Kemp: "World's leading historian"

[Der]

Originally Posted by Antikrist

He’s not the world’s leading historian on European Civilisation, but his book “March of the Titans” is truly interesting. Sure, I don’t comply
with everything in every book I read, but I find a lot of interesting information in this book – especially about Egypt, Šumer, South America
and ancient Greece and Rome. I’ve heard the book is being translated to Swedish right now and I really look forward to get a Swedish copy of this book. It’s an important piece of literature.

It is not a question about liking or not liking the book, the fact is that that book is full of lies, you should inform your self about it here in this thread: Against Arthur Kemp’s “March of the Titans: The History of the White Race”
You can find some intresting refutation to Kemp's lies about Ancient Greece in that article.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Antikrist

but I find a lot of interesting information in this book – especially about Egypt, Šumer, South America
and ancient Greece and Rome.

You mean how "Nordic" Greece and Rome civilizations came to end because they were affected by Africans?

[Antikrist]

Originally Posted by Der

It is not a question about liking or not liking the book, the fact is that that book is full of lies, you should inform your self about it here in this thread: Against Arthur Kemp’s “March of the Titans: The History of the White Race”
You can find some intresting refutation to Kemp's lies about Ancient Greece in that article.

Have you even read the book? First of all, “Against Arthur Kemp’s ‘March of the Titans’: The History of the White Race”, this quite lubricous article, is very out of date and, not to mention, full of weak accusations. Personally, it’s not how he uses the term “Nordic” that I find interesting, just how he truly, with strong arguments, attacks our current history books. It is ridiculous to deny the fact that Indo-Europeans have created basically all major Civilizations. And it’s even more ridiculous to deny, the indisputable fact, that thousands of years of Semitic invasions and foreign immigration, hasn’t got an effect on the population in, for example, Egypt and Šumer.

[Sergius]

Examples of major non-Indo-European civilizations:
The Chinese Empire
Japan
Korea
The Egyptian Empire
The Babylonian Empire
The Khmer Empire
The Mongol Empire
The Golden Horde
The Incan Empire
The Aztec Empire
The Ottoman Empire

With civilization being defined as a society:

• with advanced agriculture, offering a certain standard of living (which in turns makes the culture flourish, as it does when people's stomachs are full)
• with urban living
• with art
• stretching over large areas

[Der]

Out of date? Don't tell me that they have actually updated March of the Titans.

To asume that Indo-Europeans may have reached east asia on the basis of this picture I do consider ridiculous:

So what's next? Indo-Europeans reached Australia thousands of years ago. That is why some Australian Aborigines have blond hair. No? Blondism in Australian Aborigines

The point is that the book is full of lies about other nations, you don't publish a book knowing full well that it is full of lies unless you are scum.

The "evidence" of ancient and posterior extreme Nordic elements in Iberia: the Iberian Dama de Elche (even an idiot would know that Iberians were Mediterraneans) and Colonna, who was from a Northern Italian family in the service of Spain:



Not to mention the bizarre of presenting an ancient work like that of the Iberians as "Evidence of the Gothic Nordics in Spain".

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Antikrist

but I find a lot of interesting information in this book – especially about Egypt

The "dark Aryans"... Come on...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Antikrist

He’s not the world’s leading historian on European Civilisation

In fact he is not even an historian.

but his book “March of the Titans” is truly interesting.

Actually, this book is more interesting: Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.

The author claims that the origins of European Civilization are in Africa (Egypt) and the Middle East (Phoenicia). Outrageous as this may sound, the fact is that the author, Martin Bernal, is a reputed scholar unlike Arthur Kemp who is an internet hobbyist.

I hope that it is not too hard to understand that long before there was a proper Civlization anywhere in Europe, there were [High] Civlizations in the Middle East and in Egypt. If we except the Minoans who, nonetheless, were too close to those civilizations to have been influenced by them. Ex Oriente Lux. The Light from the East.

Now the problem is in the acknowledgement by Martin Bernal of a Negroid element in these civilizations, which has given strength to Afrocentrist ideas. Afrocentrists who believe that Negroids are at the center of the creation of ancient civilizations.

I am sure that you will find this outrageous and even hilarious. What a joke!

But, as it happens, it is as much of a joke as claiming Nordoids at the center of the creation of ancient and classic civilizations.

So what we have here is two types, Negroids and Nordoids, who have never succeeded at creating much in their homelands, Nordic Scandinavia and Sub-Saharan Africa, but who claim to be central to the civilizations created far from them. Two people with a common destiny!

Sure, I don’t comply with everything in every book I read, but I find a lot of interesting information in this book – especially about Egypt, Šumer, South America and ancient Greece and Rome.

Please, tell us what you knew about Sumer, Egypt, South America and ancient Greece and Rome before you saw those names in Kemp's piece of trash.

I’ve heard the book is being translated to Swedish right now and I really look forward to get a Swedish copy of this book. It’s an important piece of literature.

Just as the wheel is an important piece of engineering for a Hottentot.

Originally Posted by Antikrist

Have you even read the book?

How many books have you ever read?

First of all, “Against Arthur Kemp’s ‘March of the Titans’: The History of the White Race”, this quite lubricous article, is very out of date and, not to mention, full of weak accusations.

How much out of date can be to unmask a charlatan?

Arthur Kemp uses pictures which have been altered or which are not contemporary depictions of the historical figures to which he refers as "Nordic". He also uses pictures of people who do not belong to the country where he says they do. E.g., Marco Antonio Colonna was in the service of the Spanish Empire, but he was not Spanish. If he had bothered with documenting himself, he might have known. The article unveils this farce.. and you call that a "weak accusation"?

Is anyone surprised that the rates of ethnic dissolution in Sweden is so much higher than anywhere else in Europe?

Personally, it’s not how he uses the term “Nordic” that I find interesting

Tell us about how he uses the terms "Nordic".

just how he truly, with strong arguments, attacks our current history books.

How many history books have you read in your life? Can you mention some that are related to the subjects discussed here? E.g., Classic Rome and Greece, Ancient Egypt and Sumer.

It is ridiculous to deny the fact that Indo-Europeans have created basically all major Civilizations.

Why is it ridiculous to deny that they have not created the Civilizations of places where they were not present?

And, besides, Kemp says Nordics. Are you saying that the Nordics are the only Indo-Europeans? (I, for one, hope for it)

And it’s even more ridiculous to deny, the indisputable fact, that thousands of years of Semitic invasions and foreign immigration, hasn’t got an effect on the population in, for example, Egypt and Šumer.

Ah.. the invasions of Egypt by the Semites.. other than the Muslim invasion of 639 AD, when Egyptian Civilization had ceased to exist for at least a millenium?

Please, tell us about those invasions. And also about the racial elements of the Ancient Summerians.

[Strengthandhonour]

I have been a fan of history since I am around 12 years old. I am planning to get a history doctorate for my education. I read the so called "book" he wrote and even as a young person years ago I could tell the book was garbage. A person who knows of history or studies it can easily shoot down most of the claims he makes. He claimed that the Romans were at one point nordic during their high point. Funny how many Roman historians and writers(Virgil included) wrote of the people to the north being extremely pale in complexion compared to the Latin people with necks as white as milk and hair as golden as the sun. I am sure if the Romans were nordic why would they notice such massive differences in their neighbors no?

[FlashVoyager]

Is he even a qualified historian? 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.

[Antikrist]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Actually, this book is more interesting: Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization.

The author claims that the origins of European Civilization are in Africa (Egypt) and the Middle East (Phoenicia). Outrageous as this may sound, the fact is that the author, Martin Bernal, is a reputed scholar unlike Arthur Kemp who is an internet hobbyist.

The theory isn’t totally wrong if you look at the overall picture. 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. This also concern Egypt – the one and only Indo-European civilization in Africa.

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”. 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. 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.

Now the problem is in the acknowledgement by Martin Bernal of a Negroid element in these civilizations, which has given strength to Afrocentrist ideas. Afrocentrists who believe that Negroids are at the center of the creation of ancient civilizations.

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.

So what we have here is two types, Negroids and Nordoids, who have never succeeded at creating much in their homelands, Nordic Scandinavia and Sub-Saharan Africa, but who claim to be central to the civilizations created far from them. Two people with a common destiny!

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

Arthur Kemp uses pictures which have been altered or which are not contemporary depictions of the historical figures to which he refers as "Nordic". He also uses pictures of people who do not belong to the country where he says they do. E.g., Marco Antonio Colonna was in the service of the Spanish Empire, but he was not Spanish. If he had bothered with documenting himself, he might have known. The article unveils this farce.. and you call that a "weak accusation"?

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.

Why is it ridiculous to deny that they have not created the Civilizations of places where they were not present?

The only people/race, who have demonstrated a true creativity, are Indo-Europeans, East Asians (Japan, China, and Korea), and (to a certain degree) South Americans.

And, besides, Kemp says Nordics. Are you saying that the Nordics are the only Indo-Europeans? (I, for one, hope for it)

No, I don’t.

Ah.. the invasions of Egypt by the Semites.. other than the Muslim invasion of 639 AD, when Egyptian Civilization had ceased to exist for at least a millenium?

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?.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Antikrist

No honest historian will deny that Sumerians, in fact, were Indo-Europeans. This also concern Egypt – the one and only Indo-European civilization in Africa.

Right. Show me one honest historian who does in fact consider Sumerians IE.

[Antikrist]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

Right. Show me one honest historian who does in fact consider Sumerians IE.

How many historians express terms like “Indo-European” nowadays? In fact, they don’t even talk about races anymore, at least not in Scandinavia. It would be considered as racism to deny the fact that today’s demographic situation not necessarily has to agree with the former and historic population. 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?

[Sergius]

Your rhetorical skills do not exactly blow me away. First you say that all honest historians consider Sumerians IE, then when faced with the challenge, you claim that political correctness is in the way.
But, sure, let's see: Being Mediterranid has nothing to do with being IE or not. You are confusing race and culture.
And as for what the Sumerians were - there are many theories based on their language (Elamo-Dravidian, Uralic, etc.), but none of them have seemed to sweep away the others simply because they are mostly speculative (you know, some people, and I do not want to mention names, they like to claim that they are somewhat related to ancient peoples) and not based profoundly in linguistic fact. What has been established beyond all doubts, is that they were not Semitic, and not IE.

[Antikrist]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

Your rhetorical skills do not exactly blow me away. First you say that all honest historians consider Sumerians IE, then when faced with the challenge, you claim that political correctness is in the way.
But, sure, let's see: Being Mediterranid has nothing to do with being IE or not. You are confusing race and culture.
And as for what the Sumerians were - there are many theories based on their language (Elamo-Dravidian, Uralic, etc.), but none of them have seemed to sweep away the others simply because they are mostly speculative (you know, some people, and I do not want to mention names, they like to claim that they are somewhat related to ancient peoples) and not based profoundly in linguistic fact. What has been established beyond all doubts, is that they were not Semitic, and not IE.

Culture is just an external demonstration of one race’s inner character. You cannot separate Race and Culture. I didn’t say the political correctness is in the way, even if it’s relatively true. I meant that historians won’t use terms like Indo-European (because that’ll [mostly] describe languages nowadays, not races). There is absolutely no doubt that the Sumerians actually were white (IE) – not only by logic, but also if you take a look at Sumerian cultural inheritance.