[Menydh]

Originally Posted by FlashVoyager

Is he even a qualified historian?

No. At least not until recently. If he's gone back to university in the last years with the money that he has made from selling that rubbish to people who are probably not able to afford much luxuries.

From what I know he was an obscure individual back in South Africa, where he migrated from Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), with contacts with the police. He was the man who gave Communist Chris Hani's killer the hitlist with Hani's details. And he was also the man who admitted having given that list to him during the trial for murderer. Draw your conclusions.

Anyway, Kemp's story is obvious, he studied history and the instant he became jealous he ceased striving for the truth. I've read some of this book, it felt like reading an unintentional comedy, the lack of neutrality is amazing. A lot of claims go unverified. Finding some old Greek piece of art with some light-haired person on it proves nothing, it could as well be a slave as far as he knows, or dry paint. Dark haired Vikings(Paleo-Atlantids?) doesn't indicate that they are completely responsible for founding my nation, or other cultures of NW-Europe for that matter.

In the link given by Der above, it is not about finding a man depicted with fair hair, but about having modified the picture to make it look fair hair.

The picture that I provide is, according to him, Evidence of the Gothic Nordics in Spain. Well, the man to the right, Colonna, is of a Northern Italian family to the service of Spain, therefore not Spanish and hardly any Gothic. The bust to its left is the Lady of Elx (or Elche). This is a bust from the Iberians (a Mediterranean people) dated about the IVth or Vth centuries BC. The Visigoths arrived in Spain in the Vth century AD. That is a difference of about 1,000 years no less!

There is no way that someone can go wrong so much.

Originally Posted by Antikrist

The theory isn’t totally wrong if you look at the overall picture.

If you notice, I don't dismiss that theory.

I don’t consider Phoenicia as the birth of Western civilization, but on the other hand (at least to a certain degree) the much more influential Sumer, from where Europe, Asia and Africa have inherited the wheel, the writing, the battery, et cetera. No honest historian will deny that Sumerians, in fact, were Indo-Europeans.

There is nothing that indicates that Sumerians were Indo-Europeans. At least nothing that I am aware of. The Sumerian language was not related to the Indo-European family of languages. They could have been some kind of Mediterranean people, but not Indo-European.

This also concern Egypt – the one and only Indo-European civilization in Africa.

Ancient Egyptians were likely to be of a type similar to the Amazighen, the Berber people. If not the same. Europoid, yes, but not Indo-European.

One of your meaningless and irrelevant “arguments” bothers me. That is how you are trying to emphasize the “meaning of a good education” or the confiding significance of being a “reputed scholar”.

For a task such as writing a history of many nations and ancient and classic civilizations, and further to do it rewriting it from start to end, you must at the very least expect a team of scholars or, alternatively, a charlatan and a swindler.

We have politicians, journalists, historians, scientists, and so on, who are all influenced by the political correctness of the modern society. But they’ve also got, in most cases, an academic education at the university.

We have historians and scientists who have acquired a vast base knowledge through years of hard studies, which they use as a base to research through even longer years without being influenced by anything but the search for the truth.

Therefore, there truly is, in my opinion, a very huge difference between being cultivated or educated. A cultivated person is an initiator, because he read on his own and thereby creates his own opinion – while the educated person only smiles while the political correct system tells him what to believe trough teachers and schoolbooks.

That's all very nice. But how do you call a person who claims that he is writing true history when he is in fact distorting it and lying at every chapter? It is not like the evidence of it that has been presented here is little. In fact you are unlikely to find anything worse than that.

There has never been a Negroid civilization. We can ask whether certain civilizations were Semitic or not, but no person can honestly say that Negroes created the Egyptian (or any other) civilization. It’s ridiculous.

Agreed. Just as ridiculous as saying that Nordics created the Egyptian (and other) civilizations.

To even compare pre-Christian Scandinavia with Negroid Africa really demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

No. That is what happens when Scandinavians side with swindlers like A. Kemp, that they get a slap on the face.

The Roman or Greek civilization weren’t created in a day. Scandinavian people had, before the Christian influence, a strong culture – manifested in the belief of Ásatrú – and a very good beginning of an even higher culture and eventually a civilization of their own. The society was governed by a strong and effective social organisation; women had an equal position in the Scandinavian community, our traditions were deeply rooted in natural events (equinox, midsummer, Christmas [Yule], midvinter, et cetera), our cultural heritage can be demonstrated in many stories, runes, religion, myths, and so on.

I don't buy the myth of the noble savage, and much less if applied to civilizations.

The technology improved and we travelled further than any other contemporary European. The people had a very influential war-culture where they focused on physical health and strength; they practised martial arts and many other sports, and they also became very efficient warriors who valued honourable death before inglorious victory. The Scandinavian society also had constructive laws in order to protect the people.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Ah.. the XXIst century... everyone has something to claim these days. A sign of the times.

I don’t, just like I said earlier, comply with everything Arthur Kemp has to say. Actually, in many cases, I’d like to exchange “Nordic” with “Indo-European”. But it’s still nonetheless an interesting book.

Full of lies, but still interesting? Alright.

But still, this had an influence on the history of Egypt – regardless of the Civilization itself – and it therefore had an affect on the modern Egyptian’s racial heritage - nicht?.

Sure. However Egyptian Civlization was long gone by that time.

Originally Posted by Antikrist

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Dienekes Pontikos, the pro-race-mixer and favourite among anti-Kemp people, describe the Sumerians as Mediterranid? We can also exclude some theories. I mean, if they weren’t Semitic: Who were they?

Mediterranean is a very vague term. Or perhaps very ample. We cannot even assert that the people identified as Mediterranean in Europe, in the Middle East and in Northern Africa are all of a same group.

Why do you accuse Dienekes Pontikos of being pro-race mixer? Has he been campaigning for it or is that something that Arthur Kemp has said?