Chapter 55: The White Man’s Burden—South Africa

Chapter 55: The White Man’s Burden—South Africa

The story of the white settlement of the southernmost part of Africa differed from all the other European colonization experiments in one important way: only in South Africa did whites remain a minority yet settle in sufficient numbers to temporarily create a First World environment.

   This was however exacted at a huge cost, both from the natives and ultimately, from the white settlers. The history of South Africa serves, therefore, as a valuable lesson in racial dynamics and the interrelatedness of demographics, race, and cultural makeup. It is the most perfect modern example of the unbreakable principle of nature: that a race which makes up the majority population in a territory, ultimately determines the nature of the civilization in that region.

First White Settlement 1652

   The first major permanent white settlement in southern Africa was started in 1652, when the Dutch East India Company sent one of its officials, Jan van Riebeeck, to the tip of the continent in what is present-day Cape Town. Van Riebeeck was ordered to build a supply station for ships traveling to and from Asia. A number of the structures he ordered built, including a fort and the first large storage barn, are still in existence in Cape Town.

   Van Riebeeck’s expedition encountered small groups of Bushmen and Hottentots at the Cape. These were racially distinct from the African tribes, who at that stage were still concentrated on the east coast and more than one thousand miles from the Cape. 


Dutch settlement leader Jan van Riebeeck (1619–1677) lands at the southernmost point of Africa in April 1652. Shown here are some local Hottentots, the only nonwhites present at the time. The blacks were still nearly one thousand miles from the Cape of Good Hope, where Van Riebeeck was tasked with building a halfway supply station for ships on their way to the Far East. During the time he was governor (1652–1662), Van Riebeeck built a fort, dredged a part of the bay for use as a harbour, and supplied fruit, vegetables, and meat to passing ships. A series of clashes with the local nonwhites forced Van Riebeeck to plant a huge almond hedge as a barrier between the Europeans and the Hottentots.

“Free Burgers”—the First White Farmers

   By 1657 it became evident that the Dutch East India Company’s farming efforts were inadequate to supply both passing ships and the growing white settlement. A small number of Company employees were released from their contracts and allocated land which they worked as independent farmers. These first white farmers in South Africa were called burgers, the Dutch word for “citizens,” to which the word “free” was added as a sign that they were no longer employees of the Company.

   Between 1680 and 1700, the Dutch encouraged white immigration in ever-increasing numbers to bolster the settlement. Their own nationals were joined by groups of Germans and French, the latter being Protestant Huguenots who escaped Catholic persecution. 

   The demand for labor caused by the expanding farming settlements was met by the importation of slaves from the Dutch colony in Malaysia and by small numbers of black slaves brought in from the then still-unexplored interior.

Bushmen Immigrate North

   Relations between the settlers and the Bushmen were rocky. Large numbers of the natives died from European-borne diseases to which they had no resistance, and the rapidly-growing numbers of white settlers quickly took up much of the land around the Cape.

   As the Hottentots and Bushmen were nomads with no concept of land title, there was no specific “homeland”which the Europeans took away, but as their farms spread, the space in which the natives could roam was steadily decreased.

   The settlers also suffered greatly from stock theft and other petty crimes committed by the natives. A series of very one-sided clashes took place and the Bushmen migrated north to get away from the European settlement. They settled in what later became South West Africa, today called Namibia, where their descendants still live.


The castle at Cape Town, on the southern tip of Africa, is the oldest building in South Africa. First erected by Jan van Riebeeck in 1652, it was rebuilt in stone in 1666, and has remained largely unchanged from that time. The sketch below shows the original Dutch design, and the photograph shows the fort in 2010, over three hundred years later. The castle never saw military action, despite being built specifically for that purpose.


Mixed Marriages Prohibited 1685

   The Dutch East India Company issued written instructions to its governor at the Cape, Simon van der Stel, to prevent all racial mixing and intermarriage. This order was given formal status in 1685, the same year that the first whites-only school was established for the colonists’ children. 

   The Dutch had good cause to be concerned over the frequency of racial mixing. Despite the prohibition, mixing between the Malays, the remainder of the Hottentots, blacks, and a number of whites produced a mixed-race group which became known as the “Cape Coloreds.”This group grew in number until they surpassed the white population, and some were so “white-looking” that they were ultimately classified as such by the later white governments.

Boers Emerge as a Distinct Identity

   The growth in the number of African-born white settlers created the genesis of a new cultural identity, as was the case in the Americas and elsewhere. Dutch, German, French, and even Scandinavian elements joined together and became known as “Boers,” the Dutch word for “farmer.” The Boers who moved into the interior became isolated from changes at the Cape, and continued to speak a form of old Dutch, which later was transformed into the language of Afrikaans.

First Encounter with Blacks: Nine “Kaffir Wars” Erupt

   The Boers pushed eastward along the coast in their ever-growing quest for new farmland, and eventually encountered the first major black tribe, the Xhosa, in the region now known as the Eastern Cape, some eight hundred miles from Cape Town. The distance involved and the time it took for this first meeting to occur—nearly 120 years—serves to underline the fact that large parts of southern Africa were uninhabited at the time of the first European settlement at the Cape.

   The Xhosa tribe was migrating south at the time, and after the two races met in the Eastern Cape, both migrations came to an end along the Fish River. Both sides were dissatisfied with the other’s presence, and nine border wars between the races, known as the “Kaffir Wars,” broke out between 1781 and 1857. (Although the term “kaffir” has taken on a racially derogatory meaning, at the time of the colonial era, it had no racial meaning at all. The word is of Arabic Muslim origin, khufr, and in fact means non-Muslim, or infidel, and was thus applied to any race. The Europeans adopted it to refer to the black’s paganism, and only later was a racial meaning given to the word.)

   The Kaffir Wars ended after the Xhosas foolishly believed one of their witchdoctors who told them that if they killed all their cattle, their ancestors would rise from the dead and drive the whites into the sea. In February 1857, the Xhosas killed their cattle but waited in vain for the promised ancestor uprising. After several weeks, Xhosa power had been destroyed by a combination of starvation and disillusionment.


A scene from the 1835 “Kaffir War,” one of a series of conflicts which erupted after the white migration which traveled northeast from Cape Town came to a halt when it encountered the southward migration of the black Xhosa tribe. The ongoing wars persuaded many white settlers to leave for the interior where they hoped life would be more peaceful.

The British Occupy the Cape Colony

   The advent of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe saw the British seize the Cape from the Dutch out of fear that they would turn it over to the French. As a result, British troops landed for the first time in 1795, although they left during a short period of peace in Europe. A new outbreak of war with France saw the British return to the Cape in 1806, after which their occupation became permanent.

   At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain formally purchased the Cape from the Dutch for six million pounds. At this stage (1806), the Cape Colony had a white population of twenty-six thousand, a slave population of some thirty thousand, and an estimated Cape Colored population of twenty thousand.

Mass British Settlement 1820

   In 1820 the British settled over three thousand volunteer colonists, with government aid, in the Eastern Cape to strengthen the white population in the face of the then ongoing Kaffir Wars. This influx boosted the white population along the border area by 12 percent, and also caused an Anglicization which antagonized the Dutch-speaking Boer population. The Anglicization policy soon became official. In 1822, English became the sole official language. All laws and official business was conducted in English, which put the Boers at a disadvantage in commercial and social environments.

   The British administration also passed labor laws in 1822 which for the first time included the Cape Colored population, and went on to abolish slavery in 1833. The British government offered a compensation payout to the former slave owners, but the money had to be collected in London, making any payment impossible. All these measures served to sow discord between the British government and the Boers and set the background for the next 150 years of white history in South Africa.


   The dangers of settling in southern Africa in the early 1800s were so well known that they became the subject of satire, as illustrated in this cartoon which appeared in a London journal in 1820. This was the same year that thousands of British settlers went to the Eastern Cape. Although cartoonish in character, virtually all of the incidents depicted here actually happened—and many worse incidents took place as well.

The “Great Trek” Starts 1836

   Faced with increasing Anglicization and the seemingly endless wars with the Xhosa, some Boers along the eastern border took the momentous decision to leave for the interior where they believed they would be free of both these impediments and also independent of all foreign governments.

   In 1836, the first of some fifteen thousand Boer families packed their goods into canvas-covered wagons and set off for the interior. This movement, known as the Great Trek, was the catalyst which definitively created the identity of the people who won world fame as “Afrikaners,” although then they were more commonly called Trek Boers.

   The trepidations suffered by the Boers on the Great Trek easily rivals that of the great Western Trails across America. The Trekkers had to cross the highest mountain range in southern Africa, called the Drakensberg (or the Dragon Mountains, a well-deserved name) in their wagons and, to their disappointment, were faced with black tribes equally, if not more, hostile than the Xhosas.

   The dangers of the Great Trek were highlighted by the fact that the first two exploratory expeditions ended in failure. The first was wiped out in a clash with blacks in the present-day far north of South Africa, while the second barely survived similar attacks only to be decimated by malaria.


The First Boer Republics: Winburg and Potchefstroom

   At first, the trekkers migrated north and crossed over the Orange River into what later became known as the Orange Free State. There they found the land mostly uninhabited as it had been cleared of its sparse population by an inter-black war known as the Difaqane. This conflict had been caused by a series of raids organized by a Zulu tribe who later took on the name of their greatest chief, Mzlikazi, or Moselekatse, and are today known as the Matebele.

  Matebele raiding parties detected the presence of the Trek Boers and attacked a Trekker settlement without warning in 1836 at a place called Vegkop (“fighting hill”).

   The Matebele were decisively defeated and fled north across the Limpopo River. There they settled in the country now known as Zimbabwe, where they are one of the two major tribes.


The Battle of Vegkop in 1836, at which a hundred Voortrekkers were attacked by thousands of Matabele tribesmen, ended in a decisive defeat for the natives. The Matabele were driven over the Limpopo River into what is today the country of Zimbabwe, where they remained ever since. This picture is interesting from another perspective: on the far left, a black servant is visible. From the very beginning, the Boers kept large numbers of black servants to do all the manual labor, and it was this reliance on nonwhite labor which ultimately led to the downfall of white South Africa.

   The Trekkers founded the town of Winburg (literally, “Winning Town”) in 1837 to commemorate their victory and declared themselves independent, using the town’s name as the title of their country. The Trekkers elected a representative parliament and a “Commandant General” by the name of Piet Retief.

   To the north of the Republic of Winburg, another group of Trekkers established in 1838 a second state which they called the Republic of Potchefstroom, named after a town which they had founded. The Republic of Potchefstroom elected the Trekker leader Andries Potgieter as its head of state.

   These two republics merged to become the Winburg–Potchefstroom Republic, but Trekker unity was short-lived. Arguments over the future direction of the Trek flared up, and Retief decided to lead his followers east over the Drakensberg Mountains to establish a new state of their own. The only problem with his plan was that on the other side of the mountains was the heartland of the Zulu tribe.

Retief Murdered by the Zulus

   Retief decided to try and negotiate with the Zulu king, Dingaan, for a piece of territory which had few Zulus living in it. He left the majority of his trek party encamped by the Blaukraans River and took a seventy-strong delegation to meet with the Zulu king at his major settlement, Umgungundlovu.

   The negotiations appeared to be successful, and in return for the recapture of some cattle stolen by another chief, Dingaan agreed to give the Boers land. Retief appeared to have been successful, but he and his party were ambushed by Zulus at a celebration hosted by Dingaan and cruelly killed on February 6, 1837.


February 6, 1838: With the cry of “Kill the White Wizards,” the Zulu king Dingaan orders his tribesmen to murder the unarmed Voortrekker party under Piet Retief. The Trekkers came to the Zulu chief to try and negotiate land upon which to settle. Some artistic liberty has been taken with this nineteenth century illustration, as Retief and his party were impaled and clubbed to death outside the main settlement. The treaty which he and Dingaan had signed, granting the Trekkers territory, was found later with Retief’s body.

   News of the betrayal and murders did not reach the remainder of Retief’s Trek party, and they were attacked by a ten thousand-strong Zulu force ten days later. Some 300 whites were killed in the attack, including 41 men, 56 women, and 185 children. This figure, when added to the seventy men killed with Retief, meant that more than half of the Retief Trek party had been killed in less than two weeks. The scene of the massacre was named Weenen, or “weeping” in Dutch. A town was later established nearby and was also named Weenen to commemorate the massacre.

   The British had in the interim established a post along the coast, which became known as Port Natal. This settlement, which is the present-day city of Durban, was attacked by the Zulus after the massacre at Weenen in an attempt to drive all whites out of the region. The British garrison, although heavily outnumbered, fought back with fierce determination and the Zulus were driven off.

The Battle of Blood River 1838

   The Boers set off in pursuit of the Zulus with a force which they called a “punishment commando” under the command of Piet Uys and Andries Potgieter, who had come to the aid of the Trekkers from the Winburg–Potchefstroom Republic. This attempt to defeat the Zulus ended in failure when Uys was defeated and killed at the Battle of Italeni on April 9, 1838. Potgieter’s force, which had split from Uys as the result of a personal argument between the two men, was outnumbered and fled the field. It was derisively called the Vlugkommando (or the “fleeing commando”) and Potgieter left Natal immediately afterward to go back to his own republic on the other side of the Drakensberg.

   News of the defeats and massacre resulted in a new wave of support and volunteers from the Boer population in the Cape. Chief among them was a dynamic leader named Andries Pretorius, who upon his arrival was selected to be the Boer’s Commandant General by a popular vote amongst the trekkers.

   Within a week, Pretorius had organized a commando which consisted of 451 men, including three Scotsmen from Port Natal, and set off in pursuit of the Zulu army. After six days of running battles with Zulu patrols, Pretorius set up his camp at the confluence of an erosion ditch and the Ncome River. The commando’s sixty-four wagons were drawn into a closed formation called a “laager” in Dutch, and the gaps were strengthened with wooden shutters and thorn bushes. Pretorius also possessed three cannon which he deployed at strategic points along the wagon perimeter.

   The Calvinistic Boers then took a vow to God that if they were granted victory, they would hold the day sacred forevermore. This was the origin of the celebration called the “Day of the Vow”which was celebrated right until the end of white rule in South Africa in 1990.

   The Zulu army attacked Pretorius’s camp on December 16, 1838, with a force estimated to be between ten thousand and thirty thousand strong. The battle was uneven as the whites’firearms and cannon mowed down the Zulus. Thousands of blacks were killed and the Ncome River literally ran red with their blood, so that it was renamed Blood River. The unevenness of the clash was illustrated by the fact that only two whites suffered light injuries during the entire battle.


The epic Battle of Blood River, fought on December 16, 1838, saw 451 whites defeat a Zulu army numbered in the tens of thousands. The Zulus wanted to attack at night, but were frightened away by what they thought were ghosts over the wagons, but which were actually lanterns hanging at the end of long oxen whips. The Zulus were confronted with rifles, cannon, and a cavalry charge, the latter of which, unleashed by the Voortrekker commander Andries Pretorius at a critical moment in the battle, broke the Zulu ranks. After this victory, the white settlers formed the first independent Boer state in the region, Natalia. However, the area was annexed by Britain a short while later, and many of the Trekkers emigrated to the newly-established Boer republics in the interior. Pretoria, the capital of the most famous Boer republic, was named after Pretorius.

The Republic of Natalia

   The defeat of the Zulu army allowed the Boers to establish their first independent republic called Natalia in 1839. They established their capital at a settlement which is the present-day city of Pietermaritzburg, named in honor of Piet Retief and another Trekker leader, Gerhard Maritz. In this town the Boers built a church to commemorate the vow taken at the Battle of Blood River.

   The Republic of Natalia was acknowledged as independent by the British in 1840—but it was anarchic, ill-planned, and short-lived. A series of clashes between the Boers, the Zulus, and even the Xhosa to the south, persuaded many in the Cape Colony’s government that Boer independence be brought to an end in order to preserve stability on the east coast.

  Tensions between the Boers and the British, who kept their base at Port Natal, heightened to the point where war broke out in 1842. A British attempt to seize the settlement of Congella in May failed, but this was the only Boer victory of the conflict. The British rushed reinforcements to the region, and by 1845, Natalia had been annexed and incorporated into the Cape Colony. 

   Many Boers, including Andries Pretorius, then trekked back over the Drakensberg to join their compatriots in the independent states which had been established in the interior.

The Orange Free State and the South African Republic

  While the drama in Natalia had played itself out, other Trek Boers had continued with the establishment of the fledgling Boer states in the interior. The Winburg–Potchefstroom Republic steadily expanded its claimed area of control and came into conflict with a black tribe called the Basotho who had migrated northward after the Boers.

   A series of clashes took place and the British authorities at the Cape decided that, just like Natalia, stability demanded the crushing of Boer independence before all the native tribes were provoked into unrest. The British incorporated the area occupied by the Basotho tribe into a protectorate in 1868. This region was given independence in the twentieth century and is today the state of Lesotho.

   The area south of the Vaal River was proclaimed British territory in October 1842, effectively ending the Winburg–Potchefstroom Republic. Some Boers accepted the extension of British control but others did not. The dissenters, led by Andries Pretorius, attacked a British army unit under the command of Sir Harry Smith at the Battle of Boomplaats in August 1848, but were defeated. Pretorius and his followers then migrated northward over the Vaal River and joined the other Trekkers already settled there.

   The Winburg–Potchefstroom Republic area proved difficult to rule, with the black and white inhabitants alike engaging in a series of bewildering alliances, mostly against the British. Finally, the British government in London intervened and ordered the Cape authorities to formally recognize Boer independence north of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. This was given official status by the Sand River Convention of January 1852, and confirmed again in 1854. 

  The Boers living between the Orange and Vaal Rivers declared themselves independent in April 1854 as the Oranje Vrij Staat (the “Orange Free State”). The town of Bloemfontein, where delegates had met to draw up the new country’s constitution, was declared the capital. Significantly, the new state’s constitution granted the right to vote in elections to all “Europeans who [had] been present in the Republic for six months.”

   The Boers north of the Vaal River followed suit. By December 1856, an elected assembly met at Potchefstroom, drew up a constitution, and adopted the name Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (the ZAR, or in English, the “South African Republic”). The ZAR became better known by its colloquial title of the“Transvaal,” although that name was only formally given to the territory when it became a province of the Union of South Africa in 1910.

   Initially the ZAR chose Potchefstroom as its capital, but in 1855 the newly-founded town of Pretoria, named after Andries Pretorius, became the seat of the Boer parliament and thus the country’s capital city. As was the case in the Orange Free State, voting rights were only granted to Europeans.


Left: Josias Philip Hoffman, first president of the Orange Free State, who served from April 18, 1854 to February 10, 1855. Right: Francis William Reitz, fifth president of the Orange Free State, who served from March 4, 1896 to May 31, 1902.

Indians Arrive in South Africa

   By the mid-nineteenth century, South Africa had been divided between the British and the Boers. The British held the coast, while the Boers occupied the interior. The eastern coastal areas of Natal proved ideal for the cultivation of sugarcane, and after failing to get the black population to work as laborers, the British resorted to importing indentured Indian labor.

   This influx created the basis for the Indian population of South Africa which is still centered in the KwaZulu Natal province. The government of the Orange Free State viewed the influx of Indians with alarm and brought in a series of laws which prevented Indians from gaining permanent residence inside its borders. These laws remained in force in the Orange Free State until the late 1980s.

The First Anglo–Boer War 1881–1882

   The economies of the Boer republics were agriculturally-based, and, compared to the British-ruled Cape, relatively poor. The discovery of diamonds in the region known as Griqualand West—a region claimed by both British and Boers—caused a fresh wave of immigration from Europe. This consisted mainly of British immigrants, but also included a significant number of Jews who were to wield great influence in the economy of the country. The influx of British settlers strained relations between the Boer republics and the British administration even further. 

   By this time, the ZAR was economically on its knees, and threatened from at least two sides by hostile black tribes. In the northeast, an ongoing fight with the Pedi tribe resulted in a Boer defeat, while the revitalized Zulus threatened the eastern border. 

   The ZAR was also politically weak, and the growing anarchy in the republic caused many Boers to consider leaving or even asking the British to annex the territory. In January 1877, a tiny force of twenty-five British soldiers under the leadership of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, the former Secretary for Native Affairs in Natal, entered the ZAR. Shepstone marched to Pretoria and, after three months of discussions with the failing Boer government, hoisted the British flag in April 1877 and announced the annexation of the republic. The disillusioned Boers offered no resistance and Shepstone became the administrator of what was now called the “Transvaal Colony.”

   It took three years and a herculean effort on the part of three young Boer leaders: Paul Kruger, Piet Joubert, and Marthinus Pretorius, to rouse their people into resisting the British annexation. Eventually, after a series of mass gatherings across the ZAR, the Boers rose in armed rebellion. On December 13, 1880, the three leaders proclaimed the restoration of the ZAR in the town of Heidelberg. The Boers raised an army of about 7,000 men against the total British occupation force of around 1,800 soldiers who were stationed all over the country.

   The First Anglo–Boer War followed, and was marked by a series of four humiliating defeats for the British at the battles of Bronkhorstspruit, Laingsnek, Schuinshoogte, and Majuba. After this battle, fought in February 1881, the British government announced that it was prepared to restore self-government to the Boers. Three years of self-rule followed, and full independence was granted in 1884 by the London Convention after Paul Kruger was elected president of the ZAR in 1883.


The Battle of Majuba, February 1881. The British are defeated by the Boers and grant independence to them once again.

British Race War with the Zulus

   By 1872, the white population of Natal had reached 17,500, compared to the estimated 300,000 Zulus. The Indian laborer population was around 5,800. From the Zulu point of view, the British were no better than the Boers, as both were invaders. The Indian presence was also resented by the Zulus, and a racial tension existed between these groups which periodically erupted into violent clashes.

   The Zulu king, Cetshwayo, decided to expel the British from Natal in 1878, and for this purpose assembled a sixty thousand-strong army. The British authorities became aware of his intentions and invaded the area called Zululand in January 1879, with the intention of forcing Cetshwayo’s army to disband.

   The Zulus struck first. On January 22, they attacked the main British force at an outpost called Isandhlwana and in a fierce one-day battle, killed all but six of the 1,500 white soldiers. The Zulus pushed home their attack and sent a force of about 4,000 warriors to attack a tiny British outpost of 140 men at Rorke’s Drift, a short distance from Isandhlwana. Hours of bitter hand-to-hand fighting followed, and in the morning the Zulus gave up and retreated after suffering heavy losses.

   The British brought in reinforcements and defeated the Zulus at the Battle of Khambula fought at the end of March. In July, the Zulus suffered a final defeat at the Battle of Ulundi, which ended Cetshwayo’s plans to expel the whites from Natal.


Rorke’s Drift, a British supply base in Zululand, located at a mission station, became one of the British Army’s most renowned battlefields during the night of January 22, 1879. Only 150 British soldiers defended it against thousands of Zulus, who, despite their overwhelming numerical advantage, were unable to break the white soldiers’ solid defense. Fighting went on all night, and by dawn, the Zulus were forced to retreat, leaving at least 351 of their number dead outside the British stockades. Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to the men who fought at the battle, the largest number given to any single battle before or since.

Second Boer Republic in Natal

   The Anglo–Zulu War had an unexpected consequence for the British. The confusion in Zulu ranks following the downfall of Cetshwayo saw two contenders, Usibhepu and his nephew Dinizulu, each claim chiefdom of the tribe.

   Dinizulu called upon local Boers to support his claim and a group under the command of Lucas Meyer helped suppress Usibhepu’s followers. The grateful Dinizulu gave the Boers a large piece of land in return for their services, and on August 16, 1884, Meyer proclaimed another Boer state, the Nieuwe Republiek(“New Republic”) with the town of Vryheid (“freedom”) as its capital. Four years later, the New Republic amalgamated with the ZAR.

The Second Anglo–Boer War 1899–1902

   The 1886 discovery of gold in the south of the ZAR caused a new flood of British and Jewish fortune seekers to enter the Boer republic. In the town of Johannesburg, founded at the center of the gold bearing reef, British and other non-Boer elements soon greatly outnumbered the Boer population.

   Fearful of losing political control, the Boer government refused to grant these new immigrants voting rights, classifying them instead as Uitlanders(“foreigners”). 

   The Uitlander question proved to be the spark for the Second Anglo–Boer War of 1889–1902. Protracted negotiations between the British administration at the Cape, headed by Cecil John Rhodes, and the Boer president Paul Kruger, over the rights of the Uitlanders broke down and an armed rebellion broke out in Johannesburg in 1895. Simultaneously a small private militia under the leadership of one of Rhode’s adjutants, Leander Starr Jameson invaded the ZAR to support the rebels.

  The invasion and rebellion were suppressed by Boer forces, but the die had been cast. War between the Boer republics and the British was inevitable.


Boer soldiers in the field during the Second Anglo-Boer War.

Boers Strike First

   Tensions heightened over the next three years, and in 1899, the British moved large numbers of troops up to the borders of the Boer republics in preparation for an invasion. ZAR President Kruger sent an ultimatum to the British administration in the Cape saying that it would be regarded as an act of war if the troop buildup was not halted. The ultimatum was ignored, and in October 1899, the two Boer republics jointly launched preemptive strikes against British forces in Natal and the Cape Colony.

  At this stage the total white population of both Boer republics was just over 200,000. Of this number they produced an army which at its strongest totaled around fifty thousand men. To this figure was added another two thousand Boer sympathizers recruited from the Natal and the Cape Colony.

   The British had 176,000 soldiers in the Cape Colony alone at the end of 1899. By the end of the war, the British had deployed around 478,725 soldiers in the campaign, more than twice as many as the entire Boer population, men, women, and children included.

Initial British Defeats

   At first the war went well for the Boers. Several British defeats followed in quick succession and the Boers laid siege to the towns of Mafikeng and Kimberley in the Northern Cape, and Ladysmith in Natal. It was these sieges, however, which cost the Boers the initiative and ultimately the war.

   Initially, the Boer plan had been to strike deep into Natal and seize the port of Durban, while simultaneously seizing the large ports in the Cape: Port Elizabeth and eventually Cape Town. However, the Boer forces became bogged down in the strategically unimportant sieges which were far from their original targets, and the British were able to land large numbers of reinforcements.

   Nonetheless, the British suffered a number of defeats in the initial phases of the war, particularly in the period December 10–15, which was known as the “Black Week.” The battles of Stormberg, Magersfontein, and Colenso took place during this time and all were marked by huge losses for the British and victories for the Boers.


The British invade the Orange Free State with a main column of forty-two thousand men and 117 guns in May 1900. This was part of a force which eventually saw more British soldiers deployed than the entire Boer population: men, women, and children, combined. Against such odds, the Boers stood no chance.

Inevitable British Victories Due to Overwhelming Numbers

   The British had in the interim reinforced their South African army and pressed home their overwhelming military advantage. The Boer sieges were lifted and a series of engagements pushed the Boers back into their home territory. By March 1900, the capital of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, had fallen to the British commander, Field Marshall Lord Roberts. The Orange Free State was formally annexed on May 28 and renamed the Orange River Colony.

   By September 1900, the main British column took Pretoria, which was surrendered without a fight. The ZAR was formally annexed on September 3, and renamed the Transvaal Colony. The fall of Pretoria convinced Roberts that the war was now over. He was wrong.

   The remaining Boer forces, now numbering only some twenty-six thousand, launched a hit-and-run guerrilla war which lasted another two years. Their soldiers operated in commandos in the open veld and could rely on supplies provided by the rural Boer community. 

   The British first attempted to break the Boer guerrilla war by erecting a series of blockhouses across the country connected with barbed wire. This only proved to be a minor hindrance to the mobile Boer units, and provided a new target for sabotage attacks.

Scorched Earth and Concentration Camps

   The ongoing war started to take a financial toll on the British government. Eventually it was to cost £191 million, a fortune by 1901 standards, and many hundred times that amount in modern times.

   The Boers’ guerrilla campaign also took a military toll on the British. Losses mounted and the failure of the blockhouse system to stop the attacks became a serious problem.

   Exasperated, the British military decided that the only way to halt the Boers’ campaign was to cut off their supplies. To this end, the British built what eventually became forty-five concentration camps, designed to detain the rural Boer population, women and children alike. In addition, the farms were burned down in a scorched earth policy designed to break Boer resistance for once and for all.

   The internment policy resulted in the unintended deaths of large numbers of Boer women and children. By the end of the war, some 27,927 deaths were recorded in the camps, 22,074 of whom were children under the age of sixteen. This death toll mean that just under 15 percent of the Boer population of both republics had died in the camps.

Threat of Extermination Forces Boer Surrender

   Although the guerrilla war was reasonably successful (with one commando under the leadership of Boer General Jan Smuts raiding so far behind British lines that they came within sight of Cape Town), the pressures brought to bear by the concentration camps forced them to surrender or face extermination. The decision was taken to halt the guerrilla war and formally surrender, an act which was formalized by the 1902 Treaty of Vereeniging.

   Some 7,091 British soldiers were killed in the war, compared to 3,990 Boer soldiers. The military losses were therefore eclipsed by the camp deaths, and it is estimated that the white population of South Africa would have been three times as large as it eventually became, were it not for the civilian causalities during the war.


The British authorities erected concentration camps in South Africa to cut off the rural support base of the Boer guerrilla armies during the Second Anglo–Boer War (1899–1902). Large numbers of Boer women and children died in these camps of hunger, malnutrition, and typhus. One survivor, Alie Badenhorst, wrote in her diary: “Worst of all, because of the poor food, and having only one kind of food without vegetables, there came a sort of scurvy amongst our people. They got a sore mouth, and a dreadful smell with it; in some cases the palate fell out and the teeth, and some of the children were full of holes or sores in the mouth. And then they died . . . the mothers could never get them anything . . . there were vegetables to be bought outside, but the head of the camp was strict and did not allow them to go out of the camp . . . For it was this day, the 1st December, that old Tant Hannie died . . . I never thought with my eyes to see such misery . . . tents emptied by death. I went one day to the hospital and there lay a child of nine years to wrestle alone with death. I asked where could I find the child’s mother. The answer was that the mother died a week before, and the father is in Ceylon (a prisoner of war) and that very morning her sister of 11 died. I pitied the poor little sufferer as I looked upon her . . . there was not even a tear in my own eyes, for weep I could no more. I stood beside her and watched until a stupefying grief overwhelmed my soul . . . O God, be merciful and wipe us not from the face of the earth” (Alida Badenhorst, translated E. Hobhouse, Tant Alie of Transvaal: Her Diary 1880–1902, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1923).

British Endorse Boer Policy toward Blacks

   The Boer policy of denying citizenship and voting rights to blacks was endorsed and maintained by the British administrations in the former republics. The only exception to this rule had been in the Cape Colony, where a small number of Cape Coloreds qualified for the franchise under a strenuous property-owning qualification system.

   Racial segregation was the norm across the country to such an extent that it was not even considered necessary to legislate on the matter. In this way the administration of the four colonies was carried out exclusively by whites, and, in the two former Boer republics, even by civil servants who merely returned to their prewar jobs.

The Union of South Africa 1910

   In 1909, talks were started between the administrations of the four colonies about unification into one country. After protracted discussions, a constitution was agreed upon and the Union of South Africa was created in 1910. This state was a dominion under the British monarchy in a manner identical to the other dominions of Canada and Australia.

   Cape Town was selected to be the legislative capital, Pretoria the administrative capital, and Bloemfontein the judiciary capital. The new country’s constitution specifically kept the already established policy of only allowing Europeans the vote, a clause which could only be changed by a two-thirds majority vote in the parliament.

Black “Homelands” Created Based on Traditional Territories

   The Union of South Africa attempted to come to grips with the issue of land and the native population by passing the 1913 Land Act. This law divided the country into white and black areas, with the black tribes being apportioned land based on their areas of occupation before the advent of European colonization.

   The British-ruled territories in Southern Africa which were not part of the Union, were also defined on a tribal basis. The Sotho tribe was given Lesotho, the Tswana tribe was given Botswana, and the Swazi tribe was given Swaziland. All three of these nations were eventually given independence and are still separate nations.

   In a similar manner, the tribal homelands inside South Africa were formally identified and defined: Zululand was allocated to the Zulus, Transkei to the Xhosa, and so on. The previously unoccupied areas which had been colonized by the European settlers were designated as white territory.

   Black resistance to the Union of South Africa’s racial policies emerged soon after its creation. In 1912, the African National Congress (ANC) was founded and for the next eighty years was the main opposition to white rule.

Attempts at Boer–Brit Reconciliation Fail

   The largest party in the new Union’s parliament was called the South African Party (SAP), and was led by former Boer War General Louis Botha. The SAP had as one of its polices a program of reconciliation between “Boer and Brit,” as the divide was known. This attempt to create a racial unity led to the creation of a new generic term for all whites living in the Union, “South Africans,” and the terminology “Boer and Brit’ gradually faded away.

   The Old Dutch language spoken by the Boers had been formalized into a more distinct dialect in the Cape during the last part of the nineteenth century, and had taken on the name Afrikaans. As it replaced Old Dutch, those who spoke it were called “Afrikaanders” and later just Afrikaners, no matter if they were originally Boers from the former republics or not.


General J.B.M. Hertzog, the Boer War hero who founded the National Party (NP) in 1914 as a voice for Afrikaner nationalism. The NP first came to power in 1924. In 1934, Hertzog agreed to merge the NP with the rival South African Party of fellow Boer War General Jan Smuts to form the United South African National Party. A hard-line faction of Afrikaner nationalists, led by D.F. Malan, refused to accept the merger and split off into a “Purified National Party”(PNP). When Smuts brought South Africa into the Second World War on Britain’s side, Hertzog resigned from government and retired. The PNP and its allies defeated Smuts’ United Party in 1948. After the election victory, the PNP merged with some smaller allies and became the National Party once again. This was the party which remained in power until 1994, when, after accepting the demographic realities of South Africa, it handed the country over to black majority rule.

National Party Founded in 1914

   The attempt to create white unity was rejected by a significant number of English and Afrikaans speakers alike, who hived off into separate parties with different geographical bases. Natal played host to the pro-English party, while support for the pro-Afrikaans faction was concentrated in the Transvaal and Orange Free State.

   In 1914, another of the Boer War generals, James Hertzog, broke with the SAP and founded a new group which he called the National Party, or NP. It was this party which was to dominate South Africa for most of the twentieth century and become famous for its association with Apartheid, or racial segregation.

   At the time of its founding, however, the NP’s policy toward nonwhites was identical to that of the SAP and the pro-English faction, in that black political rights were not even considered an issue. The NP was founded to bring about equality between Afrikaans- and English-speakers, and then ultimately to reestablish Afrikaner rule.

World War I and the 1914 Boer Rebellion

   The outbreak of the First World War split the whites politically even further. Many Afrikaners, still smarting after the Second Anglo–Boer War and the terrible memory of the British concentration camps, instinctively backed Germany against Britain. 

   The SAP government, even those former Boer leaders who dominated that party, were however loyalists, and declared war on Germany in support of Britain. The newly-formed Union Defence Force (UDF) was tasked with seizing the neighboring German colony of German South West Africa (later called South West Africa and today known as Namibia). 

   The decision to go to war on the side of the British was a step too far for many Boers, and a rebellion broke out, led by a number of former Boer War generals, including the famous Christiaan Beyers, Koos de la Rey, Jan Kemp, and Manie Martiz. Kemp and Maritz were senior figures in the UDF and the latter was in command of one of the large army units entrusted with attacking the Germans across the border. 

   Maritz and a large number of his soldiers deserted to the Germans. He then issued a proclamation of independence for the Boer republics and invaded the Northern Cape. De Wet raised a commando and seized the town of Heilbron in the Orange Free State, while Beyers gathered a commando outside Pretoria. Eventually over twelve thousand Boers rallied to the rebel cause, and the government was forced to postpone the invasion of German South West Africa to suppress the uprising.

   The better equipped UDF defeated all the rebel forces and arrested the surviving ringleaders, who all received light prison sentences and were then released. De la Rey had been shot dead at a police roadblock in an unrelated incident at the start of the rebellion, and Beyers drowned in the Vaal River while fleeing government forces.

   The suppression of the rebellion allowed the UDF to proceed with the invasion of German South West Africa, a task which was completed by July 1915. The UDF was also deployed in the seizure of the colony of German East Africa (modern Tanzania) and served with distinction on the Western Front in France.

   The NP polled well in the 1915 election, although the SAP still held onto a slim majority in parliament after drawing more support from the English-speaking sector of the population which supported the decision to go to war on Britain’s side.

   German South West Africa was mandated to South Africa by the League of Nations after the end of the war, with the intention that it be prepared for eventual independence.


General Jacobus Herculaas de la Rey (1847–1914), known as Koos de la Rey, was the leading Boer military figure of the Second Anglo-Boer War and the major leader of the guerrilla war against the British. Despite his successes in the field, the Boers were forced to surrender after the British interned their women and children in concentration camps. De la Rey took part in the peace negotiations which ended the war, and in 1907 was elected to the new self-governing Transvaal Colony government. He retained his military rank, and commanded the government forces which put down strikes in Johannesburg in 1914. In September of that year, he was killed in a shooting at a police roadblock while on his way to consult with leaders of the Boer Rebellion, with a view to possibly joining in. The 1914 Rebellion broke out shortly after his funeral. Above, a photograph of De la Rey in the field during the Second Anglo—Boer War.

Racist Communists and the Rand Rebellion of 1921

   The Communist revolution in Russia which created the Soviet Union served as an inspiration to Communist supporters all over the world, and South Africa was no exception. The South African Communist Party (SACP) was launched by a number of prominent South African Jews in Cape Town (where Karl Marx’s sister had made her home and where a local newspaper had been the world’s first commercial publication to publish any of Marx’s articles) and soon became committed to revolutionary activity.

  At this time, however, no one, not even the Communists, gave serious consideration to black political involvement. As a result, when the gold mining industry decided to replace white laborers with black and Chinese workers in 1921, the SACP was one of the first to stand up for the rights of the white workers.

   Tensions between the miners and the captains of industry heightened and the involvement of the SACP added a political dimension which elevated the conflict to more than just an industrial dispute. A miners’ strike escalated into a major uprising, which involved an attempted coup d’etat by armed workers. The rebellion was launched by the SACP under the banner “Workers Unite for a White South Africa.” The slogan was for long afterward a great source of embarrassment for the SACP, which later became one of the strongest proponents for black rule.

   The Rand Rebellion was suppressed by the army and the police in a major military operation which involved the bombing of rebel strongholds in Johannesburg by the fledgling South African Air Force—the only time in history that city was bombarded from the air.


In 1922, the South African Communist Party (SACP) seized upon white working-class discontent with the mining houses that had imported nonwhite labor to replace“expensive” white workers. The SACP fomented a violent revolution centered in Johannesburg, in the hope of emulating the Soviet Union’s Communist Revolution of October 1917. To this end, an uprising took place in March 1921, called the Rand Revolt, led initially by the SACP with the official slogan of “Workers Unite for a White S.A.” A banner with this slogan can be seen in this crowd in Johannesburg.

National Party Wins Power in 1924

   Although the Rand Rebellion was crushed, its message reverberated throughout South African politics. The National Party (NP) and James Hertzog fought the next general election on an undertaking to protect white workers from encroachment by nonwhites through the imposition of a color bar. 

    The policy was endorsed by the electorate, and the NP won the election, displacing the SAP which was seen to have supported the mining bosses. Race had entered South African politics for the first time, and the NP was determined to be associated with the topic from then on.

   The new NP government was as good as its word: it duly introduced the first color bar legislation soon after taking office. It also extended the franchise to white women in 1930, and removed property and education restrictions on the right to vote. 

   Hertzog’s government made Afrikaans into South Africa’s second official language in 1925, and introduced the famous orange, white, and blue national flag which would only be disposed of when white rule ended in 1994. 

   The NP remained in power until 1933, when the effects of the Great Depression forced it into a coalition government with the SAP which was then under the leadership of another Boer War general, Jan Smuts. The following year, the NP and the SAP amalgamated to form the United South African National Party, or United Party, as it became more commonly known.

   The United Party coalition governed South Africa until the advent of the Second World War in 1939. Hertzog advocated neutrality, once again not wishing to enter a war on the side of Britain, while his deputy, Smuts, advocated declaring war on Germany. Parliament voted narrowly in favor of going to war and Hertzog resigned.

   A small faction of NP hardliners under the leadership of D.F. Malan refused to join the 1933 coalition with the SAP, and remained in opposition as the Gesuiwerde Nasionale Party (“Purified National Party” or PNP). Hertzog and his supporters joined the PNP when they resigned from the coalition, and the party reformed itself into the Herenigde Nasionale Party (“Reunited National Party”).

Militant Afrikaner Opposition to South African Participation in Second World War 

   Militant Afrikaners, whose political opinions varied from the pro-Nazi to the anti-British, were organized into a movement known as the Ossewa Brandwag (“Ox Wagon Sentinel”). This group engaged in numerous acts of sabotage and violence in a successful program to keep large numbers of Union Defence Force’s soldiers deployed inside the country’s borders, rather than against the Germans. The OB was disbanded after the war.


Ossewa Brandwag leader Johannes van Rensburg arrives at a mass rally of supporters, circa 1940.

   Despite the Ossewa Brandwag’s efforts, the UDF took part in the campaigns in Abyssinia, North Africa, and Italy. Jan Smuts won the 1943 election, and was made a field marshal by the British Army.

   Smuts went on to be instrumental in the founding of the United Nations, a development which marked him as a politician with international standing. His racial policies ultimately were little different from that of his compatriots.

Reunited National Party Wins 1948 Election

   The 1948 general election was won by the Reunited National Party even though Smut’s United Party polled the most votes (the result was skewed by the first-past-the-post electoral system which delivered more seats to the RNP). The party amalgamated with a minor election partner and changed its name once again into the “National Party.” It was this iteration of the NP which remained in power until 1994.


Dr. D.F. Malan (standing, right), leader of the Purified National Party, on the campaign trail in South West Africa in 1947. His party took power in the election in 1948, and was only dislodged in 1994 when the first all-race election was held.

   The NP formalized the system of racial segregation in South Africa, but it was not the originator of that idea. As outlined earlier, racial segregation had been implemented from the time of the first European settlement. Even the policy of black homelands predated the 1948 NP. The tribal territorial areas were acknowledged as such in the nineteenth century and given formal legal recognition by the 1913 Land Act.

   Nonetheless, it was the NP’s formalization of the policy and the use of the word apartheid, or in English, “separateness,” which exemplified South African segregation. The NP implemented a series of laws which formed the basis of their policy. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 outlawed interracial marriages; the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950 outlawed sex across the color line; the Population Registration Act of 1950 classified all inhabitants according to race, and created a Classification Board to make a final decision on a person’s race in disputed cases; the Group Areas Act of 1950 delineated separate racial residential areas; and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953 enforced the segregation of all public facilities.

   The South African Communist Party had in the interim renounced its racist past and worked against the white government. It organized trade unions, strikes, and general unrest, with the result that the NP passed the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950 which outlawed the SACP.

Black Resistance to Apartheid

   Black resistance to the imposition of these laws grew as well. This resistance was initially peaceful, but after it became clear that the white government was not going to be persuaded by any other means, the African National Congress and other smaller resistance groups opted for a campaign of violence. This decision was given impetus after the ANC was banned following the shooting of a large number of black demonstrators outside a police station in Sharpeville, south of Johannesburg, in 1960.

  The ANC launched its campaign of violent resistance the same year and maintained it, with varying degrees of success for another thirty years. The real power of black resistance lay, however, not in the limited program of violent resistance, but rather in their ability to bring the economy to a halt through strikes and industrial unrest. Once again, as in Haiti and the American south, the white population fell victim to its own reliance on black labor.

1961: The White Republic

   The era of decolonization in Africa, which started in the 1950s and 1960s, set the white rulers of South Africa at odds with Britain. The NP took advantage of the increased political tension to achieve another long-term Afrikaner nationalist aim, and declared South Africa a republic, free of the British crown and Commonwealth, in 1961. The country’s name was changed from the Union of South Africa to the Republic of South Africa. 

   The republic was noted for many things apart from the policy of apartheid. The world’s first heart transplant was performed by an Afrikaner surgeon, Chris Barnard, in the segregated hospital of Groote Schuur in Cape Town in 1962, and the world’s first truly successful oil-from-coal conversion plant was created at Sasolburg in the Orange Free State. South Africa became self-sufficient in a large number of sophisticated manufacturing processes, including arms, and developed its own nuclear weapons.


Above right: A poster issued during the 1961 referendum when white voters were asked if they wished to make South Africa a republic or not. The poster made the issue at stake very plain: either stay in the British-led Commonwealth and be forced to accept black rule, or break away and become a white-ruled republic. A slim majority of voters chose the white republic option. The government and its supporters simply ignored the fact that the vast majority of the population was already nonwhite. Above left: Dr. H.F. Verwoerd, the Dutch-born National Party Prime Minister, who is widely, but incorrectly, credited with creating apartheid. In reality, the groundwork for the policy of segregation had been laid more than a century before the advent of the NP. Verwoerd was regarded as white South Africa’s greatest prime minister, and was twice a target for leftist assassins. The first assassination attempt, in which he was shot in the face, failed, but the second, carried out by a mixed-race orderly working in the South African parliament, was successful. Verwoerd was stabbed to death at his seat in the parliamentary building in September 1966.

“Grand Apartheid” and the Black Homelands

   It was during the 1960s that the policy known as “Grand Apartheid” was formulated by the NP under the direction of its leader and Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd. This policy entailed taking the already recognized traditional black tribal areas and turning them into independent states, in exactly the same way that Britain had created tribal states for the Tswana, the Swazi, and the Sotho people.

   The critical difference, however, which Verwoerd and the NP ignored, was that vast numbers of blacks in South Africa did not live in these tribal areas. The huge back city of Soweto, for example, which provided the labor force upon which Johannesburg and many of the Rand mines depended, was created by the Verwoerd government at the same time as the black homelands. Eventually there would be more blacks in Soweto and other black settlements around Johannesburg than all the whites in South Africa put together.

   The attempts to create independent black homelands met, therefore with failure on the demographic front, and on the political front as well. No other country in the world recognized the handful of homelands which opted for independence as legitimate, and the leaders of those territories were uniformly rejected as puppets by the vast majority of blacks.

The Failure of Apartheid

   Apartheid was doomed from the beginning as it refused to acknowledge the reality of demography and race. This ideology was based in archaic white supremacism, which advocated paternalistic rule over blacks rather than separatism.

   Apartheid was designed to use millions of blacks as labor and to integrate them into the economy, but then to segregate them politically and socially. The white government refused to adjust the size of the black homelands to be in accord with the demographic reality, and stubbornly insisted that their land area—some 13 percent of the country’s surface—could accommodate 80 percent of the total population.

   At the same time, Western medicine was made available to the black population on a massive scale. The largest hospital in the Southern hemisphere was built, financed, and subsidized by the white government in Soweto, and infant mortality rates among blacks plummeted while their reproduction rates remained constant.

   In addition, white South Africa’s fate was sealed with their insistence upon the use of black labor. Nearly every white household employed at least one black servant, and often more. The Afrikaner farmers often had dozens, if not hundreds, of laborers on their farms, and the mines, which were the economic heart of the country, employed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of blacks over the decades.

   One of the laws introduced by the apartheid government illustrated perfectly the inherent contradiction in the application of its policy. The Pass Laws Act of 1952 stipulated that all blacks over the age of sixteen had to carry what was called a “passbook” with them at all times. This passbook contained individual endorsements as to where, and for how long, that black person could remain in an area. A black who obtained employment in a “white area” would have his or her passbook endorsed as such. The law stipulated where, when, and for how long a person could remain. 

   No one in the government appeared to appreciate that the Pass Laws Act made the swamping of the “white areas” inevitable, given the complete reliance of all industry, farming, and labor upon the black population.

   The end result of all these factors was predictable: the white population of South Africa was overrun demographically by a racial time bomb of their own making. By 1990, there were less than five million whites in South Africa and more than forty million nonwhites. The maintenance of segregation under these circumstances was impossible and could not be maintained even by force of arms.


Central Johannesburg in the mid-1970s. A white policeman checks a black laborer’s“passbook”—a document which entitled the holder to be present in the white urban areas of South Africa, provided that he or she had a job. Nothing better illustrated the inherent flaw in apartheid than this bizarre situation where black workers were specifically granted permission to live and work in the so-called “white” areas of the country, while supposedly simultaneously trying to create a separate white society.

The Race War in South West Africa 

   German South West Africa had, it will be recalled, been handed to South Africa by the League of Nations after the First World War to prepare it for independence. However, successive South African governments had no desire to hand that territory over to its natives. By the 1960s, South West Africa had been de facto incorporated into South Africa, had representatives in the Cape Town parliament, and had the policy of apartheid enforced within its boundaries.

   Native resistance had been founded and grew steadily in the form of the “South West African Peoples’Organization” (SWAPO). A campaign of violence was started which eventually required the deployment of the republic’s South African Defence Force (SADF). As was also the case with the South African black resistance, SWAPO received considerable support from the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries. In addition, the black resistance movement operated with the overwhelming support of the native population and was also able to exert considerable economic influence.

   The war in South West Africa grew in intensity after the Portuguese withdrew control from their colony of Angola, which lay directly to the north. Freed of the anti-colonial combat in Angola, SWAPO and its allies were able to use that nation as a base from which to attack the South African forces in South West Africa.

   In response, the SADF invaded Angola in 1975, and for many years thereafter maintained a military presence in the south of that country in what would ultimately be a futile attempt to halt SWAPO’s military campaign. Eventually some 1,200 SADF soldiers were to die in the war in South West Africa and Angola before South Africa finally admitted defeat and handed over power to SWAPO in 1990.


South Africa gained control of the German colony of South West Africa (today called Namibia) during the First World War and retained authority there until 1990. This led to an insurgency by the black South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO). The collapse of the Portuguese colonial empire in 1975 allowed SWAPO to launched guerrilla attacks on South African forces from neighboring Angola, and a border war erupted between the South African Defence Force and the Soviet-and Cuban-backed Angolan army, which lasted from 1966 to 1989. The South African Army penetrated deep into Angola in pursuit of SWAPO and the Angolan forces, but neither side managed to clinch a definitive victory. In 1990, the South Africans withdrew and turned South West Africa over to SWAPO rule.

Internal Security Crisis Worsens

   Despite the South African military establishment being the most powerful in Africa, the low level guerrilla war and campaign of economic sabotage could not be countered with a conventional army. As the white government refused to acknowledge the racial demographic reality, it resorted to ever more extreme security measures in an attempt to keep control of the country.

   In 1976, a black student uprising in Soweto marked an upsurge in violent civil unrest. Although the unrest was initially suppressed with the loss of over five hundred black lives, the “Soweto Riots,” as they became known, marked a watershed in the racial divide in South Africa. From then on, international opinion was mobilized against white South Africa and the black resistance was able to maintain mass civil unrest in almost every urban center for the next fifteen years.
   In response to this development, the South African Police were given the right to hold people indefinitely without trial and implemented numerous other draconian measures, which included covert assassination and anti-terrorist teams. The state was forced to declare an almost continuous state of emergency after 1976 but this did nothing to halt the ever-increasing waves of civil unrest, armed conflict, and economic sabotage which reached an all-time high in the 1980s.


A scene from the famous 1976 Soweto Riots which sums up the racial demographic situation well. From that year onward, the sixty thousand-strong South African Police fought an untenable and unsustainable war against continuous riots and an ever-intensifying African National Congress campaign of violence and sabotage. Ultimately, the South African security forces would simply be overwhelmed by numbers.

   The NP attempted partial reforms of apartheid as a means of alleviating some of the building pressure. A new constitution introduced in 1983 created a mixed-race parliament to which Indians and Cape Coloreds could be elected—albeit on separate voters’ rolls—and by the mid-1980s many apartheid laws, such as the Pass Laws Act, the Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act, the Group Areas Act, and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, had been repealed.

   These reforms did nothing to halt the ANC’s campaign for complete political reform, and the increased freedoms accorded by the repeal of many of the apartheid laws only resulted in greater unrest as the underground resistance found it easier to move around the country and organize. The campaign of violence actually increased in intensity in direct proportion to the repeal of the restrictive laws.

Power Handed over to ANC 1994

   Finally, the white government was forced to confront the reality of the demographic disaster which had been created over the previous century. Faced with the choice of fighting a no-hope race war and ultimately being defeated by sheer numbers, or giving over without a fight, the NP chose the latter.

   In 1990, the ANC and its allied organizations (the SACP included) were unbanned, its imprisoned leader Nelson Mandela freed, and negotiations started to bring about the end of white minority rule. Within four years, the first election based on universal suffrage was held and the ANC took power with nearly two thirds of the vote. White rule was finally at an end.

   The decision to surrender power was contested by white hard-liners, who formed a number of opposition groups both inside and outside parliament during the 1980s. None were, however, able to defeat the NP in either the elections or the two referendums that were held during the reform years.

   The most prominent extra-parliamentary group was called the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement, or AWB), which launched an extended campaign of violence and terrorism in 1994 just prior to the first universal suffrage elections. The white militants were all quickly arrested and the campaign failed to prevent the inevitable.

The Failure of White Supremacy

   The white population of South Africa went into dramatic decline in the years following 1994, and official figures show that one-third had emigrated within the first ten years. Factors which caused this massive white flight included a serious black crime problem, affirmative action which discriminated against whites, and economic decline as South Africa started its inevitable shift to Third World status.

   The rise and fall of white South Africa serves as the premier modern example of the power of racial demographics as a final determinant in the rise and fall of any civilization or culture. It is also conclusive evidence that white supremacy, or white attempts to rule over masses of nonwhite people, is a recipe for disaster. The reality remains that the only guarantee for any individual civilization’s survival is separatism.

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

Chapter 58: Murderer’s Bay—the Race War in New Zealand

Chapter 58: Murderer’s Bay: The Race War in New Zealand

The European settlement of New Zealand differed greatly from that of Australia because the native population, known as the Mãori, offered real, violent, and determined resistance to white encroachment.

  The Mãori first entered New Zealand around the year 1280 AD, which meant that they had been there for less than four hundred years before the first Europeans arrived. Nonetheless, they are fully accepted as the indigenous population of that country.

First European Contact with the Mãori

  The first European explorer to reach New Zealand was the Dutchman Abel Tasman, who anchored his small fleet of ships off what is today the South Island’s GoldenBay on December 17, 1642. The next day, four Mãori canoes approached the Dutch ships, and according to Tasman, “blew several times on an instrument . . . we then ordered our sailors to play them some tunes in answer.” The Dutch then fired a cannon out to sea, at which the Mãori fled in terror.

   The next day, another Mãori canoe approached the Dutch ships, but returned to land. Tasman ordered his ships closer inshore, because, as he wrote, “these people apparently sought our friendship.” Tasman ordered two smaller boats into the water to meet another two Mãori canoes which had set off from the shore. Without warning, one of the Mãori canoes rammed one of the small Dutch boats and attacked the crew with clubs and spears. The attack killed four white men, and the Mãori took one of the bodies back to the shore with them.

  Tasman ordered the Dutch ships to leave “since we could not hope to enter into friendly relations with these people, or to be able to get water or refreshments here.” As they were leaving, a number of Mãori canoes paddled out once again, but the Dutch fired upon the natives and chased them away. Tasman named the bay Moordenaersbaai (“Murderers Bay”) and wrote in his journal that the encounter “must teach us to consider the inhabitants of this country as enemies.”

  This unfortunate event would set the tone for many future interactions between white settlers and the Mãori—and contrasted strongly with the reaction of the Australian Aborigines to European settlement.


A sketch of natives in a boat by one of the crew of Dutch explorer Abel Tasman, made at the time of the attack on the white explorers at what is today Golden Bay in New Zealand. The original Dutch caption reads: “A view of the Murderers’ Bay, as you are at anchor here in 15 fathom.”

England’s Captain James Cook Meets with the Mãori

  The next European contact with the Mãori occurred in 1769 when the British explorer Captain James Cook, in his famous ship the Endeavour, anchored off what is today known as PovertyBay on New Zealand’s NorthIsland. Smoke was observed rising from the coastline, and Cook took this to mean that the country was inhabited. He and a number of crewmen went ashore in two small boats to explore. Once landed, the Europeans set off on foot, leaving four sailors to guard the boats on the beach.

  A group of Mãori appeared out of the bushes and attacked the four sailors guarding the boats. The white men were prepared for an attack, and fought off the tribesmen, killing one with a gunshot which terrified the others into running away.

  Cooks’ party heard the gunfire and returned quickly to the beach and, from there, back to the Endeavour. The next day, more Mãori were sighted on the beach, and a new attempt was made to establish contact with them. Cook had taken two Tahitians onboard at an earlier stop in his voyage, and their language was fairly similar to Mãori. They were thus able to provide a basic translation service, and the Tahitians accompanied Cook and some members of his crew who went ashore once again to meet with the Mãori.

  This tense second meeting on the beach descended into a fight when one of the Mãori suddenly attempted to grab a sword from one of the sailors. The whites were forced to open fire on the natives, and after the sword thief was shot dead, the Mãori fled.

  Cook and his men retreated back to their ship again in order to consider their next move. Then they noticed that two Mãori canoes had entered the water and approached the ship. Cook determined to bring the Mãori on board, gain their trust by offering them gifts, and let them go in the hope that they would tell the other tribesmen that the Europeans were friendly.

  This plan nearly came to naught when the Mãori attacked one of the small boats sent out to meet them. Once again, the whites were forced to open fire, and several more Mãori were killed. However, some Mãori who jumped overboard to avoid the gunfire were captured and taken on board the British ship.

  There, Cook put his plan into effect. He offered them gifts, food, and drink, and in a short while the Mãori accepted that the white men were friendly. They were taken back and handed over to a large group of fellow tribesmen gathered on the shore, in the first ever nonviolent encounter between Europeans and the Mãori. After this, Cook ordered his ship to leave.

  The Endeavour continued on to what is today Hawkes Bay on the east coast of the North Island where contact was made with a new Mãori tribe. Cook’s men had almost completed a trade for fish when the Mãori seized one of the Tahitian translators. The kidnappers attempted to paddle away with their prisoner, but the Europeans opened fire. Another Mãori was killed, and in the melee, the Tahitian escaped and swam back to the British boat. Cook named the area Kidnapper’s Bay, and so ended yet another attempt to make contact with the Mãori.

  Finally, on January 14, 1770, a group of friendly Mãori were found at an inlet which Cook named Queen Charlotte’s Sound on the South Island. There, the Europeans were able to peacefully interact with the Mãori and engaged in trade for fish and vegetables. Cook sailed back to Britain to bring news of his discoveries, and on his second voyage two years later, circumnavigated and charted New Zealand.


Above: A Maori war canoe, drawn by Captain James Cook’s official artist, William Hodges, who accompanied the explorer on his second visit to New Zealand. Stationary European vessels were often attacked by Mãori boats such as these. Below, the first map of New Zealand, drawn by Cook after he circumnavigated the islands on his second journey.


European Weapons Spark Musket Wars among Mãori

For forty years after Cook’s visit, trading ships from Britain,France, and America were the main form of European contact with the new lands. The Mãori were particularly interested in acquiring items such as metal knives, axes, and guns.

  The latter weapon had a huge influence on tribal warfare in New Zealand, particularly when employed by tribesmen against their enemies who had never seen a musket before. The Musket Wars were a series of intertribal wars which raged between 1807 and 1842 in which guns were deployed for the first time by bands of Mãori.

  Although records are sketchy (as the Mãori kept none and the only accounts were picked up as hearsay by white pioneers), it appears that there were five major wars during this time, and very heavy casualties were inflicted. Some tribes, such as the Moriori on the Chatham Islands, were completely exterminated by other Mãori in this conflict, and it is speculated that the entire Mãori population halved as a result of these wars.

Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne and Assassination Cove

  Cannibalism was a standard feature of Mãori warfare, a fact which the Europeans had already discovered in the eighteenth century. One of the first recorded episodes occurred on the North Island of New Zealand in 1772. Explorer Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne had been sent to explore Australia and New Zealand by the French administration of Mauritius.

  He anchored at the Bay of Islands and initially established friendly contacts with the few Mãori his expedition encountered. However, a group of Mãori attacked the French explorers while they were fishing in Manawaora Bay. Du Fresne and more than two dozen of his men were killed and then eaten by the Mãori. This act provoked a furious response from the rest of the French expedition, who launched a revenge attack in which hundreds of tribesmen were killed. The French named the bay Anse des Assassinats (“Assassination Cove”), a name it has kept to the present day.

The Boyd Massacre

  In 1809, a British ship named the Boyd, under the command of Captain John Thompson, anchored off WhangaroaHarbour on the North Island after sailing from Australia to collect samples of a type of tree called the Kauri. The local Whangaroa Mãori appeared friendly and offered to take Captain Thompson and his crew to find suitable trees. Thompson and four others took up the offer and left in a longboat with the Mãori guides.

  However, as soon as they were ashore, the Mãori attacked and killed Thompson and his men. Some Mãori dressed up in their clothes, and using the evening darkness to aid their disguise, manned the Europeans’ longboat, and drew alongside the unsuspecting Boyd. The Mãori boarded the ship and murdered the sleeping crew one by one. The passengers were then forced to assemble on the deck, where they were all killed after Mãori reinforcements arrived by canoe. Five Europeans hid in the ship’s rigging, and watched in silent horror as the Mãori murdered and dismembered their victims in preparation for a cannibalistic meal which was later held ashore.

  The attackers left the ship with their gruesome meal, and the five survivors attempted to escape the next day when a canoe, which belonged to another Mãori tribe unconnected with the perpetrators of the massacre, drew alongside. This escape attempt ended in failure when the canoe was attacked by the Whangaroa Mãori and all but one of the fleeing Europeans were caught and killed.

  A few other Europeans survived the massacre by hiding on board. These included a woman and her baby; a two-year-old girl orphaned in the attack, and two men. All were captured and held prisoner by the Whangaroa Mãori.

  The Boyd was then towed away by a number of Mãori canoes, but ran aground a short distance away. The tribesmen spent several days ransacking the ship and when they discovered the gunpowder store on board, they made an attempt to fire some of the weapons. Their ignorance of the dangers of gunpowder resulted in an explosion on board which killed dozens of Mãori and burned out the ship.


The Boyd catches fire after natives set off the gunpowder store. Almost the entire crew had been killed and eaten in one of the most notorious cannibal attacks by the Mãori.

  News of the massacre reached the European crew of another ship at the Bay of Islands, the City of Edinburgh, under Captain Alexander Berry. They organized a revenge raiding party which went ashore and seized the two Mãori chiefs responsible for the Boyd incident. Berry offered to exchange the chiefs for the white survivors—a deal which was accepted. All of the survivors bar one of the men, who had been killed and eaten after he had been forced to make a number of steel fishing hooks, were released.

  The crew from the City of Edinburgh found piles of human bones on the shoreline, and Berry reported that: “We had seen the mangled fragments and fresh bones of our countrymen, with the marks even of the teeth remaining on them” (From Tasman to Marsden: A History of Northern New Zealand from 1642 to 1818, by Robert McNab, Dunedin, 1914).
  News of the Boyd massacre spread throughout Europe and, as a result, the islands of New Zealand became known as a refuge of “cannibal savages” and were avoided by all travelers for many years thereafter.


The New Zealand Company and the Treaty of Waitangi

  The islands of New Zealand were officially incorporated under the jurisdiction of the colony of New South Wales in Australia in 1788, but it was only in the early nineteenth century that any serious attempt was made to settle the country with Europeans.

  In 1839, a group of English entrepreneurs set up the New Zealand Company, a private enterprise whose aim was the colonization of New Zealand. Officials were dispatched to buy land from the Mãori for this purpose. These deals were highly dubious from a moral and legal point of view, given that the natives had no understanding of private land ownership. Nonetheless, the company claimed to have successfully purchased land from the natives and started encouraging settlers to emigrate.

  Internal controversies dogged the New Zealand Company, including the revelation that much of its advertising material aimed at recruiting new settlers was false or based on incorrect information. The British government quickly intervened and sent its own representatives to New Zealand with the instruction to displace the New Zealand Company from authority in the islands.

  About five hundred tribal chiefs entered into invitations for discussion with the British government’s representatives, and in 1840, all the parties signed what became known as the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of this agreement, Britain formally took sovereignty over the islands, appointed a governor, and recognized the landownership rights of the Mãori, who placed themselves under the protection of the British government as British subjects.

  However, given that none of the Mãori chiefs could read or write and would have had a very limited understanding of the implications of international treaties or international politics, the Treaty of Waitangi has been mired in controversy since its signing. Another problem was the fact that there was no written Mãori language (the written version which is still in use today was invented by Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge University in 1820) and, as a result, the written English and Mãori versions of the treaty differ substantially.

  These difficulties aside, the Treaty of Waitangi is now regarded as New Zealand’s official founding document.

The Mãori Wars 1845–1872

  The Treaty of Waitangi did not, however, stop the conflicts between the Europeans and the Mãori, particularly after it became apparent that white immigration was on the increase. As a result, a series of wars, originally called the Maori Wars (but now renamed, for the sake of political correctness, into the “New Zealand Wars”) started in 1845 and continued in phases until 1872.

  The wars were preceded by what became known as the Wairau Affray on South Island when white settlers, who had purchased land from a Mãori chief, came under attack and had their small settlement burned down. An attempt to raise a local militia led to a battle between the two sides, which resulted in twenty-two whites being killed and eaten by the Mãori. As news of this massacre reached Britain, the rush of white settlers dried up for nearly three years.


The Flagstaff War

  The first conflict in the Mãori Wars came in 1845, in what is known as the Flagstaff War. One of the original signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi, a tribal chief named Hone Heke, became unhappy with increased European immigration, and, using an alleged insult to his person by a Mãori female married to one of the white settlers, ransacked the town of Kororareka (now known as Russell, which was the first permanent European settlement in New Zealand on the North Island). During this attack, Heke cut down the flagpole which flew the British flag, an act which gave the war its name. British troops rushed to Kororareka in a show of force. Heke backed down and replaced the flagpole.

  However, the truce was short-lived. Other Mãori, notably the chief Kawiti, encouraged Heke to continue with his rebellion, and he ordered the flagpole cut down for the second time. British troops replaced it, but within a day, Mãori had cut it down again. The British built a fourth flagpole and posted guards around it. This proved a tempting target for the Mãori and the guard post was attacked by a large group of warriors. The guards were killed and the flagpole cut down once more while another large Mãori force attacked and burned the town. The entire white settlement was forced to retreat onto ships moored offshore.

  New British troops were dispatched to retake Kororareka. In April 1845, an attempt to take Heke’s earthen and wood fort (called a pa in Mãori) failed, because the British did not have artillery which was powerful enough to penetrate the structure’s walls.

  In the interim, an intertribal Mãori war between Heke’s group and another tribe under the chief Waka Nene, resulted in Heke being driven from his pa. Waka Nene then declared himself to be in support of the British and against Heke and the other Mãori rebels. A renewed assault on a second rebel pa nearly ended in disaster for the British and their Mãori allies, who were saved only by the timely arrival of a thirty-two pound cannon which bombarded the pa and persuaded its defenders to flee.

  Heke and his allies built a third pa at Ruapekepeka. This was one of the largest and most sophisticated native forts ever built and was designed to provide maximum resistance to cannon fire. The fort was only taken in 1846 after its front palisade was left unguarded and seized by an adventurous British forward patrol. Once inside, the British were able to defeat its defenders and seize the entire complex.

  With their last major fortification lost, Kawiti and Heke were forced to ask for peace. Waka Nene advised the British to grant them clemency, and the two rebels were pardoned. The flagstaff at Kororareka was not re-erected, but apart from this symbolic change, nothing else changed as a result of the war.

The Hutt Valley Campaign

  The Mãori tribes living in the Hutt Valley in the North Island were the next to rebel against European encroachment, although the war which followed was complicated by an intertribal war. This resulted in some tribes allying themselves to the British authorities against the rebels.

  Disputes over land deals in the Hutt Valley had been ongoing since 1842, and had seen tensions rise between various tribes, European settlers, and combinations thereof. One of the tribes, under the leadership of Chief Nga Rangatahi, prepared a war party in 1846. The British responded by moving troops into the area, an act which was seen as a declaration of hostilities by the Mãori.

  A Mãori attack on a British camp was defeated, and in return, the Europeans attacked and destroyed a Mãori settlement at Maraenuku. The Mãori then marched up and down the Hutt Valley, destroying every white settlement and farmhouse in their way. By March, unrest had reached such a level that martial law was declared and more British troops were deployed in the area.

  Several battles followed, notably at Boulcott’s Farm and Battle Hill, both of which drove off the Mãori attackers. After these defeats, the Mãori withdrew further inland and left the main centers in the Hutt Valley alone. The British built a blockhouse in Upper Hutt to prevent further incursions into the valley, and this phase of the conflict came to an end.

The Wanganui Campaign

  The conclusion of the war in the Hutt Valley did not end tensions on the North Island. The nearby white settlement of Wanganui, which had been established in 1841, had only two hundred residents and was threatened by one of the tribal chiefs involved in the Hutt Valley campaign, Te Mamaku.

   The British authorities were forced to deploy troops to the area, where they built a ford, known as the Rutland Stockade, in April, 1847. The fort was completed just in time. An accidental shooting incident that month sparked off a mass Mãori uprising. Within the space of a few days, a number of farms were attacked, numerous settlers killed and the Rutland Stockade besieged.


A nineteenth century photograph of the massive Rutland Stockade, a fort purpose-built to protect the white settlers of the Wanganui District. The fort was attacked in May 1847, shortly after its completion, but was never taken.

  On May 19, the Mãori launched a fierce assault on the British fort. They were unable to break through and were driven off with heavy losses. The tribesmen withdrew and started building a pa outside the town. The British decided to attack the pa before it was completed, and engaged the Mãori in the open outside their fort. The tribesmen were driven back into the half-prepared fortifications and awaited what they presumed would be the inevitable final assault.

  By now, however, the British military had learned that a frontal assault on a well-prepared pa was tantamount to suicide, so they withdrew to their fort to await developments. After several days of inactivity, Te Mamaku advised the British that he was withdrawing from the battle and as far as he was concerned, the war was over. The British pardoned him upon his undertaking that he would not take up arms again, and this phase of the Mãori Wars came to an end.

The First Taranaki War 1860–1861

  The outbreak of the conflict called the First Taranaki War in March 1860 was the first major campaign of the Mãori Wars which involved thousands of troops. A dispute over land ownership erupted into violence after a local chief, Pokikake Te Teira, sold land to the British in the Taranaki district of New Zealand’s North Island, despite being specifically instructed not to do so by his senior chief, Wiremu Kingi.

  The British moved troops into the area to secure the purchase, and in response, Kingi and a force of warriors erected a pa at a strategic point on the disputed land and ripped out the British surveyors’ boundary markers. The British troops moved to meet the Mãori and ordered them to surrender. The natives refused and a fight broke out which saw the British use cannon against the pa. After several hours of bombardment, the Mãori abandoned their fort and fled.

  It was not the end of the uprising. Isolated farms in the area came under attack from roving Mãori gangs and half a dozen whites were killed. Invigorated, the Mãori reassembled, acquired new reinforcements, and built another pa. British troops stormed the fort and drove the natives out once again. Flushed with their victory at Waireka, the British attacked another pa at Puketakauere, but were this time driven off by a skillful Mãori defense. For the next two months, Mãori forces carried out hit-and-run harassment attacks on white settlers, killing several dozen Europeans and burning a number of farms.

  The defeat at Puketakauere made the British governor appreciate the seriousness of the situation, and over two thousand troops were deployed in the region to crush the uprising. Given that the Mãori forces were never more than eight hundred at their absolute maximum, the British deployment indicated their desire to bring matters to a head. Several Mãori settlements and a number of new pas were destroyed in quick succession.

  The British forces, under the command of Major-General Pratt, began a slow, measured advance toward Te Arei, the main Mãori base. Each step of the way was covered by the construction of a purpose-built fort designed to secure their flanks and rear. Finally, faced with imminent destruction, the Mãori asked for a ceasefire. The British agreed and the war officially ended on March 18, 1861.

The Invasion of Waikato 1863–1864

  By 1860, the number of whites in New Zealand had reached sixty thousand, a figure which equaled the number of Mãori. The demographic tide had turned and the Mãori leadership, determining that the opportunity to retain control over their lands was slipping from their grasp, formed an alliance of tribes known as the King Movement, or Kingitanga.

  This alliance was meant to be a supreme Mãori authority which would oppose all further sale of land to the Europeans. Its influence soon spread, and the Kingitanga openly flaunted British authority and was found to be behind an ever-growing number of disorders and criminal attacks upon whites.

  The Kingitanga stronghold was to the south of Auckland on the North Island. After a significant troop buildup, Governor Sir George Grey expelled all the Mãori from the area around Auckland on July 9, 1863, and then engaged the main Mãori force—and defeated them—at the Battle of Koheroa.

   Despite the overwhelming British numbers, the Mãori tribesmen proved cunning foes, and for the next two months carried out a series of attacks which killed a number of Europeans. They also seized a supply depot at a small settlement named Camerontown in an engagement which saw a Mãori tribe, the Ngati Whauroa, pretend to be British allies but then switch sides at a critical moment.

  In mid-September, a Mãori attack on the British fort at Tuakau was repulsed, but this did not stop the tribesmen from attacking white settlers in the countryside at random. Nearly two dozen Europeans were killed in less than two weeks, and across the region, settlers were advised to retreat into fortified locations until the Mãori had been suppressed. One of the more famous incidents of this period included a Mãori attack on the fortified church at Pukekohe. The Mãori were routed at this battle, and forty tribesmen were killed but there were no settler casualties.

  By now, British preparations for the war had been finalized. Thousands of soldiers were brought in and the next Mãori defense line at Mere Mere was broken after a savage bombardment from the British ships. The Mãori retreated to another defensive line they had built a distance away at Rangiriri. The series of defeats had demoralized the Mãori forces, and hundreds deserted, leaving just a few hundred to fight off the British advance.


The British deployed gunboats against the Mãori stronghold at Mere Mere in October 1860, as depicted above. Two ironclad ships, the Avon and the Pioneer, and four armored barges brought more than 1,200 British soldiers to bear against the Mãori defenses, which were broken after a bombardment from the sea.

  By November 20, the Rangiriri line had also fallen to the Europeans, and by early December, the Mãori settlement of Ngaruawahia, the center of the Kingitanga movement, had been taken. The British pursued the fleeing rebels further south and defeated them once again at the settlement of Rangiawahia.

  The Mãori prepared one last defensive pa, at Orakau. This fortification, however, was taken by the British after a three-day siege in which nearly two hundred of the Mãori defenders were killed. After this defeat, the Mãori formally surrendered and peace was declared. The area to the south of Orakau was marked off by another Mãori line and left under tribal control until 1885.

The Tauranga Campaign 1864

  The Kingitanga received supplies and warriors from the Mãori tribes at Tauranga in the Bay of Plenty, and as a result, British troops were dispatched there to secure the area and prevent further reinforcements from reaching the rebels to the west.

  Upon the British force’s arrival, the Mãori began construction of a pa which overlooked Tauranga Harbour. This defensive position was cunningly built to provide the maximum protection against British artillery, and contained deep bunkers in which the Mãori warriors could shelter. It was called the Gate Pa, because the center of its construction resembled a gate.

  The British forces comprised 1,700 men, while the Mãori defenders were only a few hundred strong. The Europeans expected an easy victory, especially after an eight-hour bombardment by some of the heaviest cannon yet deployed in New Zealand. The Mãori, however, were safe in their bunkers, and when the British stormed what they expected to be a devastated pa, they were instead ambushed, and over one hundred men were killed. It was the worst defeat ever suffered by the British forces in New Zealand.

  The Mãori defenders fled, and even though the British forces had suffered grievous losses, they pursued the tribesmen and defeated them at the Battle of Te Ranga, a few miles away from the GatePa, on June 21, 1864. During this battle, the Mãori suffered over one hundred dead and were utterly demoralized.

  By the end of August, the uprising in the area was at an end. The British punished the Mãori by confiscating the one thing which both sides wanted: land. Some fifty thousand acres were seized and handed over for white settlement.

The Second Taranaki War 1863–1866

  The confiscation of Mãori land which followed the end of the First Taranaki War laid the basis for the outbreak of the second war. The Mãori had never accepted the unilateral seizure of their land and disputed the land claims south of the settlement of New Plymouth, and in the Waitara area.

  The ongoing unrest provoked the legislative assembly of New Zealand, which had been created in 1852, to pass the New Zealand Settlements Act in December 1863. In terms of this law, Mãori land which was under the control of those tribes who engaged in “rebellion” could be confiscated. The law was given immediate force in Taranaki and before the end of the following year, some 1,800 square miles of land had been seized and distributed to white farmers.
 In the interim, a virulent religion, known as the Hau Hau Movement, emerged among the Mãori. It advocated violence against the hated pakeha, or white people. The Hau Hau Movement made use of ritual slaughter, castrations, beheadings, the removal of hearts and other body parts, and traditional Mãori cannibalism. In addition, the Hau Hau priests taught that their incantations and spells would provide protection against bullets. The religion spread rapidly throughout the North Island and was dominant among the tribes by 1864.

  These factors combined to spark a new conflict, centered on the disputed land at Waitara. The British governor, Sir George Grey, announced on May 11, 1863, that the land would be returned to the Mãori, but he simultaneously deployed troops in the area to protect the white settlers. The Mãori responded by attacking the British soldiers, an act which Grey used to declare a new Taranaki war. A series of small engagements took place, most of which ended with the Mãori fleeing—but not until dozens of European settlers and soldiers had been killed.

   The British forces took pa after pa from the Mãori through 1863 and 1864, and at one stage employed a warship to shell Mãori positions from the sea. At the same time, detachments of locally recruited militia from the ever-growing European settler population swept though Mãori settlements, destroying villages and seizing land. The Mãori scored some successes, and in one notable incident captured and killed seven British soldiers. They were beheaded and the heads paraded around the island to gain recruits for the Hau Hau Movement. 

  The violent struggle continued all through 1864, but by now the British had perfected the art of using the wars as a way of taking more land from the Mãori. After each skirmish, they would build a series of forts, and the land would be cleared of Mãori and settled by white farmers. The progress was slow but relentless, and the Mãori were steadily pushed back.

  By April 1865, most of the coast eighty miles north of New Plymouth had been seized in this way. Despite a British offer of peace in September, the war continued into 1866. Ultimately, the white settlers and the British troops proved too powerful to overcome, and after several engagements where the bulletproof incantations failed with disastrous consequences for the Mãori warriors, disillusionment with the Hau Hau religion and successive defeats forced the rebellion to end. In November 1866, a peace treaty formally ended the war.


The Ngai Te Rangi tribe surrenders at Tauranga following their defeat at Te Ranga in June 1864. The tribesmen surrendered both their weapons and those they had captured from the British at the earlier Battle of the Gate Pa. This sketch was made by a British soldier at the scene.

Hau Hau Civil War Breaks out among Mãori

  Not all the Mãori tribes on the North Island acknowledged the peace of 1866, particularly those who were still involved in the Hau Hau Movement. Those Mãori who had come to understand that the violent religion was a hoax, became strongly opposed to it. This caused many Taranaki Mãori to join government forces and take part in suppressing uprisings by Hau Hau-supporting tribes.

  As a result, when government forces were deployed to hunt down the murderers of a German Christian missionary, Carl Völkner (who was ritually killed and had his eyeballs publicly eaten by a Hau Hau leader, Kereopa Te Rau, in March 1865), Taranaki Mãori were deployed alongside colonial militia and together they waged a highly effective campaign against the local Mãori in Opotiki. The Hau Hau-related uprising was crushed within a few weeks.


From left to right: the Mãori leader Kereopa Te Rau, photographed just before he was hanged; the church where the event occurred; and Carl Völkner, the victim. The German missionary had built a church in Opotiki and drawn a number of Mãori adherents to Christianity by 1865. In February that year, Kereopa Te Rau arrived in Opotiki and quickly converted Völkner’s congregation to the Hau Hau religion. The next month, Völkner was seized by his former flock and decapitated. Kereopa Te Rau?then held a Hau Hau service inside Völkner’s church, with Völkner’s head in the pulpit. During the Hau Hau service, Kereopa Te Rau plucked both eyeballs out of Völkner’s head and ate them. The atrocity provoked a new campaign from the British to stamp out the Hau Hau rebels in the area, an objective which was achieved some seven years later. Kereopa Te Rau was hanged in 1872.

  A mini-civil war then erupted among the Mãori on the North Island, fought between Hau Hau adherents and nonbelievers. The sceptics called on the white government for help, which was duly forthcoming. The whites armed “loyal” Mãori who then took part in a series of battles with Hau Hau-supporting tribes at Poverty Bay, Hawke’s Bay, Napier, and Tauranaga. In many of these clashes, colonial white militia fought alongside the “loyal” Mãori forces. The Hau Hau tribes were utterly defeated, their traditional Mãori military craftiness submerged in reckless open charges driven by their belief that they were impervious to bullets.

  The last phase of the Mãori civil war took place during an anti-white uprising led by the charismatic chief Te Kooti in 1868. Te Kooti established yet another religious cult and led his supporters in a killing spree which murdered dozens of whites. He often killed other Mãori as well, and eventually a combination of government forces and Mãori opponents destroyed his power base. Eventually, Te Kooti’s cult ran out of followers, and he faded into insignificance after being granted amnesty in 1883.

The Third Taranaki War 1868–1869

  The Third Taranaki War was the final stage in the race wars in New Zealand. Often called Titokowaru’s War, after its chief protagonist, this conflict was a revival of the Second Taranaki War. Titokowaru had, in fact, been a warrior in that earlier war—and had converted to the Hau Hau religion when it swept the North Island.

  In June 1868, Titokowaru launched a series of attacks against white settlers along the Waingongoro River. Shortly afterward, news of a cannibalistic feast and ritual murders reached the ears of the white authorities, and government troops were mobilized to defeat the new menace. However, Titokowaru was an experienced fighter and, although a Hau Hau adherent, did not believe in the bullet immunity legend. The Mãori leader prepared his defenses well and routed the colonial forces (which included a small detachment of “loyal” Mãori) in a series of clashes at Turuturu-Mokai and Te Ngutu o Te Manu.

  The defeated colonial forces were forced to retreat after suffering dozens of casualties. The defeats were made worse by the fact that the retreating European soldiers witnessed the ritual murder of white prisoners by Titokowaru’s warriors, who specialized in cutting out the hearts of the their enemies.

  Titokowaru’s victories encouraged other Mãori tribes to join his uprising, and many “loyal” Mãori deserted the colonial forces. It took months for the government forces to recover from these defeats, and it was only in January 1869 that an attack was launched on Titokowaru’s new fort at Moturoa. The Battle of Moturoa, as it became known, resulted in yet another catastrophic defeat for the government forces.

  At the height of his victories, Titokowaru suddenly lost his ability to motivate and direct his followers. The collapse of his formidable army is shrouded in mystery, but the most likely explanation is that intertribal conflict finally brought about his downfall. Whatever the cause, by the end of 1869, the last effective Mãori resistance to the Europeans had faded away.

Crown Colony of New Zealand Constituted in 1841

  The growing number of white settlers in New Zealand and the country’s distance from New South Wales in Australia made the initial plan of administrative union between the regions increasingly cumbersome. As a result, New Zealand was reconstituted as a separate crown colony with Wellington as its capital in 1841.

  In 1852, the British parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution Act, which enabled a representative government in the colony. The first elections were held in 1853, and the first meeting of members of Parliament took place in 1854. By 1865, the New Zealand Parliament had moved to Wellington.

Mãori Given Racially-Exclusive Seats in New Zealand Parliament

  Although there was no specific clause which forbade Mãori from having the vote, the first New Zealand parliament was elected on a strict property-owning qualified franchise. This had the practical effect of disqualifying most Mãori because, even then, they had little concept of the idea of private ownership of property in the European sense. The closest concept to property ownership which the Mãori possessed was in the form of tribal lands which belonged to chiefs. As a result, about one hundred Mãori chieftains did have the vote at the time of the first elections. The qualified franchise was applied without racial prejudice, however, and even among white settlers, the total number of voters in 1853 was 5,749.

   The ongoing wars with the Mãori convinced many Europeans that the natives had to be accommodated in one form or another in parliament. As a result, the New Zealand parliament created four seats reserved specifically for the Mãori, and for which all adult male Mãori could vote.

   Even though it was on a separate voters’ roll, the irony of universal male suffrage being granted to Mãori before it was granted to whites in New Zealand, was not lost on the rest of the population. In addition to the reserved seats, those Mãori who qualified for the franchise under the property-owning restrictions were given a second vote in the “ordinary” elections as well, effectively doubling their vote. This disparity was made even more glaring when the property qualification for obtaining the franchise was abolished in 1879.

  The separate seats arrangement was meant to last for only five years, as it was presumed that the Mãori would soon own land on an individual basis as the Europeans did. This did not occur as expected, and the reserved seats were extended in 1872 and made permanent in 1876.


The Mãori have been given seven racially-exclusive seats in the New Zealand parliament, for which they alone can vote. While whites are specifically excluded from voting in the Mãori seats, all Mãori can vote in the “general” seats. This has inevitably led to the rise of Mãori ethno-nationalism, and the creation of a Mãori Party. Above: A Mãori Party demonstration outside the New Zealand parliament building in Wellington in 2004. The statue of New Zealand Prime Minister Richard Seddon was adorned with a Mãori Party flag for the occasion. Attempts by small groups of white New Zealanders to form racially-exclusive parties have been dismissed as “racist” but no such smear is used against the Mãori-only groups.

  Mãori have been eligible to vote on both the Mãori roll and the “general” voters’ roll since 1879, and in 1893, a new law ruled that only full-blooded Mãori would automatically be put on the reserved seat election rolls. “Half–castes,” or mixed European-Mãori people, were given the right to choose if they wanted to be enrolled upon the Mãori-only voters’ roll.

   The reserved Mãori seats have remained in place ever since, despite suggestions that they are racially discriminatory. The number of Mãori-only seats was increased to seven in 2002 after New Zealand switched to a proportional representation system of elections.

   New Zealand also became the first country in the world to give the franchise to women in 1893, although bizarrely, females were forbidden from standing as candidates until 1919.

Gold and Sheep Farming Boost White Numbers

  White population numbers in New Zealand were boosted after sheep farming was started in the 1850s and gold was discovered in 1852. For many decades, wool accounted for more than one third of New Zealand’s exports, and after the first successful transcontinental exportation of frozen meat in 1882, mutton and lamb became another major revenue stream.

  Several gold rushes took place after 1852, all of which attracted a large number of fortune seekers to New Zealand. By 1866, the amount of gold produced reached a record 735,000 ounces, or more than twenty-two tons. Gold mining continued to play an important part in New Zealand’s economy, and in 2000, the Macraes and Martha mines each produced their one millionth ounce.

New Zealanders Fight for Britain in Both World Wars

  During the First World War, troops from New Zealand took part in the disastrous Gallipoli campaign against Ottoman Turkey. The campaign was the first combined mission carried out by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) and is widely credited with cementing New Zealand’s national consciousness. ANZAC Day is still celebrated on April 25 each year to honor New Zealand’s military dead.


Troops from New Zealand disembark at a French port after a sea journey around the globe to fight for the Allies in World War I.

  An astonishing 103,000 New Zealanders served in the armed forces during the First World War—out of a total population of one million. Of this number, 16,697 were killed. This meant that 1.6 percent of all New Zealanders died in the conflict, one of the highest death rates per capita of any country in the war.

  An even greater number of New Zealanders served in World War II. Some 140,000 soldiers fought overseas in Europe, North Africa, and in the Pacific during the war. Of this number, some 11,928 were killed, or just under 1 percent of the total population of New Zealand in 1939.

The Mãori—Social Disaster

  According to the 2006 Census, Mãori made up 14.6 percent of New Zealand’s population. As is the case with the Australian Aborigines, the Mãori community has extremely high rates of unemployment, imprisonment, alcoholism, drug dependency, and violence. A report issued on Mãori crime in October 2005, for example, revealed that they comprised over half of New Zealand’s prison population and 45 percent of offenders serving community based sentences. This means that Mãori are responsible for more than 65 percent of all criminal offences in New Zealand.

  The deplorable state of the Maori community overall led to the creation of the Ministry of Maori Development by the New Zealand government in 1992. This government department, devoted exclusively to Mãori upliftment programs, has a budget of millions of New Zealand dollars, promotes Mãori-only businesses, and provides scholarships and welfare funding. None of these measures appear to have had much effect.

New Zealand: First World Nation Because of First World Population

  Despite only coming into existence in the mid-nineteenth century, New Zealand was regarded as a First World nation within a few decades of its creation. By the end of the twentieth century, New Zealand was so advanced that it provided foreign aid to thirty-two countries around the world, all of which are Second or Third World nations.

  The obvious question which must spring to the mind of any objective observer is this: how could a small island nation barely 150 years old, become so advanced in such a short period of time that it now provides foreign aid to other nations, many of which were established long before New Zealand?

  The answer, as politically incorrect as it may be, is simply that New Zealand became a First World nation because it was majority populated by First World people.

  New Zealand serves as yet another example of how a territory’s culture and civilization is determined exclusively by who makes up the majority population, regardless of environmental circumstances.


Auckland, New Zealand, was founded in 1840. By 1900, it was the largest city in the country. Within a century, Auckland became a mighty First World city, built literally out of the untamed bush. This and the many other achievements of present-day New Zealand are evidence that a culture is a reflection of the people who majority occupy a region. New Zealand became a First World nation because it was occupied by First World people.

Nonwhite Immigration Increases after 1980

  Third World immigration into New Zealand started in earnest in the last two decades of the twentieth century and has continued ever since. This influx, combined with the Mãori population, has reversed the Europeanization of New Zealand so that by the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, less than two-thirds of New Zealand’s population was white. The extent and implications of this development are discussed later in this work.

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

Chapter 65: The Racial State—the Third Reich

Chapter 65: The Racial State—the Third Reich

The figure of Adolf Hitler towers over the twentieth century. He, and the state which he created, National Socialist Germany, remains one of the most controversial topics of contemporary history and can still command media and popular attention more than half a century later.

Despite all the intense scrutiny, it is difficult to obtain a source which presents an objective overview of Hitler and the Third Reich. A large amount of what has been written about Hitler and Nazi Germany has varied between outright lies and sycophantic (and distorted) praise—neither of which contribute to a proper understanding of the correct historical context of this time period. The reason for these distortions is that the Third Reich era still influences politics in the twenty-first century, and as a result, is the object of a large number of subjective opinions.


Adolf Hitler, unquestionably the single most popular politician in European history.


The faithful gather at the “Reich Party Day” at Buckberg, Schleswig Holstein, October 1933. In a referendum held after he came to power, Hitler polled over 99 percent approval from the German people, and their willingness to fight to the end for him showed that this result was not faked.

The Jesse Owens and the “Big Lie” Myths

Two examples of distortions which have entered the popular consciousness about Hitler are the story of the 1936 Olympics and the black American athlete Jesse Owens, and the equally famous story of the “Big Lie” technique.

It is often claimed that Hitler refused to shake Owens’ hand after he had won a race at the 1936 Olympics, because the athlete was black. For example, the Encarta Encyclopedia’s entry on Owens said that “Owens . . . [was] one of the greatest track-and-field athletes of all time . . . A member of the US track team in the 1936 Olympic Games, held in Berlin, Owens won four gold medals . . . Despite Owens’ outstanding athletic performance, German leader Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge his Olympic victories because Owens was black.”

The reality was substantially different. Hitler attended the first day of the track-and-field events on August 2, 1936, and personally congratulated the German athlete Hans Woellke, who was the first German to win a gold medal in the Olympics since 1896. Throughout the rest of the day, Hitler received and congratulated all the event winners, German and non-German, in his VIP box.

The next day, August 3, the chairman of the International Olympic Committee, Comte Baillet-Latour, approached Hitler early in the morning and told the German leader that he had violated Olympic protocol by having winners paraded in his box. Hitler apologized and promised that he would from then on refrain from publicly congratulating any winners, German or otherwise. It was on this second day that Owens won his gold medals, and in line with the Olympic Committee’s ruling, Hitler did not shake his hand, or anybody else’s, at the games again. It is therefore false to claim that Hitler deliberately chose to ignore Owens.

In Owens’ autobiography, The Jesse Owens Story, he recounted how Hitler had stood up and waved to him. “When I passed the Chancellor he arose, waved his hand at me, and I waved back at him. I think the writers showed bad taste in criticizing the man of the hour in Germany,” wrote Owens. Ironically, the only person who refused to shake Owens’ hand was American president Franklin D. Roosevelt. The president, involved in an election and concerned about winning the vote in southern states, refused to see Owens at the White House as was traditional for the American Olympic champions. Owens was later to remark that it was Roosevelt, not Hitler, who snubbed him. “The president didn’t even send me a telegram,” Owens wrote in his autobiography, adding that Hitler, on the other hand, sent the black athlete a commemorative inscribed cabinet photograph of himself.

Another common allegation about the 1936 Olympic Games is that Owens’ victory “disproved the Nazi master race theory.” In fact, Germany won the Olympic Games with a total of eighty-nine medals, and the US came second with fifty-six.

The story about the “Big Lie” technique is yet another widely-believed distortion. The most common version of this story is that Hitler invented or advocated the principle “the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite, and Hitler actually warned people against the “Big Lie” technique, which, he said, was used by Jews.

The quotation comes from chapter ten of Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, where he wrote that the technique was used by Jews against the World War I German general Ludendorff: “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall [of Germany in WWI] precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true in itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously” (Mein Kampf, Chapter X, Adolf Hitler).



Hidden by all the false propaganda about Jesse Owens and the 1936 Berlin Olympics is the reality that many of the competing teams were overawed by Hitler’s Germany and enthusiastically supported it. Above, the English soccer team greets the crowd with Nazi salutes before kickoff.

Nazis Suppress Democracy

It is also claimed that Hitler “subverted democracy.” This is an allegation which is most certainly true, except for the fact that there was never any pretense over this matter. The Nazi Party openly abhorred democracy and aimed to replace it with the “leadership principle” which it claimed was in line with the natural order of the world.  Resultantly, as soon as the Nazis came to power, they implemented a program which resulted in the imposition of a one-party state.

One month after Hitler came to power, a Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, assisted by three other men, set fire to the Reichstag building in Berlin. The Nazis used the arson attack to pass a law, the Enabling Act, which turned Germany into a legal dictatorship. By the end of June 1933, all other parties had been banned or had dissolved themselves. On July 14, 1933, the Reichstag passed a law which turned the Nazi Party into Germany’s only legal political party.

The Reichstag became little more than a rubber stamp for Nazi Party decisions, and the German voters were allowed to vote in referenda on set issues which only required “yes” or “no” votes. In each case, the voters returned over 98 percent endorsements for whatever the government had done.  This anti-democratic drive extended to the press and freedom of speech as well. Newspapers were placed under state, or state-sympathetic, control. One of the most interesting examples of this control was, ironically, provided with the case of the famous anti-Semitic broadsheet Der Stürmer, printed by Nazi Party member Julius Streicher. Hermann Göring outlawedDer Stürmer in East Prussia (where he was state premier) and the leader of the Hitler Youth, Baldur von Schirach, banned the newspaper within his organization.

In addition, literature and art deemed to be undesirable were placed on a banned index. The famous book burning incident occurred only once—after that, such books were simply not printed in Germany.

Although the suppression of free speech and freedom of the press were characteristic of Nazi Germany, there are in reality almost no countries, even to the present day, which have complete freedoms. In most present-day European nations, for example, there are laws which make it a criminal offense to discuss racially related topics.

Hitler Elected to Office

It was thus ironic that Hitler came to power by being voted into office. In the election of March 1933, the Nazi Party received the single largest share of the vote, with 44 percent of the seats in the German Reichstag, or parliament. Hitler entered into a coalition with a number of smaller nationalist and right-wing parties, and thereby achieved a bare majority. These smaller parties were to later merge with the Nazi Party of their own free will.

Once in power, the Nazis combined their mastery of propaganda with an extended program of political and social reform. Within three years, this had persuaded the vast majority of Germans to support Hitler. Upon taking office in 1933, Hitler asked the Germans for four years in office, after which, he said, a referendum would be held to test the popularity of his government.

This referendum was duly held in 1938 with the question, “Do you approve of the National Socialist Government or not?” The result was a staggering 44,461,278 “yes” votes, or 98.8 percent of the number of voters. “No” votes amounted to 540,211.

This result could not have been produced through mass intimidation, and represented a level of support which was breathtaking by any standard. Hitler’s personal popularity remained very high for almost the entire war, and was the single most important reason why Germans fought to the bitter end without large-scale mutinies (as had happened in the First World War). This was even more amazing when it is considered that the Nazi state was strictly authoritarian.



Heil Goring! The lab animals of Germany salute Hermann Goring for his order banning vivisection. In August 1933, the reichsmarschall announced an end to the “unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments” and threatened to commit to concentration camps “those who still think they can treat animals as inanimate property.”

Vivisection Outlawed

One of the very first laws passed by the Nazi-controlled parliament of East Prussia in 1933 was the abolition of vivisection, or experimentation on animals. This law also banned shechita, which is the Jewish form of animal slaughter whereby meat is made kosher. The method of slaughter (in which the animal’s throat is slit so that it bleeds to death while a rabbi prays over the scene) was rejected by the Nazis as barbaric and inflicting unnecessary pain. This anti-vivisection law was soon extended throughout Germany.

Nazi Germany also forbade the use of the pesticide DDT on the grounds that it was a health hazard (it would be decades before this policy was adopted by other countries), and instead used a German produced version known as Cyclone-B (Zyklon-B).

Nazi scientists were among the first to warn of the dangers of radiation, asbestos, lead, cadmium, and mercury. In addition, German medical journals of the 1930s and 1940s were the first to warn against the ill effects of artificial food colorants and preservatives in food and drinks. They also stressed the need for a return to “organic” or natural ingredients in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, fertilizers, and foods.

Hitler Backed Anti-Smoking Drive

Nazi Germany was also the world’s first government to actively campaign against smoking. In July 1939, the Bureau against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco was founded, and the Reich Health Office sponsored cash prizes for research into the effects of nicotine upon human chromosomes.

In June 1942, Hitler personally funded the Institute for the Struggle against Tobacco at the University of Jena in Saxony with 100,000 reichsmarks of his own money (the German leader was a millionaire from the sale of his book, Mein Kampf). In 1944, Germany became the first country in the world to ban smoking on public transport.



The Nazi Party banned smoking in many public places, including party offices, waiting rooms, and in 1944, on public transport. Above: Nazi anti-tobacco activists tried to associate smoking as something not done by Germans. Note the Negroid head on the cigar.


 A poster which pointed out that Germans smoked the financial equivalent of two million Volkswagens per year.

Nazis Discourage Alcohol Abuse

In 1937, the Nazis enacted the world’s first laws which prohibited the sale of alcohol to minors and enacted stiff penalties for drunken driving. They also introduced the first blood tests for automobile drivers suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

As part of the state’s efforts to control alcohol consumption, the SS promoted the production and consumption of mineral water. The SS’s business interests expanded considerably so that by 1945, it controlled 75 percent of all mineral water production in Germany.

Economic Reforms Transform Economy

When Hitler came to power in 1933, the unemployment rate stood at 30 percent. By 1938, Germany had a shortage of labor.

This economic recovery was achieved not by “rearming Germany” as some propagandists have claimed, but rather by reforming and reinvigorating the German economy. The unemployment problem was also tackled by the creation of great building projects, most notably Hitler’s pet project, the autobahns.

Among the many reforms was one which antagonized the international banking community. Nazi Germany’s economy was based on a barter system, through which German surplus goods were exchanged for what was needed from other countries—in common language, by swapping. This replaced the previous system of government funding through enormous loans from foreign and local banks, and had the practical effect of reducing the German government’s dependency on the vagaries of international finance.

Hitler also abandoned the gold standard as a means of weighting the reichsmark. Money in Nazi Germany was not based on gold but on the capacity of the German people to produce goods.

Hitler said in 1937: “We were not foolish enough to try to make a currency coverage of gold of which we had none, but for every mark that was issued we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done or goods produced . . .  we laugh at the time our national financiers held the view that the value of a currency is regulated by the gold and securities lying in the vaults of a state bank.”

Workers’ Rights and Benefits

Labor unions were dissolved and reformed under the authority of the state-controlled Labor Front. It became illegal to strike and for management to lock workers out, and the state actively intervened in labor disputes.

The economic upturn increased the average standard of living, and working-class Germans were (for the first time ever) able to travel abroad in state-sponsored holidays through a program known as “Strength through Joy.”

Children were obligated to serve in the Hitler Youth (or its female equivalent) as a form of national service. The meetings of these youth organizations were timed to be on Sundays at exactly the times that the main churches held their services. Soon the pews began to empty of young people who preferred to go camping, shooting, or playing sport.

Nazi Atomic Science

Another common myth about Nazi Germany is that the country was not able to build an atomic bomb of its own because it rejected the “Jewish science” of Albert Einstein and other Jewish scientists. This allegation was proven false with the release in 1999 of previously top secret files on the Nazi atomic bomb project which were made available in the Munich state museum. The papers, which contain research notes by famous German physicists such as Werner Heisenberg and Otto Hahn, show that German research into the atomic bomb was parallel with efforts in the United States, and that the only reason the Third Reich had not built an atom bomb by 1945 was due to the Allied carpet bombing campaign which had disrupted the supply of raw materials. One of the documents is a November 1945 report by two US investigators which says that “only the lack of plutonium” kept Germany from completing an atomic bomb.

If the Allied bombing campaign had been any less severe, there can be no doubt that Nazi Germany would have been able to field nuclear weapons before the Americans.

Hitler and Christianity

Contrary to popular belief, Hitler and the inner core of the Nazi party were not Christians. In public, Hitler accepted or even praised Christianity, but in private, he detested religion, as a reading of his personal dinner table chat recorded by Martin Borman, and published as Hitler’s Table Talk, reveals.

Of Christianity, Hitler said: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

“Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.

“Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure” (Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941–1944, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p 7).



Nazi eugenics was primarily concerned with German whites, not other races. The word Untermensch (or under-man) was actually used to refer to degenerate whites, as this illustration from the 1937 publicationVolk in Gefahr (“A People in Danger”) shows. The illustration deals with the issue of criminality among degenerate Germans in this way: “The Threat of the Untermensch (Under-man). Male criminals have an average of 4.9 children; a marriage of criminals has 4.4 children; parents of slow learners have an average of 3.5 children; a [healthy] German family has an average of 2.2 children; and a marriage from the educated circles has on average 1.9 children.” The Nazis were, therefore, primarily concerned with preventing degenerate whites from overwhelming society.

The Racial State

It is also often claimed that Nazi Germany’s racial policies consisted of wishing to breed a “master race” of blue-eyed blond people. Leading Nazi-era racial theorists, such as Hans F. K. Günther, however, were well aware that the majority of Germany’s population were not of the classic Nordic racial type, but rather a mixture of Nordic, Alpine, and other influences.

Hitler personally was a prime example of this “average” German. The American writer T. Lothrop Stoddard (who was granted a personal interview with the German leader in December 1939) provided the only English-language firsthand description of Hitler as follows: “There are certain details of Hitler’s appearance which one cannot surmise from photographs. His complexion is medium, with blond brown hair of neutral shade which shows no signs of gray. His eyes are very dark blue” (Into the Darkness, Nazi Germany Today, T. Lothrop Stoddard, New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, Inc., 1940).

  Nonetheless, it is true that under the influence of Nordicists such as Günther, certain Nazi officials held out the hope that through a process of what they called “racial regeneration,” German society would become increasingly Nordic, hence the “master race” claim.

The Nordic racial type often assumed an abstract notion rather than a racial reality in Nazi literature. Hitler preferred to use the term “Aryan” to describe Europeans (his most important writing on race, Chapter eleven of Mein Kampf, called “Race and Nation,” never uses the word “Nordic”). There was, of course, no detailed definition of what comprised an “Aryan” (probably because there was not really such a race. The original Aryans were a tribe of Indo-Europeans who occupied northern India and Afghanistan in ancient times, and not a distinct race by themselves).

These theoretical issues aside, the Nazi state introduced a range of racial laws which were designed to prevent admixture from non-European sources and to improve the racial stock of Germany.



“We do not stand alone”—Nazi propaganda justifying the 1934 sterilization law, shows a German couple surrounded by the flags of nations which already had identical laws.

Sterilization Law

On July 14, 1934, the German government passed the law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring, also known as the Sterilization Law. In terms of this law, an individual could be sterilized if, in the opinion of specially established courts, that person suffered from any genetic diseases, identified as feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, insanity, genetic epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea, genetic blindness or deafness, or severe alcoholism. It was only in the early 1990s that American scientists “rediscovered” the genetic link to alcoholism.

This law, for which Nazi Germany became infamous, was by no means the first such regulation in the West. The Swiss canton of Waadt had passed a law in 1928 in terms of which the mentally ill could be sterilized. Denmark had passed similar legislation in 1929, Norway in 1934, Sweden and Finland in 1935, Estonia in 1936, and Iceland in 1938. Other nations which also had sterilization laws included Mexico, Cuba, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Hungary.

In America, the state of Indiana passed a sterilization law in 1907, and by 1930, a further twenty-eight US states and one province in Canada had followed suit. This resulted in the sterilization of some fifteen thousand mentally ill people in America before 1930, a total which rose to more than thirty thousand by 1939.

In 1930, the women’s supplement to the anti-Nazi German Social Democratic Party’s newspaper, Vorwaarts, criticized the 1929 Danish sterilization law for not requiring the compulsory sterilization of “inferiors.” In 1931, even the German Communist Party supported sterilization of psychiatric patients under certain conditions.

German records show that, by 1945, just under 400,000 people (none of whom were Jews) were sterilized in Germany as a result of the sterilization law. The only nonwhites to be sterilized were five hundred children born of sexual relationships between German women and black French soldiers who had been used to occupy the Rhineland area after World War I. The claim, therefore, that it was “only the Nazis” who sterilized the mentally ill, is yet another propaganda distortion. In reality, the Nazis were relative latecomers to the sterilization program.

The Mother’s Cross

The Nazi government encouraged large families and, in imitation of the ancient Greek and Roman attempts to encourage population growth, introduced laws which rewarded people who had many children. These rewards took the form of financial payments and tax concessions.

In addition, a special Mother’s Cross medal was struck, given in bronze to German women who had four children, silver for six children, and gold for eight. Hundreds of thousands of these medals were given out before the war ended.

A combination of these incentives and the abolition of abortions (except in cases of the mentally ill) caused an increase (over and above what would have been the case had Hitler not come to power) of just over three million in the number of children born in Germany during the Third Reich era.

The Nuremburg Laws

In September 1935, the German government passed the Reich Citizenship Law which limited citizenship of Germany to only those of “German and related blood who through their behavior make it evident that they are willing and able faithfully to serve the German people and nation.” Jews and other non-Germans were reclassified as aliens and denied German citizenship.

The Blood Protection Law, proclaimed on the same day, forbade all sexual relations between Germans and non-Germans, based on citizenship. It was these two laws which colloquially became known as the “Nuremburg Laws.”

To address the issue of already existing marriages and children, the law defined a Jew as a person who had two Jewish grandparents. Anything less than that and the person was classified as a German, and allowed to marry other Germans. This was a Nazi concession to the fact that many European Jews were to all practical purposes European in racial makeup.

The Blood Protection Law specifically forbade such “one quarter Jews” from marrying other “one quarter Jews”—this was done to promote the further dissolution of Jewish genes, and conversely to prevent the strengthening of any Jewish gene pool in Germany which might result from such unions.

Contrary to propaganda surrounding the Third Reich, many of these one quarter Jews served the new German government faithfully, in all areas of the Reich’s administration, including the armed forces, without persecution of any sort.



The Nuremburg Laws classified a person as Jewish if they had more than one Jewish grandparent. This chart, issued by the Reich Health Office in 1936, is an overview of “admissibility of marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans.” The white circles represent “pure Germans;” the circles with black indicate the proportion of Jewish blood. Allowable (zulassig) was a marriage between a full German and a one-quarter Jew; not allowed (verboten) was a marriage between a one quarter Jew and a three quarters Jew. The latter was an example of how the Nazis actually sought to assimilate part-Jews into Germany. The law was drawn up with the support and cooperation of the pro-Zionist Council of German Jews, who shared a common aim with the Nazis in that they also wanted the Jews to leave.

Zionist Support for Nazi Racial Laws

It was not without irony that the Nuremburg Laws were drawn up in consultation with, and approval from, the German Council of Jews, particularly those in favor of the Zionist movement who wanted Jews to leave Europe to settle in Palestine.

Soon after the Nazis came to power, the Zionist Federation of Germany submitted a document to Hitler’s office which offered its support in “solving the Jewish question” (Memo of June 21, 1933, as reproduced in The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, Francis R. Nicosia, Austin: University of Texas, 1985, p. 42).

The document continued: “Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group.

 “Our acknowledgment of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses in the cultural domain, we—having been brought up in the German language and German culture—can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy” (ibid.).

When the Nuremburg Laws were first adopted by the Nazi Party at its congress of 1935, they were specifically welcomed by the Zionist-supporting Jewish German newspaper, the Jüdische Rundschau, which published an editorial which read: “Germany … is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry.

“The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theater, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life.

“Germany has given the Jewish minority the opportunity to live for itself, and is offering state protection for this separate life of the Jewish minority: Jewry’s process of growth into a nation will thereby be encouraged and a contribution will be made to the establishment of more tolerable relations between the two nations” (Jüdische Rundschau, Sept. 17, 1935).

The head of the Zionist State Organization, the Jewish Cultural League, and former head of the Berlin Jewish Community, Georg Kareski, declared in an interview with the Nazi newspaper Der Angriff that “For many years I have regarded a complete separation of the cultural affairs of the two peoples [Jews and Germans] as a pre-condition for living together without conflict . . . I have long supported such a separation, provided it is founded on respect for the alien nationality. The Nuremberg Laws . . . seem to me, apart from their legal provisions, to conform entirely with this desire for a separate life based on mutual respect . . . This interruption of the process of dissolution in many Jewish communities, which had been promoted through mixed marriages, is therefore, from a Jewish point of view, entirely welcome” (Der Angriff, Dec. 23, 1935).

The large measure of Jewish support for the provisions of the Nuremburg Laws is deliberately covered up by most present-day historians.

Haavara—the Transfer Agreement

The Transfer Agreement, also known by its Hebrew name, Haavara, was a formal agreement between the Nazi government and the World Zionist Organization signed in August 1933. In terms of this agreement, any Jew who wanted to emigrate to Palestine could deposit money in an account in Germany, which was overseen by the government and the Zionists.

This cash was used to purchase German-made agricultural tools, building materials, fertilizer, and other goods, which were then exported to Palestine and sold by the Jewish-owned Haavara Company in Tel Aviv. Proceeds from the sales of these goods were then provided to the emigrant Jews upon their arrival in Palestine.

Jewish Underground in Palestine Offered Military Alliance with Nazis

The British, who controlled Palestine after World War I, realized that a Jewish state would result in the dispossession of the Arabs in the region and had reneged on the 1917 Balfour Declaration which promised support for a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.

The Zionist movement then set up an underground resistance movement, dedicated to driving the Arabs and the British out of Palestine. The most prominent of these Zionist underground factions was called Lehi, better known as the “Stern Gang” after its leader Yair Stern. (Another famous member of Lehi was Yitzhak Shamir, who later became prime minister of Israel.) In December 1940, Lehi contacted Germany with a proposal to aid German conquest in the Middle East in return for recognition of a Jewish state (The Land Beyond Promise: Israel, Likud and the Zionist Dream, Colin Shindler, 1995, I.B. Tauris, p. 22). The proposal, made by Lehi’s representative, Naftali Lubenchik, to the German embassy in Beirut, offered Jewish help in spying on British troop movements in the Middle East and the sabotage of the Allied army installations.

Finally, Lehi said, it would raise an army of forty thousand Jews from Europe, who, with German assistance, would descend on Palestine to drive the British out. All the Germans had to do in exchange was to facilitate the transfer and recognize the Jewish state which would be created.

This offer was formally transmitted to Berlin in written form by Vice Admiral Ralf von der Marwitz, the German naval attaché in Turkey in 1941. The German response was either not recorded, or has yet to be discovered.

Nazi Eugenics

The third and last racial law passed by the German government was the Law for the Protection of the Genetic Health of the German People, promulgated in October 1935. This law required couples wishing to marry to submit themselves to a medical examination before marriage to see if any genetically undesirable traits might be passed on to children born of such a union.

The law forbade marriage between individuals suffering from venereal disease, feeblemindedness, epilepsy, or any of the diseases encompassed in the Sterilization Law.

Those who were classed as bearing such genetically undesirable traits were only allowed to marry if they agreed to be sterilized—so that no children would be born of the marriage.

The Euthanasia Project

In 1938, a German father by the name of Knauer wrote to Hitler asking that his child, born blind, retarded, and with one arm and one leg, be granted a mercy death, or euthanasia. The case so moved Hitler that he ordered his personal physician, Karl Brandt, to establish if the claims were true, and if so, that the child be granted euthanasia. This Knauer case was to be the start of a legal euthanasia program, the first in Western civilization since the times of the Spartans and early Romans.

In all, some five thousand retarded and deformed children were euthanized by the German government before the end of the war. Each case was individually reviewed by a specially appointed committee.

The policy of administering euthanasia to retarded and deformed children was then also extended to incurably insane adults. Thanks to the German habit of keeping meticulous records, the exact number of incurably insane adults granted euthanasia is known: 70,273.

Although the adult euthanasia project was conducted in secret, it was impossible to conceal such a thing from the German public. By 1941, news of its existence had been leaked and public pressure on the Nazi government forced its abandonment in that year. The fact that public opposition could bring an end to the euthanasia program also reveals much about the relative openness of the Nazi state and the government’s responsiveness to public opinion.

European Support for Hitler

Hitler was not only popular in Germany. Many Europeans of other nationalities openly supported Nazi ideology and volunteered, either as workers or military servicemen, to actively assist the German war effort. Active support came from Britain, Ireland, France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

In many of these nations, parties and movements which openly supported National Socialism, or homegrown variants, were started, and some achieved a significant level of public support. A few of the more famous such parties included the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists, the Mouvement Franciste in France, the Rexist Party in Belgium, the Dutch National Socialist Bund, the Iron Guard in Romania, and the Russian National Liberation Army.



The British Union of Fascists and National Socialists rally in Earl’s Court, London, 1936, was one of the largest public meetings ever held in Britain.


In France, anger at the prewar Jewish Prime Minister Leon Blum’s repression of democracy and banning of French nationalist groups, saw a dramatic rise in support for the Mouvement Franciste after the German occupation of France in 1940. This picture shows a Franciste rally at the Velodrome d’Hiver in Paris, attended by thousands.


Contrary to postwar propaganda, the Nazis were not seen by all Europeans as invaders, but often as welcome liberators. Above: Ecstatic Ukrainians welcome the German army, 1941; and below, Dutch civilians greet German troops pouring into Holland, 1940.


Waffen-SS—A Pan-European Army

One of the most striking examples of the popularity of Hitlerian politics in Europe was the emergence of the first pan-European army, the Waffen-SS (“Armed SS”). The original SS, or Schutzstaffel (defense echelons), had started as a small bodyguard unit for Hitler’s personal protection but grew into the ideological army of the Nazi Party, eventually forming a state within the state, with its own officers and infrastructure.

The next SS unit to be formed was the SS-Totenkopfverbände (“Death’s-Head Units”) which administered the concentration camps. The Waffen-SS were the third branch of the SS to be formed, and became the best known.

The Waffen-SS was an entirely voluntary, ideological army which developed a unique spirit among its members. In the ordinary German army, the Wehrmacht, soldiers were under strict orders to keep their trunks containing their personal possessions locked to prevent theft. In the Waffen-SS, however, all personal trunks were open at all times, under order. It was expected that no Waffen-SS man would steal from his comrades. Violators of this rule were severely punished.



A standard-bearer from the Spanish “Blue Division” which fought in Russia.


Above: French Waffen-SS leave Paris by train for the eastern front, and below, French SS men on the Eastern Front. A French Waffen SS unit was the last defender of the Reich Chancellery building in Berlin in 1945, deliberately holding the building long enough to prevent Soviet troops from capturing it on May Day, May 1st.



Danish SS men take the salute at a graduation ceremony.


Dutch Waffen-SS march through Amsterdam.


Cossack Waffen-SS from the steppes of Russia.


General Andrei Vlasov, a former Soviet army general who, when captured by the Germans, raised an anti-Communist army from Russians, reviews his troops.

SS Leader Heinrich Himmler Speaks on the White Race

A valuable insight into exactly how the Nazis viewed the racial situation in Europe vis à vis Germans and other nationalities, is afforded through the memoirs of Arturs Silgailis, chief of staff of the Inspectorate General of the “Latvian Legion” (of the Latvian Waffen-SS). In his book, Latvian Legion, Silgailis describes a conversation he had with Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and second most powerful man in Nazi Germany, in this manner: “He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians, and the Baltic people. ‘To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time  [Himmler said]. This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space.

“After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate . . . I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans . . . This enlarged family of the white race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the white race . . . it is only with such a unification of the white race that the Western culture could be saved from the yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman, and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans.

“The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer” (Latvian Legion, Arturs Silgailis, R.J. Bender Pub, 1986). This private discussion shatters the myth that the Nazis viewed Germans as the only superior race, and regarded Latin or Slavic nations as inferior. Both these allegations are false, as revealed in Himmler’s own words.

Sixty Percent of the Waffen-SS Were Non-Germans

The Waffen-SS was also the foremost indicator of the popularity of Nazism beyond the borders of Germany. It is a little known fact that of the one million men who served in the Waffen-SS during the course of the war, 60 percent, or 600,000 men, were volunteers from countries outside of Germany.

Non-German volunteers came from the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland, France, Denmark, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and included a small number of British ex-prisoners of war. They fought alongside their German comrades to the end, and all but a few thousand of the twenty thousand French Waffen-SS volunteers, organized into a division called Legion Charlemagne, were killed in the Battle of Berlin in 1945.

Russians Volunteer in Their Thousands

The Waffen-SS also recruited heavily among Russians, Ukrainians, and Cossacks. Thousands of Russians volunteered for service with the conventional German army. In 1944, they were organized into a separate unit under a former Soviet Army general, Andrey Vlasov, who had been taken prisoner by the Germans in 1942 and subsequently defected.

Vlasov and his Russian army surrendered to the Americans and British rather than face capture by the Soviets. His hope was misplaced. In an operation code-named Keelhaul, Vlasov and around twenty thousand of his soldiers were handed over to the Soviets by the Western allies. Vlassov and his commanding staff were charged with treason and hanged by the Soviets in 1946.

Support Dissipated by Defeat

The widespread support for Hitler and National Socialism had dissipated by the end of the war, mainly due to the defeat and subsequent propaganda against Nazi Germany. Few people chose to actively associate themselves with a defeated enemy who was so effectively demonized.

Resistance movements sprang up in almost all countries occupied by Germany during the war. These movements, encouraged by the Allied powers, were in contravention of the Geneva Convention which stated that once a country’s government had formally surrendered, it was against international law to take up arms once again. The most infamous reprisals took place at Oradour, France; Lidice, Czechoslovakia (in both these instances, entire villages were massacred); Amsterdam, the Netherlands (where groups of civilians were rounded up at random and shot in public squares in retaliation for resistance attacks), and at several places on the eastern front.

The “Final Solution”—Nazi Policy toward Jews

The Third Reich and Adolf Hitler will always be associated with an outburst of anti-Jewish sentiment not seen since the Crusades or the Middle Ages. Countless books and films have appeared which explained in detail what the Nazis did, but few have ever attempted to explain why the Nazis were opposed to Jews in Germany. Nazi anti-Jewishness was based on three pillars:

• Firstly, Jews were identified as a racially-alien group who engaged in political and social subversion, and were linked with Communism. As outlined earlier, this belief of a link between Communism and Jews was not a Nazi invention and had been discussed in public by Winston Churchill, Henry Ford, and many others long before the Nazi Party came into existence.

• Secondly, the Nazis associated Jews with hypercapitalism and economic exploitation. This descended directly from the traditional and pre-Christian objections to Jews. Hitlerian anti-Jewishness also accentuated the links between Jewish hypercapitalists and Communism, personified by the financing of the 1917 Russian Revolution by the American Jewish banker Jacob Schiff.

• Thirdly, the Nazis associated Christianity with Jews, arguing that this religion was the product of Middle Eastern thought rather than European.

Only in this light can an understanding of the motivating factors behind Nazi policy be gained. It was a combination of centuries-old anti-Semitism and modern political thought which associated Jews with Communism and subversion.

Jewish Declaration of War on Germany 1933

Even though the Zionists supported Germany’s racial laws, other groups of Jews agitated against the Nazi regime. On March 23, 1933, a meeting of Jewish leaders from around the world formally declared war on Germany. The Jewish declaration of war was carried publicly by a large number of newspapers, including the Daily Express in London, which ran a bold full-page headline “Judea Declares War on Germany” on its edition of March 24, 1933.


According to that newspaper, the meeting called on “all Jews of the world to unite” and to launch a series of mass demonstrations and institute a worldwide boycott of German goods, presumably through their international business connections.

This public declaration of war on Germany served to inflame anti-Jewish feeling in Germany. Shortly afterward the Nazi government passed laws which barred Jews from holding public office or other positions of influence: university lecturers, journalists, and newspaper editors, among others.

This declaration of war also provided the legal basis upon which Germany would later justify its internment of large numbers of Jews inside Germany. This rationale was used by the American and Canadian governments to inter their Japanese populations after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and by the British government to inter all Italians in Britain after 1940.

Despite this, not all Jews in Germany were interned. A fully functioning Jewish community, several thousand strong and still with synagogue intact, was present in Berlin in 1945 when the Soviet Army overran the German capital.

The Concentration Camps

Nazi Germany is most commonly associated with concentration camps, particularly those in which large numbers of emaciated and dead prisoners were discovered at the end of the war. The first concentration camps were set up soon after the Nazis came to power, with the best known being Dachau, situated to the north of Munich.

These first camps were in reality large prisons to which inmates had been sentenced by the ordinary criminal courts to fixed terms of imprisonment. The offenses for which these prisoners were sentenced ranged from “ordinary” crimes to those of a political nature, with membership or activism in the banned Communist Party being the most frequent.

Imprisonment at the camps was not necessarily permanent, as was proven beyond question by the uncovering in the Moscow State archives of a release note for a prisoner from Auschwitz in 1944—supposedly at the height of that camp’s gas chamber operations. The large Jewish involvement in the Communist Party’s activities meant that a significant number of the internees in these early camps were Jews. However, by the time the Second World War started, the majority of Germany’s Jews (some 319,900 out of a total population of 500,000) had emigrated for good.

Nazi Plans to Evacuate all Jews Founder with Reversals on Eastern Front

The outbreak of the Second World War meant that the Nazi and Zionist polices of getting Jews to emigrate from Germany largely came to an end. German territorial conquests in Europe by 1941 also meant that an ever-increasing number of Jews came into the Nazi sphere of influence.

Initially the Nazi plan to evacuate all Jews under its control was open-ended. A number of projects and possibilities were considered, including resettling the Jews in Rhodesia, Madagascar, or Palestine. In this way one of the more remarkable alliances of the war was struck up between SS General Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Main Security Office, and the Zionist movement.

Heydrich, in cooperation with the Zionists, set up farms in German-occupied Czechoslovakia where Jews who wished to emigrate to Palestine were taught basic agricultural skills. These Nazi-trained Jewish farmers were then smuggled through Turkey into Palestine during the war.

However, these plans proved impractical as the war raged on. Eventually, a conference of top Nazi leaders was called in January 1942 at a villa in the suburb of Wannsee outside Berlin. This meeting is known as the “Wannsee Conference.”

It is often claimed that this conference was the place where the mass murder of the Jews was planned, but the minutes of the meeting—which survived the war—show nothing of the sort. Instead, the conference actually discussed evacuating Jews to the newly occupied areas of Russia, and never mentioned mass extermination. Even then, the minutes said, certain groups of Jews were to be excluded from these deportations, such as World War I veterans, those married to Germans, and those working in vital industries in Germany. It is widely claimed that the use of the word “resettlement” in the Wannsee minutes meant murder, but there is no evidence for this allegation in the document.

Finally, the Wannsee Conference minutes provided a list of how many Jews were in Europe. According to the official Nazi records, there were some 11,292,300 Jews in Europe—but only 4,536,500 were under direct German control. The rest—some 6,755,800—were either in countries not occupied by Germany, or were not under direct German control (Bulgaria: 48,000; England: 330,000; Finland: 2,300; Ireland: 4,000; Italy, including Sardinia: 58,000; Albania: 200; Croatia: 40,000; Portugal: 3,000; Romania, including Bessarabia: 342,000; Sweden: 8,000; Switzerland: 18,000; Serbia: 10,000; Slovakia: 88,000; Spain: 6,000; Turkey: 55,500; Hungary: 742,800; and the USSR: 5,000,000).

According to the present-day German government, some 4,384,138 individual claims for compensation were made by Holocaust survivors against the postwar German government (West German Federal Indemnification Law-BEG “Wiedergutmachung.” German Finance Ministry, Leistungen der öffentlichen Hand auf dem Gebiet der Wiedergutmachung Stand: December 31, 2009).

This is a significant figure when the total number of Jews, as calculated by the Nazis as being under their control, was some 4.5 million.

In the interim, Germany had invaded the Soviet Union and conquered huge areas. Behind the front lines, resistance to the German occupation flared, and specialist anti-partisan units, known as Einsatzgruppen (“Special Action Groups”) were formed to stamp out the Communist-organized underground movement. In addition, the Einsatzgruppen were instructed to execute, by shooting, all Communist functionaries, partisans, or other “politically unreliable” elements behind the front line.

The Einsatzgruppen carried out their task with Germanic efficiency and sent back regular reports to Berlin which detailed how many people they had killed in each time period. Due to the fact that a large number of Communist functionaries were Jews, this group made up a large number, but not always a majority, of the people eliminated by the Einsatzgruppen.

The battle with Communist partisans was sometimes particularly fierce: more than one Einsatzgruppen commander was killed in combat. Although a final tally of Einsatzgruppen victims has never been conclusively estimated, it is claimed that around 200,000 people were killed during the war behind the Russian front line. The Einsatzgruppen were dissolved in the wake of the German retreat from the occupied areas.




 The original German architectural building plans for Auschwitz can be seen at the camp museum. They do not contain plans for gas chamber.  It is claimed that the underground structures, marked as mortuaries (leichenkeller), were used as gas chambers—something which would technically be almost impossible, given the extremely high airtight specifications which would be needed. The absence of any German records showing homicidal gas chambers (as opposed to defumigation chambers for clothes, which every camp had), has served as grist to the mill of Holocaust revisionists who question the extent of the mass murder claims at Auschwitz and elsewhere. The camp museum has also admitted that the only gas chamber on display to tourists was built after the war. While a full evaluation of the veracity of all the mass murder claims falls outside of the scope of this book, it is clear that the topic should be the subject of an independent forensic examination.

The Concentration Camps in Poland

In the part of Poland set up as a German protectorate, called the Government General, six new concentration camps were built, with the first starting to function in late 1942, and the last being closed by August 1944. The six camps became known by the towns to which they were nearest situated: Chelmno (also known as Kulmhof), Belzec, Sobibór, Treblinka, Majdanek (also known as Lublin), and Auschwitz.

Auschwitz and Majdanek were originally built as prisoner-of-war camps to hold Polish and Russian soldiers captured during those campaigns, and were sited next to large industrial centers. In Auschwitz, for example, nearby factories which used labor from the camp included Agfa, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, and Siemens. In addition, the famous Buna rubber plant (which produced much of Germany’s supplies of rubber and innovated the oil-from-coal process) was also sited there.

As the plan mapped out at the Wannsee Conference was implemented, the other four camps (Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór, and Treblinka) were established as transit centers to hold Jews on their way to the east. These camps have become known as the “Aktion Reinhard” camps, named after Fritz Reinhard, a civil servant in the Finance Ministry who designed the logistical process whereby personal effects seized from deported Jews were transferred back to Germany.

The Wannsee Conference’s plans to resettle Jews in the far east of Russia fell into chaos when the expected military victory against the Soviet Union did not occur, and soon the camps in Poland were overcrowded.

The Six Million

Despite the presence of massive industrial operations and the short time that the camps were in existence (less than two years all told), it is claimed that some six million Jews were killed in gas chambers at these six camps in Poland. (The other concentration camps in Germany, such as Dachau or Bergen Belsen, did not, it is claimed, have gas chambers.)

There is, however, considerable confusion over the exact number of Jewish deaths in all the camps, and indeed a debate over whether gas chamber executions even took place on the scale so often alleged. The complete lack of German documentation on the issue has not helped: unlike the Einsatzgruppen, where at least a partial record was kept of all killings, the Germans kept no records of mass murders in any of the camps. An increasing number of historian dissidents are challenging the claim of mass exterminations of Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II, to the point where such revisionism has been declared illegal in many European countries. This in itself is cause to question the allegations, as truth should not need to be defended by law.

As the over 4.3 million claims against the postwar German state from Jews who suffered as a result of the Nazi persecution showed, it is almost certain that the Jewish fatality rate was less than what is often claimed. Increasingly, all the evidence urges a complete revision of this aspect of the history of World War II. An analysis of all the claims and counterclaims is, however, outside of the scope and purpose of this book.



Nightmarish scenes awaited Allied troops who seized control of the Bergen-Belsen camp in Germany, 1945. The bombing of Germany had prevented the supply of food and delousing material to the camp, with the result that many inmates were starving, and a typhus epidemic (borne by lice) had broken out. The Allied soldiers found thousands of dead and dying prisoners in advanced stages of typhus (which includedthe characteristic thinness caused by uncontrollable diarrhea). The unfortunate victims had to be buried in mass graves (as pictured above). These images came to symbolize the concentration camps, even though the dead had not been executed. The Allies quarantined the camp to bring the typhus epidemic under control. The quarantine proved ineffective in halting the epidemic, and the Allied soldiers were forced to set fire to the camp with flamethrowers to kill the lice infestation. Below, a photograph of the Allied quarantine of Belsen, with a sign warning visitors to drive slowly to prevent the spread of typhus.


Jewish Persecution in Nazi Germany

All the debate around the Holocaust and its impact upon Jews and Nazi Germany aside, no one would question that the Jews, like everyone else in the Second World War, suffered great misfortune and were in particular subjected to unprecedented persecution and harassment on racial grounds. International Jewry had, however, publicly and openly declared war on Nazi Germany, and the Nazis therefore regarded Jews as a hostile combatant group of special significance. Jews were prohibited in many German towns completely, and barred from many professions, including operating mail order businesses, offering services at public markets, taking orders for goods, and from holding leadership positions in German factories.

In 1938, they were forbidden from changing their names to “German sounding” ones. Later that year, they were compelled to add Sarah or Israel as a middle name to their original names (depending upon their sex) so as to distinguish them further.

German Jews were prevented from attending public theaters and film shows in 1939. Places were denied to them at universities and other institutions of learning and they were subjected to special taxes. Crude anti-Jewish propaganda was taught and encouraged at schools, and in November 1938, Jews were barred from attending German schools.

They were also subjected to bouts of physical attacks. One of the most serious examples of this came in 1938 after a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Grynszpan, assassinated a German diplomat, Ernst vom Rath. This murder provoked anti-Jewish riots in Germany the next day which became known as the Kristallnacht (“Crystal Night”—so named because the glass from the broken Jewish shop windows lay like crystal in many streets).

The German government was, however, receptive to public opinion. This was illustrated in 1943 when a public demonstration in Berlin, known as the Rosenstrasse Protest, took place. Around one thousand German women voiced their objection to the planned deportation to the east of their Jewish husbands and teenage sons. The protests resulted in the release of all 1,200 interned Jews and half-Jews, and most survived the war.

Even though the Nazi state was destroyed in 1945, and its surviving leaders executed shortly after the war by the victorious allies, Hitler and the Third Reich remain one of the most discussed topics in popular culture. Films, books, art works, tours, political discussions, and debate still rage about this time period, and show no sign of abating in the near future. The intense amount of propaganda directed against Hitler, which still emerges to the present day, on a daily basis, has created a climate where even an objective attempt to overview this time period is attacked. One day, if the European people last that long, it will be possible to discuss Hitler and the Third Reich in its proper historical context without attracting emotive responses.

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

CHAPTER 16: By Stealth and Steel—Christianity

The rise of Christianity as the dominant religion of post-Roman Europe played a major role in shaping the course of history, not only on that continent but also in all parts of the world to which European people spread.  The story of the origins of this remarkable religion—and its influence on the course of civilization—therefore deserves a full examination.

Rome’s Pontifex Maximus—an Important Position

Religion in pre-Christian Roman times was marked by diversity. There was never really a single theme in the worship of any particular god or set of gods, and it remained very much a haphazard collection of local beliefs, varying greatly from region to region.

It was only after the time of the emperor Octavian Augustus that any formalization of religious beliefs came into being. After Octavian, all the Roman emperors were known by the title of PontifexMaximus or “Greatest Pontiff.”

The idea of this title was that the emperor would be the formal head of whatever particular cult happened to be the most popular at that time in the empire. This was not limited to a single religion—it could also be any number of beliefs which were in existence simultaneously. The Pontifex Maximus position was the Romans’ attempt to try and create some sort of religious unity, although all cults were accorded equal status.



A statue from circa 20 BC shows Octavian Augustus wearing the robes of office of Pontifex Maximus (“Greatest Pontiff”), the high priest of the ancient Roman College of Pontiffs. A religious office under the early Roman Republic, it was later absorbed into the imperial office. In an attempt to provide some sort of cultural unity, the emperor became chief priest of all the religions in Rome. The religion followed personally by the emperor came to be regarded as the most desirable among the citizens, and this played a major role in helping to popularize Christianity after theemperor Constantine converted to that faith.

The position of the emperor as chief priest of what was deemed to be the unofficial state religion (or religions) was to have major consequences. Very often, a cult either gained or lost popularity solely because of the emperor’s interest in it.

One of the more obvious examples occurred when the Macedonian queen of Egypt, Cleopatra, visited Rome. The presence of somebody thought to be an Egyptian queen (she was, of course, not of Egyptian stock but actually Macedonian) sparked off a major revival in the ancient Egyptian cult of Isis, which eventually died out once again.

Christianity Originates in the Middle East

Before it came to dominance, Christianity was merely one more of these numerous cults, and, like many of its competitors, originated in the Middle Eastern reaches of the empire, in the Roman provinceofJudea (also known as Palestine).

Following the conquests of Alexander the Great, Palestine had been ruled intermittently by either the Ptolemies or the Seleucids, both descendants of Alexander’s generals of the same name. It was while under the rule of the Seleucids that the great temple in Jerusalem was built as a center for the Jewish religion, a surviving wall of which is today known as the Wailing Wall.

The Semitic-speaking peoples living in Palestine were known as Jews, a tribe which had been in existence for many centuries prior to this. What set the Jews apart from their neighbors was their religion, which, in contrast to their neighbors, was monotheistic. Its one god, Jahweh or Jehovah, was, and still is, central to the Jewish religion, although monotheism originated with the ancient Egyptian pharaohAkhenaton. Other religions all had a pantheon of gods, each looking after a particular aspect of life on earth and in the beyond.

The Jewish Rebellion against Seleucid Rule 168 BC

Seleucid rule in Palestine caused many Jews to take on the ways and even the Greek language of their rulers. This led them into conflict with the more nationalistic Jews, and a minor skirmish broke out between these two groups in 168 BC.

The fighting provoked the ruling Seleucids into trying to stamp out the Jewish religion. Among their measures, they ordered the Jewish temple in Jerusalem to be stripped of its Judaic artifacts and dedicated to the worship of the Greek god Zeus.

The Jews rebelled at this order, and after a short military conflict, were able to exact partial independence from the Seleucids in 142 BC, and full independence in 129 BC. The leader of the Jewish rebels was one Judas Maccabeus, and he became the first Jewish king in Palestine, creating the Maccabean dynasty which lasted until 64 BC.



The extent of Roman power in Palestine is illustrated in the ruins of the city of Caesarea Palaestina, situated in northern Israel on the Mediterranean coast. Built on the ruins of an earlier settlement by the Jewish King Herod to honor the Roman emperor around 25 BC, the city contained a deep sea harbor, markets, wide roads, baths, temples honoring Augustus, and imposing public buildings including an amphitheater.  Every five years the city hosted major sports competitions, gladiator games, and theatrical productions. The theater was the first of its kind in Palestine, and was maintained throughout the Roman and much of the Byzantine eras. It had a seating capacity of around four thousand and is used to this day.

Romans Invited into Palestine 64 BC

Independence in Judea did not bring stability, and the Jewish state was continually wracked by internal dissent and rebellion. In the midst of one of the civil wars, a group of Jews appealed for help from the Roman general Pompey, whose army was completing the conquest of Turkey and Syria at the time. He agreed to help, and Palestine was occupied as a Roman protectorate in 64 BC.

True to their long established practice, the Romans immediately began Romanizing the Jews and recruiting locals to run the province. In this way, the Roman senate appointed the Jew, Herod as kingofJudea in 37 BC. After his death in 4 BC, Judea was divided up into smaller units, most of which were ruled by other Roman-appointed governors.

Jews Move to Rome—First Expulsion 19 AD

During this time some Jews immigrated to Rome, making use of the traditional lack of Roman control over entry into the city. However, their presence aroused a marked anti-Semitism even among the fairly easygoing Romans. In 19 AD, the Jews were to experience for the first time a situation with which they would later become familiar. In that year, the Roman emperor Tiberius formally barred all Jews from Rome and deported all those he could find in the city. This ban on Jews only lasted a few years, for it was not long before they, along with ever increasing numbers of other foreigners from all parts of the empire, once again took up residence in Rome. By this time, Jews had started settling in other parts of the Middle East, Asia Minor, North Africa, and Egypt, in each of these places attracting the enmity of the local populations.

Jewish Revolt—“Horrid Cruelties”

In Palestine, dissension was always brewing. In 66 AD, nationalist Jews rebelled against Roman rule, and the Roman garrison in Jerusalem were slaughtered. The revolt spread quickly to all parts of the province, fanned by a marked hatred for Rome.

This Jewish hatred for the original Roman Empire was well documented to the point where the famous English historian Edward Gibbon, in his classic work, The Decline and Fall of the RomanEmpire(Lippincourt, Philadelphia, 1878, vol. 2, page 4), had the following to say: “From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyria, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of the Legions against a race of fanatics whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of all human kind.”

It was, therefore, not surprising that the Romans sent an army to quell a new uprising in 68 AD. This successfully squashed the Jewish rebellion in 70 AD, and the last of the Jewish rebels were besieged at the mountaintop fort of Masada.

After a lengthy siege, Masada fell to the Romans in 73 AD.  Palestine remained under nominal Roman control for some eight hundred years thereafter, first as part of the Western Roman Empire, and then as part of the Eastern Roman Empire.



The hilltop fort of Masada, Israel. During the course of the Jewish rebellion (which started in 68 AD), Roman legions occupied Jerusalem in 70 AD. They drove out or killed the Jews in the city, and about one thousand remaining Jewish rebels fled to the remote mountain fort. Undeterred, the Romans followed them and laid siege to the rebel stronghold. After a two year siege, during which the Romans built a massive earth ramp all the way up the one side of the mountain (which can still be seen in the foreground), all but seven of the Jews committed suicide rather than being taken alive, fully aware of the fate that awaited them should they be captured by the avenging Romans.

Titus Suppresses Jewish Revolt in Palestine—Triggers Diaspora 70 AD

The suppression of the 70 AD rebellion had another important consequence. The Romans, furious at the continued rebellions, renamed Jerusalem Ælia Capitolina and outlawed the practice of Judaism. Jews were forbidden entrance to the city under pain of death. As a result, the Jews were scattered throughout the world in a movement known as the Diaspora. A large number went north into southern Russia, mixing with local tribes along the way and eventually penetrating into eastern and central Europe.

A number of Jews went out along Turkey and settled in Rome, while a small number settled in Gaul. However, not all Jews went north—a significant portion went west along the North African coast, setting up Jewish communities all the way to Tunisia, and finally crossing into southern Spain.



The emperor Titus—Roman conqueror of the Jews and destroyer of Jerusalem, an act accomplished in 70 AD. In 68 AD, the Jews rebelled against Roman rule, despite having originally asked the Romans to occupy that land to bring order and peace to it. Roman revenge for the Jewish vacillation was severe—the Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem upon pain of death and dispersed from Palestine into North Africa and the Middle East in a movement known as the Diaspora. This laid the basis for the great Jewish immigration into Europe. Above: A Roman denarius depicting Titus, 79A.D. The reverse commemorates his triumph in Palestine and shows a kneeling Jewish prisoner.



The crushing of the Jewish revolt in 68 AD by a Roman army was commemorated as a great feat of arms. On the Arch of Titus, erected in Rome and still standing to this day, Roman soldiers are shown bringing Jewish trophies (note the menorah taken from the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) back to Rome.

Origin of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim Division in Jewry

The Jews who went to Europe via the east absorbed a substantial amount of European blood, and became known as the Ashkenazim, or European Jews. Those who settled in North Africa became known as the Sephardim. This division in Jewry exists to this day, and is most marked in Israel where the two communities, the Ashkenazim or “light” Jews and the Sephardim or “dark” Jews (dark because they did not mix with the number of Europeans to the same extent that the Ashkenazim did) tend to vote for different Israeli political parties.

Only their unique religion has kept them bound together after a fashion, although even this is divided into subsects.

Judaism—Uniquely Racial Religion

Although Christianity sprang from Judaism, its Jewish adherents were at first fiercely persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. This was linked to the fact that Judaism had one particularly unique trait in that it was the first specifically racial religion. While all other religions had no limitations on who could become adherents, Judaism was limited by blood inheritance.

The uniqueness of the Jewish god was that he was a god only for the Jews, not for anyone else. Biological laws of descent were built into Judaism as divinely inspired laws. To this day, there is a rule that only someone born of a Jewish mother can be a Jew.

While some less strict Jewish communities have relaxed this rule to allow conversions from other faiths, the orthodox Jewish community follows this law to the letter. It is still followed to this day in Israel as citizenship is based exclusively on Jewish descent and not national origin.

Essene Beliefs—Origins of Christianity

While this racial religion unquestionably helped to preserve the Jewish identity, it irked some of them, who felt that their god was for all people, and not just the Jews. Around the year 100 BC, this dissenting group founded a new sect. It was loosely based on parts of the Talmud and introduced some new ideas to Judaism, most notably that their god was for all people.

This dissenting group of Jews became known as the Essenes. They developed a whole series of books relating to morals and lifestyles, including a monastic tradition, and pacifism. Most notably, they claimed to have a teacher, who they called the “Teacher of Righteousness,” who, they said, had been murdered and then rose from the dead.



The Book of Isaiah, as laid out in the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Palestine in 1947. They were the holy books of a subsect of Jews called the Essenes, who lived in the first century BC. The Essenes were persecuted by other Jews, who disagreed violently with the Essene belief that the Jewish god, Yahweh, was actually a god for all people, and not just the Jews. Many of the concepts which were later to become fundamental to Christianity were contained in the Essene religion. They even had an allegorical story about a wise prophet who was killed and then rose from the dead, known to them as the “Teacher of Righteousness.”

The universality of their version of Jahweh (that he was a god for all people, not just for the Jews) remained the biggest point of difference between the Essenes and mainstream Judaism. This ideological clash eventually brought the Essenes into open conflict with their fellow Jews, and the rabbinical leaders urged the Jews to stamp out the new cult. Although it is not recorded what happened to the Essenes in Judea (it is presumed that the Jewish suppression worked in that region), the Essene tradition lived on among a small group of Jews, most of whom eventually left Palestine for more receptive ears elsewhere in the Roman Empire.

In Judea, the Essenes all but vanished, leaving behind only some of their holy books which they hid in caves around the Dead Sea. It was these books, discovered by chance in 1947, which become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The basic ideology and format which the Essenes created laid the basis for what later became Christianity. It combined three major elements: the base beliefs of Judaism (today the Bible’s Old Testament), the Indo-Aryan Zoroastrian (Persian) belief of heaven and hell (which does not appear in the Old Testament), and the Essene story of a killed and resurrected leader. From these strands, the religion was reworked and reformulated until it finally became Christianity.

Jesus Christ—No Contemporary Evidence

It is an important but little known fact that there is no contemporary (from his time) evidence showing that the biblical figure of Jesus Christ actually existed. The first source of information about the person who became known as Jesus Christ are the Gospels of the Bible’s New Testament. As these works only appeared some 80 to 120 years after Christ’s death, they are not contemporaneous. It is therefore possible that the person who was deified by Christianity could be a composite character based on the stories surrounding several Essene leaders, particularly the one they called the “Teacher of Righteousness.”

The first time that the name Jesus Christ appears in any Roman records (and they were generally meticulous in record keeping) is the book The Jewish Wars, by Josephus, a Romanized Jew, who was commissioned to write a history of the Jewish rebellion. Josephus’s work was first published in 90 AD.

Other researchers have claimed that even this reference is a later addition to Josephus’s work, citing irregularities in the actual passage. In the disputed passage, Josephus makes mention of a small sect of Jews who claim to follow a messiah figure called Jesus, but the mention is brief and in passing. In any event, by the time of Christ’s alleged death (circa 33 AD) Christianity had very few followers, especially among the Jews themselves, who regarded the Christian philosophy as nothing but a reworking of the Essene cult, and did their best to silence it.

Saul of Tarsus Launches Christianity

One of the most zealous of these Jewish persecutors of the Essene ideology was a man by the name of Saul of Tarsus. He is unique in that he is the one major character who features in the New Testament for whom contemporaneous evidence does exist.

At some stage, according to the Bible, Saul experienced a vision and was persuaded that the Christian religion which he had been suppressing was actually correct. Saul then changed his name to Paul and set off on long evangelistic tours of Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Greece, attracting small bands of followers and writing proselytizing pieces along the way. Returning to preach in Jerusalem, he was violently attacked by his fellow Jews and was imprisoned for two years. Following an appeal to the Roman emperor, Paul was transferred to Rome in 60 AD. Placed under house arrest, he was eventually beheaded by the emperor Nero, who developed a particular hatred for the new religion. Paul did much to create and solidify the groundwork for Christianity, and many of his writings were taken up into the New Testament.

Roman Persecution and Tolerance of Christianity

The official Roman attitude to religion was one of tolerance—except when openly subversive to Roman rule. Early Christians refused to take part in any Roman state ceremonies (viewing them as pagan) and would not serve in the army or hold public office, echoing the Essene beliefs of a century earlier. This attitude prompted the Roman leadership to begin a program of persecution against the Christians.

The first major campaign was launched by the emperor Decius in 250 AD and the last by Diocletian in 302 AD. However, the campaigns of sustained persecution of Christians had the opposite effect to that intended. The new religion thrived on martyrdom, and Christianity steadily gained new adherents despite the state’s attempts to stamp it out.

The Christian religion had to compete for supremacy with a number of other religions in the Middle East and the Roman Empire. It only grew large enough to be a serious contender after theemperorGalerius issued an Edict of Toleration in 311, making Christianity legal in the eastern part of the empire.



The Roman emperor Nero reigned from 37 AD to 68 AD, and was a great persecutor of Christianity, overseeing the throwing of Christians to the lions in the Coliseum among other things. As a result, later historical accounts of his life tend to be biased, leading to his portrayal as the personification of evil. In July 64 AD, two-thirds of Rome burned while Nero was at Antium. Biased versions of history have usually held that he either set the fire—something that was impossible, as he was not present—or that he played the fiddle while Rome burned (the fiddle was not invented until 1500 years after his death). Nero claimed to have proof that Christians had set the fire, and persecuted them even more vigorously after the event. In contrast to his image as an uncaring madman, he ordered that all the people made homeless as a result of the fire be housed and provided with grain, all at state expense. He then had the city rebuilt with fire precautions. Nero was also an accomplished artist and man of letters, and personally acted in several important plays of the time. He was emperor when the Jewish revolt in Palestine broke out. As a result of internal politics, in 68 AD the Gallic and Spanish legions, along with the Praetorian Guards rose against him, and he fled Rome. Declared a public enemy by the senate, he committed suicide in 68 AD.

Constantine’s Conversion 312 AD

The breakthrough for Christianity in the Roman world came with the emperor Constantine’s conversion to that religion in 312 AD. The background to his conversion—or, as many scholars have claimed, his alleged conversion—is shrouded in controversy.

It is said that while engaged in battle with a rival claimant to the throne, Constantine had a vision of a cross in the sky, above which were written the words In Hoc Signo Vinces (“In this sign you will conquer”).

It is alleged that he took this as a sign from the Christian god that he would win the battle—if he converted to Christianity. Constantine went on to win the struggle for the throne, and then did convert to Christianity.

While many have questioned the veracity of the “vision” story, the reality is that Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, which legalized Christianity throughout the empire and placed it on a par with all other religions.

With the conversion of the emperor of Rome to Christianity, the established pattern of following the emperor’s lead in religious matters came into play. Very rapidly, Christianity became one of the most popular religions throughout the Roman Empire.



Constantine at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, 312 AD. This decisive battle by Constantine  against a rival claimant to the Eastern Roman Empire’s throne marked a major turning point in history. It was here that Constantine reputedly saw, written in the sky, the Latin phrase “In Hoc Signo Vinces” (in this sign you will conquer) and a cross. By choosing Christianity and the cross as his emblem, Constantine caused the Christianization of the Roman Empire and ultimately all of Europe.

“Donation of Constantine”—A Fabrication

Constantine’s conversion to Christianity led directly to the most famous forgery in European history, known as the “Donation of Constantine.”  This document purports to be a signed document by Constantine with its principal feature the granting of temporal authority over the city of Rome and the entire Roman Empire to the bishop of Rome (who was to become the pope).

Although there are many glaring factual errors in the text of the document, which by themselves show the document to be a forgery, the Donation of Constantine was accepted as genuine until the fifteenth century. It was used by the Catholic Church to claim political power in the Roman Empire and all Christian lands. Eventually the Donation of Constantine was rejected as a forgery—but by then the Church had established itself in almost all of Europe, power founded on a forgery.

Julian the Apostate

One of Constantine’s successors, the emperor Julian, attempted to reverse the Christianization process, earning him the name Julian the Apostate. He simply overturned Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the state religion, relegating it to just one of many competing religions once again. The manner in which Julian reversed the progress of Christianity served as an example of the arbitrary way in which the personal wishes of the emperor could influence the whole empire.

To underline the point, the next emperor after Julian converted the empire back into a formal Christian state. The end result of all this to-and-fro activity was that from the year 395 AD, Christianity became the legal, sole, and official religion of the Roman Empire.

Christianity became widely known in southern Europe some 1,700 years ago, and was only accepted in northern Europe many hundreds of years after that. The last northern European country to formally adopt Christianity was Iceland around the year 1,000 AD.



The emperor Julian, nephew of the Christianizer Constantine, was raised as a Christian, but always secretly abhorred that religion and favored the old Roman gods. When he became emperor in 361, he overturned his uncle’s decision to favor Christianity, and very nearly halted the progress of that religion through the empire. His successors were Christians and they undid his reforms.

The Office of the Pope

As Christianity became formalized throughout the empire, each major town was assigned a religious leader, called a bishop. Gradually the bishop of Rome came to be recognized as the most important, and assumed the title of “Pope” (from the Greek word meaning father).

By the seventh century AD, the pope had become the spiritual leader of all Christendom and was in possession of great political power, aided by the forged Donation of Constantine. The pope even adopted the Roman emperors’ color, purple, which to this day remains the most used color in the Catholic Church.

Disputes Almost Immediate

Although there was initially only one Christian church—the Catholic Church—disputes over interpretations of the religion broke out among its supporters. As Christianity spread, it became more and more disorganized, with serious disputes erupting among the various missionaries.

One of the earliest clashes was over the concept of what was called “Arianism” (named after Arius, a Christian leader in Alexandria), in regard to the three components of the Trinity: God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The belief that all three of these beings were one and the same was challenged by Arius who argued that the Christ figure could not be God as well. So seriously was this dispute taken, thatEmperorConstantine called a special meeting of all the major leaders of the religion in 325 AD, to the now famous Council of Nicaea, to discuss the problem. At the Council of Nicaea it was decided that the Arian doctrine was incorrect, and it was declared a heresy.

Bible Created—First Council of Nicaea 325 AD

Several other disputes over doctrine made the religious leaders gathered at Nicaea realize that if some weighty final word on the outline of their belief was not forthcoming, the religion could splinter into factions. The problem was that there was no such outline or book in existence.

The council at Nicaea then took it upon themselves to create such a book, and turned to whatever texts they could find. To achieve this, they gathered up all the existing manuscripts being used by the Christian church in various parts of the empire, and compared and selected which ones to include in the final version.

This was not without its difficulties. The books now contained in the Old Testament were largely oral before 300 BC, although some had been written down by Jewish rabbis. King Ptolemy II ofPhiladelphus (285–246 BC) is credited with ordering the translation of the Jewish religious books into Greek. The Christian version of the Old Testament was only established as a comprehensive work by the scribe Origen around 250 AD, and up until that time only loose translations of the Ptolemaic Greek work formed the basis of that religion’s teachings.



The Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Bible written in the middle of the fourth century AD, contains the earliest existent copy of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament, on display at the British Library in London. The handwritten text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular lang-uage (koine). The Old Testament is the version known as the Septuagint which was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. The Codex Sinaiticus was probably compiled after the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, at which disparate manuscripts used by Christian leaders all over the Roman world were compiled into one book to try and avoid disputes over interpretation.  Modern Bibles differ in a number of places from the Codex Sinaiticus, which omits the following verses: Matthew 12:47, 16:2b–3, 17:21, 18:11; Mark 15:28, 16:8–20; Luke 22:43–44; John 5:4; Epistle to the Romans 16:24. Phrases which do not appear include: Mark 1:1, “the Son of God;” Matthew 6:13, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen;” Luke 23:34, “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” An interesting part of the Codex Sinaiticus which was omitted in later versions of the Bible can be found in its Matthew 27:49 verse which describes the piercing of Christ’s side by a Roman solider with a spear while on the cross. According to the Codex version, the soldier “took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood.”

New Testament Collated 200 AD—Vague Origins of Biblical Writings

The origins of the New Testament are very vague. By the end of the first century AD, the writings of Saul/Paul (called the Pauline Epistles) consisting of letters to the various Christian communities in Asia Minor and Rome had been established as a collection of inspired works. The Gospels which make up the first part of the New Testament only emerged after the writings of Paul had become well-known, and long after his death.

This is evidenced by the fact that in his writings there is no mention of any other New Testament book or gospel, and his account of what Jesus did on the night he was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23) differs substantially from that recounted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is clear that if the four gospels were in existence at the time when Paul wrote his epistles (around the year 55 AD), he would have at least mentioned them, or very likely quoted from them. The earliest existent gospel consists of fragments of the Gospel of John in the Greek language. These fragments date from about 100 AD.

By 200 AD, the Church had developed the New Testament in its present form, although it was still written in various languages, including Greek and Hebrew.

The only book which did not yet feature in the collected works was the Book of Revelation. Where this last section came from no one knows for sure, but by the fourth century it had been included in the New Testament. Not all of these various manuscripts were in accord with each other, and this presented a real problem for the Council of Nicaea. Finally, the decision was taken to simply leave out several early Christian manuscripts which did not fit in with the other books.  The most famous of these “left out” (or “apocryphal”) books include the Book of Enoch,  the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of Barnabas, fragments of the Book of Jubilees, and the Gospel of St. Thomas. The latter was discarded because the events described therein are at serious variance with the events described in the four more well-known Gospels.

The Council of Nicaea went a long way toward formalizing the Bible as Christians know it today, in an attempt to prevent the church from splitting again as it nearly did over the Arian controversy. In this attempt they failed, and some of the most grievous conflicts in Europe were over different interpretations of the Bible.

Spread of Christianity Is Resisted

When the Roman Empire in the West collapsed, Christianity had been spread throughout its former dominions, with the exception of the Germans, the Balts, and a significant section of the Slavs. Nonetheless, the Germanic tribes who participated in the sacking of Rome at the formal end of that empire did not destroy the Roman Catholic Church along with the Roman state.

The leader of the church in Rome, the pope, survived the Germanic invasions, and went on to become an important political player in his own right. The Church also lost no time in sending Christian missionaries to the pagan tribes, the most famous of them being Wufilas (311–383 AD), who worked among the Visigoths. Another famous missionary was Patrick, who, although born in Britain, went to Ireland and became the Christianizer of that island, later being made a saint by the church for his efforts.

Saxon Invasion of Britain

The Roman Christianization of the British Isles was set back with the invasion of those lands by pagan Germans (the Angles and Saxons) following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. As a result, most of the British mainland became pagan once again, with Christianity only surviving in the Celtic fringes of Ireland and Wales. To counteract this development, the Catholic Church sent a missionary, St. Augustine, to Britain from Rome in 597 AD. Augustine managed to convert an important Anglo-Saxon ruler to Christianity, and that religion began to spread once again in Britain.

Christian Britain in turn gave rise to the missionary, St. Boniface, who spent thirty-five years among the German tribes on the mainland of Europe before he was killed in 755 AD. Catholic missionaries were also active among the Germanic tribes living in Scandinavia, but met with much less success than in Britain or Central Europe.



The return of Christianity to Britain. That religion, introduced during late Roman rule, had been stamped out in England during the Angle and Saxon Germanic invasions following the fall of Rome. In 597 AD, the pope sent a missionary, St. Augustine, to try and Christianize the British population. He was fortunate in receiving the aid of King Ethelbert and his queen, Bertha, and managed to establish a significant Christian following in that land. Here Augustine is pictured preaching to a Saxon king.

The Conversion of the Frankish King Clovis I in 496 AD

The Franks were a Germanic tribe who had emerged from northern Europe to occupy much of what is today Germany and France. With the fall of the Roman Empire, the Frankish tribes had set up small kingdoms scattered up and down the length and breadth of these two territories.

One of the most important conversions to Christianity on the mainland of Europe was the first king of the Franks, Clovis I, in 496 AD. He invaded the Visigoth Empire in 507 AD, causing them to abandon the part of France they had occupied since the fall of Rome and to retreat to Spain. The Frankish king, Pepin the Short, who reigned from 741 to 768 AD, was notable for being the first ruler of France to receive from the pope an official sanction to his kingship. Pepin was crowned by the English missionary, St. Boniface, acting on behalf of the pope, in 752 AD. This would be the first of many times that the pope would see fit to approve leaders of states in the name of God.

In 768, Pepin’s son, Charlemagne (Charles the Great), inherited the Frankish kingdom. It was this king who was directly responsible for the introduction of Christianity to the Germans.

Charlemagne Murders Tens of Thousands of Non-Christian Saxons

To destroy German paganism, Charlemagne proclaimed harsh laws applicable to those Germans under his control who refused to be baptized into Christianity. Eating meat during Lent, cremating the dead, and pretending to be baptized were all made punishable by death. In 768 AD, Charlemagne started a thirty-two-year long campaign of what can only be described as genocidal evangelism against the Saxons under his control in western Germany.



The sword and the cross: Charlemagne, and two of his armed priests. The Frankish king was directly responsible for the forced and violent introduction of Christianity to much of western Europe. This was at least partially achieved by killing pagans who did not want to convert to Christianity.

The campaign started with the cutting down of the Saxon’s most sacred tree, their version of the World Tree or Yggdrasil (the symbol of the start of the earth and the source of all life in the ancient Indo-European religions), located in a forest near present-day Marburg.

Charlemagne quickly turned to violence as a means of spreading Christianity. In 772, at Quierzy, he issued a proclamation that he would kill every Saxon who refused to accept Jesus Christ, and from that time on he kept a special detachment of Christian priests who doubled as executioners. In every Saxon village in which they stopped, these priests would execute anybody who refused to be baptized.

Then in 782, at Verden, Charlemagne carried out the act for which he is most notoriously associated. He ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practicing paganism after they had agreed to become Christians. Charlemagne’s constant companion and biographer, the monk Einhard, vividly captured the event in his biography of the Frankish king. In it is written that the king rounded up 4,500 Saxons who “like dogs that return to their vomit” had returned to the pagan religions they had been forced to give up upon pain of death. After having all these Saxons beheaded, “the king went into winter camp, and there celebrated mass as usual.” Twelve years later, in 794, Charlemagne introduced a law under which every third Saxon living in any pagan area was kidnapped and forced to resettle and be raised among Christian Franks.

With the use of violent and bloody coercion, Saxon and German paganism was quite literally killed off. Most of the survivors became Christians more out of fear than out of genuine conviction.

Christianity finally spread to the Goths, through a Christian slave named Wulfila, who translated the Bible into Gothic. Before the end of the fourth century, Christianity had spread to the Vandals, theBurgundians, the Lombards, and other German tribes within the direct sphere of influence of the Western Roman Empire. By the year 550 AD, the only non-Christian tribes were to be found in Bavaria and those parts of Germany north from there—including almost all of the Danes, Scandinavians, Balts, and Slavs to the east.

Pagan Origins of Christmas and Easter

Through sheer terror, Christianity then became the dominant religion of the previously pagan central Europe. Yet, because some pagan customs were far too entrenched to be rooted out, they were quietly incorporated into Christianity. In this way, Easter, for example, was absorbed to become a celebration of the resurrection of Christ—although its pagan origins are clearly shown in the symbolism of the egg and the rabbit. Both of these come directly from the pagan goddess of fertility, Eoster (from which Easter was derived), who used the egg and rabbit as fertility symbols. The date of Easter—at springtime, when new life emerged from winter, was linked to Eoster, and this was why it was celebrated at that time of year.

The same happened with the winter solstice, which was originally a pagan celebration to mark the turning point of winter. The pagans marked the longest night of the year with a fire, a pine tree, and gifts to mark the fact that they had survived yet another winter. Christianity combined the solstice celebration with the birth of Christ, in this way preserving much of the outer trappings of the pagan celebration which are still kept in modern times.

The church was uneasy with the pagan undertones of the celebration, particularly the “Christmas tree.” This led to the Catholic Church officially banning the celebration of Christmas no less than three times, all of which were unsuccessful.

Christmas was also banned in Britain by Oliver Cromwell in 1647, and in 1659 by the Puritans in the American colony town of Boston in New England. The ban in Boston was so long lasting that Christmas only became fashionable again in that city in the 1800s.



The Christian missionary, St. Boniface, cutting down the sacred great oak tree of Geismar, Hesse, in 724 AD. The oak tree was sacred to the god Thor, and was one of many pagan sites which the Christians destroyed in their ultimately successful campaign to extinguish the pagan religions. Similar acts of desecration were carried out against numerous non-Christian sites, with Roman temples singled out for destruction. Despite this, many of the original customs remained, such as the celebration of the spring and winter solstices. The Christians took the celebration of the pagan goddess of fertility, Eoster, and turned it into the Christian rite of Easter. The winter solstice, which marked the longest night of winter, was turned into the festival today known as Christmas.

Teutonic Knights Exterminate Baltic Pagans

The only significant group of whites left in Europe who were not, nominally at least, Christians by the year 1000 AD, were found in eastern Europe and along the Baltic Sea coast. To destroy this last bastion of paganism, the Church employed the services of some of the most fanatic Christians of all—the Teutonic Knights. This organization was first established in Palestine in 1190 as a charitable religious military order, providing first aid during the Crusades. By 1198 they had taken on a military role and took an active part in the war against the Muslims, becoming known as the Teutonic Knights.

Membership in the order was strictly limited to Christian German noblemen. The Teutonic Knights received official recognition from Pope Innocent III in 1199, and adopted the official uniform of a white tunic with a black cross. Soon their deeds on behalf of Christendom became famous. In 1210 they were invited to Hungary by the king of that country to participate in a war against the non-Christian pagan tribes in eastern Europe.

The Teutonic Knights responded to the call, and through the use of violent tactics similar to those employed by Charlemagne, became the Christianizers of the people of that region. This task soon became the sole obsession of the Teutonic Knights, and by 1226 the order had set up permanent settlements in northeastern Europe.

Teutonic Knights Stamp out Paganism

In 1226, the Holy Roman Emperor granted the Teutonic Knights control over what was then Prussia (today northern Poland) to rule as a fiefdom on condition that they converted all the locals to Christianity. In 1234, Pope Gregory IX granted the Knights control over any other territory that they might conquer from the pagans. The Teutonic Knights soon built a series of imposing castles to defend their new territory, some of which still stand today.


The fortress Ordensburg Marienburg, built in 1274 by the Teutonic Knights and located in present-day Poland. Originally called Marienburg, and now known by the Polish name Malborg, this castle was the seat of the Teutonic Order in the Baltic.

From the safety of these castles they waged their own brand of evangelicalism, which was limited to the Frankish king Charlemagne’s recipe: once a number of pagans had been captured, they were offered the choice of either accepting Christianity and being baptized, or being killed on the spot. Unsurprisingly, almost all chose conversion. The price for being caught practicing paganism after being baptized was death. As was the case with the genocidal evangelicalism of Charlemagne, the first one or two generations of converts were in all likelihood not genuine.

Usually they would pay lip service to Christianity in order not to be killed (there is evidence for this in the numerous recorded instances of the tribes reverting to their pagan ways once the Teutonic Knights had moved on to a new area). However, by the third generation or so, the young children knew no other religion, and in this way Christianity replaced the original Indo-European religions.

The Teutonic Knights realized that the easiest way to change the nature of a society was to change its inhabitants, and actively encouraged already Christianized Germans to settle in Prussia. By 1300, the Teutonic Knights were one of the most powerful organizations in Germany, controlling territory which stretched from the Baltic Sea into central Germany, a private empire which saw them engaging in, on average, eight major wars every year.

Battle of Tannenburg Sees Knights Defeated 1410

It was only a matter of time before the Teutonic Knights ran out of pagans to convert. By 1386, the last of the major non-Christian tribes in the north, the Lithuanians, had all more or less been converted, and the order started to lose the reason for its existence. In addition to this, the methods employed by the order had not endeared it to the local populations, even though they were all now Christians. This enmity flared up into a new war in 1409, when the king of Poland invited all enemies of the Teutonic Knights to participate in a campaign against the order. This led to the Battle of Tannenburg in 1410, which saw the Teutonic Knights defeated.

In 1525, the order’s grand master, Albrecht of Hohenzollern, became a Protestant and dissolved the order in Prussia. Scattered elements of the order lived on but the last were finally expelled in 1591 from the Baltic.

Christianity came to be the dominant religion of Europe for four reasons:

Firstly, paganism was swept aside because it was less organized and formalized; secondly, those hardcore pagans who refused to convert were either threatened with death or in some cases just executed; thirdly, Christianity was used as a political excuse by kings and popes to expand their own territories; and fourthly, through the use of syncretism (the merging of many aspects of European paganism with Christian belief).

Chapter 8: Nordic Desert Empire—Ancient Egypt

Chapter 8: Nordic Desert Empire—Ancient Egypt

Although situated in North Africa, Egypt had been settled by three white groups prior to 3500 BC, namely Old European Mediterranean types, Proto-Nordics, and Nordic Indo-Europeans, with the latter group penetrating the territory as part of the great wave of Indo-European invasions which took place from 5600 BC onward.

   Living in typical Neolithic settlements, this period of history is called the pre-dynastic period and is formally considered to have come to an end in 3100 BC.


The remains of the outer wall of the Saqqara tomb of the pharaoh Uadji of the 2nd Dynasty (2770—2650 BC). It shows the recessed paneling of the period and the clay bull-heads, carrying natural horns. Note the distinct similarity. alongside, to the Catal Huyuk bull-horn cult from Turkey, nearer to the Black Sea, further evidence of the link between the two regions.

“Ginger” and Other Inhabitants of Early Egypt

   Racially speaking, the inhabitants of Egypt at this period in time were divided into three groups. Skeletal evidence from grave sites show that the original white Mediterraneans and Proto-Nordics were a majority in the area.

  A well preserved body found in a sand grave in Egypt dating from approximately 3300 BC, on display in the British Museum in London, was nicknamed “Ginger” because of his red hair—a racial trait only found in persons of Nordic ancestry.


A well preserved body from the pre-dynastic period in Egypt, circa 3300 BC. Buried in a sand grave, the natural dryness of the surroundings kept the body preserved. His red hair (and thus Nordic features) have been so well preserved that he has been given the nickname “Ginger” at the British Museum where he is kept on public display. Right: “Ginger’s” head, showing the red hair.

   However, diggings also reveal a significant minority of Semitic (Arabic) peoples were living in the Nile Delta valley alongside the whites, and in the very far south (in what later became southern Egypt and the Sudan) lived a large number of blacks, known as Nubians. The existence of these two nonwhite groups within Egypt was later to have a major impact on the history of that civilization, and also do much to destroy the “environmental” theory of the origin of civilizations, as all three groups shared the same environment, yet produced very different levels of achievement.

The Old Kingdom 3100–2270 BC

   In terms of contemporary time frames, the Egyptian state first formally emerged shortly after the establishment of the civilization between the Tigris and Euphrates River Valley. By the year 3100 BC, a measure of unity had started to take hold in Egypt, coalescing into northern and southern kingdoms. Around that year, a dynamic leader named Menes united these northern and southern kingdoms and established a capital city at Memphis on the Nile River. The year 3100 BC therefore marks the start of the Dynastic Period, called the Old Kingdom by historians.

   Menes developed the idea of using channels to divert the waters of the Nile to irrigate land—and this irrigation system exists along the Nile River to this day. Menes was such a gifted and charismatic leader that he was deified by later Egyptians, and a cult developed which pictured him as a direct descendant of the gods, a tradition which then spread to other pharaohs. It is very likely that the word “man” originated with Menes.


The earliest representation of First Dynasty life is to be found on the “Palette of Narmer” which dates from around 3000 BC. The image on the palette is thought to be that of Menes, the first great white king of Egypt, who united Lower and Upper Egypt. Menes, also known as Narmer, is shown striking the head of an enemy who has clear Semitic features.

   During his reign construction was started on the greatest city of ancient Egypt, Memphis, which became the capital of this first kingdom. Also about this time, Egyptian pictograph writing appeared, probably inspired by the Sumerian script. The Old Kingdom traded extensively with surrounding lands, obtaining wood from Lebanon and copper from mines in the Sinai Peninsula.

   It was also during this Old Kingdom period that the great pyramids and Sphinx at Giza were built, starting around the year 2500 BC. The project was launched by Pharaoh Cheops (also known as Khufu), who, because of the pyramids, remains one of the most famous pharaohs of this First Kingdom. His daughter, Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, is shown in a colored bas relief in a tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white (The Races of Europe, Carleton Stevens Coon, New York City, Macmillan. 1939, p.98).


Left: Queen Hetop-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white. (The Races of Europe, Carleton Stevens Coon, New York City, Macmillan. 1939, p.98). Right: Red-haired goddesses, from the tomb of Pharaoh Merneptah, 1213—1204 BC. (Alberto Siliotti, Guide to the Valley of the Kings, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996, p. 59).

   The Cheops pyramids are not the oldest Egyptian pyramids. The step pyramid at Memphis predates them by at least a century, and was designed by a court architect, Imhotep. This great structure, nearly 216 feet (66 meters) high, must have seemed overwhelming to ordinary Egyptians at the time, who at best lived in two story mud brick houses, and it is no surprise that the architect was eventually deified.


The first great pyramid of Egypt: the step pyramid of Saqara, circa 2600 BC, with its equally impressive mortuary center in the foreground. The architect, Imhotep, was later made into a deity out of respect for this technological achievement.

The Giza Sphinx and Pyramids 2500 BC

   The Cheops pyramids are impressive today and by the standards of the time they must have appeared to be a superhuman achievement. Twenty years in the building, these pyramids used between five and six million tons of stone, some blocks being moved over five hundred miles, with almost perfect masonry work on site so that the alignment variance of the stones even today is less than one percent. The greatest pyramid reaches 479 feet (146 meters)—higher than St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome (which remains the biggest Christian cathedral in the world).


The Great Sphinx at Giza, outside Cairo, circa 2500 BC. Unequaled for sheer scale and magnificence, the Great Pyramids of Giza stand as towering monuments to the architects and engineers who oversaw their creation. Using over six million individual blocks in the greatest pyramid, that of Cheops, the masons used a limestone casing which slotted together with perfect symmetry and precision.


Nordic Nobility in ancient Egypt: above left, Yuya, Egyptian nobleman from 1400 BC, father of Tiy, the wife of Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Yuya’s blond hair and Nordic facial structure have been well preserved by the embalming process; Alongside, his equally blond haired wife, Thuya, great grandmother of Tutankhamen.


Left: An original wooden statue of the Egyptian King Hor (circa 1783—1633 1633 BC), on display at the Cairo Museum, Egypt. The eyes of the statue, inlaid with quartz or lapus lazuli, shine up with either blue or gray eyes, depending upon the lighting. Right: A lapus lazuli blue-eyed statue of an Egyptian noble lady from the fourth dynasty, around 2600 BC.

Egyptian Religion Provides Insight into Race

   Charms and magical prayers were collected into a book known as The Egyptian Book of the Dead. Many Egyptians ensured that these books were put into their tombs to assist in a successful resurrection. The focus of Egyptian religion was primarily concerned with the achievement of life after death. The practice of mummification was started on the basis of a myth that the god of the Nile River, Osiris, had been murdered by his evil brother, Seth.

   According to the myth, Seth cut Osiris’s body into pieces. These pieces were gathered together by Osiris’s grieving widow Isis, and reassembled, thus resurrecting him. The Nile god then became the first mummy, and every mummified Egyptian became a second Osiris. This resurrection theme was to become dominant in other religions, and adopted by Christianity. Thus the tradition of mummification started: a jump start to everlasting life in the hereafter. The process of mummification has also provided modern day historians with a spectacular and unique chance to see the physical characteristics of Egyptians exactly as they were.

   The evidence is overwhelming that these first Egyptian societies were white—a Proto-Nordic/Alpine/Mediterranean mixture. The leadership elite, in particular the pharaohs themselves, were mostly Nordic. The mummified remains of numerous pharaohs and common folk from this first great Egyptian civilization have unmistakable white features.
For example, the well preserved body of Pharaoh Ramses II has red hair, and there are large numbers of mummies whose blond hair has been extraordinarily well preserved through the centuries.

   This tradition of Nordic pharaohs was to last almost till the second part of the Third Kingdom, circa 1050 BC, by which time racial demographic shifts had taken place in Egyptian society in favor of nonwhite groups.


Left: Head of Khafre, dating from the 4th Dynasty (2575 – 2467 BC). Flinders Petrie Collection, University College, London. Right: Death mask of King Tety, dating from the 6th Dynasty, 2323—2152 BC. Cairo Museum.


Left: Pharaoh Shepsekaf, last king of the 4th Dynasty (2575 – 2467 BC). Right, a statue of Pharaoh Menkaure and his consort, Khamerernebti II, dating from the 4th Dynasty, 2575—2467 BC.

   All this is not to say that no other races lived in the area. There were a significant number of Semitic Arabic racial types, who had settled there from their homeland in the Arabian Peninsula. These nonwhite peoples were, however, for many years—centuries even—excluded from mainstream Egyptian society because of their race. They were most often used as laborers, along with blacks captured by the Egyptians in warring expeditions even further south into modern day Sudan. Their numbers steadily increased during their stay in Egypt, and they became a significant demographic element in that land.


Semites, clearly identified as racially foreign, present tributes to the Egyptian pharaoh. A painted scene from the tomb of Sobkhotep at Thebes.


Left: An original statue of Pharaoh Amenemhet III, 1841—1797 BC, showing clear white racial characteristics. Right: A statue of Thutmoses III 18th Dynasty, 1539—1295 BC, Cairo Museum.

Egyptian Achievements—Created 365 Day Calendar

   Aside from the stupendous achievement of building the pyramids, the white civilization of Egypt is credited with many achievements, some of which benefit to this day. The Egyptians were the first to divide the solar year into 365 and one quarter days based on a twelve month cycle. The Egyptians also became famous for their medical skills, although the difference between magic and science does not appear to have been fully made. Evidence exists of advanced surgery having been carried out as far back as the First Kingdom, and many techniques and herbal remedies were taken over by the classical Greeks and survived right into medieval European times.

   In contrast to Mesopotamian writing, Egyptian writing (hieroglyphics, meaning “sacred signs”) remained pictorial in content throughout the span of this civilization. Egyptian writing was only deciphered in 1822 after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.


Left: This coffin, dating from the 12th Dynasty (1976—1947 BC) belongs to a nobleman named Khui, who was wealthy enough to have a decorated casket, something which only the upper classes could afford. Note his blond hair coloring. Right: A stela comes from Abydos, and dates from the Middle Kingdom (circa 2040—1640 BC). The writing identifies the man for who the stela was made as one Dedusobek. (Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo by Mathaf Al-Misri, Araldo De Luca, Photographer, Francesco Tiradritti Editor, Harry N Abrams; ISBN: 0810932768; September 1999).


Blond-haired attendants, from the tomb of Djehutihotpe, Deir el-Bersha, Middle Kingdom Period. (T. G. H. James,Ancient Egypt: The Land and its Legacy, London: British Museum Publications, 1988, p. 90).

The Middle or Second Kingdom 2060–1785 BC

  The period 2270–2060 BC was marked by great instability in Egypt, where the unity of the country fell to pieces. Only in the year 2060 BC was Egypt again politically united. It managed to attain a part of its Old Kingdom splendor, although it never built anything the size of the Great Pyramids of Giza again.

   This period of political unity did not last longer than seventy years, and around the year 1785 BC, a divided Egypt was conquered by a Semitic tribe known as the Hyksos. They had little trouble subjecting the Egyptians, aided through the use of iron weapons and the horse and chariot, neither of which the Egyptians had seen before. The Hyksos had been attacked with this weapon by the Indo-European tribes who had developed the chariot on their route south from their respective homelands in the north.

   It took some two hundred years for the Egyptians to rebuild their strength and the Hyksos were finally expelled in 1580 BC—after the Egyptians had mastered the new weapon of horse and chariot and turned it against them. The Egyptian records show that the Minoans from Crete had helped fight the Semitic Hyksos invaders—further evidence of the close links between the Egyptians and the Old European civilization. The result of two hundred years of Hyksos rule had left its mark upon the Egyptian population. As reflected in its art, the white population after this time began to show increasing signs of nonwhite admixture. This white/Semitic mix came to characterize virtually the entire Middle East.


Two pictures of a female mummy, on the left, taken in 2003, and on the right, taken in 1907. The mummy was one of three discovered in 1898 in a secret chamber of tomb KV35 by French archaeologist Victor Loret. The mummy, known as the “elder lady” has been identified either as Queen Hatshepsut, wife of Pharaoh Thutmosis II, who ruled Egypt after Thutmosis’ death in 1520 BC; or as Queen Tiye. The older picture shows the mummy’s hair to be a lot lighter than the 2003 picture.


The mummy of Pharaoh Seti I is the most lifelike of the great pharaohs of Egypt, and a tribute to the embalmer’s art. His features remain crystal clear and because of the excellent preservation process, Seti’s mummy can easily be compared with a color relief of his face made in his lifetime at the Temple at Abydos. Seti was the son of the great Ramses I, and became pharaoh in 1320 BC. He reoccupied lands in Syria lost to earlier Syrian invasions, conquered Palestine and conducted campaigns against the Semitic Libyans and the Indo-European Hittites.

   However, an important element of the Egyptian population was by this stage showing clear nonwhite ancestry. It was with the Third Kingdom and its expansion into areas heavily populated by Nubians (blacks from Sudan) and Ethiopia (occupied by masses of Arab/Semitic peoples) that large numbers of these nonwhites came to be prominent in Egyptian society, either as slaves or freemen.


Left: A statue of Senusert I, dating from the 12th Dynasty (1937—1759 BC), Cairo Museum. Right: An obsidian head of unknown king, dating from the 12th Dynasty, 1937—1759 BC. (Murray, M, The Splendour that was Egypt. plate LV, Readers Union, London 1951).


Left: Hatshepsut, from Deir el Bahari, 18th Dynasty, circa 1485 BC, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Right: A bust of Queen Nefertiti, circa 1350 BC, Egyptian Museum, Berlin.


Left: A statue of Mer-en-Ptah (Siptah), 19th Dynasty, (1295—1186 BC), Cairo Museum. Right: A statue of Rameses II, also of the 19th Dynasty, British Museum, London.

Last Surge of Power—The New Kingdom (The Third Kingdom) 1580–1085 BC

   The third (and last) great surge in Egyptian power came with the expulsions of the Semitic Hyksos. Adopting the horse and chariot, energetic and expansionist pharaohs set about consolidating Egypt and establishing an empire. Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Nubia, and northern Sudan (the latter with large black populations) were all conquered and incorporated into the Egyptian Empire. The greatest expansionist king was Thutmose III (circa 1501–1447 BC). A series of tall pointed stone columns (called obelisks) were built to commemorate his various campaigns. Only four of the obelisks survived the strife of Egypt’s history, and today they stand in Istanbul, Rome, London, and New York, silent reminders of the greatness of a bygone age.

   The greatest pharaoh of this time was Amenhotep III (1411–1375 BC) who built Thebes up into the most magnificent city of the age. Amenhotep built many other huge structures, including the temple of Luxor at the city of Thebes.

Tutankhamun—Stood on His Black and Semitic Enemies 1350 BC

   Tutankhamun, the boy king (who died when he was eighteen) reigned around 1350 BC. Although he died too young to become a pharaoh of any great significance in his own time, he gained fame when his tomb was discovered intact in 1924 (one of the few tombs to be found in such a good state—most had been the subject of grave robbers centuries before). It is the gold burial mask of Tutankhamun, which has come to symbolize ancient Egypt.

   However, the real significance of the artifacts in the tomb has been largely ignored: amongst Tutankhamun’s possessions were some of the most graphic racial images in Egyptology.

   One of Tutankhamun’s thrones, the ecclesiastical chair, has on its footrest the “Nine Bows”—the Egyptian name for the traditional enemies of Egypt. The finely crafted figures on the footrest are of nine blacks and Semites tied together in chains. They were positioned on the footrest so that when the pharaoh sat on his throne, his enemies would be under his feet.


Racial imagery from Tutankhamen’s tomb: Above, the ecclesiastical throne, shown assembled, and a full view of the footrest below. Bound Semitic and black prisoners appear on the footstool. The Egyptian king would rest his feet on his foes.

Throne footrest from tomb of King Tutankhamen

   Another graphically racial image found in Tutankhamun’s tomb is found on one of his walking sticks. The handle is made up of a bound Semite and a bound black—when the Egyptian king went for a walk with his royal walking stick, he held the enemies of Egypt in his hand.


Racial imagery from Tutankhamen’s tomb: bound Semitic and black prisoners decorating the curved end of one of Tutankhamen’s walking sticks, the so-called “prisoners’ canes.” When the Egyptian king went for a walk, he would hold the enemies of Egypt in his palm.

The King Walks on Egypt’s Racial Enemies

   Yet another candid racial image from Tutankhamun’s tomb is found in a pair of his sandals. Inlaid with a picture of a Semite and a black, the pharaoh would trample his enemies underfoot when he walked.


Racial imagery from Tutankhamen’s tomb: the Egyptian king’s sandals have bound black and Semitic prisoners inlaid into the soles. When the king walked in these shoes, he would crush the enemies of Egypt underfoot.

   Tutankhamun’s famous wooden chest, which was found in the antechamber of his tomb, contains yet another striking scene. On its sides, it shows the Egyptian king riding a chariot and trampling the enemies of Egypt: blacks and Semites.


Above: A general view of Tutankhamen’s wooden chest and below, details from the sides, showing Tutankhamen trampling blacks and Semites under the wheels of his chariot and under his horses’ hooves. Note also the three black slaves fanning Tutankhamen at the rear of his chariot. The use of nonwhite labor was the primary reason why that civilization was eventually overrun.


   By Tutankhamun’s time then, the Egyptians were clearly aware of the growing numbers of their racial enemies creeping up on them. These graphic references to Egypt’s racial enemies are ominous when it is considered that by the time of Tutankhamun, nonwhite slaves had already become commonplace.

   In addition to this, a significant number of Egyptians were now of mixed race, the Hyksos occupation having left behind a number of Egyptian/Semitic types. Significantly, Tutankhamun’s widow attempted to strike an alliance with the Indo-European Hittites who had in the interim became the leading power in the Middle East, by arranging her own marriage to a Hittite prince. (The marriage never took place, as the husband to be was killed just prior to the ceremony.)

The Fall of White Egypt

   From the time of Tutankhamun onwards, the final decline of Egypt was irreversible. Later kings tried to reverse the trend and they sometimes succeeded, temporarily, in rolling back the waves of conquest and counter conquest in Palestine and Syria. One pharaoh even managed to take a Hittite princess as a bride.


A mural from the palace of Ramses II in Memphis, circa 1279 BC, shows the pharaoh grasping enemies of Egypt by the hair – two Semites and a Black Nubian. Alongside: a close-up of the three victims in Ramses’ grasp.

   But there were fresh enemies: Egypt was now attacked by new Indo-European invaders emerging from the Aegean, the so-called Sea People. As their name implied, they arrived by boat and raided Egyptian settlements, leaving again by the means that they arrived. These Sea Peoples were mainly comprised of Philistines from Asia Minor and Achaeans from mainland Greece. Egyptian illustrations of the time show prisoners being taken with light hair and light eyes—Sea People raiders unfortunate enough to fall into captivity in Egypt, where they could expect no mercy.

White Egyptians Disappear 800 BC

   Ever since the time of the Hyksos invasion and the fall of the Second Kingdom, the demographic shift amongst the Egyptian population had been against the original whites. Slowly at first, but then speeding up, nonwhites or mixed racial types began to make up more and more of that country’s population—drawn in as slaves, laborers, immigrants, or invaders.

   These other racial types were of two sorts: Semites (whom the Egyptians called “Sand Dwellers”) and blacks, from the region of Nubia in the far south (present day Sudan). A review of Egypt’s relations with Nubia is therefore crucial to understanding what happened to the white Egyptians, and why they vanished.

Archaeological Museum, Bologna.

Egyptian slave market, with black slaves waiting to be sold. Bologna Museum.


An Egyptian wall painting showing Black Nubians bringing gold offerings – showing how the White Egyptians depicted their Black neighbors circa 1850 BC.

Race War with Nubia

   Clashes between the Egyptians and the black Nubians had long been a feature of Egyptian history, with the first campaigns against the Nubians launched by Old Kingdom pharaohs around 2900 BC. In 2570 BC, Pharaoh Sneferu launched a concerted attack upon Nubia. Egyptian records show that seventy thousand prisoners were taken.

   In 1296 BC Egypt conquered Nubia and built a series of massive forts to protect its southern borders against the Nubians, with the most famous of these being the fort at Buhen, which had walls which were over 364 feet (110 meters) high and almost 15 feet (4.5 meters) thick.

    Along the banks of the southern Nile huge stones were erected upon which, in hieroglyphics still visible today, the passage of blacks past those points was forbidden—the first public “Whites Only” signs in history.

   At the time of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, many local Nubian kings allied themselves with the Hyksos and inflicted defeats upon the weakened Egyptians, including the destruction of the southern forts.

   When the Hyksos were finally driven out, the white Egyptians exacted a terrible revenge upon the blacks, launching many campaigns of conquest and suppression against them, all the while bringing back thousands into Egypt as slaves—a racial time bomb which was to eventually destroy Egyptian civilization.

Egyptian Writings about Blacks

   The white Egyptians left many written references to the black population in Nubia and in their own country. In fact, at one point, their writings record a law that forbade blacks from entering their country at all. An overview of these written inscriptions is highly worthwhile and devastates claims by pro-black historians, who, in an attempt to distort the historical record, claim that the ancient Egyptian civilization was black in racial origin. The most complete record and translation of these scripts was undertaken by Professor James Henry Breasted, Professor of Egyptology and Oriental History in the University of Chicago in his work History of Egypt, from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, Second Edition, 1909. For anyone interested in a detailed overview, based on original Egyptian sources, this book is well worth reading. All the writings quoted below have been extracted from Breasted’s work and are based on original Egyptian records.

Egyptian Racial Writings: The Sixth Dynasty

   An inscription that was written by Count Uni, governor of the South, and an official of the Old Kingdom, reads as follows: “His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-Dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands: in the entire South . . . among the Irthet blacks, the Mazoi blacks, the Yam blacks, among the Wawat blacks, among the Kau blacks, and in the land of Temeh.”

   This is an example of an Old Kingdom (2980–2475 BC) pharaoh using thousands of blacks as mercenaries. The army was sent into southern Palestine and “returned in safety after it had hacked up the land of the Sand-Dwellers. His majesty sent me to dig five canals in the South, and to make three cargo-boats and four row boats of Acacia wood of Wawat.

   “Then the black chiefs of Irthet, Waway, Yam, and Mazoi drew timber therefore, and I did the whole in only one year. The pharaoh came to inspect this work and at the coming of the king himself, standing behind the hill country, while the chiefs of Mazoi, Irthet, and Wawat did obeisance and gave great praise.”

   This writing shows very clearly the use of blacks as labor, and illustrates how they were slowly but surely drawn into Egyptian society.

Egyptian Writings: The Twelfth Dynasty

   A sandstone stela found in the sanctuary of Wadi Halfa contains an account of the Nubian expedition of Pharaoh Sesostris I, which carried this king’s wars to their southernmost limits. At the top of this stela there is a relief showing Sesostris I standing facing the Lord of Thebes, who says: “I have brought for thee all countries which are in Nubia, beneath thy feet.”

   The inscription of Prince Amenim, which is carved into the stone in the doorway of his cliff-tomb in Benihasin, describes the black lands as “vile.” It reads as follows (“Kush” was one of the black lands): “I passed Kush sailing southward . . . then his majesty returned in safety having overthrown his enemies in Kush the vile.”

   The inscription on the stela of Sihathor, an “Assistant Treasurer,” is now in the British Museum, and reads as follows: “I reached Nubia of the blacks . . . I forced the Nubian chiefs to wash gold.”


A bound and kneeling Nubian, a prisoner of the Egyptians.

“To Prevent That any Black Should Cross. . .”

   The final conquest of Nubia was attained by Sesostris III in 1840 BC. This king conducted four campaigns against the blacks and erected several forts at strategic points, making Nubia a permanent colony of Egypt.

   The first Semneh stela inscription recounting the subjugation of Nubia by Sesostris III reads as follows: “Southern boundary, made in the year 8, under the majesty of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sesostris III . . . in order to prevent that any black should cross it, by water or by land, with a ship, or any herds of the blacks; except a black who shall come to do trading in Iken, or with a commission. Every good thing shall be done with them but without allowing a ship of the blacks to pass by Heh, going downstream, forever.”

Egyptian Racial Writings: The Eighteenth Dynasty 1580–1350 BC

   The inscription of Ahmose reads: “Now after his majesty had slain the Asiatics, he ascended the river . . . to destroy the Nubian Troglodytes; his majesty made a great slaughter among them.”

    The Tombos Stela of Thutmose I reads: “He hath overthrown the chief of the Nubians; the black is helpless, defenseless, in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the curly-haired, who came to attack; there is not a single survivor among them . . . They fall by the sword . . . the fragments cut from them are too much for the birds.”

  In the annals of the great warrior king, Thutmose III, at the sixth Karnak pylon, there is a list that contains no less than 115 of the names of the towns and districts of the conquered Nubian regions.

    Another pylon at Karnak contains references to about four hundred towns, districts, and countries conquered in Nubia. Inscribed on one of the tablets is the famous “Hymn of Victory” which reads as follows: I have bound together the Nubian Troglodytes by the tens of thousands. The northerners by hundreds of thousands as prisoners.”

   Another remarkable inscription is to be found on the Semneh stela of Amenhotep III, which is also in the British Museum in London. It reads as follows: “List of the captivity which his majesty took in the land of Ibbet the wretched.
List of Prisoners and Killed
Living blacks 150 heads
Archers 110 heads
Female blacks 250 heads
Servants of the blacks 55 heads
Their children 175 heads
Total 740 heads
Hands thereof 312
United with the living heads 1,052.”

The Red Haired Ramses II—Last Significant White Pharaoh

   Egypt’s last display of national vigor came with the red haired Pharaoh Ramses II (1292–1225 BC). Ramses II managed to reestablish the already decaying Egyptian Empire by recapturing much land in Nubia. He also fought a series of battles against invading Indo-Europeans, the Hittites.

    This culminated with the Battle of Kadesh in northern Syria. Ramses signed a treaty with the Hittites in 1258 BC, which ended the war. In terms of the treaty, Ramses took as his wife an Indo-European Hittite princess.

   His other achievements included the building of the rock-hewn temple of Abu Simbel, the great hall in the Temple of Amon at Karnak, and the mortuary temple at Thebes.


The mummy of the red-haired Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II is on public display at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.

   After this king, Egypt entered into a steady period of decay, caused directly by the elimination of the original Egyptians, and their replacement with a mixed population made up of black, Semitic, and the remnant white population. This racially divergent nation was never again to reach the heights achieved by the First, Second, or the first part of the Third Kingdoms. In these later years there were competing claimants to the pharaoh’s throne, many of whom, racially speaking, bore no resemblance to the original pharaohs at all.


Racial mixing and the fall of Egypt. Above left, a bust recovered from a tomb of a man presumed to be one of the lesser sons of Pharaoh Khufu, and above right, his wife, also recovered from the same tomb. The portraits show clearly that the wife was at least of partly Negroid origin. (Mendelssohn, K., The Riddle of the Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1974, page 140).

Mixed Race Pharaoh Is the Last Pharaoh

   The true Egyptians had all vanished at the very latest by 800 BC, and the divided and weakened Egypt was easy prey to numerous invaders, some Semitic, some Nubian, and some Indo-European, none of whom established any sort of permanent rule.

   The Nubian invaders set up a new kingdom known as the Twenty-fifth Dynasty (746–655) and claimed to be the inheritors of the previous kingdoms. This one hundred year dynasty saw a number of Nubian and mixed race rulers, all claiming to be pharaohs and attempting to revive some of the older practices, such as mummification.

Ancient Egypt’s End: Overrun by Nonwhites

   These nonwhite “Egyptians” were an illusion—the true white Egyptians had vanished, along with their society, and the Nubian dynasty sputtered out of its own accord.

   The last pharaoh of this Nubian dynasty, Taharka, whose mixed race ancestry is clear from sculptures, was driven from his throne by invading Assyrians, and it is from this fall of Taharka that historians formally date the fall of Egypt, although in reality the last true Egyptian had disappeared nearly two hundred years previously.


The fall of Egypt in pictures. Left, the white Egyptian Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, circa 1450 BC. Center, the black Nubian Pharaoh Shabako, circa 710 BC., and right, the last Nubian pharaoh Taharka, who ruled Egypt from 690 to 664 BC. He was the son of Piye, the Nubian king who had conquered Egypt in 760 BC. The last white Egyptians had vanished prior to 800 BC, physically integrated into the mass of Nubian and Semitic peoples who had come to dominate that land. The most prominent of the Nubian invaders then set themselves up as new Egyptian kings, later called the 25th Dynasty (crica 760—656 BC). As can be seen from the racial features of the statues above right, the 25th dynasty was clearly nonwhite. This was the time of the Nubian pharaohs which black supremacists use to claim an African origin for ancient Egypt. The Nubian dynasty came in fact at the end of the Egyptian era, not the beginning. Unable to maintain the original white-run civilization, the 25th Dynasty sputtered out of its own accord and was destroyed by an Assyrian invasion. Although the fall of Egypt is officially dated as from the end of the 25th Dynasty, in reality the true ancient Egyptians had vanished more than 200 years earlier.

   The course of racial developments in Egyptian history has been backed up by anthropological research. The British anthropologist G.M. Morant produced a comprehensive study of Egyptian skulls from commoner and royal graves from all parts of the Egyptian lands and times.

   His conclusions were that the majority of the population of Lower Egypt—that is in the northern part of the country—were members of the Mediterranean white subrace. In the south (or Upper Egypt) this population pattern was repeated but this time showed a certain percentage of black admixture (reflecting the proximity of the Nubian settlement).

   Significantly, Morant found that with the passage of time, the differentiation in skull types between Upper and Lower Egypt became less and less distinct, until ultimately they became indistinguishable—the surest sign of the absorption of the white subrace into the growing nonwhite mass (Race, John R. Baker, Oxford University Press, 1974, page 519).

White Greek Occupation 325 BC

   After passing under Ethiopian, Assyrian, and Persian rule, Egypt was finally occupied in 325 BC by the Greek Macedonian Alexander the Great (whose tribe was one of the original Indo-European invaders of the Greek peninsula). The famous Queen Cleopatra, often associated with ancient Egypt, was one of these ruling Macedonians, and not an Egyptian.

   Under Cleopatra’s rule, Egypt became a Roman outpost. Although the Macedonians adopted certain cultural characteristics of ancient Egypt, the true Egyptians had long since passed from the world stage, absorbed into the mixed race mass of the Middle East.

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

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?

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.

This is the final part of March of the Titans, The Complete History of the White Race, available here.