Is Kemp Kidding?

[galvez]

A good essay by MX Rienzi. He points out the habit of Nordicists to arbitrarily "claim" Meds they like as Nordics and scoffs (in the notes below) at the idea that Northern Italians are Germanic (a claim lacking scientific proof). He also catches the childish arguments of the Kempians -- for example, they argue that because McCulloch does not like Kemp, therefore Kemp is not a Nordicist. No one ever said Nordicists were the bright ones among racialists, after all. Well, enough chatter, here is the essay below.

legioneuropa.org/Comment/kidding.htm

IS HE KIDDING?

Kemp the non-Nordicist?

MX Rienzi

The first time I read Arthur Kemp's anti-Southern European screed "March of the Titans" (MOTT) I said to myself that this is yet another example of ultra-Nordicist "subjective speculative rhetoric", and nothing I've seen in that work since has changed my mind on that. In point of fact, Kemp's work is so similar to all the usual Nordicist ranting in the "movement" that I was able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what he wrote in any given section before I read it. "Same old, same old."

There has been an online debate between Kemp and his supporters and a Mr. Pontikos and his supporters. I must state here and now that I am NOT a supporter of the Pontikos faction and indeed I disagree with that faction as much as I do with the Kempians. However, Kemp is infinitely better known and of course much more influential in the "movement." Thus, I focus more on him now. I will not critique his work as such here; others have spent much time doing so, and one can find this on the internet. I would instead like to address one basic point here: Kemp's ludicrous claim that he is not a Nordicist and that MOTT does not "espouse the Nordicist doctrine.":

www4.stormfront.org/whitehistory/pontikos_lie01.htm

Kemp's claims that MOTT is not Nordicist are based on:

1) All White sub-races are represented in MOTT as White. Very well. But he then claims that one of these subraces - the "Mediterranean" (sic) - no longer really exists, having been mostly eliminated via admixture. More to the point, Kemp does not believe (in typically Nordicist fashion) that all Europeans - and hence all Euro-Americans - are White and derived from these White subraces he talks about. For example, he claims in his section on Italy (1) that the majority of the population of Southern Italy - an area from which the overwhelmingly large majority of Italian-Americans derive ancestry - is of mixed race and non-White. Thus, Kemp's' assertion that "I consider all White sub-races to be White" - a tautological redundant statement in any case - is cold comfort to those people, including pro-White activists, who derive ancestry from those sources he does not include in his "White sub-races."

2) McCulloch doesn't like my work, boo-hoo. This is the epitome of Kempian illogic. Just because person "A", who believes in ideology "X", does not like the work of person "B", does not imply that person "B" does not share the same basic beliefs ("X") of person "A." Stalinists, Trotskyites, and Maoists do not like each other's specifics, but all are Marxists. Just because McCulloch - who Kemp believes is today's top Nordicist - does not think highly of MOTT does not imply that MOTT is not Nordicist.

3). MOTT acknowledges the contributions of "Mediterraneans." Yes, and these contributions are all ancient or even before the ancient classical period. As Kemp does not believe that the Old European "Mediterraneans" exist anymore, this is a very convenient way of saying that one is "not Nordicist." Yes, Kemp believes that a non-Nordic group made important contributions - thousands of years ago, and the group no longer exists. Of the currently existing White groups, which one, from reading MOTT, does Kemp place in the pre-eminent position - as is tiresomely predictable?

Southern Europeans (SEs) cannot look back at Old European/"Mediterranean" accomplishments as "their own" since the group in question is extinct, and anyway, many SEs are "non-White mongrels" in any case, according to MOTT.

4. MOTT does not say that all classical civilization was Nordic. Very well.. But the whole theme of post-classical MOTT is that almost everything and everyone of worth in White history - including Napoleon, Hitler, and the Italian patriot Mazzini (!) - was and are all Nordic. It seems that one criteria for being "Nordic" to Kemp is that someone was an impressive historical figure. Maybe the reason that some other Nordicists do not like MOTT is because of Kemp's distortions to prove his points, and his tendency to call "Nordic" people who, at least to my eye, do not even look like non-Nordic Northern Europeans.

5. Not all SEs are considered non-White in MOTT. Well thank you, Mr. Kemp. Only the majority of Italian-Americans are implied to be mixed-race non-Whites, but hey, not every single one of them! His comments about "biracial nations" are absurd. His comments on Greeks make no sense. He says that, well, not all Greeks are non-White, and shows some pictures of "White Greeks." This implies what? But are not all Greeks essentially a single breeding population? One may say that - phenotypically speaking - some Greeks "look more White" (Kemp's definition) than others, but does this imply that the "White Greeks" are "racially pure" compared to the others? How does a "biracial nation" come about if the people within the nation do not make racial distinctions of members of the SAME ethnic group, and seem to inter-breed without a "color line." Or does Kemp think that "White Greeks" breed only and always with other "White Greeks?" What does "White" mean to Kemp? Phenotype only? Genes? Both? He seems to think that sickle-cell trait is a sign of "Negro-ness", but then talks about how the small numbers of blonde, blue-eyed Sicilians are "White" - as if these traits were mutually exclusive. I've read online about a Sicilian woman who is both blonde/blue and has sickle-cell. Confusing, no?

6. All civilizations disappear because of race-mixing. Really? Did the ancient Chinese civilization disappear because of race-mixing? Why did the Byzantine Empire out-last the Western Roman Empire by a thousand years, considering that the racial elements in the East were, by Kempian standards, lower than that in the West? Did the British Empire and culture decline because of race-mixing?

7. Pontikos is divisive for White nationalism. Look in the mirror, Mr. Kemp. Your work ranks high on the list of things promoting intra-Euro divisiveness and bitterness today, esp. on the North/South Euro divide.

Elsewhere Kemp states that, hey, SEs should not get upset, because his comments on mixed-race SE nations is similar to what he says about the multiracialism in Northern European nations today. Is Kemp serious? On the one hand he talks about "admixture" that took place hundreds/thousands of years ago, and as such would be wide-spread throughout the entire SE populations; in the latter case, he is talking about the recent immigration of non-Whites into Northern European nations, where they and their offspring (including the mixed-racers) can be identified, and of course, people can easily trace back their ancestries to the time of the immigrant influx. Kemp's' hand-waving doesn't work.

As regards the veracity of Kemp's comments about SE admixture, one can look at the racial essays on the Legion Europa site and make your own judgments.

Kemp is a Nordicist, as is clear from MOTT.

Notes:

1. His section on modern Italy reads as if it were written by a Legan Nord member a couple of cans short of a six-pack. Italy a biracial nation? Northern Italians descended straight from the Germanic Lombards? Is he kidding? Has he ever seen Pavoratti? The author Barzini? Or Umberto Bossi himself? Germanic? Huh? Is there genetic evidence showing that Northern Italians are Germanic? No.

[AWAR]

I think that Kemp is most annoyed by facts, therefore unworthy of serious discussion.

I posted on StormFront and got nearly banned because of my posts conserning Kemp's works of fiction.

[Praetor]

Kemp and McCulloch...The impact of their "works" make me feel desperate sometimes... And although it is obvious to anyone with common sense that Kemp's work is pure masturbation,McCulloch enjoys more respect...Why? Never could figure.I can still remember the first time i run across his texts about "nordish" race etc.The thing that made me laugh my ass out was his % analysis of european population. Eg the danes are 40% borreby,30% hallstat,greeks are 10% dinaric 5% "periphery nordish" (sounds soooo ridiculous)etc. Like he actually crisscrossed europe gathering metric data...To me he is just a guy that wished his people were swedish looking.And since they aren't he invented the nordish family were ryan giggs and gerhard schroeder are both included ,good lord.

[TSUNTZU]

galvez said:

6. All civilizations disappear because of race-mixing. Really? Did the ancient Chinese civilization disappear because of race-mixing?

The Chinese are still around as a people and civilization because mixing was minimal. The Great Wall of China prevented any continuous mass migrations of alien races in and out of China.

galvez said:

Why did the Byzantine Empire out-last the Western Roman Empire by a thousand years, considering that the racial elements in the East were, by Kempian standards, lower than that in the West?

Byzantine Empire was a fish bowl compared to the ocean of the Western Roman Empire. Apples and Oranges.

galvez said:

Did the British Empire and culture decline because of race-mixing?

No, but those non white societies in territories that Britain held in their empire for so long reverted back to their original natural bio-cultural state because of the original racial make up of the natives did not change drastically and overwhelmingly. The racial integrity of the natives remained, so did the native culture after the British left.

Turn it around for a minute. Did the Incas and the Aztecs survive as a cultural entity and society for rebuilding their civilization after the Spanish left. No, PARTLY because there was massive racial mixing of white spanish and amerindian in those parts of the Americas creating a different breed of people.



I think I understand the criticism of Kemp here. Racemixing isn't the only and main reason for the downfall of a civilization, it is a factor that cannot be ignored or minimized.

[AWAR]

TSUNTZU said:

The Chinese are still around as a people and civilization because mixing was minimal. The Great Wall of China prevented any continuous mass migrations of alien races in and out of China.

What about the racial difference between the appearance of North and South Chinese. In any case, China wasn't always a unified empire with the same teritory as today, it had it's many periods.

Byzantine Empire was a fish bowl compared to the ocean of the Western Roman Empire. Apples and Oranges.

Actually, the eastern part of the empire was much more powerful than the west. It's size was almost equal to the old unified empire in Justinian's times.

The eastern Roman empire, actually kept on living from 5th to 15th century AD. which is a 1000 years, while there was no western empire to speak of.

[caucasoid]

I read at www.um.u-tokyo.ac.jp/publish_db/Bulletin/no27/no27008.html that the An-Yang Chinese (Shang) belonged to the Ainu and Kennewick type of grade of H.s. asioaticus. "Turner (1976) supported this view, stating on the basis of skeletal and dental data that modern Japanese could easily be descendants of migrants from north China; that the Ainu were probably descended directly from the Jomon population; and that the 3100-year-old An-yang Chinese and the even older Jomon people were derived from an earlier proto-Mongoloid gene pool in eastern Asia." Although if you read further down, some Japanese argue that mongolisation is a process rather than indicating genetic mixing. If this is true in Japan then it is presumably true elsewhere.

[TSUNTZU]

AWAR said:

What about the racial difference between the appearance of North and South Chinese. In any case, China wasn't always a unified empire with the same teritory as today, it had it's many periods.

You just made my point. After all that has happened in their history, China is still here and to our ever living regret, getting stronger. Gee, north Chinese and south Chinese look different, variation of the same kind, but still Chinese. You have to respect that. I can only hope for a bio - cultural instinct, for the white race, as strong and resilient as the Chinese.

AWAR said:

Actually, the eastern part of the empire was much more powerful than the west. It's size was almost equal to the old unified empire in Justinian's times.

The eastern Roman empire, actually kept on living from 5th to 15th century AD. which is a 1000 years, while there was no western empire to speak of.

If you get a chance, read The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. The Eastern Empire is characterized as part of the Decline and Fall, a phase on the way down to oblivion. The fact it lasted so long is a testament to the contribution of the original Romans in the beginning, not necessarily a commentary on the racial make up of the Eastern Empire. Although, I would have to respect that empire for lasting for so long. I don't how the Eastern Empire lasted so long. They weren't better fighters or administrators than the original Romans. I suppose if the Eastern Empire was replete with negroes, the Eastern Empire would have vanished much sooner. I quess that discussion would make a worthy thread by itself.

[AWAR]

TSUNTZU said:

You just made my point. After all that has happened in their history, China is still here and to our ever living regret, getting stronger. Gee, north Chinese and south Chinese look different, variation of the same kind, but still Chinese. You have to respect that. I can only hope for a bio - cultural instinct, for the white race, as strong and resilient as the Chinese.

They are 'Chinese' linguistically, racially they have many variations. The fact that you don't know anything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Chinese people are a mix of various racial, sub-racial and ethnical groups that became more or less homogenized over the millenia.

Everything you can gather from the Chinese example is that it's effective assimilation that kept them on top.
They used the sheer size and advanced culture of their people to assimilate other nations in the area.

If you get a chance, read The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. The Eastern Empire is characterized as part of the Decline and Fall, a phase on the way down to oblivion.

The fact that western authors regularly seem to have a problem with an orthodox christian empire doesn't surprise me in the least.

The fact it lasted so long is a testament to the contribution of the original Romans in the beginning, not necessarily a commentary on the racial make up of the Eastern Empire. Although, I would have to respect that empire for lasting for so long.

Byzantium lasted for more than a 1000 years after the west fell. East was the heart of Rome for more than 1300 years. That's it.

You can call a 1000 years of Byzantium a 'decline' and the medieval times in western Europe 'prosperity' it tells nothing about Byzantium, but it tells a lot about your agendas.

I don't how the Eastern Empire lasted so long.

But of course!

They weren't better fighters or administrators than the original Romans.

That's just an insignificant and ignorant guesswork of yours. Reality is elsewhere.

I suppose if the Eastern Empire was replete with negroes, the Eastern Empire would have vanished much sooner. I quess that discussion would make a worthy thread by itself.

There is much talk about negros in Rome coming from Nordicists, Pseudo-Historians and Hollywood, real research shows otherwise.

The fact that in recent centuries the word 'slave' has become synonimous with 'black' is a simple mistake. The vast majority of slaves in Rome were Kelts, Germans and other barbaric tribes.

Western pseudo-historians, being Kelts or Germanic themselves don't like the fact that they were once slaves to Rome, so they think up of thousands of dirty little lies.

But, lying to a bunch of gung-ho racists is one thing, lying to someone who knows his stuff is another.

[rusalka]

TSUNTZU said:

But the Eastern Empire(Byzantium) wasn't the heart of Western Civilization, numbnutts. During the middle ages, Islamic civilization was the advanced super power at the time, not Byzantium. It wasn't until much later, after the dark ages in europe, WESTERN EUROPE brought the entire continent out of its slumber, not the east orthodox, STUPID.

When the Western Empire had fallen to the Germanic tribes the Eastern Empire survived. And it did survive for a LONG time. During Justinian's time, the empire was huge and was one of the leading powers of its time. To start with, they didn't even call themselves "Byzantine", they were always "Romans" to be more specific: "Romaioi" because the leading language was Greek and their heritage was more Greek than Roman. In this case, are you going to defend the idea that the Romans were a great culture but the Greek were not? Even that would be sheer nonsense as the Romans legitimized their own culture basing it on the Greek culture.

On second thought, don't take into account me saying "are you going to defend", because you probably won't be here to defend anything.

You are a whining little b*tch. My agenda? You have no fuKKKing idea what you are talking about, as usual. Again, why didn't the Byzantium bring all of Europe out of the dark ages? It was the western and southern part of Europe to do this after hundreds of years. Western Europe had to shake that albatross known as Christianity off a little bit to free their minds to do it, but it happen. Meanwhile, your precious Orthodox was drowning that part of the white race in ignorance.

Why would they? Why would they "bring the whole of Europe out of the Dark Ages"? If you care to remember there was the great schism, they were not one "religion" anymore, each side having excommunicated each other. When the Renaissance began to happen in the West, there was no Eastern Empire anymore. It had been merely reduced to a city (Constantinople) and then conquered by the Ottomans. And you know why the Western Empire prospered so much, freely, without much occupation by the "outsider"? Because the outsider was busy battling with the Byzantine Empire. Because, the outsider, the Turks; were kept firmly in Anatolia as their base and could have only gone as far as the Balkans at the time. If there was no Byzantine Empire, the Ottomans would have surely advanced into the middle of Europe centuries earlier. And if you compare the two sides and their church "dogma"; the eastern Romans were much more liberal compared to little Kingdoms of rural and feudalistic West. Once the Reformation and the Counter Reformation took place, once Humanism as an ideal rooted itself it was different; but that was not before the 15th century, and by that time Byzantine Empire had lost its last stand.

Shyt, you are huge dumbfuKKK!

Wow. Now that's scholarly.

Watch it Stupid. Are saying there is a higher level of negroid in southern Europeans than else where in Europe. You fuKKKed up now buddy. Alex, Dienekes and RM are going to kiKKK your Saracen Ass.

Nowhere does he say that. If there's someone's backsides to be kicked, that's most certainly going to be yours though.

Off topic rant that is so typical of your age group. You must be watching alot mtv or televitz because you spew the same shyt when faced with intelligent points in a conversation you can not address.

Coming from someone who writes "White. I hope she's not a race-mixer" under every thread? Someone who rants about televitz and mtv every chance he gets? Off topic? Like you, in general? Why do you always run to your precious "televitz and mtv" babbling? What does it, in any way, have to do with Byzantine Empire for gods' sake?

More psychic stuff. Where do you get such horseshyt? I know, its same old bullshyt I hear from the negro loving hiphop popculture of the global youth. Don't give this crap about how you are so far away from it all, because the way you sound, you're in the middle of it.

Yeah yeah..

When do I lie? I have spoken from the heart. I have stated my preference. I given my position on certain subjects. How is that a lie? AWAR you are an A - HOLE.

And that, without a doubt, earns you your wings. Good riddance might I add.

[galvez]

TSUNTZU's attacks against AWAR went way over the line, so I banned him (hopefully, if I have things straight). I also deleted his post because I found it to be vulgar.

It's a shame because he could have been a useful member, by politely explaining how Whites as well are victims of racial discrimination. But the opportunity was wasted by needlessly putting down an administrator.

[rusalka]

galvez said:

TSUNTZU's attacks against AWAR went way over the line, so I banned him (hopefully, if I have things straight). I also deleted his post because I found it to be vulgar.

It's a shame because he could have been a useful member, by politely explaining how Whites as well are victims of racial discrimination. But the opportunity was wasted by needlessly putting down an administrator.

I think it takes more than wishful thinking to allow someone of his caliber post here. Most of the time he really did make no sense to me and everything he ever wrote was backed up with his "white", "televitz, mtv" rant, it got boring. I totally agree with the discrimination against "whites", I have a very recent example to share too, but that's such an "American" thing. There's no "white" in Europe really, almost everyone is, and the outsiders are the Middle Easterns.

Anyway, galvez, what do you think of the "racist approaches against 'whites'" topic, would you care to open a thread on that one?

[galvez]

rusalka said:

I think it takes more than wishful thinking to allow someone of his caliber post here. Most of the time he really did make no sense to me and everything he ever wrote was backed up with his "white", "televitz, mtv" rant, it got boring. I totally agree with the discrimination against "whites", I have a very recent example to share too, but that's such an "American" thing. There's no "white" in Europe really, almost everyone is, and the outsiders are the Middle Easterns.

Anyway, galvez, what do you think of the "racist approaches against 'whites'" topic, would you care to open a thread on that one?

I have no problem with those with extremist positions -- what I object to is name-calling. I for one am sick of the narrow-mindedness I have witnessed in left-wing forums, and I don't want this forum to be just as they are. Also, an "extremist" position for one person may be sensible and rational for another.

I agree that racism against Whites is a good topic for discussion, and some so-called extremists have good points on this -- very rarely do White (and non-White) liberals talk about racism against Whites. In my view a debater should focus on arguments and not merely where an opponent fits in terms of the political categories.

I will open up a thread on this.

[rusalka]

galvez said:

I have no problem with those with extremist positions -- what I object to is name-calling. I for one am sick of the narrow-mindedness I have witnessed in left-wing forums, and I don't want this forum to be just as they are. Also, an "extremist" position for one person may be sensible and rational for another.

I agree that racism against Whites is a good topic for discussion, and some so-called extremists have good points on this -- very rarely do White (and non-White) liberals talk about racism against Whites. In my view a debater should focus on arguments and not merely where an opponent fits in terms of the political categories.

I will open up a thread on this.

Just to make myself clear; I wasn't against his extremist views at all; but the way he expressed his points was too juvenile and hard to respect. The way he kept repeating his adage under every irrelevant topic; and posting things like "white" under obviously white(european) individuals who were asking to be sub-racially classified, was annoying in my view.

As for the liberals and the hush-hush attitude, I have a LOT to say about that.