The seventh likely involves a woman and two men. Still, since I cannot find confirmation of the provenance of these three pieces, I reserve my judgment on the matter.

Even with such hesitations duly conceded, it’s hardly necessary to point out that representations of human homosexual practices on vases are not necessarily evidence of their social acceptability. Although I cannot unequivocally accept his argument that only satyrs are involved in homosexual scenes, if Georgiades’ claims for the figures are accurate, Dover and other purveyors of the ‘gay vase theory’ have still engaged in a sleight of hand: 30 of the 600 cited vases amounts to a mere five per cent of the total. Perhaps to make up the shortfall, Dover uses his imagination. Georgiades quotes several examples. Apparently, in one scene, showing a warrior:

… a spear, carried pointing halt downwards, prolongs the line of a youth’s penis, and its blade and blade-socket symbolise the glands and retracted foreskin.

Once such inventive interpretations are discounted, the much-touted the ‘gay vase theory’ seems, to put it mildly, a bit weak.

Thirdly, Georgiades looks at accounts of the sexual mores of Sparta and Athens, as glimpsed through accounts of their laws. The picture is of a Sparta which heavily penalised pederasty. According to Xenophon’s Respublica Lacedaemoniorum, Lycurgus, the (semi-)mythical Spartan lawgiver:

 … approved only of when a person, being such as he had to be and admiring a boy’s moral and intellectual self, tried to be his blameless friend and associate with him; he (Lycurgus) even thought of this as the most noble form of education. But, when one turned out to yearn for the boy’s body, which was the basest thing to do according to Lycurgus, he ordered that lovers should hold themselves off the loved boys, just as parents or brothers abstain from having sexual intercourse with their children or brothers.

The morality of the Spartans (here, ‘Lacedaemonians’), as depicted in Xenophon’s Symposium, is also set firmly against pederasty. In this passage Socrates equates it with anaideia: ‘shamelessness’.

Lacedaemonians … believe that a loved boy cannot succeed in anything noble, when one yearns for his body …

Plutarch speaks of the severity of Spartan punishments for pederasty:

The aim was to love the moral and intellectual self of earnest boys and, when a man was accused of approaching them with lust, he was deprived of civic rights for life.

It’s worth noting that, normally, Plutarch is heavily reliedon by pro-homosexuality scholars as a source. A number of other things are worth mentioning about this passage.

First is the distinction it makes between ‘celestial’ and ‘vulgar’, or sexual, love. Both Xenophon and Plutarch attribute this distinction to the thought of even the relatively unphilosophical Spartans. It is best encapsulated in English by the word ‘Platonic’, but, as we will see, it has a lineage in ancient Greek thought which long precedes Plato. Second is the use of the phrase ‘earnest boys’, which connotes studiousness, industry and seriousness — all qualities indispensable to leading participants in the political life of the Greek polis. Third is that the penalty for pederasty specified is the complete loss of an individual’s right to involvement in Spartan politics.

Athenian law, for its part, mandated a heavy fine or death to pederasts loitering about schools or making lewd suggestions to boys:

If someone insults [in this instance, Georgiades says, ‘insult’ has the sense of ‘being lustful to someone’] a child, woman or man, free or slave, he should be denounced by any Athenian to the six junior archons and they should bring the case before court within thirty days, if there aren’t other urgent public affairs; if there are, whenever this is possible. And, when he is found guilty, he must immediately be sentenced to pay a fine or be executed.

Moreover, the case of Timarchus shows that the Athenians penalised homosexual relations of all kinds, even between adult males, with great severity.

In 346 BC, when war between Athens and Macedon was imminent, Aeschines was accused by Demosthenes, through Timarchus, of having accepted bribes from Philip II of Macedon during his service as ambassador to the northern Greek kingdom. Aeschines responded by bringing a counter-suit against Timarchus which alleged that he had engaged in homosexual behaviour. Aeschines’ intention was to demonstrate that Timarchus was for this reason unfit to bring a suit against him in an Athenian court. The counter-suit was successful: Timarchus was effectively disenfranchised. But what kinds of homosexual acts was Timarchus accused of?

The usual explanation is that Timarchus is alleged to have prostituted himself and that this was the reason for his being barred from participation in political life. Georgiades’ view is otherwise. He shows that Aeschines’ speech, which quotes extensively from the laws of Athens, uses the word hetairos (‘male companion’), not pornos (‘male prostitute’), in reference to Timarchus. One of the meanings of hetairos is, apparently, an unpaid (though, in Timarchus’ case, a ‘kept’) homosexual partner.

Furthermore, Georgiades contends that civic exclusion was one possible sentence — the other was a heavy fine — for those accused of being either a pornos or a hetairos, in the relevant sense of the word. This argument is again backed by excerpts from Aeschines’ speech.

According to Georgiades, the case against Timarchus demonstrates that not only prostitutes but also the ‘passive’ and the ‘active’ hetairos were subject to the penalty of civic exclusion. In this case the ‘active’ hetairos, Misgolas, who admitted to having ‘kept’ the ‘passive’ Timarchus, paid a fine of 1,000 drachmae rather than face the court.

Aeschines’ speech was contrived to appeal to the sentiments of an Athenian jury, which comprised members drawn from all social classes. As pointed out here, it is more than probable that Aeschines anticipated that his citing of anti-homosexual legislation would find approval among all Athenians, regardless of their social class. This, along with the attitudes expressed in the plays of Aristophanes and the paucity of the evidence from vase paintings, suggests that there is no good reason to believe that either the Athenian government or its elite was any more pro-homosexuality in its outlook than were the common people.

So much, then, for the legal status of homosexual behaviour in Sparta and Athens.

Finally, there is a crucial chapter which discusses the true meaning of erastes-eromenos, generally translated into English as ‘lover’-‘loved one’. I mentioned earlier Georgiades’ account of the very harsh punishments meted out to men in both Athens and Sparta who preyed on boys. Such punitive laws alone imply that those Athenians, including Plato and Xenophon, who used the terms erastes-eromenos (no primary sources from Sparta have survived) are unlikely to have used them to denote pederasty in the modern sense of the word.

In essence, Georgiades’ argument is that, to the ancient Greeks, the word pair erastes-eromenos (as well as the word paiderastia) did not denote homosexual relations. Instead, the erastes was the mentor, the eromenos his protégé, and paiderastia the non-sexual relationship between them.

The philosophical underpinning of relationships among older and younger men was in the distinction between two impulses given to men by Aphrodite — the ‘celestial’ and ‘vulgar’ love I mentioned earlier. Greek gods are well known for their multiple attributes, and an older man’s love of a younger male citizen of his city was expected to be inspired solely by the ‘celestial’, not the ‘vulgar’, Aphrodite.

Those who attempt to represent Plato’s Symposium as praising sexual pederasty are therefore, according to Georgiades, mistaken. Of ‘vulgar’ and ‘celestial’ love, Plato in fact says:

 … love of the vulgar Aphrodite is, just as its name signifies, vulgar and acting occasionally. And it is the one which takes control of the vulgar people. These people … care only for the sexual act itself and are neglectful of whether it is moral or not .… But love of celestial Aphrodite is the one where women do not take part, only men. This is pederasty. And it is the older and the chastest kind of love. So, those who are animated by this form of love, turn to males, because they love the most vigorous and thoughtful.

Georgiades argues that this passage can be taken as a clear statement against sexual pederasty. The ‘pederastic’ relationship — that is, between erastes and eromenos, or ‘lover’ and ‘loved one’ — was to be educational, not sexual. Plato again:

 … there are also those with fecund souls, those who bear, in their souls more than in their bodies, the things that deserve to be born from the soul … And, since he is waiting to give birth, he embraces beautiful bodies rather than ugly ones, and, if he meets a beautiful, brave and noble soul, he embraces more eagerly this combination of body and soul. To such a person he speaks, without difficulty, of virtue, of how an honest man should be, of which activities suit him; and he tries to educate him.

In short: beautiful bodies, beautiful souls (and minds). The philosophers of the greatest centuries of ancient Greece, such as Pythagoras, Parmenides, Socrates and Plato himself, differentiate between the perfection of an immutable superlunary reality, on the one hand, and the transitory and unreal material world on the other. It is from the pre-Socratics that Plato derives his famous ‘allegory of the cave’. To engage in ‘celestial’ love of the soul and intellect is, in a sense, to know reality. To practice ‘vulgar’ love of the body is to be constrained by the base and illusory world of matter. Georgiades shows that Plato’s attitude towards homosexuality was not fundamentally different from the shared outlook of all classes and the law in ancient Athens. To him, as to them, homosexuality was base.

The Greeks in general identified physical beauty, morality and intellectual ability very closely with one another. Physical beauty carried with it the suggestion that its owner was closer to the heavens — like Ganymede, better human material in every way — than others less gifted. It could be argued that it’s easy to be misled by Plato’s talk of ‘beautiful bodies’, and perhaps on this basis the charitable would give the motivations of pro-homosexuality scholars the benefit of the doubt. But Georgiades is in no doubt in concluding that the ‘pederasty’ of the Greek polis was biopolitical, not sexual. He does not use this word, but his summing up amounts to much the same thing. The ‘pederastic’ relationship was:

 … a most educational one. Its aim was to initiate the adolescent Athenians not in mathematics or music, but in the secrets of social life, the way the system of government was functioning, the good manners, the moral values, virtue and, also, the dangers of life. An elder Athenian was assuming this role towards an adolescent, between 12 and 18, that is, until the boy was old enough (“until he starts having a beard”, the texts say) to have no need of such guidance.

This passage recalls Xenophon’s and Plutarch’s representation of the correct treatment of ‘earnest’ young Spartans. In Sparta, as in Athens, the erastes-eromenos relationship was apparently intended to prepare worthy young men for participation in the public life of the polis. Xenophon, again speaking of Sparta, says in his Respublica Lacedaemoniorum:

I think I must speak of pederasty, since it is a way of educating.

Considering the highly collectivist nature of both Sparta and Athens, I would like to expand a little on Georgiades’ biopolitical theory. The practice of ‘pederasty’, as a moral and political education, was aimed at securing the future of the polis through tutelage of the best, not all, young men — physically, intellectually and morally — in the community. This meritocratic selection was conducted by citizens of citizens, within their own organically-constituted city. The ‘loved ones’ who were selected and tutored by their ‘lovers’ were intended to act, when they had become mature citizens of the polis, as elite exemplars and executors of its political and moral tradition.

Central to the ideology of the polis was that it comprised free people of a common stock: a truly national community. As is well known, the cities of Greece were in an almost constant state of competition, and frequently of outright warfare, throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. From the vantage point of the long philosophical tradition represented by Pythagoras, Parmenides, Socrates and Plato, ‘pederasty’ was nothing less than an attempt to bring the polis into line with the divine order through preparing its best available human material for leadership. From the perspective of a Greece in which inter-state competition and warfare was practically the norm, ‘pederasty’ was a sort of group evolutionary strategy to secure the national community in the face of numerous hostile rivals. Each view is entirely compatible with the other.

Seen through an implicitly Freudian lens, tutelage of the young in ancient Greece was a mere cover for satisfaction of the endemic pederastic impulses of individuals rather than a collectivist project to realise the ideal of a healthy and supremely competitive national community. Georgiades has done important work in making out a convincing case to the contrary.

New Forbidden Archaeology Documentary 2018 Ancient Ruins That Defy Mainstream History

Ancient mysterious ruins have been discovered all over the world, how could these stones have been cut so precise by ancient humans? Some refer to these ancient ruins as the result of ‘Impossible’ Ancient Engineering. Could it be possible that there is much more to the history of this planet than we are being taught? For years, historians and archaeologists have absolutely marveled at these incredibly huge megalith and asked did ancient civilizations have a technology so advanced we still don’t understand it.

Watch mind provoking, eye opening, educational, controversial, awesome documentaries by subscribing and of course hit the bell button at the top tight of the screen. We will make each film expand the horizons of the viewers open to learning more about the world. We hope you will discover many facts you may have been previously unaware of in this very educational advanced ancient civilizations expose.

These are some of the world’s greatest ancient ruins, some of these places defy belief. Thousands exist in Asia, across millions of miles, some still yet to be discovered. The most mysterious ancient sites are composed of massive megaliths and stones that appear to be worked with laser-like tools was built thousands of years ago in modern-day Asia. The temples and Stupa’s you are about to see will leave you opened mouthed at their beauty, you will also wonder how they could create such monuments 1000’s of years ago.

Watch mind provoking, eye opening, educational, controversial, awesome documentaries by subscribing and of course hit the bell button at the top tight of the screen. We will make each film expand the horizons of the viewers open to learning more about the world. We hope you will discover many facts you may have been previously unaware of in this very educational Ancient Asia expose.

Ancient Egypt documentary shows it was a fascinating place. Its mysterious civilization, powerful gods, and stunning pyramids have captured our imagination for thousands of years. Much can be attributed to the ancient Egyptians, even some of the earliest forms of technology and inventions that we still use. From the pyramids in the north to the temples in the south, ancient artisans left their marks all over Egypt, unique marks that reveal craftsmanship we would be hard pressed to duplicate today.

Watch mind provoking, eye opening, educational, controversial, awesome documentaries by subscribing and of course hit the bell button at the top tight of the screen. We will make each film expand the horizons of the viewers open to learning more about the world. We hope you will discover many facts you may have been previously unaware of in this very educational Ancient Egypt expose.

Deep within the jungles of Mexico and Guatemala and extending into the limestone shelf of the Yucatan peninsula lie mysterious temples and pyramids. Despite the towering reputation of Egypt’s Great Pyramids at Giza, the documentary shows the Americas actually contain more pyramid structures than the rest of the planet combined. Civilizations like the Olmec, Maya, Aztec and Inca all built pyramids. These were usually step pyramids, with temples on top more akin to the ziggurats of Mesopotamia than the Pyramids of Ancient Egypt. Mesoamerican Pyramids served many functions from – from astronomical observatories to places of ritual worship and sacrifice, and perhaps sometimes these are linked to extraterrestrials, but who really built these pyramids and why?

Watch mind provoking, eye opening, educational, controversial, awesome documentaries by subscribing and of course hit the bell button at the top tight of the screen. We will make each film expand the horizons of the viewers open to learning more about the world. We hope you will discover many facts you may have been previously unaware of in this very educational ancient history expose.

Some Important Facts From March Of The Titans

Prologue: Some Important Facts

 Prologue: Some Important Facts

Crucial to the understanding of the theme of this book and its related volumes is an understanding of the concepts of race, ethnicity, and culture.

Race, Ethnicity, and Culture

A race is defined as a group of individuals sharing common genetic attributes which determine that group’s physical appearance and, more controversially, their cognitive abilities. Ethnicity is defined as the creation of groups by individuals (most often within racial groups but also possible across racial divides) of certain common traditions, languages, art forms, attitudes, and other means of expression.

A culture is the name given to the physical manifestations created by ethnic groups—the actual language, art forms, religion, social order, and achievements of a particular ethnic group. In practical terms then, it is possible to talk of a white race; of a Scottish ethnicity, and a Scottish culture. The last two—ethnicity and culture—are directly dependent upon each other, and flow from each other in a symbiotic relationship. This book deals primarily with white racial history, and flowing from that, white ethnic groups and cultures.

The White Race—Three Subgroups

What exactly is meant by the white race? Essentially there are three main subgroups with two further divisions of note. The three major subgroups are known to academics as Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean.

Although these names have come about mainly as a result of the geographic areas these subgroups have been associated with in the Christian era (Nordics in northern Europe, Alpines in central Europe and Mediterraneansin southern Europe), it is incorrect to believe that these groups always occupied these regions.

The three main subgroups have played a role in events in almost every geographical region where the white race as a group has appeared. Of these three original groups, only two are existent in any large number today: the Nordics and the Alpines. The original Mediterraneans of ancient history are not to be confused with those people loosely termed “Mediterranean” today. The original white Mediterranean component has been largely dissipated into two distinct groups: those who have absorbed Alpine or Nordic white subracial elements; and those who have absorbed North African or other nonwhite racial elements.

To illustrate the concept of these three main subgroups: although there is a broadly termed “black race” in existence, there are major subgroups amongst that racial group. The Congo basin Pygmy and the ultra tall Masai tribesmen of Kenya are two good examples of subgroups within the black racial group.

A subgroup, therefore, is a branch of a particular race which exhibits slightly different physical characteristics but still shares enough of a common genetic inheritance with other subgroups to be included in a broad racial category. This is known as the concept of genetic commonality, and is the basis of all racial categories.

Nordic—Tall, Slim, Light Eyes, and Hair

The Nordic racial subgroup, which is still largely in existence today, is characterized by light colored hair and eyes, a tall slim build, and a distinctive “long” (that is, thin and extended) skull shape.

Nordic—The skull of a member of the Nordic white subrace, viewed from the front and the side. The “long” nature of the facial structure is clearly visible. Alongside is a classic Nordic male from Sweden.

Alpine—‘Solid’ Body, Round Head, Brown Eyes

The Alpine racial subgroup, which also still exists in a large measure today, is characterized by brown hair and eyes, a short, more “solid” body build and a distinctive “round” (that is, almost, but not quite, circular) skull shape.

Alpine—The skull of a member of the Alpine white subrace, viewed from the front and the side. The “shorter” facial structure is apparent. Alongside is a classic Alpine male from southern Germany.

Mediterranean—Mixture of Body Types

The original Mediterranean racial subgroup no longer exists today. It was the first of the three white racial subgroups to disappear from the earth, submerged into the gene pools of surrounding races.

Mediterranean—A skull of a member of the Mediterranean white subrace, viewed from the front and side. Alongside, a WWI Welsh soldier—as close an example of a Mediterranean as can be found in modern times.

The Mediterranean subgroup was predominantly (but not totally) characterized by dark hair and eye color, slim (Nordic), or solid (Alpine) build and either long or round skull shapes. It is worth stating again, as it is of great significance in more ways than one, that there are very few of these original Mediterranean racial types left in the world today. They were known as the “Old Europeans” and inhabited large parts of Europe, the Middle East, and Egypt at the dawn of history. These Mediterranean types bear almost no resemblance to the present day inhabitants of the Mediterranean basin.

The original Old Europeans have been absorbed almost completely into either the Nordic/Alpine stock in Europe, or the African/Semitic/Asian stock of North Africa, and the Middle East.

There are two places in Europe where occasional glimpses of this original Mediterranean racial subgroup can still be seen: the Celtic fringes of Britain (most notably in Wales and Devonshire) and in the Basque territory of Spain. In these regions there exists a short, dark strain—remnants of the original inhabitants of Europe.

Pure examples of this Mediterranean type are rare, as they have for the largest degree had some Nordic or Alpine admixture over the years. Unfortunately there has also been some admixture from North Africa. Nonetheless, it is still possible today to talk of “Mediterranean” whites even though they do not identically represent those of antiquity.

Other Subgroups—Dinarics and East Baltics

Two other white racial subgroups exist (Dinarics and East Baltics). These types differ slightly in skull shape and body dimensions from the three main groups outlined above, but they share a great number of physical characteristics such as hair and eye color.

As with the Alpines and Mediterraneans, there has been a great deal of mixing with the three main subgroups. They are found in large numbers in present day Eastern Europe. A very small percentage of these two subgroups also display the physical characteristics resulting from mixing with the waves of Asiatic invaders who penetrated Europe from the east during the course of history.

Whites Defined by Genetic Commonality

For the purposes of this book, an ethnic or cultural group is defined as part of the white race as long as it shares enough of a common genetic inheritance with the broader racial group. When an ethnic group loses this genetic commonality it is then formally excluded from the white racial category.

Tracking Race

How is race tracked in civilization? How is it determined whether the populations of certain societies or civilizations belonged to specific races? The answer to this is simple. Race in history is tracked in four ways: paleoserology, art forms, language, and the science of genetics. This last test has only come into its own in the last ten years of the twentieth century, but has proven to be a major aid in tracking racial history.

Paleoserology Reveals Racial Types

Paleoserology is the study of skeletal remains. As different racial groups have different physical characteristics, it is a relatively simple matter to determine the racial makeup of the inhabitants of a particular region by studying the contents of grave sites. This skill is often used by modern police pathologists to identify the race of corpses. This science has proven equally useful in historical diggings where the examination of burial sites has created an understanding of the racial makeup of ancient peoples.

Race Appears in Art Forms

Art forms (whether conventional pictures, illustrations on pottery, or even statues) also provide significant indicators of the racial makeup of contemporary inhabitants. The ancient civilizations in particular—of all racial group—reflected themselves in their art forms (often because their own racial types were the only human models from which they had to work).

In this way, for example, early Chinese art depicted principally Chinese people; Incan and Aztec art depicted only Incan or Aztec people, and so on. In all societies, original art forms which portrayed people closely followed contemporary physical appearances. This principle is well illustrated in the four art forms portrayed below.

Tracking race in history: race depicted in art forms. Early civilizations very often depicted images of their own racial types in their works of art, based on the reality that their own types were the most common (or only) human models with which they had to work. A comparison of (from left to right) Olmec art, 400 BC; African art, circa 1400 AD; Japanese art, 1000 AD; and Greek art, 340 BC, reflects this principle well. The study of art forms is a reliable indicator of the racial type of the communities in which the art works were created.

Genetics Reveals Racial Past

All human beings have three sorts of genes: mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited through the female line; Y-Chromosomes which are inherited through the male line, and autosomal DNA, which is inherited from both sexes. The study of genetics has served to confirm the accuracy of many historical accounts of racial movements, and is particularly useful in showing cause and effect in the rise and fall of civilizations, as demonstrated in this book.

Research carried out by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza and two colleagues, P. Menozziand A. Piazzia, in their work The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994), has revealed an astonishing 2,288 genetic point difference between whites and black Africans. The research found that the English differ from the Danes, Germans, and French by a mere 21–25 points of genetic distance, whereas they differ from North American Indians by 947 points, from black Africans by 2,288 points, and from MbutiPygmies by 2,373 points. Cavalli-Sforza also used Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA—transferred through the maternal line) to divide the world up into seven distinct races, classifying whites as part of the “Caucasoid” group for his study.

Above: A map showing the pre-1500 AD Y-Chromosome distribution in the world, and below, a map showing the mtDNA chromosome distribution. Y-Chromosomes are male genetic markers, passed down unchanged through the male line, and mtDNA chromosomes are the female equivalent.

Language Reflects Racial Similarities

The study of language is another important clue to the dispersion of peoples. Commonalities in language forms leave clearly identifiable “fingerprints” in cultures. Similar words, phrases, or language forms are a clear indication of a single origin for civilizations, due to the fact that the people in those civilizations would at some stage have had a common origin. In this way the route of a culture (and hence a people) can be traced by following a language.

Old Persian
(non-Cyrillic spelling.)
Brat (pronounces as “Braht”)
Mater (or just Maht with soft “t”)
Batya (pronounces as “Bahtya”)

 An Objective Definition of Civilization

For the purposes of this book, civilization will be taken to mean the entire ambit of social/cultural manifestations which are characteristic to any particular nation or racial group. In this way the accusation of subjectivity can be avoided. Civilization, in the broadest sense of the word, includes all social manifestations, from social interactions to language, art forms, science, technology, customs, and culture.

It is therefore possible to talk of a Japanese civilization, an American Indian (Amerind) civilization, a Polynesian civilization, an Australian Aboriginal civilization, a black civilization and a white civilization, without being subjective about any of them.

The Question Posed by a “Rise and Fall”

When reviewing the historical development of all nations, quite often mention is made of a “rise and fall” of a particular civilization. This poses a major question: Why have some civilizations lasted a thousand years or more, while others rise and collapse within a few hundred? Why is it, for example, that nations such as Japan, Sweden, and England—all nations with limited natural resources—could have progressive active cultures for more than one thousand years; whereas mighty civilizations such as Classical Rome, Greece, or Persia, amongst others, collapse after only a few centuries?

Politically correct historians blame the rise and fall of the great nations of the past on politics, economics, morals, lawlessness, debt, environment, and a host of other superficial reasons.

However, Japan, England, and Sweden have gone through similar crises scores of times, without those countries falling into decay. It is obvious that there must be some other factor at work—something much more fundamental than just variations in politics, morals, lawlessness, or any of the other hundreds of reasons that historians have manufactured in their attempts to explain the collapse of civilizations.

Each Society Unique to Each People

Herein lies the key to understanding the rise and fall of all civilizations. In any given territory, the people making up the society in that territory create a culture which is unique to themselves.

A society or civilization is only a reflection of the population of that particular territory. For example, the Chinese civilization is a product of the Chinese people, and is a reflection of the makeup of the population living in China. The Chinese civilization is unique to the Chinese people; they made it and it reflects their values and norms.

As the Chinese people made the Chinese civilization, it logically follows that the Chinese culture would disappear if the Chinese people were to disappear. Presently the overwhelming majority of Chinese people live in China, creating the Chinese civilization in that land. If, however, Australian Aborigines had to immigrate into China in their millions, and the Chinese population had to dramatically reduce in number, then in a few years the character of Chinese civilization would change—to reflect the new inhabitants of that territory.

In other words, the society or civilization of that territory would then reflect the fact that the majority of inhabitants were now Aborigines rather than Chinese people. If China had to fill up with Aborigines, this would mean the end of Chinese civilization. Aborigines would create a new civilization which would reflect themselves, and not that of the Chinese people.

That this should happen is perfectly logical. It has nothing to do with which culture is more advanced, or any notions of superiority or inferiority. It is merely a reflection of the fact that a civilization is a product of the nature of the people making up the population in the territory.

A Theoretical Example: No Chinese People Means No Chinese Civilization

To go back to the Chinese example: If all Chinese people on earth had to disappear tomorrow, then fairly obviously, Chinese civilization and culture would disappear with them. It is this startlingly obvious principle which determines the creation and dissolution of civilizations—once the people who create a certain society or civilization disappear, then that society or civilization will disappear with them. If the vanished population is replaced by different peoples, then a new society or culture is created which reflects the culture and civilization of the new inhabitants of that region.

A Practical Example: Arrival of Whites Changed American Civilization

There are numerous examples of this process at work. One which will be familiar to all is the shift which occurred in North America. On that continent, the Amerind (American Indian) people lived for thousands of years, creating a civilization which dominated that continent. In other words, the civilization and culture which dominated North America reflected the fact that the Amerind people lived and formed the majority population there.

After 1500 AD that continent filled up with white immigrants from Europe. These white immigrants displaced the Amerinds by squeezing them out of possession of North America.

The great shift in North American civilization then occurred. Whereas the Amerind culture had dominated for thousands of years, within a couple hundred years the dominant civilization on that continent had become white European. This shift reflected the fact that the majority of inhabitants of North America were white Europeans—and the Amerind civilization, for all practical purposes, disappeared.

The Amerind civilization in North America “fell” because the population of North America changed.

Racial Shift Paramount

This effect—the displacement of peoples and the subsequent disappearance of their civilization—has direct implications in racial terms. The rise and fall of any particular civilization can be traced, not by the economics, politics, morals, etc., of a particular civilization, but rather by the actual racial presence of the people themselves.

If the society which has produced a particular civilization stays intact as a racially homogeneous unit, then that civilization remains active. If, however, the society within any particular given area changes its racial makeup—through invasion, immigration, or any decline in numbers—then the civilization which that society has produced will disappear with them, to be replaced by a new civilization reflecting the new inhabitants of that territory.

Egypt: Same country, different people. Above left: The white pharaoh, Queen Nefertiti, circa 1350 BC; Above center: The effects of racial mixing are clearly to be seen on the face of this coffin portrait of a Roman lady in Hawara, Egypt, 100 AD; Above right: The mixed race Egyptian, Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt in the twentieth century. Nefertiti ruled over an advanced civilization; Sadat ruled over a third world country. The reason for the difference in cultures between Nefertiti’s Egypt and Sadat’s Egypt was that the Egyptian people had changed.

Disappearance of Whites Led to the Collapse of Their Civilizations

Originally created by Proto-Nordics, Alpines, and Mediterraneans, and then influenced by waves of Indo-European invaders, the white civilizations in the Middle East all flourished, producing the wonders of the ancient world.

These regions were either invaded or otherwise occupied (through the use of laborers, immigration, or in rare cases, by conquest) by nonwhitenations of varying races. When the original white peoples who created those civilizations vanished or became an insignificant minority (through death and absorption into other races), their civilizations “fell” in exactly the same way that the Amerind civilization in North America “fell.”

500 BC—First Turning Point 

It was around the year 500 BC that the first great turning point in white history was reached. This was the decline of the first great white civilizations in the Middle East and their subsequent replacement by nations and peoples of a substantially different racial makeup.

Up until this time the development of the white race’s territorial expansion was such that they were a majority in Europe and all of Russia west of the Urals. They formed a significant component of the population of the Middle East and their rule extended into the Indus River Valley in Northern India.

India—Origin of the Caste System

In India, for example, the Indo-Aryan population was diminished by four factors:

• A large nonwhite (Indian) immigration northward to do work offered by the society set up by the conquering Indo-Aryans;
• A high natural reproduction level amongst the nonwhiteimmigrants;
• The level of racial mixing amongst Aryans and the Indians, which, by creating a new mixed ethnic identity, also changed the racial makeup of the inhabitants of the region; and
• A decline in the birth rate amongst the Aryans.

In India, the invading Indo-Aryans established a strict segregation system to keep themselves separate from the local dark skinned native population. This system was so strict that it has lasted to this day and has become known as the caste system.

However, even the strictest segregation (and Aryan laws prescribing punishments such as death for miscegenation) did not prevent the majority population from eventually swallowing up the ruling Aryans until the situation has been reached today where only a very few high caste Brahmin Indians could still pass as Europeans.

Exactly the same thing happened in Central Asia, Egypt, Sumeria, and to a lesser degree, modern Turkey. Slowly but surely, as these civilizations relied more and more on others to do their work for them, or were physically conquered by other races, their population makeup became darker and darker.

Miscegenation with Nonwhite Slaves Caused Egyptian Decline

From the time of the Old Kingdom, the original white Egyptians had been using Nubians, blacks, and Semites (or Arabs) to work on many of their building projects or as general slaves.

At various stages the pharaohs also employed Nubian mercenaries, and ultimately Nubia and Sudan were physically occupied and incorporated into the Egyptian empire. Although the buildings of ancient Egypt are very impressive—many having survived through to the present day, their construction was dependent on the Egyptian ability to organize an unprecedented mass of human labor.

Under the direction of a scribe and architect, thousands of slaves and regiments of soldiers laboredfor decades to create the great buildings, using only levers, sleds, and massive ramps of earth. It is impossible to think that such massive use of slave and foreign labor would not have left some mark on the population of the land. Interbreeding took place, and this, combined with the natural growth and reproduction patterns of the slaves and laborers, meant that in a relatively short time they comprised a significant section of the population.

Several attempts were made to prevent large numbers of Nubians from settling in Egypt. One of the first recorded racial separation laws was inscribed on a stone on the banks of the southern Nile which forbade Nubians from proceeding north of that point. Nonetheless, the continuous use of Nubians for labor eventually led to the establishment of a large resident nonwhite population in Egypt, with their numbers being augmented by natural reproduction and continued immigration.

The region was also occupied for two hundred years by the Semitic Hyksos, who intermarried with the local population, and this was followed by other Semitic/Arabic immigration, fueled by the long existing black settlement on the southernmost reaches of the Nile River.

Once again the factors which led to the extinction of the Aryans in India came into play in Egypt: a resident nonwhite population to do the labor, a natural increase in nonwhite numbers, physical integration, and a decline in the original white birthrate.

All these factors compounded to produce an Egyptian population makeup of today that is very different from the men and women who founded Egypt and designed the pyramids.

As the population makeup shifted, so the cultural manifestations, or civilization, of that region changed to the point where the present day population of the Middle East is not by any stretch of the imagination classifiable as white. This explains why the present inhabitants of Egypt are not the same people who designed the pyramids.

The Egyptians of today are a completely different people, racially and culturally, living amongst the ruins of another race’s civilization.

Identical Reasons for Decline in Middle East 

The decline and eventual extinction of the white population in the Middle East marked the end of the original civilizations in those regions. In all the Middle Eastern countries the Semitic (Arabic) and black populations grew as they were used as laborby the ruling whites. In the case of Sumer, the white rulers were physically displaced by military conquest at the hands of Semitic invaders.

This process continued until almost all remains of the original whites in the greater region were assimilated into the darker populations. Only the occasional appearance of light colored hair or eyes amongst today’s Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians serve as reminders of the original rulers of these territories.

Lesson—Role of Racially Foreign Labor in the Decline of a Civilization

The lesson is clear: a civilization will remain intact as long as its creating race remains in existence. This applies to all races equally—white, black, Mongolian or any other. As long as a civilization’s founding race maintains its territorial integrity and does not use large numbers of any other alien race to do its labor, that civilization will remain in existence.

If a civilization allows large numbers of racial aliens into its midst (most often as laborers) and then integrates with those newcomers, that civilization will change to reflect the new racial makeup of the population.

Any civilization—be it white, black, Asian, or Aboriginal—stands or falls by the homogeneity of its population, and nothing else. As soon as a society loses its homogeneity, the nature of that society changes. This simple fact, often ignored by historians, provides the key to understanding the rise and fall of all civilizations, irrespective of race.

Evidence of black slaves in Egyptian and Grecian society. Left: Nubian (African) slaves as depicted in ancient Egyptian art, and right two Greek vases, dating from the fifth century BC, show the racial types of two slaves, a Semite and a black.

History Is a Function of Race

The early white civilizations in Greece and Rome also fell to this process. The last great Grecian leader, Pericles, actually enacted a law in the year 451 BC limiting citizenship of the state according to racial descent. However, some four hundred years later this law was changed as the population shifts had become more and more evident. Certain Roman leaders tried to turn back the racial clock, but their efforts were in vain.

The sheer vastness of the Roman Empire meant that all sorts of races were included in its borders, and this brew ultimately led to the dissolution of the original Roman population.

Those who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that territory. This is an immutable law of nature. It is the iron rule upon which all of human endeavour is built—that history is a function of race.

The Rise and Fall of Civilizations Explained

• Each and every society and culture is the sum and unique product of the people making up that society;

• For example: The Chinese civilization is the product of the Chinese people, the Australian Aboriginal culture is the product of the Aboriginal people, and white society is the product of white people;

• This has nothing to do with subjective notions of superiority or inferiority;

• If the people in a society change their racial makeup, it is therefore logical that the culture of that society will change to reflect this shift in society;

• This is what is called the “rise and fall” of civilizations—where one culture gets replaced by a different culture;

• The cause of this replacement of cultures is the replacement of the people in that society;

• In this way, the American Indian culture “fell” because they were replaced by whites as the dominant race on the North American continent;

• Civilizations do not then “fall”—they are merely replaced by another culture, which is the product of the new population;

 A civilization “rises and falls” by its racial homogeneity and nothing else. As long as it maintains its racial homogeneity, it will last—if it loses its racial homogeneity, and changes its racial makeup, it will “fall” or be replaced by a new culture.

This is a chapter from March of the Titans, The Complete History of the White Race, available here.

The Final Call: What Can be Done?

The Final Call: What Can be Done?

In the Norse legend of the Ragnarök, a new world emerges after the world is immersed in fire and water, and in the new world, the gods and man live in peace ever after.

In the real world, things are not that simple. When the white civilizations of the ancient world were overrun, there were always new territories and new lands to be opened. When Mesopotamia fell, Egypt arose. When Egypt fell, classical Greece arose. When classical Greece fell, Rome arose. When Rome fell, the European states arose. Then the New World was opened, and North America, Australia, and New Zealand were added as white heartlands.

Now, however, these are all threatened by mass Third World immigration. There are no more new territories or lands to be opened. It is the final call for white Western civilization.

Can the West survive? The simple answer is yes, provided some basic steps are taken.

1. First and foremost, white people must have more children. All other political activity is meaningless without this fundamental building block. History, politics, and human affairs are the product of demography. A failure to breed is punished by Nature with extinction.

2. Political activity must be directed at awakening as many white European people as possible to the reality of race and its underpinning of world events.

3. This political activity must always be done in the idiom of the time. All attempts at political necrophilia (which seek to recreate certain past time periods, such as the Ku Klux Klan/Confederacy or National Socialist Germany) are doomed to failure. The era of “white supremacy” is gone, and all attempts to recreate it are foolish. The white race will live or die in the twenty-first century, and not in the centuries gone by.

4. This political activity must always be directed in reasonable, moderate, and socially acceptable language, terms, and presentation. There is, after all, nothing wrong with demanding the same rights which are accorded to all Third World nations (freedom from colonization and the right to self-determination) for First World nations. It is, in fact, entirely reasonable and normal.

5. This political activity must not be restricted to “only” publishing the odd book, website, or journal. It is a non sequitur to argue that there “are no politicians who support the interests of white people” when the people who make that complaint are not involved in practical politics. Of course there will be no pro-white politicians if all the politically-aware people who are pro-white, do not campaign and stand for office.

6. Political realism must be the watchword for all activists. Too many enter politics with false expectations of instant victory, and burn out when the expected glory does not materialize. Activists must be aware that the racial worldview goes against nearly a century of leftist indoctrination. The mass media is, for the greatest part, completely hostile and in the hands of those who applaud the racial destruction of the West. It is no easy ride, and victories on a pro-white political platform are, simply put, the hardest-to-achieve objectives which any activist will experience.

7. Fortunately, it is not necessary to win outright. All that is needed is for a significant minority of Western people to be awakened to the racial realities. The biggest threat to the future existence of the white race does not come from other racial groups, but rather from the sway which white liberals hold over society. All other races and groups do what they do because the ruling white liberal elite allows it.

And therein lies the rub; the nature of modern liberalism is suicidal. Liberals will, given enough time, destroy themselves. They will stop having children; they will miscegenate, and they will then cease to exist. As long as pro-white political activists have had sufficient children and engaged in sensible, reasonable political activity, their political views will be unopposed among the surviving white community.

Those who might argue that the racially-conscious surviving numbers will be too small to matter, should be aware that the founding European population in Upper Paleolithic times was no more than a few hundred thousand at most. There are already more people than that—millions, in fact—who have voted for pro-white or anti-immigration parties in Europe. There is no cause for pessimism about numbers.

8. Finally, the surviving white communities will have to be realistic about their geographic circumstances. It is no good to be a racially-conscious minority in a sea of hostile nonwhites, as the Afrikaners in South Africa discovered to their cost. As such, serious consideration will have to be given to white geographic consolidation once the time comes. In this regard, Eastern Europe and “white Russia” are likely to play a decisive role in providing a homeland in which white people from around the world will be able to reform, regroup, and survive—and hopefully learn from the lessons of history.

Is any of this possible? You, dear reader, and your actions, will help decide the answer to that question.

The Bizarre Lies Told At Nuremberg To Execute Germans They Wish You’d Forget

The Bizarre Lies Told At Nuremberg To Execute Germans They Wish You’d Forget

From Wear’s War

…many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse”.

After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. Wears War brings to you each week a quote from the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by the trials. All of these people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they spoke out against the trials.

Healthy Inmates Celebrate Liberation With Alcohol, Buchenwald, 1945

Many defenders of the Holocaust story maintain that the 42-volume Trial of the Major War Criminals (The Blue Series) supplies a massive compilation of damning evidence against Germany’s National Socialist regime. In his book Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Carlos Porter confronts the evidence directly by reproducing page after page from the Blue Series. Porter shows that many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse. In addition to killing Jews in homicidal gas chambers, the Germans at Nuremberg were accused of:

–building special electrical appliances to zap inmates to death with mass electrical shocks;

–killing 20,000 Jews in a village near Auschwitz with an atomic bomb;

–forcing prisoners to climb trees and then killing the prisoners by cutting down the trees;

–killing 840,000 Russian prisoners at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp using a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine, and then burning the bodies in four mobile crematories;

–torturing and executing people at the Yanov camp in Russia in time to musiccreated by a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners, and then shooting every member of the orchestra;

grinding the bones of 200 people at one time as described in documents and photographs that have disappeared;

making lampshades, handbags, driving gloves for SS officers, book bindings, saddles, house slippers, etc. out of human skin;

–killing prisoners and concentration camp inmates for everything from having soiled underwear to having armpit hair; and

steaming people to death like lobsters in steam chambers at Treblinka.

After this incredible survey of Nuremberg atrocity evidence, Carlos Porter provides numerous examples of improper prosecution tactics at Nuremberg. The defendants at Nuremberg were rarely able to confront their accusers, since affidavits from witnesses who had been deposed months before sufficed. The prosecution made it difficult for the defense lawyers to have timely access to the documents introduced into evidence by the prosecution. Also, photocopies and transcripts were usually submitted into evidence instead of the original German documents, which in many cases seemed to have disappeared. Finally, the defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case. The defense had no right to review the tons of remaining documents that might help them defend their clients.

American soldiers with deloused clothing airing outside the dis-infestation chambers, 1945. The dis-infestation chambers and Zyklon-B continued to be used after the Allied liberation of the camp, something that the Holocaust storytellers always neglect to tell.

Quote Source: Porter, Carlos Whitlock, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Historical Review Press, 1988.

Repeat After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair & Objective Justice For The Greater Good Of Humanity!”
Decades Later Americans Pay To Administer Reparation Agreements: “…the State Department has waived ‘quite considerable’ administrative costs”. After Survivors Interfered In U.S. State & Federal Contract Tenders In 2016. Repeat After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair & Objective Justice For The Greater GUILT Of Humanity!”
The Book That Requires Trolls On A Salary To Attempt To Discredit It.